Jail sentences are reported according to the minimum without-parole period, not the actual jail time. Crucial details regarding the facts of the case or the details of the sentenced defendant are either not asked, or deliberately excluded. Every time a sentencing judge or magistrate makes a decision he or she gives reasons for it, a fact which presumably is pointed out to your junior court reporter on their first day but promptly ignored. I don't know what they're doing at court with the pen and pad, because they never seem to pass on what the judge was actually saying.
WHO CARES, THEY'D ONLY BE MAKING EXCUSES, ANYWAY.
It is clear that an angle is being pushed and any parts of the story that would confuse or draw away from The Message (generally the newspaper-selling Outrage Can You Believe How Soft Judges Are Being On Criminals line) is left out. Anyone who is not starting from the position of Judges Are Communist Sympathising Crook Lovers is thus left reluctant to form a view on the information available because they have the sense to realise that judges do actually give reasons for their decisions (even if they're not very good) and if they're not reported then there's something fishy going on.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THOSE CROOK-LOVERS SAY, THEY ALL SHOULD BE LOCKED UP!
(I am constantly surprised by how non-critically many people absorb news media, never even thinking "what's the other side say about this" even where it's obvious that there must be an alternative view to the one being pushed.)
I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT! STOP MAKING EXCUSES!
Anyway, that brings me to the "Fury as gang rapists avoid prison" story which has apparently been all the rage over the last few days (sorry, I've been busy).
THE Queensland Government will review all sentences for sexual offences in Cape York Aboriginal communities over the past two years.
Attorney-General Kerry Shine acted after it was revealed that nine men guilty of gang-raping a 10-year-old girl had not been jailed.
He will also appeal against the sentences handed out to the Aurukun men by Judge Sarah Bradley in Cairns in October.
Although the men all pleaded guilty to the rape in 2005, Judge Bradley ordered no conviction be recorded against six offenders, who were juveniles. The other three had their six-month prison sentences suspended for a year.
That does seem odd. Clearly an adult found guilty of raping someone, particularly a child, would usually go to jail. Why didn't they?
BECAUSE THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS SOFT! SOFT! SOFT!
Well, it's not clear. The only part of the judge's decision which is reported is her finding that the sexual contact was "agreed" to (which is quite different from "consented to", by the way - a ten year old clearly can't). Which leaves us in a difficult position trying to understand it. (You might suspect that understanding the decision isn't exactly the aim here; it's being outraged and not being interested in any information which might lessen that outrage.)
SHE WAS TEN YEARS OLD! WHY DO WE NEED TO HEAR WHAT THE JUDGE SAID?
There are a number of fairly important unanswered questions from the report. How old were the juvenile offenders? What punishment did they actually receive, apart from no conviction being recorded? Why's that not in the story? Seems very odd to report what they didn't receive, and not what they did.
DON'T CARE HOW OLD THEY WERE. DON'T CARE WHAT PUNISHMENT THEY RECEIVED EXCEPT THAT IT WAS "WITHOUT CONVICTION" WHICH I DON'T UNDERSTAND BUT SOUNDS SOFT.
As noted, this is all we hear from Bradley's sentencing remarks:
In sentencing, Judge Bradley said: "I accept that the girl … was not forced, and that she probably agreed to have sex with all of you."...
Ms Bligh said she had "no truck" with Judge Bradley's comments that the Aurukun victim "probably agreed" to sex with the culprits.
I'm not sure why Ms Bligh's disagreement with the finding of fact is particularly newsworthy. Ms Bligh did not hear the evidence; why would her opinion as to the facts trump that of the judge who heard the case? (I have heard this reported as the Judge saying that the girl "consented" to the sexual contact, which clearly she said no such thing. If there'd been "consent", then it would not have been a finding of rape. And of course she couldn't consent, by definition, because she was ten years old.)
STOP APOLOGISING FOR PERVERTS WHO RAPE CHILDREN!
Now, there is clearly a difference between a victim who agrees to something and a victim who doesn't, even if in the case of statutory rape it's not a defence. Maybe that'd be easier for people to understand if they looked at it as violence being an aggravating factor rather than non-violence being a mitigating one. In any case, the effect is the same: the punishment for the latter clearly ought to be lower than the punishment for the former.
THEY SHOULD ALL BE PUT IN A CANNON AND FIRED INTO THE SUN!
And of course what actually happened between the girl and the boys and men is a question of facts which it is up to the judge to determine on hearing the evidence. Ms Bligh didn't hear the evidence. Certainly most of the people commenting on it in the media didn't.
TEN YEAR OLD GIRL. SEX. MORE THAN ONE MALE. I DON'T NEED TO LOOK INTO IT ANY CLOSER THAN THAT.
That said, the sentences do seem low, and there may be some truth to the following:
Child abuse campaigner Hetty Johnston suggested there were "elements of racism" in the decision. "If this was a white girl in white suburban Brisbane, there is no way these nine offenders would have just walked out of the courtroom," she said.
Of course, I can't determine that from the article because reporter Cosima Marriner couldn't be bothered ringing some Queensland practitioners to see what sort of equivalent sentences have been handed down recently in similar matters for the purpose of comparison. I suppose that'd be too much like "journalism".
Fortunately the appropriate response is happening:
Queensland's Director of Public Prosecutions, Leanne Clare, will now review all sentences in Cape York communities in the past two years for sexual offences. The law should be applied consistently, whether it be at Aurukun or in suburban Clayfield, she said.
Clearly it should, and clearly a sober and informed investigation of sentencing practices on such charges is a good idea. Parity of sentencing is vital, and whilst we members of the public rushing to judgment are not well-informed on what else is going on in Queensland, such investigators will be. So that's good.
CAN WE SHOOT THE JUDGE INTO THE SUN AS WELL?
I do agree that the sentences do appear to be somewhat light. However, I'm still cautious of jumping to conclusions when:
- I haven't read the judge's reasoning, or heard a reasonable reporting of it;
- I do not know how old the offenders were, or their prior criminal history;
- I do not know the circumstances of the offence; and
- I haven't seen how the Queensland criminal law sentences minors for this type of offending in general.
The above might not excuse or justify the decision, of course, but they'll put us in a better position to form a reasonable view of our own.
REASONABLE? REASONABLE? YOU LOATHSOME RAPIST-LOVER!
Let me be clear about this: I am not defending the apparently low sentence in this case. In fact, I'm not really commenting on the case at all, since I still don't have the information above, and am not - sorry - going to chase it up today. (I don't really need to, since the appropriate authority is going to review the case anyway.) The point of this post is criticism of the shabby way these matters are reported, and the fact that one can't form a reasonable opinion on such shoddy journalism.
YEAH, WELL, I DO LIKE THE HERALD-SUN'S SPORTS PAGES.
(Although the Fairfax journalist isn't the worst - wait till you see Andrew Bolt's "this confirms my view on the Stolen Generations" and "I don't understand what 'consent' means in a rape trial" piece.)
