|
Bland and dreary. – Ivor 3sep02 Dear Ivor, This is a first draft of an article for Male View. The paragraphs with square brackets are ones that I
will tell David he can delete if he needs to get it to fit with what space he
has left. What I would like you to do is 1/. check spelling and grammar. 2/. reshape words and sentences that are
clumsy. Regards RW __________ The
Rape Sentencing Panel offers advice to the Court of Appeal regarding the
appropriate length of sentences. The latest proposals from the Panel, which
completed and published its report in May 2002, is that the minimum sentence
for rape should be set at 5 years. It is
clear from the Consultation document, issued in 2001,
that the panel felt moderately inclined that the minimum tariff in rape cases
should, in future, be set at 8 years. The very first question, in their 2001
paper, asked whether "8 years was appropriate". Their May 2002
report, therefore, represents a movement contrary to expectations and against
the prevailing calls (presumably) from women’s groups. [Contrast this with Buggery (male rape) which used to
carry a MAXiminm
sentence of 10 years.] Not
only is it contrary but one that is downward in terms of historic trends. So are
we witnessing a small success ? Has the bandwagon been slowed - or even
stopped ? In 1980
the average (most numerous) sentence, at 37%, was 2 – 3 years. This
represented a single spike in graph form. By 1996 the average when depicted
on a graph had become a lopsided plateau of 28 % and 23% covering the
sentence range 5 – 7 years and 7 – 10 years (HOS 196, Fig 6.1, p 38). The
prospect was that the trend would continue and that 8, 10 or even 12 years
would become the norm for a rape offence was a real possibility. Rape
sentencing guidelines used to day
were first set out in the case of "Billam" (1986). At para
30 the reported states "A minority of respondents to the Panel's
consultation paper thought that the 5 year starting point should be higher (6
or 7 years), and some would prefer the 8 year starting point to be increased
to 9 or 10 years. Some of those who took the contrary view suggested that
higher starting points would carry the risk of an increased acquittal rate,
because juries would be more reluctant to convict." This was one of
ManKind’s observations and one shared by judges. When
the Rape Sentencing Panel invited ManKind to contribute to its deliberations
we undertook a very detailed and exhaustive review. We looked at practices in
Europe (both east and west) and in North America. The results were
disquieting. We found the English regime unenlightened and comparatively
barbaric. [In Germany and France the bulk
of offenders (approx. 95% and 52% respectively) are sentenced to less than 60
months (5 years).] [In Italy the majority of rapists serve less than 2 years.
In Sweden 35%. serve less than 2 years. In England only 4% are sentenced to
less than two years. This is
imbalance is what ManKind sort
to address.] We knew
that the University of Sussex had been asked to undertake research based on a
self-selecting group of female rape victims and a "focus group". To
task untutored members of the general public to answer questions about the
intricacies of rape. knowing
it would deeply influence the Sentencing Panel. was in our view reckless. [The gut reaction ("hang ‘em high") that
they subsequently reported was entirely predictable. ] We
wrote in our submission (‘To Kill a Mocking Bird’ £14.99), "…. No where
are there so many life sentences than in Britain. Countries normally
associated with harsh penal regimes, e.g. Russia and Portugal, do not have as
many ‘lifers’ as England or Scotland. Even France, which has 3 times the
number of rapists incarcerated, has only 4 men serving ‘life’." [We offered the Panel an alternative progressive
penal regime which they ignored.] We have
to view the Panel’s recommendations as a success
because it is a reprieve from what might have been. The previous minimum
sentence guidelines (Billam) meant that the average sentence for a rape
offender (in 2000) had been talked up to 7 years 4 months. For a ‘not guilty’
plea the average was 7 years 6 months on and 6 years 10 months on a guilty plea. Despite
this, many judges believe that many rape cases did not deserve 5 years as
minimum or 7 years where there are "aggrevating factors", eg threat of
violence. Some judges viewed the Billam guidelines as ‘unhelpful’ and wished
they could ignore them (HOS 196, p 39). [After completing appropriate LCD training some judges are
awarded a "sex ticket" which enables them to try sex cases. ] In
Britain the majority of sentences (57%) fell within the range 5 - 10 years,
but 25% of offenders received sentences of under 5 years, and 17% were
sentenced to more than 10 years, including 10% who were sentenced to life
imprisonment (Para 7 ). But perhaps the greatest breakthrough was in the
shift of mind set. The panel, commenting on the victim's behaviour said, a
para 43, "The relevance of the victim's behaviour to the seriousness of
an offence of rape is a difficult and sensitive issue. The Court of Appeal
said in Billam: 'The fact that the victim may be considered to have exposed
herself to danger by acting imprudently (as for instance by accepting a lift
in a car from a stranger) is not a mitigating factor . . . . But if the
victim has behaved in a manner which was calculated to lead the defendant to
believe that she would consent to sexual intercourse, then there should be
some mitigation of the sentence. In this passage the Court of Appeal makes it
clear that just because a victim may have been naive, unwise or imprudent,
this cannot in itself affect the seriousness of the rape." [Paras 22 to 26 also touched on the thorny problem
of prior sexual knowledge (Re Berry) and that "…. the offender may have
been subject to an unusual degree of provocation or stress …. "] [Another reason, why we believed ‘Billam’ was redundant
was that it denied female equality and responsibility. It held that women are
so infantile that they cannot make up their own minds sensibly and assess the
risks of, for example, accepting a lift from a stranger. No where were women
held accountable for their actions and decisions. This endorses the notion
that women are defenceless and can not commit DV.] [The
sentencing Panel adopted another of our proposals in agreeing that
‘vulnerability’ be linked to age range.] [We believe the ‘industry’ surrounding the whole issue of
rape needs re-assesing. Are we getting ‘results’ and value for money ? ] [. Using Feltham jail, in England, as the standard, the
average cost of jailing a rapist in England is £52,000 per annum. (£1,000 per
prisoner per week, HMP ‘Unlock’ Conference, Nov 2001). The cost over the
average sentence of 7 years and 1 month is, therefore, £369,000 (1,000 p/w x
85 months). ] [The number of rapists (around 515 in 1999) therefore
costs the Exchequer around £190m p.a. (£190,300,000).] [How would women’s groups, if given the same amount,
better spend it ? Would compensation packages be far more generous than at
present ? Of the 515 sentenced 17% were juveniles aged between 10
and 17. The average sentence for them was 3 years 9 months. In all, 503
persons received a custodial sentence for rape in 1999.] Rape
Sentencing Panel - Tel: 0207-271-8336 Email :
sap-secretariat@beeb.net 1200 words approx – 773 with italics para deleted [ |
|
x |
|
x |