It doesnt work that way. The fame part is the aggravating feature that made the offence possible and was the vehicle he used to achieve his intentions, ie she was starstruck and idolised him because of who he was. He abused that. You know this anywayBecause of his fame , he has been made an example of. I didn't know the law worked that way. Certainly doesn't if you are a Member of Parliament.
Ridiculous sentance , especially considering a female last year was given a 2 year suspended sentance for grooming and having sex with a minor.,This was later changed to 2 years in jail, on appeal.
I think not. What would the crime rate be if that deterrent wasn't in place
Yes but there's a starting point and the judge takes aggravating/mitigating factors into account. Pleading guilty is one mitigating factor of course but there is a floor below which they shouldn't go even if there are no aggravating factors.
Doubt it. He could have got 4-10 years and there seem to have been enough aggravating factors to make it pretty watertight.He'll appeal, there's every chance the sentence will be reduced.
Depends. The judge graded it Category 1A for sentencing. He might have graded it lower if he'd pleaded guilty from the start.So you are saying even if pleased guilty from the outset he would have got 4?
Nope. If the crime rate was higher without the deterrent then it works. If you take corporal punishment in Singapore, canings in 2007 were just under 6,500, in 2012 that figure was down to 2,500, I am not sure what they are currently although those figures would suggest corporal punishment works there. I am in favour of corporal and capital punishment as well as longer prison sentences.So i'm right then and they're not a deterrent at all.
So you are saying even if pleased guilty from the outset he would have got 4?