Poll: Student jailed for 9 months for "prank"

Was the sentence:

  • too harsh

    Votes: 178 36.1%

  • spot on

    Votes: 244 49.5%

  • not harsh enough

    Votes: 71 14.4%
  • Total voters
    493
Xordium said:
Err you actually - this part of your first post seems to downgrade it because it it not so "extreme".

Now I think: grabbing someone's **** is not as extreme as getting your penis and sticking it on someone face but you seem to think it's the other way around.
Click to expand...
Again, because of the stated context.

I'm not arguing it's not sexual assault - just that for all crimes we apply degrees of punishment based on the severity, potential to reoffend, the context, requirement for rehabilitation & the requirement to deter future behaviour.

In my view this action requires some punishment, but to go on the sex offenders register (something which is significantly more serious than the sentence) should be used for those who pose a risk to the public/vulnerable people need protecting from them.

What I find odd is that normally liberally minded people regarding crime & punishment turn into Daily Mail style "Hang-em-high/full punishment of the law" types the second the perpetrator is the kind of lad-idiot they despise.

Do you believe this person poses as much risk to the public, or the behaviour is likely to be systemic of potentially escalating sexual crimes as a person who gropes women in the street? - I don't. But neither am I suggesting the person is 'let off' or it's not a big deal/can be discounted as a 'joke' either (as you seem to be implying)
 
Last edited:
elmarko said:
Do you believe this person poses as much risk to the public, or the behaviour is likely to be systemic of potentially escalating sexual crimes as a person who gropes women in the street? - I don't. But neither am I suggesting the person is 'let off' or it's not a big deal either (as you seem to be implying)
Click to expand...

I've said this many times before but I believe that people are imprisoned for three reasons:

  1. Rehabilitation
  2. Protection of the public
  3. Punishment/Deterrent

The weight of which each criterion is variable on the circumstance, but I think prison time is necessary to make sure that the behaviour isn't repeated and that a level of punishment is appropriate. Spending 4.5 months in prison whilst not a threat to the public, does serve the other functions.

I agree that punishment for the most part isn't constructive or effective when used anything but sparingly, but in this circumstance I think the use will fit a purpose.
 
The sexual assault charge and 9 months jail is excessive IMO. The existence of the video was probably an aggravating factor (aside from being the only reason it came to light), and it was understandable that this caused further distress to the girl.

And, in any case, I'm not sure I actually want to live in a world where it's not ok to slap a drunk friend in the face with your penis (I'm kind of serious there)
 
cheesyboy said:
And, in any case, I'm not sure I actually want to live in a world where it's not ok to slap a drunk friend in the face with your penis.
Click to expand...

When I were a lad we just shaved off their eyebrows or piled things on top of them to see how much we could pile on top of them before they woke up.

Crazy days.
 
Xordium said:
Now I think: grabbing someone's **** is not as extreme as getting your penis and sticking it on someone face but you seem to think it's the other way around.
Click to expand...

I'd go with elmarko on this one tbh... groping her would have more of a sexual element. Teabagging or similar is something a heterosexual guy would do to another guy... because they're idiots and are trying to just do something a bit vulgar/extreme - they're not really getting anything sexual out of it... it is technically 'sexual' assault too as it involves a sexual organ but I don't see the sexual element as being quite the same as if the guy in question had started touching up an unconscious girl.

One is a vulgar prank that has gone way too far the other is getting pretty rapey.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I've said this many times before but I believe that people are imprisoned for three reasons:

  1. Rehabilitation
  2. Protection of the public
  3. Punishment/Deterrent

The weight of which each criterion is variable on the circumstance, but I think prison time is necessary to make sure that the behaviour isn't repeated and that a level of punishment is appropriate. Spending 4.5 months in prison whilst not a threat to the public, does serve the other functions.
Click to expand...

It rehabilitates and acts as a deterrent?
 
I don't know. 9 months for sexual assault seems lenient, but then was an isolated act of stupidity (I'm assuming they were all drunk it being a student party) akin to sexual assault?

It's difficult for me as my head says he deserved it, but I still can't help thinking that a single act of admittedly vulgar foolishness at a party shouldn't ruin a young kids life.

I'm like Elmarko, I'm in two minds about this.
 
Castiel said:
I don't know. 9 months for sexual assault seems lenient, but then was an isolated act of stupidity (I'm assuming they were all drunk it being a student party) akin to sexual assault?

It's difficult for me as my head says he deserved it, but I still can't help thinking that a single act of admittedly vulgar foolishness at a party shouldn't ruin a young kids life.

I'm like Elmarko, I'm in two minds about this.
Click to expand...

I would echo this.
 
While one might "get away with" slapping ones GF round the chops with your meat stick while she sleeps, to do it to some randomer at a party is just not on, on any level.

So YES, well worth 9 months inside. What a ****ing stupid thing to do
 
elmarko said:
I'm not arguing it's not sexual assault - just that for all crimes we apply degrees of punishment based on the severity, potential to reoffend, the context, requirement for rehabilitation & the requirement to deter future behaviour.
Click to expand...

And I am guessing the judge had access to far more information than we do on the actual offence, the person who did it and the actual damage it caused to the victim.

elmarko said:
In my view this action requires some punishment, but to go on the sex offenders register (something which is significantly more serious than the sentence) should be used for those who pose a risk to the public/vulnerable people need protecting from them.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I think someone who sees fit to humiliate a woman through sexual means when she is for all intent and purposes 'unconscious' as someone who does pose a risk to vulnerable people as he has kind of done it already.

elmarko said:
What I find odd is that normally liberally minded people regarding crime & punishment turn into Daily Mail style "Hang-em-high/full punishment of the law" types the second the perpetrator is the kind of lad-idiot they despise.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I am not liberally minded about crime and punishment so you'll have to take this up with you were indirectly referring to.

elmarko said:
Do you believe this person poses as much risk to the public, or the behaviour is likely to be systemic of potentially escalating sexual crimes as a person who gropes women in the street? - I don't. But neither am I suggesting the person is 'let off' or it's not a big deal/can be discounted as a 'joke' either (as you seem to be implying)
Click to expand...

I don't know because I don't know the details of the case but I would wager that such behaviour could then lead to further acts and before we know it he's invited his mates to have a go on the drunk girl. So yes potentially there could be as much risk.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
No, committing sexual offences makes you a sex offender, which is what happened here.
Click to expand...
I assume the specific use of genitals is what classifies it as sexual assault so the law is pretty clear, but in regards to the actual nature/intention of the crime would not common assault be more fitting?.

"In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm."

Xordium said:
And I am guessing the judge had access to far more information than we do on the actual offence, the person who did it and the actual damage it caused to the victim.
Click to expand...
The judges discussion is immaterial to the debate to me (unless it was related to factors we are unaware of), they are just human, biased & likely to subscribe the kind of maximum punishment present in the population.

Xordium said:
Sorry but I think someone who sees fit to humiliate a woman through sexual means when she is for all intent and purposes 'unconscious' as someone who does pose a risk to vulnerable people as he has kind of done it already.
Click to expand...
I'll have to agree to disagree, I don't believe this is indicative of the same kind of risk posed by other forms of sexual assault.

Xordium said:
Sorry, I am not liberally minded about crime and punishment so you'll have to take this up with you were indirectly referring to.
Click to expand...
Apologies, assumed you were based off your previous posting history.

Xordium said:
I don't know because I don't know the details of the case but I would wager that such behaviour could then lead to further acts and before we know it he's invited his mates to have a go on the drunk girl. So yes potentially there could be as much risk.
Click to expand...
If that was the case then I'd agree, but we don't know the particulars.
 
Last edited:
Xordium said:
I don't know because I don't know the details of the case but I would wager that such behaviour could then lead to further acts and before we know it he's invited his mates to have a go on the drunk girl. So yes potentially there could be as much risk.
Click to expand...

The bloke who shaved one of my eyebrows off when I was asleep when I was at Uni didn't go on to become a hairdresser so not sure of your link there?
 
He deliberately used a specific part of his body because of the sexual association. If he had used his finger you would have been correct but he didn't he stuck is penis in her face.
 
Xordium said:
He deliberately used a specific part of his body because of the sexual association. If he had used his finger you would have been correct but he didn't he stuck is penis in her face.
Click to expand...
The use of the penis doesn't explicitly imply a sexual nature either.

When a male puts his scrotum on the fact of another drunken male there isn't necessarily a sexual motive behind it. It's unpermitted grotesque & offensive contact for idiotic shock value, I wouldn't automatically assume it was sexually motivated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom