Comments on: It was only digital rape, so what’s all the fuss about?

By: Me

Me — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:25:58 +0000

Either Rupasena was a total heartless moron, or a really good troll. Not sure which.

By: Kate

Kate — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:14:30 +0000

Rupasena,

Thats just insulting. What about children who are digitally raped? Or are you going to tell me that an infant was dressed too inappropriately for ‘your’ taste, and cause the perp to digitally penetrate them??

Or are my thoughts too excessive with regards to ‘this matter’ of child abuse?

By: rexieshargo

rexieshargo — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 05:59:16 +0000

I was really shock with the comments made by rupasena, she is blaming the 11 victims on what happened to them or all the women. Rupasena What do you mean by this…comments ‘No victim would have had lost anything because of the offender’s action” This is a good lesson for women who show off their bodies in a provoking manner. They themselves drag poor men into committing crimes’. Rupacena i pray to God that what happened to those 11 women would not happened to you because as a civilised society men should not do that, and yes, i agree with the mitigating factor is overly excessive, He should really get a life as a lesson to those men who attach women in every way.

By: Lili

Lili — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:52:44 +0000

It is still an assault on a person’s body. Nobody has the right to do this to another person without permission How do you know what the intention of the attack was? Are you saying that if somebody did that to you or to your child it would be okay?

By: rupasena

rupasena — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 05:26:49 +0000

Digital rape cannot be treated in the full context of a rape as there is no intention of committing the full offense on the victim. It is a lessor crime. After all no victim would have had lost anything because of the offender’s action. This is a good lesson for women who show off their bodies in a provoking manner. They themselves drag poor men into committing crimes.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 05:42:22 +0000

Well done for linking to the judgment, which puts a lie to the claim that the sentence reduction was because the rapes were digital: see [33].

Rather, the reduction was largely because of Colless’s early guilty plea. Presumably, you wouldn’t want to ignore those, otherwise there’d be every incentive for rapists to plead not guilty and put complainants through cross-examination, in the off-chance that the case would collapse. So, an appeals court has to make sure that a guilty plea case gets substantially smaller sentence than an equivalent non-guilty plea case.

The big problem with rape sentencing is that no-one likes to rank a rape as less serious than another one, but they still want recognition when a rape is especially bad. No-one would have had a problem if a rapist got a higher sentence because he raped anally or vaginally, used a knife, etc. But, if you’re OK with a higher sentence in those situations, then you must also be OK with a lower sentence in their absence, right?

By: Lili

Lili — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 04:59:24 +0000

You win, Max. I’ll give you the last word…in the cone of silence.

By: Max

Max — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:38:06 +0000

OK, I’ll go quietly.
But I’ve never owned a shoephone Your Honour.

By: Lili

Lili — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:15:57 +0000

Do you remember Agent 99 in that TV show “Get Smart”? She used to shake her head at Smart and say “Oh Max…”

Nice to see you full of contempt. I can relate to that. lol

By: Max

Max — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:31:59 +0000

No! It mitagated nothing for me either–especially not my contempt for the P&S Act