Rape! It’s in the news with a vengeance. Thanks mainly to a stroppy woman and a politician who can’t quite control his mouth. He says there are different ‘levels’ of rape, and he’s right. Surely it’s a worse crime if the woman is savagely beaten into submission, or threatened with a weapon. Many rapes are far less violent, but still a serious crime.
How did it all come about? Well, some schmuck decided it would be a good idea to cut in half the sentence handed down if the culprit pleaded guilty very early on. The thinking is it would save money and possibly save the victim from having to face the terrible ordeal of a trial. It is suggested that in 60 percent of rape trials, the culprit changes his plea to guilty towards the end, thus causing the victim much suffering and costing us, the tax payer, small fortune.
Well, maybe so, but why not double the sentence for those who change their plea only when it is obvious they haven’t a leg to stand on. I’m sure that would encourage them to come clean at the start, rather than at the end. It would achieve the same objective cost wise, and women could rest a little more easily knowing that their attacker isn’t going to be out and about in 18 months.
Is it just me, or does anyone else out there think that we are governed by twits?