A teenager who raped a woman he had never met at knifepoint in Albert Park has been sentenced to two years and two months in jail.
The now-18 year-old appeared at the Auckland District Court on Friday having earlier pleaded guilty to charges of rape, threatening to kill and two charges of aggravated robbery.
The teenager's lawyer asked for discounts amounting to 110% and an end sentence of home detention, so her client can continue with sex offender rehabilitation.
How can you ask for 110% discount? Does that mean they actually get rewarded for raping someone?
But Judge Claire Ryan refused on the basis it would be too lenient. While she granted discounts of 77%, she sentenced him to prison and called his offending “disgusting and disgraceful”.
A 77% discount is massive. National plans to change the law to maximise discounts to 40%.
She started with a sentence of 11 years and one month but provided a total discount of 77%, taking time off for early guilty plea, previous clean record, efforts at rehabilitation, youth, remorse and time on electronically monitored bail.
From 11 years down to barely two years. There will be more victims.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders.
5 comments:
The defense attorney immediately indicated that the sentence would be appealed, with the Judge then wondering (hinting?) whether the Crown might cross-appeal for a longer sentence. The 77% was arrived at in a very long ruling, no doubt documenting all of it for the benefit of the Appeal court.
Incidentally, I saw in the Herald that the rapist had already attended a sexual violence course prior to this offense. It's all concealed in the Youth Court, but you have to wonder what else he has been up to. You might also ask what happened to his companion rapist who appears to have gotten away scot free.
And after the discounts there should have been added back the emotional trauma for the woman, the disrespect for her body, the invasion of her privacy, the deprivation of her choice, the lifetime effects - for the rest of her life she carries this offence with her - , the impact on her family.
Instead it is all about the reduction of women.
Presumably included a racial discount.
'the teenager was using his second language when interviewed' - why should this be a factor in any decision? would one also be penalised for speaking proper english then???
Disgusting. Labour needs to be ashamed. The poor victim has been made a victim a second time.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.