The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Man of Good Character is Not a Classic Rapist - Judge Michael Mettyear sums up

Where do they find our judges?

Oh Lee Setford had a previous for battery.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alisonvingiano/not-a-classic-rapist

What baffles more is he only got 9 months less than Rolf Harris!

Scroll to see replies

I don't see what the problem is.
Reply 2
Avatar for 48:13
48:13
OP
Original post by DiddyDec
I don't see what the problem is.


You don't see the problem in a judge calling a rapist a man of good character? :wtf:

I despair.
It was almost out of the blue that two girls turned up late at night, very, very drunk, at your home. The victim was the worst for drink out of the two of them. She was completely out of it. I accept that evidence. She was a pretty girl who you fancied. You simply could not resist. You had sex with her.


Yeah I find that weird as well....
Surely the fact he literally could not stop himself raping a woman, makes him pretty dangerous in general? :erm:
But he is absolutely a 'classic rapist', in the sense that he is rapist and it therefore a danger to society. It doesn't matter who you rape or why - you are a rapist and you shouldn't ever be released from prison. With a 5 year sentence he'll be out in less than 3 years - that's no punishment compared to what he's done.
Original post by SmallTownGirl
It doesn't matter who you rape or why - you are a rapist and you shouldn't ever be released from prison.
We release pretty much everyone from prison at some point. Don't be ridiculous.
Reply 7
Avatar for llys
llys
17
Original post by TolerantBeing
It was almost out of the blue that two girls turned up late at night, very, very drunk, at your home. The victim was the worst for drink out of the two of them. She was completely out of it. I accept that evidence. She was a pretty girl who you fancied. You simply could not resist. You had sex with raped her.


Sick.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Fizzel
We release pretty much everyone from prison at some point. Don't be ridiculous.


I'm sorry but murderers, rapists etc should never be released. If you can't control yourself once then you'll do it again.
Also, if this judge doesn't lose his job over this I'll be disgusted. We shouldn't have rape apologists given a chance to oversee over rape cases.
Original post by SmallTownGirl
I'm sorry but murderers, rapists etc should never be released. If you can't control yourself once then you'll do it again.
That can be applied to anything, so its clearly faulty logic. On that basis we'd imprison people for life for pretty much any crime. People can be and are rehabilitated during the time their serve for their crimes, it preferable and considerably cheaper than a US style of mass imprisonment.
I don't see any problems with the Judge's sentencing remarks.

The defendant was a man of generally good character, said the judge. Correct. He had previous for a battery some five years ago, but nothing of this nature.

The other comments seem to be very case specific and I think it hard to really comment on them without having sat through the trial. But the thrust of what the judge was trying to say seems to be that this defendant was not a man who hunted down a victim, but who had found himself in a situation where he had a choice to make. And he made the wrong one and has been punished for it.

To comments like this:

Original post by SmallTownGirl
Also, if this judge doesn't lose his job over this I'll be disgusted. We shouldn't have rape apologists given a chance to oversee over rape cases.


I say:

Spend some time in a Crown Court, and perhaps you'll see that things aren't all black and white.

The judge did a good job, from what I can see.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Fizzel
That can be applied to anything, so its clearly faulty logic. On that basis we'd imprison people for life for pretty much any crime. People can be and are rehabilitated during the time their serve for their crimes, it preferable and considerably cheaper than a US style of mass imprisonment.


But violent crime can destroy victims lives, why should the criminal get any freedom after doing something like that?
Original post by InnerTemple
I don't see any problems with the Judge's sentencing remarks.

The defendant was a man of generally good character, said the judge. Correct. He had previous for a battery some five years ago, but nothing of this nature.

The other comments seem to be very case specific and I think it hard to really comment on them without having sat through the trial. But the thrust of what the judge was trying to say seems to be that this defendant was not a man who hunted down a victim, but who had found himself in a situation where he had a choice to make. And he made the wrong one and has been punished for it.


I'm sorry but I've been living with my housemates for nearly two years, and I could easily get into their rooms at night and sexually assault them. I haven't because good people don't do that ****. Yes, he made a wrong decision but the decision he made makes him a bad person.
Original post by SmallTownGirl
I'm sorry but I've been living with my housemates for nearly two years, and I could easily get into their rooms at night and sexually assault them. I haven't because good people don't do that ****.


Yes. That's because you have made the right choices. Which is why you haven't just been convicted and sent to prison.

So things seem to be working pretty well.
Original post by SmallTownGirl
But violent crime can destroy victims lives, why should the criminal get any freedom after doing something like that?
Financial crime destroys people's lives, pensioners losing their life savings or people having their identity taken and losing years of their lives being locked out of any financial service. Petty crime, such as theft causes people to fear living in their own homes or having priceless possessions taken. Why should any of these people be allowed their freedom?
Original post by InnerTemple
Yes. That's because you have made the right choices. Which is why you haven't just been convicted and sent to prison.

So things seem to be working pretty well.


But good people don't even realise there is a choice to make in this situation. Because they don't think 'Ooooh, I could rape her. Oh better not.' It just doesn't occur to them...
Reply 17
Avatar for llys
llys
17
Original post by InnerTemple
who had found himself in a situation where he had a choice to make. And he made the wrong one and has been punished for it.


That's probably what the judge meant, but it's not what he said. He said "you simply couldn't resist" [raping her!] which unfortunately can be misinterpreted as "poor you, you didn't really have a choice" and possibly "I totally understand where you're coming from". A judge really should really avoid inviting that kind of misunderstanding.
Original post by llys
That's probably what the judge meant, but it's not what he said. He said "you simply couldn't resist" [raping her!] which unfortunately can be misinterpreted as "poor you, you didn't really have a choice" and possibly "I totally understand where you're coming from". A judge really should really avoid inviting that kind of misunderstanding.
It can be if you are the kind of person who wants it to be. The guys fancied the girl, he had every opportunity to rape her. By the definition of resist "refrain from doing (something tempting or unwise):" its a perfectly acceptable statement to make. The statement makes no reference to him being physically unable to stop himself or in anyway blameless.

"You/ I couldn't resist", I cannot think of a single use where it actually means someone was not at fault for a decision. Its used when someone is describing having weak will, and losing their better judgement.
Reply 19
Avatar for llys
llys
17
Original post by Fizzel
It can be if you are the kind of person who wants it to be. The guys fancied the girl, he had every opportunity to rape her. By the definition of resist "refrain from doing (something tempting or unwise):" its a perfectly acceptable statement to make. The statement makes no reference to him being physically unable to stop himself or in anyway blameless.

"You/ I couldn't resist", I cannot think of a single use where it actually means someone was not at fault for a decision. Its used when someone is describing having weak will, and losing their better judgement.


That's right. But "you simply couldn't" can definitely mean "you just couldn't" as in "it's understandable that you couldn't". I very often use the word "just" or "simply" that way. :dontknow: And "you couldn't" (you were unable to) carries a very different connotation to e.g. "you didn't" (or even: you chose not to). Definitely different shades of blame.

If I had wanted to say what the judge (probably) meant to say, I would have said something like "you felt the desire to have sex with her and chose not to resist that urge even without her consent" (= rape). (Maybe it could be phrased better than that but the point is that it is less open to misinterpretation.)
(edited 9 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you