Rapist wins lottery

Carlitos · 11-08-2004 9:51am #1

just saw on news,that a convicted rapist won the lotto,and they're thinking of not giving it to him...this may not fit under "politics" but im interested to hear what you all think

Kappar · 11-08-2004 10:01am

What's the reason they're using for not giving it to him? I wouldn't be happy about giving it to him but I can't see how they can't unless they get him on some sort of technicality.

John · 11-08-2004 10:06am

I don't think he deserves it but if you don't give it to him, where do you stop? Do you not give it to any criminals or just not to violent criminals?

Lemming · 11-08-2004 10:07am

What's next? Denying someone car insurance because they were once convicted of joy-riding? :rolleyes:

Seriously, I don't see why they're doing this, other than sensationalist mob mentality stirred by "the Sun" newspaper et al. Unless they can prove he's gonna use that money to reoffend or some sh*t, I don't see what their problem is. Will they do the same for a convicted murderer? How about a convicted car-thief? or a bank-robber? How about a shop-lifter? Or a tax-evader?

ReefBreak · 11-08-2004 10:08am

Lemming wrote:

What's next? Denying someone car insurance because they were once convicted of joy-riding? :rolleyes:

Actually, that sounds like a very good idea to me.

briano · 11-08-2004 10:12am

ReefBreak wrote:

Actually, that sounds like a very good idea to me.

I was thinking the very same thing

Lemming · 11-08-2004 10:13am

Please note the use of the word *once* reefbreak.

Hey. i've a better idea. And in conjunction with that farce of a death-penalty thread.....

why don't we just execute everyone ever convicted of ANY crime. Then there'll be no tizzy over an ex-con winning the lottery. Or worry about car-insurance. There, much better eh? :rolleyes:

f
f
s

lisa.c · 11-08-2004 10:17am

great idea to take it away from him... eye for eye in this world any one ask his victim(s) what he managed to take from them.
rapists are the scum of this earth and thats exactly how they deserve to be treated...like scum. they should be greatful that they are part of our race at this stage and there not completly banished from our communities. he deserves nothing...........

yossarin · 11-08-2004 10:17am

> why don't we just execute everyone ever convicted of ANY crime. Then there'll be no tizzy over an ex-con winning the lottery. Or worry about car-insurance. There, much better eh?

Actually, that sounds like a very good idea to me.

Sex criminals tend to re-offend, but this has nothing to do with the lotto. Legally they shouldn't have sold him the ticket if they were going to withhold the prize based on some condition, OR they should made those conditions clear inthe terms of the ticket on the back.

ReefBreak · 11-08-2004 10:19am

Now that's just silly - executing people for committing any crime...?

Anyway, I still stand by what I said: get convicted for joyriding => no more motor insurance.

I haven't read that death-penalty thread by the way.

Carlitos · 11-08-2004 10:20am

i agre with that view,if he doesnt get it where do we stop,however the bone of contention is the fact that millions of the public are basically funding a rapist..its thier money that will be making his life easier and happy,perhaps that just makes people uneasy

ReefBreak · 11-08-2004 10:21am

lisa.c wrote:

great idea to take it away from him...

Now that I definitely agree with - take the winnings away from him and hand it over to his victim(s).

briano · 11-08-2004 10:22am

So only robbing a car *once* and driving it in a reckless manner *once* is Ok?

Actually, Lemming, when you say it like that, why not give joyriders cheaper insurance? use the logic that they're going to go out and drive anyway, and they won't pay the full price.

And, in regard to the "tizzy over an ex-con winning the lottery", he isn't an ex-con. He was out on temporary release. F*** Him. Give the money to charity.

Thordon · 11-08-2004 10:22am

I'd say the main reason theyre trying to deny him the money is because it would look bad and be bad for business, not from any moral issues.

He paid for his ticket, he deserves it as much as anyone else.

Carlitos · 11-08-2004 10:25am

thats true,i think its just comparing ti to last week whee a cancer victim wins it...black and white..it cant be a fairytale every week i guess

Lemming · 11-08-2004 10:26am

yossarin wrote:

Actually, that sounds like a very good idea to me.

Sex criminals tend to re-offend, but this has nothing to do with the lotto. they shouldn't have sold him the ticket if they were going to withhold the prize based on some condition, OR they should made those conditions clear inthe terms of the ticket on the back.

Which is my point yossarin. Unless they can prove that if he gets this money he's going to re-offend then they don't really have a leg to stand on and are using sensationlist mob-mentality courtesy of the likes of "the Sun" newspaper.

Unless he *does* re-offend I don't see what the problem is. I'm not advocating giving him a job in the local well-woman (or man??) clinic or some such, but I'll not judge him until he re-offends. Would I trust him? No.

He's been given time. He was released by the government who either deemed him to not be a threat, or had served the full sentence handed him. At this point the lottery organisers are behaving like vigilantes, deciding what "additional" punishment he should receive.

Meh · 11-08-2004 10:27am

They should give him his winnings, then his victim should sue him for damages in civil court. Should be an open and shut case, since he's already been convicted.

Carlitos · 11-08-2004 10:28am

meh...thats the best idea yet...give him money(canceling any moral double standards) then sue him...works both ways...nice one lol

gaizka71 · 11-08-2004 10:35am

I totally agree with this,

Meh wrote:

They should give him his winnings, then his victim should sue him for damages in civil court. Should be an open and shut case, since he's already been convicted.

The victim should get most of the money this person won....

Plus I think that if he is not allowed to win, he should not be allowed to play, if he can play, he can win, that is the game.

mike65 · 11-08-2004 10:38am

The money should used to pay for his time in jail and the compensate the victim.

Mike.

seamus · 11-08-2004 10:40am

ReefBreak wrote:

Now that's just silly - executing people for committing any crime...?

Anyway, I still stand by what I said: get convicted for joyriding => no more motor insurance.

You hardly think a joyrider gives f*ck about motor insurance? Deny him the ability to get motor insurance and watch him drive about uninsured and a danger to others.

People jailed for any crime still have the right to make money, however it arises. I would however, make him pay full cost of his imprisonment. A bit like how people can only get a state-sponsored lawyer if they can't afford their own - why should the state have to pay to house criminals who can afford it themselves?

Lemming · 11-08-2004 10:43am

mike65 wrote:

The money should used to pay for his time in jail and the compensate the victim.

Unless the sentence he received such a clause, then it wont, and can't happen simply because you can't be tried for the same crime twice (and convicted twice).

He was detained at the government's leisure ergo assuming the responsibilities for maintaining the costs involved. Funnily enough, they only ever look for recouped costs from people wrongly imprisoned ......

As for compensation for the victim, unless passed in sentence or the victim sues (once) for loss-of-earnings etc in a civil court, it isn't going to happen. Again a case of "additional" punishment.

Zombrex · 11-08-2004 10:50am

I don't think the Lotto has (should?) ever been about rewarding moral people. I have no idea if any of the other luck bastards who won in previous weeks actually deserved the money they got ( I would say a lot didn't ).

It is a bit of a bad taste thinking that my euros went to making this guy a millionaire, but at the same time what can you do. I agree with Meh that the victim should now sue him for every penny.

He was thrown back in jail though for being a flight risk now, which is funny I guess and kinda balances things out (what are you going to do with a mill in the big house, have your butler ass raped instead of you?)

11-08-2004 10:54am

Meh wrote:

They should give him his winnings, then his victim should sue him for damages in civil court. Should be an open and shut case, since he's already been convicted.

Agreed,I hope the victim is on to this already!

Shouldn't this be in either afterhours or Humanities???
It has little or nothing to do with politics.

Darren · 11-08-2004 11:01am

I am disappointed to see a man of this character win thsi sort of money on the lottery. However, you buy your ticket, you take your chances. Give him the money. I hope either his victim sues him for all of it or he kills himself with drugs or something.

Zulu · 11-08-2004 11:02am

If your not in you can't win! and if you in but you're a convicted rapist you can't win either.

Give the man his money. This is open and shut. I'm amased people are being so sensational.
Maybe - just maybe, he has served his time in jail; he is now completly repented and rehabilitated; he is now a leading activist in the prevention of rape; he travels the country giving time in rape crisis centres/giving talks in prisons etc., and he would give most the money to a charity. The posibility exists.

leeroybrown · 11-08-2004 11:03am

Unless there is some law/regulation with good legal standing regarding this type of situation he should be given all of his winnings. If there's no legal reason not to give it to him then it doesn't matter what crime he is guilty of or what crimes he may commit in the future.

BaZmO* · 11-08-2004 11:22am

A link would be helpful.

RAPIST WINS LOTTO Aug 11 2004

By Emma Britton

A RAPIST serving a life sentence has won more than £7million on the National Lottery.

Iorworth Hoare, 52 – described by a judge as “a menace to women” – was on weekend leave in a bail hostel when he bought the ticket.

He won a third of the £21million Lotto Extra jackpot worth £7,039,469.

Hoare is said to have bragged at the hostel in Middlesbrough next morning: “I’m going to be sound for the rest of my life. I’ll do well from here on in until the day I die.”

But hours later he was picked up by police who decided the win made him a “security risk” and moved from Leyhill open prison in Gloucestershire to a more secure jail.

A prison source said it was for his own safety. Neither the Prison Service nor Lotto organiser Camelot can withhold his prize. But he will have a cash limit of £2 a day while in jail.

Hoare served 18 years for a sickening record of sex crimes including one rape, two attempted rapes and three indecent assaults in the 70s and 80s. He was then jailed for life in 1989 for trying to rape a 60-year-old. A judge told him: “You are a menace to women.”

Dave Hines, of campaign group Victim’s Voice, said: “It is galling that a man like this can keep so much money when victims’ groups are desperate for cash.

“If he is really reformed he should give the money away to his victims.”

The Prison Service said: “We don’t comment on individual prisoners.”

Camelot would not confirm or deny the win, saying: “We have a duty to protect the privacy of every winner who chooses not to make a win public.”

According to the report he has to be given the money as there is no law against it.
But I suppose the police would rightly have concerns about him having access to so much money.

B.

DivX · 11-08-2004 11:27am

Morally right or wrong, he paid for his ticket, he should probably be paid the money, and strongly advised to pay part of his winnings into victim support.

The lottery didn't mention anything in their Terms and conditions, 'money will not be paid out to rapists, murderers, thief's, etc.'

The lottery people cant be seen to be making up rules as they go along, surely they thought of the possibility of something like this happening and a protocol put in place just in case??

Lemming · 11-08-2004 11:29am

Sounds a rather unsavoury character indeed, but there's not exactly anything that can be done tbh. Only thing that might possibly be used against him is that he technically hasn't been released from his sentence. He was on temporary release, as opposed to having been released with a "goodbye and lets not see you back here again. But that's dependent on Camelot having a clause somewhere regarding convicts and playing the lottery.

seamus · 11-08-2004 12:01pm

As it says, he's limited to £2 a day while in jail. That makes him a wealthy man in jail terms, but for all intents and purposes, he won't see any of the money until he's released, i.e. until he's a free man, "rehabilitated". Why shouldn't he be allowed have the cash at that point?

If the police were really crafty, they could not let him out to collect his money until the win expires, but that would be dodgy legal and moral ground.

AngelofFire · 11-08-2004 12:05pm

make him pay half to the victim and rape crisis support groups.

Hobbes · 11-08-2004 12:14pm

Just goes to show that God does have a sense of humour.

ferdi · 11-08-2004 12:24pm

RAPIST'S LOTTERY JACKPOT

BY DAVID BRUCE

A LEEDS rapist responsible for a string of vicious sex attacks over a 15-year period has won £7m on the Lotto.
Iorworth Hoare, now 52, won the money while on weekend leave in a North-East bail hostel.

His win has sparked outrage – but also raised the question of whether his victims could now sue him for compensation.
Hoare, once described by his lawyer as a man with a personality disorder that could not be treated, committed a catalogue of sex crimes that prompted a judge to tell him: "Every moment you are at liberty, some woman is at risk."
He was jailed for life in May 1989 for attempting to rape a 59-year-old retired schoolteacher in Roundhay Park, Leeds.
But Hoare had a string of earlier convictions for offences against women:
He was jailed for three years at Leeds in 1973 for attempted rape.
In November 1975, he was caged for four years at Exeter for attempted rape.
In September 1978, at Leeds, he was imprisoned for four years for indecent assault and assault.
In June 1983, at Leeds Crown Court, he was sentenced to seven years for rape and indecent assault – and was released in November 1987.
Less than two years later he was back inside after attacking the terrified retired teacher in Roundhay Park, Leeds. He denied the charge.
Bizarrely, Hoare, formerly of Seacroft Gate, Leeds, was trapped by a photograph he sent to a television station in a effort to be chosen for the Winner Takes All quiz show.
He had gone on the run after attacking the teacher and was living in the Channel Islands when he sent his name, address and phone number to the show's producers. He also included a passport photograph – which a researcher from the programme recognised.
Under Home Office guidelines, prisoners in open conditions – on a day release or community project – are allowed to take part in the National Lottery and claim prizes. They can also play the football pools and buy Premium Bonds.
Swooped
Before the win Hoare was a category D prisoner at Leyhill open prison and was spending weekend leave at Middlesbrough.
But, once news of his Lotto win spread, police swooped on the bail hostel in Middlesbrough and returned Hoare to prison.
Officials were concerned the millionaire sex fiend might use his wealth to flee the country.
Dave Hines, a trustee of the national campaign Victims' Voice and a member of the Home Office victims advisory panel said: "It is quite galling that a man like this can keep so much money when victims and victims' groups groups are desperate for cash."
A Prison Service spokeswoman said that Hoare would be allowed to claim his £7m prize but would be prevented from spending any of the cash outside the strict prison limits - usually about £2 a day.

and the man of the moment....

getEdImage.aspx?ImageID=191728

ixoy · 11-08-2004 2:02pm

Interesting case. As the law stands, I don't think they can, or should, take it off him. His punishment is his prison sentence. It didn't specify, in this case, any personal wealth that he may acrue.
What also, of course, should be done is for him to give a sizeable portion away by way of restitution to the victim. Firstly, if he's sly, it will show to any potential appeals board, that he's sorry for his crimes and wants to make good on them. Secondly, it's the bloody right thing to do. Although money can't heal scars, it can help them move on a bit elsewhere in their lives. I'm not sure how civil cases work in the U.K. (can only recall the O.J. civil case) but it's certainly something to consider if the guy doesn't want to give away the money (not like he can make much use of it being on a life sentence).

lee_baby_simms · 11-08-2004 2:07pm

imagine how many cans of mace you could get for that...

Phil_321 · 11-08-2004 3:05pm

They should give him the money in full and unconditionally and then insert a clause in the competition guidelines to ensure that, in future, people with serious criminal records(ie. served time in jail) are disqualified from entering.

seamus · 11-08-2004 3:10pm

Phil_321 wrote:

They should give him the money in full and unconditionally and then insert a clause in the competition guidelines to ensure that, in future, people with serious criminal records(ie. served time in jail) are disqualified from entering.

Why?
Once they are no longer in jail, have they not "repaid their debt to society", in the eyes of the law? Why should they not be afforded the right to participate in a game?

ecksor · 11-08-2004 3:39pm

I think that's the main point to debate here. Apparently people don't actually think that serving the jail sentence that's awarded by the court and subsequently imposed by the justice system is actually suitable punishment for any given crime. It's a fairly typical attitude in my opinion, but also a wrong one. If people feel so strongly about convicts rights, then why not try to get the justice system altered so that punishments are stronger. I think McDowell is trying to help out there already anyway. (I know that case is in the UK, but it could just as easily occur here, no?).

Phil_321 · 11-08-2004 6:22pm

seamus wrote:

Why?
Once they are no longer in jail, have they not "repaid their debt to society", in the eyes of the law? Why should they not be afforded the right to participate in a game?

Maybe in the eyes of the law they've repaid their debt to society but in the eyes of the general public, murders, paedophiles, etc.... can never really fully repay their debt. And it's the general public's money that they're receiving. Why should they benefit from society when they commit serious crimes against it?
This guy should get the money because there is no rule at present saying people with "serious" criminal records can't enter.
But in future I'd like to see such a rule, like the one that restricts people with criminal records from travelling to the U.S.

seamus · 11-08-2004 6:29pm

But the justice system is society, and if it says he's paid his debt, then society says that he has paid his debt.

If society thinks otherwise, then it should change the justice system to something it prefers instead of marginalising people.

Phil_321 · 11-08-2004 7:12pm

The justice system might say they've repaid their debt but that doesn't mean automatic forgiveness from the general public. Your average citizen is not going to want to associate with them in future, and they are going to have a hard time getting jobs, etc.... That's just the way it is.

ecksor · 11-08-2004 7:23pm

Just because they haven't been forgiven doesn't justify not paying the money after introducing your rule. It undermines any aspirations towards rehabilitating criminals.

AngryBadger · 11-08-2004 7:32pm

Lemming wrote:

He's been given time. He was released by the government who either deemed him to not be a threat, or had served the full sentence handed him. At this point the lottery organisers are behaving like vigilantes, deciding what "additional" punishment he should receive.

He hasn't been released, he's been moved to a higher security prison, or section of the prison.

Shouldn't have had the ability to do the Lotto in the first palce, the whole point of prison is to punish people by removing their civil liberties, shouldn't receive the money, distribute it to his victims, or at least give it back to charity. End of story.

SkepticOne · 11-08-2004 7:36pm

I haven't seen anything in the online news about the UK lottery thinking about not paying out. The nearest think I can find is the suggestion that victims may now be able to s for damages. Prior to the win, he would not have been worth suing.

BrianD3 · 11-08-2004 8:08pm

From what I can see, the case is cut and dried. There are no grounds for Camelot to refuse to pay out. Camelot themselves have stated this. As always, it's the British gutter media (eg tabloids and Sky News) that are whipping this whole thing up into a frenzy.

As regards the rapist's victims sueing him by bringing a civil case - according to a legal expert on The Last Word (Today fm) this will be very difficult if not impossible due to the period of time since the crimes were committed. Apparently, In UK law, you must bring a civil action within 6 years of any criminal conviction for a crime of sexual assault. For other crimes, it's 3 years.

Another point I'd like to make is: I can't help thinking that if the lottery winner had been guilty of a different, but still extremely serious crime (eg if he murdered someone or beat them so badly that they'll be in a wheel chair and needing constant care for the rest of their life) there would not be nearly as much moral outrage over this. Anything related to sexual assault or paedophilia seems to bring out extreme (and hysterical IMO) reactions in people. Of course rape is a terrible crime but isn't murder equally bad if not worse.

If anyone wants an example of these extreme viewpoints check out the "should rapists be castrated" thread on the humanities board and read what punishments people think should be handed out to convicted rapists. Everything from execution to torture to genital mutilation to rape itself.

Other rape related hysteria includes numerous claims of date rapes involving druggings with Rohypnol (no evidence to back up these claims according to the Toxicology experts in the Irish State Laboratory) and dubious rape statistics (eg the infamous 1 in 4 women have been raped stat that came from the US)

I know this is polictically incorrect viewpoint - anyone agree with it?

BrianD3

Thordon · 11-08-2004 9:24pm

anyone agree with it

I do.

Of course rape is a terrible crime but isn't murder equally bad if not worse

Far worse, theyre not even comparable, but they are treated similarly by society.

Not to make rape sound acceptable in any way, but the stigma of rape is far worse than it should be comparably.

swiss · 11-08-2004 10:11pm

You know, theres a reason why they call it a "lottery".

I recall an advertisement Camelot ran a few years ago. An etheral hand wandered around the Country, pointing at various people while a booming voice intoned "it's you!". The person in question was then ecstatic about his/her lottery win. This time the person is a convicted rapist, pure scum, vile, etc and so on and so forth. Not exactly sterling promotional material, but is just as valid a winner as the cancer victim whose life may have been saved her lottery win.

If this person shouldn't get the money, where do we draw the line when we decide who gets a lottery win and who does not? Should he have been allowed to play in the first place? I mean, no matter how bad he is, it would be pretty silly to suggest that he should be allowed spend £2 every so often on his quick pick, without any hope of ever seeing any return in the form of a win.

He won. Everyone else lost. It seems horribly unfair and unjust. But you either apply a set of rules fairly or not at all.

beer enigma · 11-08-2004 10:25pm

Thordon wrote:

I do.

Far worse, theyre not even comparable, but they are treated similarly by society.

Not to make rape sound acceptable in any way, but the stigma of rape is far worse than it should be comparably.

I don't believe you even said that - rape victims live with it for life - check out the suicide rate of rape victims & then comment.

The statute time for suing the rapist has passed, so the victims family cant sue - in truth they don't want to anyway - no amount of monay can compensate.

My main concern would be that while this guy is in prison, he should have his civil liberties removed until he has completed his sentence. The act of purchasing a ticket implies a freedom to which this guy is not yet entitled. What was he doing on day release anyway !

Phil_321 · 11-08-2004 10:47pm

ecksor wrote:

Just because they haven't been forgiven doesn't justify not paying the money after introducing your rule. It undermines any aspirations towards rehabilitating criminals.

I think this guy should get the money cos there is no current clause to this effect.

In the future though, if someone commits a crime that ruins the lives of other members of society, however well they may be rehabilitated during their sentence, they should not have the opportunity to become millionaires in a public lottery.
It's a real sickener for the victims and the general public to see this prick get £7 million when his whole life he has contributed nothing and only caused pain. It shouldn't be allowed to happen again.

seamus · 11-08-2004 11:39pm

Phil_321 wrote:

I think this guy should get the money cos there is no current clause to this effect.

In the future though, if someone commits a crime that ruins the lives of other members of society, however well they may be rehabilitated during their sentence, they should not have the opportunity to become millionaires in a public lottery.
It's a real sickener for the victims and the general public to see this prick get £7 million when his whole life he has contributed nothing and only caused pain. It shouldn't be allowed to happen again.

Yeah, but it's a lottery. The whole point is that one can be lucky enough to win a lot of money, whether it be the lowest piece of scum on earth or a shining pillar of society.

Why start culling people who you don't think deserve it. It might suck for the family of the victim, but hey that's life. **** happens. If the same person went on to become a multi-millionaire through hard work, it would also be a kick in the family's teeth - would you prevent former criminals from earning above a certain wage?

Rapist wins lottery

Comments