Dear Editor,
Reference is being made to the news report of Monday, June 9, 2014, entitled 'Court of Appeal reduces sentence of man who raped 12-y-o girl, woman'.
After reading the news report I was left more confused than ever. I could not seem to understand the rationale behind the court's decision of lessening the convict's sentence. Does the admission of possessing the guilty mind (mens rea) make the crime less reprehensible than if he denied possessing same? The facts clearly suggest that he violated two persons who entrusted him with the responsibility of taking them safely to their respective destinations.
Rape is a very serious criminal offence that should be treated accordingly. Before coming to its conclusion, the court must assess the gravity of the offences committed: The victim's state of mind, among other things, must also be considered.
While the court sought to strike a balance, the perpetrator violated the rights of two females, one being under the age of 16. The Court of Appeal has erred in its setting aside the initial sentences of 23 years and 19 years and substituting same with lesser sentences.
Considering all the relevant circumstances, I think that longer sentences than the initial and final ones combined should be imposed.
"Women are entitled to decide when, how and with whom they should have sex. The law ought to protect that right," says Anika Gray, attorney-at-law.
As espoused by Jeremy C Taylor, senior deputy director of public prosecutions: "We live in a highly sexualised, phallocentric and vagicentric age." Thus, with the Jamaican society being a classic example of art imitating life, where dancehall music portrays women as being mere sexual objects that you 'stab up''dagger' or 'haffi get even at gunpoint', the courts should be careful not to send the wrong message to would-be offenders.
Sobrena D Anderson
andersonsobrena@yahoo.com
Harsher sentences for rapists
-->
Reference is being made to the news report of Monday, June 9, 2014, entitled 'Court of Appeal reduces sentence of man who raped 12-y-o girl, woman'.
After reading the news report I was left more confused than ever. I could not seem to understand the rationale behind the court's decision of lessening the convict's sentence. Does the admission of possessing the guilty mind (mens rea) make the crime less reprehensible than if he denied possessing same? The facts clearly suggest that he violated two persons who entrusted him with the responsibility of taking them safely to their respective destinations.
Rape is a very serious criminal offence that should be treated accordingly. Before coming to its conclusion, the court must assess the gravity of the offences committed: The victim's state of mind, among other things, must also be considered.
While the court sought to strike a balance, the perpetrator violated the rights of two females, one being under the age of 16. The Court of Appeal has erred in its setting aside the initial sentences of 23 years and 19 years and substituting same with lesser sentences.
Considering all the relevant circumstances, I think that longer sentences than the initial and final ones combined should be imposed.
"Women are entitled to decide when, how and with whom they should have sex. The law ought to protect that right," says Anika Gray, attorney-at-law.
As espoused by Jeremy C Taylor, senior deputy director of public prosecutions: "We live in a highly sexualised, phallocentric and vagicentric age." Thus, with the Jamaican society being a classic example of art imitating life, where dancehall music portrays women as being mere sexual objects that you 'stab up''dagger' or 'haffi get even at gunpoint', the courts should be careful not to send the wrong message to would-be offenders.
Sobrena D Anderson
andersonsobrena@yahoo.com
Harsher sentences for rapists
-->