PDA

View Full Version : Wait, what



george12
19-06-2009, 12:01 PM
Someone please explain how you only get two years in jail for sexually abusing three 5-8 year old girls when you are a doctor?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2516728/Sex-abuse-doctor-jailed

GameJunkie
19-06-2009, 12:02 PM
that guy is sick

the_bogan
19-06-2009, 12:15 PM
Maybe two years is all he'll be able to take once the other inmates have had their way with him? They tend not to like people like him...

wratterus
19-06-2009, 12:16 PM
Will he still be practising?

Medicine, that is.

Deane F
19-06-2009, 12:28 PM
Indecent assault is a less serious charge than sexual violation. The judge would also know that a sentence of over 24 months would mean that only a third of the sentence would be served before the offender is eligible for parole - whereas a sentence of twenty months means that he would serve at least half of the sentence.

But I think on the face of it that that sentence is light - and that a doctor who abuses trust in that way on children under 12 should be a target for a heavier sentence than a Joe Bloggs.

george12
19-06-2009, 12:51 PM
Indecent assault is a less serious charge than sexual violation. The judge would also know that a sentence of over 24 months would mean that only a third of the sentence would be served before the offender is eligible for parole - whereas a sentence of twenty months means that he would serve at least half of the sentence.

But I think on the face of it that that sentence is light - and that a doctor who abuses trust in that way on children under 12 should be a target for a heavier sentence than a Joe Bloggs.

That was my thinking. Any sexual misconduct towards a 5-8 year old is going to be really damaging when they are at that naive, impressionable sort of age, and coming from a doctor makes it all the worse. It's not hard to imagine it having a lasting effect on them, though of course we don't know what actually happened... Not to mention, their parents and teaches probably always said "never let anyone see/touch you there except your doctor"!

He probably thought he was real smart.

prefect
19-06-2009, 01:39 PM
Its all thanks to the last labor government being soft on crime aided by a weak liberal judge.
Hopefully he will get a jolly good hiding in jail from his fellow crims.

the_bogan
19-06-2009, 01:58 PM
Its all thanks to the last labor government being soft on crime aided by a weak liberal judge.
Hopefully he will get a jolly good hiding in jail from his fellow crims.


Should have put him on a chain gang to help turn a wharf into a party centre. Get a few more of them and then we wouldn't have a National Government spending so much tax payer money.

Deane F
19-06-2009, 02:36 PM
Its all thanks to the last labor government being soft on crime aided by a weak liberal judge.
Hopefully he will get a jolly good hiding in jail from his fellow crims.

What a strange way of thinking. It's actually due to the doctor being willing to commit the crime in the first place.

The doctor (ex-doctor?) will be put straight into segregation - like all child molesters in jail - they never go into the general prison population.

Winston001
20-06-2009, 02:11 AM
At first I was appalled too but having now read the report, sadly conclude that this vermin is at the low end of the scale. As a sex offender he doesn't rate - by which I mean there are far far worse cases. He's still a piece of filth.

If anyone is interested, here is the sentencing guideline for this category - and no, I haven't paragraphed it - this is the format we have to read this stuff:



Indecent assault upon girl under 12
The Court of Appeal had to determine the appropriate sentence for an offence of indecent assault upon girl under 12 after it quashed a conviction for sexual violation by rape and substituted a conviction for this offence in R v B (CA 353/01) (CA 353/01, 1 May 2002, Blanchard, Salmon and Chambers JJ). The victim was the seven year-old step-daughter of the offender and the assault was just short of sexual intercourse. Adopting a process of reasoning by analogy as in R v V (CA 180/01) (CA 180/01, 30 August 2001, Richardson P, Heron and Chambers JJ) (see para I.2.4(e)) based on the eight year starting point for rape, a starting point of four years would be appropriate. However, if that approach were adopted, the resultant sentence would be higher than that which had been imposed in most cases of indecent assault under s 133. The possibility of a review of sentencing practice for offences against the section was raised but not pursued due to the absence of detailed submissions. The incident was accepted as being of short duration, not involving penetration beyond the complainant’s genitalia. A starting point of three years was taken. The mitigating and aggravating factors cancelled each other out. The final sentence was thus three years’ imprisonment.

george12
20-06-2009, 05:47 PM
At first I was appalled too but having now read the report, sadly conclude that this vermin is at the low end of the scale. As a sex offender he doesn't rate - by which I mean there are far far worse cases. He's still a piece of filth.

If anyone is interested, here is the sentencing guideline for this category - and no, I haven't paragraphed it - this is the format we have to read this stuff:



Indecent assault upon girl under 12
The Court of Appeal had to determine the appropriate sentence for an offence of indecent assault upon girl under 12 after it quashed a conviction for sexual violation by rape and substituted a conviction for this offence in R v B (CA 353/01) (CA 353/01, 1 May 2002, Blanchard, Salmon and Chambers JJ). The victim was the seven year-old step-daughter of the offender and the assault was just short of sexual intercourse. Adopting a process of reasoning by analogy as in R v V (CA 180/01) (CA 180/01, 30 August 2001, Richardson P, Heron and Chambers JJ) (see para I.2.4(e)) based on the eight year starting point for rape, a starting point of four years would be appropriate. However, if that approach were adopted, the resultant sentence would be higher than that which had been imposed in most cases of indecent assault under s 133. The possibility of a review of sentencing practice for offences against the section was raised but not pursued due to the absence of detailed submissions. The incident was accepted as being of short duration, not involving penetration beyond the complainant’s genitalia. A starting point of three years was taken. The mitigating and aggravating factors cancelled each other out. The final sentence was thus three years’ imprisonment.

That may be, but just because there are so many worse offenders out there doesn't mean that he should get a light sentence.

However I don't really understand what you quoted though, it sounds like a specific case. So is three years a "guideline" sentence or is there an actual min and max?

Winston001
20-06-2009, 09:50 PM
Crimes Act 1961

135 Indecent assault

Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who indecently assaults another person.




So. The above guideline comes from a case which discussed other cases. That's how it works - looking at what the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal has had to say on sentencing for specific crimes. Eventually one case summerises previous decisions.


What the above tells us is that in the case of rape (maximum sentence 20 years) the starting point is 8 years. The sentencing judge then increases or decreases the years by assessing positive and negative matters.


For example, a guilty plea saves the victim from facing a trial and reduces the sentence. Also there is a whole continuum of awfulness for any offence. Gang rape with violence is at the high end. Taking advantage of an intoxicated unconcious girl (without violence) is at the low end. Wrong - but different degrees.



The guideline talks about a starting point of 4 years, then immediately says that is too high for the specific offence being considered, and the judges go back to three years. They then add up the pluses and minuses and decide they balance, in which case three years is the final sentence.


Does that help?

Winston001
20-06-2009, 09:57 PM
Its just occurred to me that R v B is out of date. At the time the maximum sentence for indecent assault for a girl under 12 was 10 years. The laws been changed to 7 years.

As for the doctor: I'll explain the mitigation. He pleaded guilty - no trial. He apologised. The events occurred 20 years ago and the man has never been in trouble since. The indecent assault details aren't reported but sound as though they were not far beyond what a doctor might do in his work. But clearly it was more and the two girls were not happy.

Two years in prison is no picnic plus his career and good name is destroyed. I'd expect his family has abandoned him too.

george12
20-06-2009, 11:04 PM
Its just occurred to me that R v B is out of date. At the time the maximum sentence for indecent assault for a girl under 12 was 10 years. The laws been changed to 7 years.

As for the doctor: I'll explain the mitigation. He pleaded guilty - no trial. He apologised. The events occurred 20 years ago and the man has never been in trouble since. The indecent assault details aren't reported but sound as though they were not far beyond what a doctor might do in his work. But clearly it was more and the two girls were not happy.

Two years in prison is no picnic plus his career and good name is destroyed. I'd expect his family has abandoned him too.

Fair enough. Putting it that way, the sentence is not as bad as I thought.