Men get eight life sentences plus 60 years for raping paramedics...

Tokai-SA

Just found out about this today.

The harshest ever sentence in a single rape case.

Well done sis. 8)

http://thenewage.co.za/56640-1009-53-Men_get_eight_life_sentences_plus_60_years_for_raping_paramedics

studmissile

Happy outcome to a horrific story!

How does poverty justify rape?

IceCreamMan

Out in 8 to 10 no doubt... And i guess this thread wont live to see daylight in za again ☹

studmissile

Exactly what I was thinking, but didn't have the heart to write it!

Warren

IceCreamMan wrote Out in 8 to 10 no doubt... And i guess this thread wont live to see daylight in za again ☹

See, there's nothing wrong with condemning rape and concomitantly praising some strong sentencing in a case like this (even if it's kinda heavy stuff for a guitar forum). It's the inevitable slide that people seem to be compelled to take into a political tangent is what gets threads like these canned.

Tokai-SA

Sorry, Warren.

I wasn't thinking that this was political.
I thought the SA Drivers license thread was more political than this was.
This is a tragic SA crime story that ended well, it's a good new story, not political.

Reason I posted it was because my sister was the Judge who sent these MF's to jail, for life, no parole.

Feel free to can it, my bad.

Warren

Tokai SA wrote Sorry, Warren.

I wasn't thinking that this was political.
I thought the SA Drivers license thread was more political than this was.
This is a tragic SA crime story that ended well, it's a good new story, not political.

Reason I posted it was because my sister was the Judge who sent these MF's to jail, for life, no parole.

Feel free to can it, my bad.

Think you misread me there Lance. No problem with this thread, I was just responding to ICM. Basically: thread is ok, political tangents not ok.

[deleted]

Reason I posted it was because my sister was the Judge who sent these MF's to jail, for life, no parole.

Big big big respect for your sister!

Ray

ShreddySmurf wrote
Tokai SA wrote Sorry, Warren.

I wasn't thinking that this was political.
I thought the SA Drivers license thread was more political than this was.
This is a tragic SA crime story that ended well, it's a good new story, not political.

Reason I posted it was because my sister was the Judge who sent these MF's to jail, for life, no parole.

Feel free to can it, my bad.
Think you misread me there Lance. No problem with this thread, I was just responding to ICM. Basically: thread is ok, political tangents not ok.

How the hell do you construe ICM's post as political? He states a reality. No man, you're a bit sensitive hey.

Warren

Ray wrote
How the hell do you construe ICM's post as political? He states a reality. No man, you're a bit sensitive hey.

I didn't call his post political? Unless I can't see that I did, in which case you're welcome to point it out.

He said, "I guess this thread won't live to see daylight in za again." So I responded that it's only when these kinds of threads slide into political territory that there is an issue. I can't see the problem here, personally.

(PS: I didn't read the "sis" part, Lance, that's pretty cool stuff)

Ray

Well, appears that I was a bit hasty from the hip there. I apologise.

IceCreamMan

WEll imho they should get the chair ....

yr sister a tad lenient there i reckon .... ?

Psean

Viccy wrote
Reason I posted it was because my sister was the Judge who sent these MF's to jail, for life, no parole.
Big big big respect for your sister!

+1000!

Psean

Reading the defense lawyer's claim that

the women suffered no physical injuries when they were raped,

in an attempt to reduce the sentence, scared the crap out of me - absolute madness.

Bob-Dubery

Psean wrote Reading the defense lawyer's claim that
the women suffered no physical injuries when they were raped,
in an attempt to reduce the sentence, scared the crap out of me - absolute madness.

It's exactly what a defence lawyer is supposed to do - minimise the impact on her/his clients. It doesn't mean that that lawyer is condoning what happened. That lawyers job was to present the clients as innocent, to defend them to the best of his/her abilities and then, if a guilty verdict is passed down, to try to minimise the sentence.

From some perspectives it does look distasteful, but it stems from the ideal of every accused person (and remember, "accused" does not automatically mean "guilty") being entitled to a vigorous defence, especially in criminal cases when they are up against all the resources of the state.

Psean

Yeah, that is true - it is inherent in his role as a defence lawyer. Still, what gets me is that the lawyer is pretty much admitting that the victims were raped. I think I'll stop here (before I go OT or political) though; I suppose these issues are part of the way greater legal system works and are not this particular to this case.

Bob-Dubery

Psean wrote Yeah, that is true - it is inherent in his role as a defence lawyer. Still, what gets me is that the lawyer is pretty much admitting that the victims were raped.

The lawyer was looking for mitigating factors - which happens after the sentence is passed. At that point it's not about whether or not the crime was committed because the court has ruled that it was.

I think I'll stop here (before I go OT or political) though; I suppose these issues are part of the way greater legal system works and are not this particular to this case.

Indeed. Legal and police systems are not perfect. The law has to err on one side or the other.

One way to err is that it's better that an innocent man be wrongly punished than a guilty man walk free. The alternative is to have a system that deems it better for a guilty man to walk free than an innocent man to be sent to jail.

Neither is perfect. The decision to be made is which is the lesser of the two evils.

AlanRatcliffe

Psean wrote Still, what gets me is that the lawyer is pretty much admitting that the victims were raped.

Once a guilty verdict has been passed down, the defendant is guilty in the eyes of the law - the lawyer has to take it as fact, whether his client continues to maintain their innocence or not. IINM, the lawyer would be censured by the court if he tried to maintain the stance of innocence as this would not be in his client's best interest.

[EDIT - as per Bob...]

Psean

Alan Ratcliffe wrote
Psean wrote Still, what gets me is that the lawyer is pretty much admitting that the victims were raped.
Once a guilty verdict has been passed down, the defendant is guilty in the eyes of the law - the lawyer has to take it as fact, whether his client continues to maintain their innocence or not. IINM, the lawyer would be censured by the court if he tried to maintain the stance of innocence as this would not be in his client's best interest.

[EDIT - as per Bob...]

Ah yes, that does make a lot of sense.
I do struggle to remain objective when reading about subjects like rape - the whole incident just seems so horrible that despite what is legally required, a statement like :" the women suffered no physical injuries when they were raped" comes across to me as extremely insensitive to the damage that was inflicted on the victims.

Tokai-SA

X-rated Bob wrote
Psean wrote Reading the defense lawyer's claim that
the women suffered no physical injuries when they were raped,
in an attempt to reduce the sentence, scared the crap out of me - absolute madness.
they are up against all the resources of the state.

Not very nice resources. ?
http://www.bdlive.co.za/articles/2011/04/08/court-conditions-repel-judge-candidates