Recidivist sexual predator succeeds at avoiding custodial sentence

This just hurts to think about

A man with a history of putting his hand up the skirts of female strangers and harassing women has successfully appealed his most recent sentence.

David Benjamin Carline told court psychologists he wanted to offend as “vengeance for being treated badly by women in the past”.

The sentence he appealed was handed down after he ran up behind a woman on Hamilton’s Claudelands Bridge and groped her.

The 61-year-old had been on her way to work on the morning of April 22, 2015 when Carline appeared and put his hand up her skirt.

She screamed and fell to the footpath, and Carline ran away.

Carline was described as a “recidivist sexual predator” when he came up for sentencing in the High Court in Hamilton, before Justice Edwin Wylie.

But instead of serving preventive detention – a prison sentence with no end date – Carline appealed and got a prison sentence of two years and seven months.

On the one hand I truly appreciate how difficult it is for someone to be deprived of their freedom.  That should indeed be a very high bar to meet.

But people like Carline is what custodial sentences exist for.

He is clearly got a non-resolvable hang-up and will assault women again.

Once again, we see the need for a custodial “village” on prison grounds where the worst sexual predators can be kept safe from themselves, and the public from them.

Justice Edwin Wylie said Carline had a pattern of offending and was a “considerable risk to female members of the community”.

He had failed to change his behaviour, despite attempts to rehabilitate him.

But Carline appealed, saying the judge hadn’t accounted for the fact treatment in prison could make him less likely to reoffend, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Thanks Wylie J, at least you tried.


– Libby Wilson, Stuff

  • cows4me

    You sometimes have to wonder what is the greatest danger to society, the criminal or the justice system. I can see no good reason why this nasty piece of work is allowed to roam free nor can I figurer out the thought processes of the so called judge. We constantly question why society is breaking down and why the law is treated in disdain, this crap is part of the answer.

  • Nermal

    The more that this type of insanity happens here, the more I believe that maybe Americans are ahead of us, and that we need to start considering allowing the public to carry concealed weapons. I suspect this guy would put a bit more thought into his fetish if he thought his victim might be carrying a .38

    Ditto with our mentally defective lone wolves and their knife attacks.

    • Nebman

      Just never.

      As a society we’ve proven ourselves incapable of drinking without driving, killing and maiming those around us and you want to make guns available to everyone?

      The CC laws in the states do nothing to prevent such attacks. Ever. At best they allow someone to shoot the perpetrator after the event.

      And before you say if everyone carries guns then we’re all safe the only way that can work is if you mandate carrying weapons as compulsory.

      You can count the times an armed civilian has been able to prevent such attacks happening anywhere on one hand. Yes, also equally rarely, one has been able to prevent these so called lone wolves going to create more mayhem but almost inevitably they are off duty cops who happened to be armed at the time.

      How many dead innocent people will you consider acceptable to offset the activities of the perverts and the “lone wolves”? 5, 10, 100?

  • JLS

    My vote would go with three strikes to chemical castration.Works great with animals.

  • JC

    Put aside the perpetrator for a minute and consider the sentence we place on ourselves and our society in the way we react to such obsessive crimes.

    On one hand we could protect ourselves (and our resources) if we killed such people as soon as their criminal obsessions manifested themselves.. thats a moral cost we would all bear along with the possibility of killing the wrong person or overreacting to a moral panic.

    On the other hand by not killing the offender we are sentencing ourselves and our society to the risk of further and escalating obsessive crime from these individuals.. all too often its the innocents who must suffer for our mercy to the criminal and insane.

    The third choice is permanent imprisonment, but how permanent is “permanent” in imprisonment these days and what are all the costs?

    I don’t like it at all but I now favour killing the offender as soon as a pattern of obsessive criminality is determined.


  • digby

    Yet another example of where the rights of the individual overrides the rights of the community. The rights of the community to live an existence free from crime should be the overarching principle of our social and justice systems.