I still have questions. I am pleased that Eric Benjamin has gone to prison, although I do believe that 6 years is pathetic for sexual assault. I also want to know why the jury have been praised for "looking at the evidence" ?? Is that not what ANY jury would do ANYWHERE? It worries me that a jury should be told that they need to consider the evidence (!). And personally I still believe the Jury should be imported like the judge.
Also, - What is the point in a suspended sentence? Caesar was handed a suspended sentence, which means if he does not commit an offence in 18 months, he will not go to prison? What is the point of praising the women for coming forward then in effect doing nothing?! I do understand that suspended sentences are handed out in the UK - but NEVER for serious sexual assault, and I have that information from Rape Crisis Scotland. There are difficulties getting a case to court yes, the perpetrator is often found not guilty yes, but NEVER is someone convicted of a serious sexual assault and then given a suspended sentence i,.e. - sentenced but not sent to prison.
I've been described as "obsessed"....but I can assure you I am not. I see developments on St Helena, that are long overdue, and I am pleased. But I still have these questions. It is no longer a "colony" it is an overseas British Territory. And I still believe the laws should be the same and criminal cases should be dealt with in the same way. If anyone could enlighten me as to the point of a "suspended prison sentence" id appreciate it. Thanks.
The case against Eric Benjamin can be found in this issue of the Sentinel, page 7-8:
http://www.sams.sh/images/sentinel/Sentinel_190214.pdf