| Comment | Regardless of whether you agreed with it or not - the sentencing guidelines essentially said "he's already been publicly shamed as a result of the conviction, he was suspended from uni while it was ongoing, and he's been affected medically as a result of it - coupled with the family of the complainant not really wanting 'retribution', we believe that what's happened so far is punishment enough and would not provide any rehabilitiative benefit". (Also, here are the [Sentencing guidelines](http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/2121/PF-v-Christopher-Daniel) of the case in question - I don't know whether they made the right decision, and I don't think I'm informed enough to know, but this shows that seemingly clear cases can be rather more complicated than they appear). |
|---|