By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A businessman was convicted of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl during a flight from Mumbai to Zurich. The man, who had been on a business trip, repeatedly touched the sleeping victim and performed sexual acts on her. Upon the plane’s arrival, the man was arrested and later confessed to the crime, receiving a suspended sentence of one and a half years for rape and sexual acts with a child. The judge deemed the sentence lenient, and the man was also banned from entering Switzerland for five years, prohibited from contact with minors, and was deported.
Read the original article here
Bussinessman avoids jail after sexually assaulting 15-year-old girl on flight to Switzerland | LBC is the crux of a story that, frankly, leaves a bad taste in the mouth. It’s about a businessman, a 44-year-old man from India, who committed a truly heinous act: sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl on a flight from Mumbai to Zurich. And the aftermath? Well, it’s a complex cocktail of disbelief, anger, and a hefty dose of “the rich get away with anything.”
The core issue is the shockingly lenient sentence. The man avoided jail time entirely. The consequences? A five-year ban from Switzerland, a lifetime prohibition from contact with minors, and a fine of around £8,250. Many of us are left wondering: Is that really justice for such a horrific crime? Especially when he was convicted of raping a child. The judge even described the sentence as “rather lenient” and “barely appropriate.” So, if the judge felt the sentence wasn’t enough, why wasn’t it increased? The legal system appears to have a frustrating ceiling on the potential punishment.
The perceived injustice stings because of the circumstances. The victim, a young girl, was asleep when the attack occurred. The fact that she was unable to actively resist, and was scared into silence, clearly adds a layer of vulnerability that makes the crime even more appalling. How can someone be sexually assaulted on a plane and seemingly get off with a slap on the wrist?
The details are important. The assault took place during a nine-hour flight. The man had a brief conversation with the teenager before she fell asleep. The whole scenario is rife with a sense of predatory behavior and abuse of power.
The reaction is predictable. Disgust, anger, and a profound sense of unfairness run through the comments. The feeling that the man “got off easy” is pervasive. A common thread is the belief that his wealth played a significant role in his escape from serious consequences. The sentence seems to underscore the idea that justice isn’t blind; it sees bank accounts.
The irony is stark. The man is banned from Switzerland, but it’s hard to imagine this ban having a truly significant impact. The prohibition from interacting with minors, while on paper, sounds good, is unlikely to be strictly enforced globally.
One of the commenters also brings up an interesting point about the Swiss legal system, particularly the implications of a “summary proceeding,” which may be a contributing factor to the light sentence. It means the prosecutor proposed a punishment, the offender pleaded guilty, and the victim, and their family, agreed to the terms. Because of this process, the judge could not increase the duration of the sentence, just agree or disagree.
The discussions get heated. There’s talk of revenge, of “dumping” perpetrators in remote locations. These are extreme expressions of frustration, born from the feeling of powerlessness that arises when someone like this seemingly avoids the consequences of his actions. The idea of a pedophile island is a darkly humorous reflection of outrage.
The discussions touch on sensitive issues like ethnicity. While the ethnicity of the perpetrator became a topic of discussion, it is important to note that the crime is the crime, and the ethnicity of the individual should not be a factor in the outrage felt.
The incident underscores the importance of robust legal systems that protect the vulnerable and hold those in power accountable. The lack of a harsher sentence in this case leaves many feeling let down by the justice system. It leaves us with a lingering question: where is the true justice in this outcome?