Rapist Prick gets his just desserts

KingOfFairview

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1219/shannonm.html

admiralofthefleet

the full story:

The Court of Criminal Appeal has imposed a ten-year prison sentence on the 20-year-old man convicted of the rape of woman from Co Clare.

Mary Shannon, a 33-year-old mother of three, was raped in May 2005.

She waived right to anonymity after Adam Keane, from Barnageeha in Daragh Co Clare, was initially given a three-year suspended sentence for the attack.
Advertisement

He was then ordered to serve the sentence after making what the trial judge described as a 'triumphalist gesture' against the victim in the case.

Keane flicked a cigarette at Ms Shannon after both took the train home to Ennis after the original sentencing.

An appeal against the sentence on the grounds of 'undue leniency' was lodged by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Court of Criminal Appeal said this morning that the original sentence handed down by the Central Criminal Court was unduly lenient and the court upheld the appeal of the DPP.

Mary Shannon was in court with her family when the judgment was handed down.

The final three years of the ten-year sentence were suspended.

Chief Justice John Murray said that the offence of rape is a grave physical assault.

He said in this case it was aggravated by the fact that the rape took place in the victim's own home and bed whilst her three children were in close proximity.

Mr Murray said the fact that Adam Keane had taken alcohol and drugs on the night in question did not absolve him of any responsibility.



great to see justice being served

Blisterman

So, a man commited a crime, and got a prison sentence for it?

Am I missing the point here?

I was expecting something slightly more interesting.

High&Low

Blisterman wrote: »

So, a man commited a crime, and got a prison sentence for it?

Am I missing the point here?

I was expecting something slightly more interesting.

If you read the article you will see that at the time he was convicted he was given a suspended sentence, there was uproar about this and the DPP rightly appealed the leniency of the sentence...

garthv

Finally a decent sentence for one of the most horrible crimes commited these days,
Ive seen rapists let go with a slap on the wrist whereas the woman has the rest of her life to deal with.
10 years should give him enough time to think about what hes done

Anti

Blisterman wrote: »

So, a man commited a crime, and got a prison sentence for it?

Am I missing the point here?

I was expecting something slightly more interesting.

tell me about it. Though 10 years is better then normal.

meglome

The scumbag getting the sentence he should have originally got seems like something to applaud.

ROCKMAN

I remember this story ,
Cocky thing **** after first trail bet is not so cocky now :D:D
Good to see sometimes justice is done.

KingOfFairview

Blisterman wrote: »

So, a man commited a crime, and got a prison sentence for it?

Am I missing the point here?

I was expecting something slightly more interesting.

Read the story fully, its not your average case

woodseb

i remember reading the facts of the case, wasn't your usual black and white rape case.........

LadyJ

10 years for rape seems decent enough. Suspended sentences for things
like that are just unacceptable imo. Good outcome.

kraggy

Final 3 years suspended.

Out in 7 if not less?

Not half harsh enough.

cornbb

Great news, he should have been given jail time the first time round but at least he's being punished now.

justsomebloke

so the moral of the original sentence was

Rape is OK once you don't litter

Noelie

How could the first Judge only give a suspended sentence, that's shocking.

biko

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

Mr Murray said the fact that Adam Keane had taken alcohol and drugs on the night in question did not absolve him of any responsibility.

Finally someone get it.

Boggles

Noelie wrote: »

How could the first Judge only give a suspended sentence, that's shocking.

The facts of the original case had more than a hint of reasonable doubt.

Pigman II

I was really hoping this thread was about the Pie from American Pie getting revenge on Jason Biggs for the way he treated it.

He never even thought of the pies feelings! He just laid into it.

skywalker

Noelie wrote: »

How could the first Judge only give a suspended sentence, that's shocking.

Thats what popped into my head reading the OP.

Tinytony

I can't find anything about Dessert in it? What a disappointment.

Cuddlesworth

I find it interesting that a person was convicted to 10 years in prison for what was basically one persons word against another.

Boggles

krazy_8s wrote: »

I find it interesting that a person was convicted to 10 years in prison for what was basically one persons word against another.

It was just one persons word, he stated he had no memory of the incident, actually it wasn't just one persons word, the papers ran the story front page for a week, courts swayed by the media.

The Sparrow

krazy_8s wrote: »

I find it interesting that a person was convicted to 10 years in prison for what was basically one persons word against another.

So you don't think that a rape was committed? What are you basing that on?

Cuddlesworth

woooo232 wrote: »

So you don't think that a rape was committed? What are you basing that on?

Where did I say that?

Ste.phen

woooo232 wrote: »

So you don't think that a rape was committed? What are you basing that on?

So you DO think that a rape was committed? what are you basing that on?

ojewriej

woooo232 wrote: »

So you don't think that a rape was committed? What are you basing that on?

You have to prove the guilt, not the innocence.

krazy_8s wrote: »

I find it interesting that a person was convicted to 10 years in prison for what was basically one persons word against another.

Are you sure it was just based on her word? Was there no forensic evidence?

I mean given that he claims he doesn't remember instead of not guilty would indicate that there must be some proof it happened.

The Sparrow

Igy wrote: »

So you DO think that a rape was committed? what are you basing that on?

The fact somebody was convicted of committing a rape.

krazy_8s wrote:

So you DO think that a rape was committed? what are you basing that on?

I didn't say that you did. I asked you if that was what you thought because it is the clear implication from your post that a rape may not have taken place because as you say it is one person's word against another.

Boggles

ojewriej wrote: »

You have to prove the guilt, not the innocence.



Are you sure it was just based on her word? Was there no forensic evidence?

I mean given that he claims he doesn't remember instead of not guilty would indicate that there must be some proof it happened.

There was his DNA but that is not proof of rape.

ojewriej

Boggles wrote: »

There was his DNA but that is not proof of rape.

Maybe there was something else though? I mean I find it hard to believe that any judge would hand 10 year sentence based on the statement of one person and no other proof.

Boggles

ojewriej wrote: »

Maybe there was something else though? I mean I find it hard to believe that any judge would hand 10 year sentence based on the statement of one person and no other proof.

The judge handed him a suspened sentence, meaning he walked free, it was what happened after that convicted him.

ojewriej

Boggles wrote: »

The judge handed him a suspened sentence, meaning he walked free, it was what happened after that convicted him.

What happened after only activated the 3 year sentence.

Today his sentence was changed to 10 years with last 3 suspended.

All I'm saying DPP must have had strong evidence if they managed to do that.

Boggles

ojewriej wrote: »

What happened after only activated the 3 year sentence.

Today his sentence was changed to 10 years with last 3 suspended.

All I'm saying DPP must have had strong evidence if they managed to do that.

According to the article he recieved the extra time because the victims suffering was not taken into account, plus the original Judge did not assign the appropriate weight to the sentence. No new evidence.

ojewriej

Boggles wrote: »

According to the article he recieved the extra time because the victims suffering was not taken into account, plus the original Judge did not assign the appropriate weight to the sentence. No new evidence.

I didn't say new, I said strong.

I was just answering to someone who said he was convicted based on one peron's statement only. I find it hard to believe, that is all.

Boggles

ojewriej wrote: »

I didn't say new, I said strong.

I was just answering to someone who said he was convicted based on one peron's statement only. I find it hard to believe, that is all.

There was no new evidence strong or not, it was not a retrial. No evidence was taken into account in giving him the 10 years, it was based on the victim suffering and lenientcy of the original sentence.

woodseb

ojewriej wrote: »

I didn't say new, I said strong.

I was just answering to someone who said he was convicted based on one peron's statement only. I find it hard to believe, that is all.

Rape is all about consent, and consent is a subjective matter in the view of the victim, therefore many rape cases are based on the statement of the victim


the unique thing about this case is that the victim 'thought' it was her husband that had jumped into bed with her until after the act

Boggles

woodseb wrote: »

Rape is all about consent, and consent is a subjective matter in the view of the victim, therefore many rape cases are based on the statement of the victim


the unique thing about this case is that the victim 'thought' it was her husband that had jumped into bed with her until after the act

Not her husband, her boyfriend. She always slept with the lights on, the lights were on this night, she didn't notice it was not her boyfriend until after the fact. The defence stated she did not have a boyfriend at the time of the incident.

DonJose

krazy_8s wrote: »

I find it interesting that a person was convicted to 10 years in prison for what was basically one persons word against another.

If somebody broke into your mothers house and raped your mother that is "basically one persons word against another". Whats your point.

leninbenjamin

that was a really weird case.

Cuddlesworth

Edit: Woooo32, why did you horribly misquote me in this post

DonJose wrote: »

If somebody broke into your mothers house and raped your mother that is "basically one persons word against another". Whats your point.

Thats person would

*Have no reasonable alibi for being there.
*Have no reasonable alibi for sleeping with my mother.
*There would be signs of forced entry.

Tbh, your analagy fails.

How about this one.

You meet a lash in the pub, or know one through a friend. You both get a little drunk. End up back at her/your place. She likes it a little rough, you oblige. You decide not to call her the next day. Police show up at your house a week later claiming your raped her. You had drank more then her, your memory was fuzzy and you can't remember exact details and certain points are blanks. You get sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Or option B.

All of the above, except it wasn't consensual. You raped the bitch.

What is the difference between the two? One persons word against the other. Losing ten years of anybodys life because some decided her word was better, would be about the worst thing I could imaging happening. The same with some rapist walking away scot free.

There is no easy option here, so I'm not going to give you a alternative.

DonJose

krazy_8s wrote: »

All of the above, except it wasn't consensual. You raped the bitch.

Thats a nice way to describe a rape victim :rolleyes:

Cuddlesworth

DonJose wrote: »

Thats a nice way to describe a rape victim :rolleyes:

**** it, she was going to report me for doing it anyway. Did you not see the first option?

ojewriej

krazy_8s wrote: »

Thats the second time you misquoted me. Stop it. I said he was sent to jail for ten years on the basis on one persons word. If you read the facts of that case, or most other rape cases in this country you will see the same thing with completely different outcomes every time.

How did I misquote you?

Cuddlesworth

ojewriej wrote: »

How did I misquote you?

Edit, sorry wrong user. That woo chap is to blame.

MagicMarker

Boggles wrote: »

Not her husband, her boyfriend. She always slept with the lights on, the lights were on this night, she didn't notice it was not her boyfriend until after the fact. The defence stated she did not have a boyfriend at the time of the incident.

IF this is true, then that's not rape!!

How the **** did she not know who it was? Why was he in the house?

ArphaRima

the unique thing about this case is that the victim 'thought' it was her husband that had jumped into bed with her until after the act

Not her husband, her boyfriend. She always slept with the lights on, the lights were on this night, she didn't notice it was not her boyfriend until after the fact. The defence stated she did not have a boyfriend at the time of the incident.

What the hell?
Was she on drugs too? I reckon the guy involved is absolute scum based on his reported actions on the train, but what the hell is this?

I should clarify. Rape means no consent given. What people are saying is that consent was there, but then withdrawn AFTER the event!??

NotWormBoy

MagicMarker wrote: »

IF this is true, then that's not rape!!

How the **** did she not know who it was? Why was he in the house?

Yeah, if that actually is true... then no way in hell is it rape.

Boggles

NotWormBoy wrote: »

Yeah, if that actually is true... then no way in hell is it rape.

The accused was not a stranger to the victim, they were in fact friends.

Dennis the Stone

You can withdraw consent at any time during the act, but not after it. This is very strange.

Boggles

It is indeed a strange case, not as black and white as protrayed, Justice Carney saw it as this too and would be a reason he gave a leniant sentence first time out.

Justice Carney is highly respected and widely regarded as a very tough but fair Judge.

NotWormBoy

Boggles wrote: »

The accused was not a stranger to the victim, they were in fact friends.

So?

Boggles

fluffer wrote: »

What the hell?
Was she on drugs too? I reckon the guy involved is absolute scum based on his reported actions on the train, but what the hell is this?

I should clarify. Rape means no consent given. What people are saying is that consent was there, but then withdrawn AFTER the event!??

The victim stated in court she thought it was her boyfriend, the defence noted that the accused has several large body tattoos.