CATHERINE DONOVAN,
Sir, - I am gravely concerned at the comments uttered by Mr Justice Daniel Herbert, when suspending sentence in the case of a convicted rapist (The Irish Times, March 2nd). To say that "no actual injury was inflicted on the victim other than rape" utterly trivialises the offence, and minimises the force involved.
To add insult to real injury, the victim and her family were then informed that their inability to understand the suspended sentence that followed such comments was "through ignorance or otherwise". Would the victim in such a case be allowed to think that ignorance might be a contributing factor to the complete insensitivity of the judges's comments when pronouncing sentence? Saying that "no actual injury was inflicted on the victim other than rape" indicates that one is sentencing on the basis of the violence that was not inflicted, as opposed to that which was actually suffered. It is akin to sentencing a person who has committed a physical assault on the basis that he/she left a victim's limbs intact, while, for example, inflicting "no actual injury other than a fractured skull". It can translate to a victim as a statement that the trauma endured was merely that of rape, and that rape, as a crime, counts for little.
In such a case, why should any offender address the impact of his crime and the injury he has inflicted? Little wonder then that there is desperation felt by rape victims (including those of "date rape") at the inability of the courts to understand the trauma and shattered trust that they have suffered, and the impact such crimes have had on their lives. Some have waived anonymity in an effort to educate; one wonders if this has proved worthless in certain quarters.
It is profoundly ironic that such comments were made when the man at the centre of the X-Case was due for sentencing for a second time. It had been stated during the appeal against the sentence for his first offence that he was unlikely to reoffend. Which leaves one with two final disturbing questions: Do certain judges feel that it is not the behaviour and mindset of the perpetrators which gives rise to their offences, but rather certain factors ("permitted sexual intimacy"), randomly coming together, that lead to what is characterised as an isolated aberration? And do they - at some unacknowledged level - regard a victim as being one of those factors? - Yours, etc.,
CATHERINE DONOVAN,
Botanic Road,
Ballyphehane,
Cork.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - I wonder whether Mr Justice Herbert would have felt obliged to impose a custodial instead of a suspended sentence on the window cleaner who raped a woman if the man had not been able to pay a €6,350 to the woman (The Irish Times March 2nd).
Does the ability to pay compensation ever mean that those who can pay may evade jail, while those who cannot go to prison?
If a former Chief Justice has already laid down that the appropriate sentence in a case of rape is an immediate and substantial custodial sentence, except in wholly exceptional circumstances, why did Mr Justice Herbert feel he could safely put this direction aside? Surely to have threatened to kill the victim greatly aggravates the assault? - Yours, etc.,
JILL NESBITT,
Ardmore Park,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.