• gonzo-rand19@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    The conviction will not appear on the man’s criminal record. However, if he reoffends, he will be sentenced for this rape as well as for the new offence.

    Why wait to be proven wrong? I don’t understand. Rapists shouldn’t be doctors.

      • gonzo-rand19@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        In his summing up the judge said “It has been proven that sexual intercourse took place at a time that she was in a state that meant that she couldn’t possibly consent to it. The offence is serious and unacceptable.”

        Wow, we can both read! That’s awesome. Now one of us just has to work on their comprehension and maybe even finish the article next time…

        • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 days ago

          You asked why wait. The point of jail and fines is to avoid reoffending. The judge thinks he won’t, and will be more valuable to society as a doctor than an inmate. Also If he does this again then he will get hit twice as hard.

          • gonzo-rand19@moist.catsweat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Something tells me that they are not publishing his name because they’re betting that his future patients would feel differently. I would not want to see Dr. Rapist for any reason, even if he’s the best physician in the city.

            • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 hours ago

              But Dr Shacked Up With A Woman Once When They Were Both Drunk And She Was Too Drunk And He Should Have Known Better might be a bit more acceptable to some.

              • gonzo-rand19@moist.catsweat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 hours ago

                In his summing up the judge said “It has been proven that sexual intercourse took place at a time that she was in a state that meant that she couldn’t possibly consent to it. The offence is serious and unacceptable.

                Not interested in debating this. It’s obvious that someone with much more experience and education in this field disagreed with you even though he stupidly decided not to punish the perpetrator.