Kathleen Lynch (Lab) sent letter to judge, supporting alledged rapist

Dave!

Yo.

I believe the bloke has been convicted now. However, as far as I know, he was only accused at the time, and Labour [TD?] Kathleen Lynch sent a letter to the judge saying that his family is well respected, etc., and basically supporting him. She knows the family and recently said that she believes it would have been (probably politically )"cowardly" of her to not send the letter, just because it was a rape accusation.

edit: The story: http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0418/caseyt.html

Now I just heard one of his victims (I think) on the radio giving out about it and saying she (Lynch) shouldn't be supporting rapists!!!

Is she as out of order as it seems she is? Personally I'm pleased to see that an allegation of rape does not mean instant ostracisation in this case. It's all too often that people believe "there's no smoke without fire", and the likes.

Or should Lynch have had more respect for the supposed victim and not undermined the prosecution?

NOTE THAT I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE A DISCUSSION ON WHETHER OR NOT COMING FROM A 'GOOD FAMILY' MAKES YOU MORE OR LESS LIKELY TO BE A RAPIST. MAKE ANOTHER THREAD FOR THAT IF YOU LIKE.

CantGetNoSleep

She should be burned at the stake (or r*ped)

leeroybrown

If she just said that he came from a 'good family' as reported it sounds like a pointless political gesture to appease a family who she didn't want to say no to. I would guess that she never expected it to have any effect and if so I don't think she should have made such a frivolous use of her position. Fair dues to the judge for pointing out the pointlessness of their action.

Tigger

politicians should keep their noses out unless they suspect a miscarraige of justice

PeakOutput

i understand why SHE sent the letter(person in respected role backing up family seen to be doing good for the community and guaranteeing a few votes from the family in future)

BUT

at the same time my head is screaming at me wtf is a td doing interfering with the legal system? who cares whos from a good family if they commit a crime they commit a crime and should be held fully accountabe to the law without ANY outside interference. If he is falsely accused then that should also(in theory) be sorted out during due process without outside interference.

i dont think she was supporting rapists, i dont think a td should getinvolved regardless of the charge

Rb

rbd wrote: »

politicians should keep their noses out unless they suspect a miscarraige of justice

What he said.

Robbo

It's good to see that we've learnt exactly nothing from Bobby Molloy.

leeroybrown

It'll be interesting to see what the media reports and wider public reaction is like in her constituency.

Dave!

leeroybrown wrote: »

If she just said that he came from a 'good family' as report it sounds like a pointless political gesture to appease a family who she didn't say no to. I would guess that she never expected it to have any effect

Dunno bout that... supporting an alledged rapist is always gonna be dangerous territory, and it takes some backbone to do it if you're an elected representative. Most would not do it.

rbd wrote: »

politicians should keep their noses out unless they suspect a miscarraige of justice

Well don't people have character witnesses all the time? Doctors, priests, etc., saying that they were a nice child, and their family contributes alot to the community. That's surely all Lynch was doing. She said she didn't know him personally, so I guess that's why the judge thinks it was pointless, but if a person elected by thousands of people is willing to vouch for you in court, that would be pretty handy surely!

CantGetNoSleep

leeroybrown wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see what the media reports and wider public reaction is like in her constituency.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055277617

Tigger

DaveMcG wrote: »

Doctors, priests, etc., saying that they were a nice child, and their family contributes alot to the community. That's surely all Lynch was doing. She said she didn't know him personally, so I guess that's why the judge thinks it was pointless, but if a person elected by thousands of people is willing to vouch for you in court, that would be pretty handy surely!

a charachter reference is bull she is an elected representitative and therefore if acting in an official manner should be doing the will of the people who voted for her look if he did it then its wrong and if he didn't do it its fine so unless she has evidfence one way or the other then she should shut up
i know you don't wanna didcuss this but his family have nothing to do with it

Karoma

DaveMcG wrote: »

Well don't people have character witnesses all the time? Doctors, priests, etc., saying that they were a nice child, and their family contributes alot to the community. That's surely all Lynch was doing. She said she didn't know him personally, so I guess that's why the judge thinks it was pointless, but if a person elected by thousands of people is willing to vouch for you in court, that would be pretty handy surely!

A character witness for a character she doesn't know personally? So that removes the "they were a nice child" bit.
So what if it's a nice family? Her actions had no legal basis/reasoning; she was sticking her oar in where it's not needed.
Furthermore, was the victim was in the same electoral area? She is meant to be the representative of the area, not just "the nice families" that she feels the inexplicable need to stand up for; she should show no bias.
Politicans never do something unless there's something in it for them, whether it's donations, media attention, or whatever... bah! Like it was said above: politicians should keep out of these things unless there is a wider political issue (i.e. Politicians should stick to politics.)



Ed: Also, OP: Why did you omit John Murray (Former mayor) from the question?

Sherifu

"The judge said he noted letters received from Labour TD Kathleen Lynch and former Lord Mayor of Cork John Murray indicating that Casey came from a well regarded family but he said there was little in the way of mitigating circumstances"

Sounds like the judge ignored the tripe anyway.

She shouldn't be getting involved imo.

Tigger

Karoma wrote: »

A character witness for a character she doesn't know personally? So that removes the "they were a nice child" bit. So what if it's a nice family? Her actions had no legal basis/reasoning; she was sticking her oar in where it's not needed. Furthermore, was the victim was in the same electoral area? She is meant to be the representative of the area, not just "the nice families".
Politicans never do something unless there's something in it for them, whether it's donations, media attention, or whatever... bah! Like it was said above: politicians should keep out of these things unless there is a wider political issue (i.e. Politicians should stick to politics.)

i shall be following this closely as i used to believe that labour were a vital part of the irish politiucal mix but now feel they are as money (sorry wrong forum)

boo erns

sam34

slightly off topic here, but im ny job (doctor) i am sick of bloody politicians phoning up and writing in to us, trying to get people admitted or moved to other facilities etc. its none of their business! a patients treatment is based on a medical decision, not a political one. i had one guy ring me up one night saying "i dont understand why you sent this man home" and i told him that i wouldnt expect him to understand, after all i had spent years and years studying and training to get to be in a position where i could send people home. plus theres a confidentiality issue. i know that the politician has the family on at them to "do something" but i really despise the way they interfere and try and bully you into doing something.

(i've just read my post and i realise i might sound patronising and i truly dont mean to be, its just that this is a major source of annoyance for me)

AngryBadger

Karoma wrote: »

A character witness for a character she doesn't know personally? So that removes the "they were a nice child" bit.
So what if it's a nice family? Her actions had no legal basis/reasoning; she was sticking her oar in where it's not needed.
Furthermore, was the victim was in the same electoral area? She is meant to be the representative of the area, not just "the nice families" that she feels the inexplicable need to stand up for; she should show no bias.
Politicans never do something unless there's something in it for them, whether it's donations, media attention, or whatever... bah! Like it was said above: politicians should keep out of these things unless there is a wider political issue (i.e. Politicians should stick to politics.)

+1

delta_bravo

Robbo wrote: »

It's good to see that we've learnt exactly nothing from Bobby Molloy.

Was thinking the same thing myself. She should follow in his footsteps and resign

Dudess

Heh, this takes me back to when I worked in Cork City Council housing department and there was a local election coming up. Same names and everything. Talk about deja vu...

Wertz

Robbo wrote: »

It's good to see that we've learnt exactly nothing from Bobby Molloy.

Was about to make a similiar point.
There's far too much of this parochial bullsh*t in this country..."Ah sure I played hurling with his grandad, he's not a bad lad etc."
Why should the word of a politician, a reference if you will, have any bearing on anything to do with a crime, unless they're A) an alibi or a witness?
Typical classist crap...

Dudess

Now Wertz boy, Kathleen is pure working class! As is John Murray.

Karoma wrote: »

Like it was said above: politicians should keep out of these things unless there is a wider political issue (i.e. Politicians should stick to politics.)

But, and I'm on the fence here, it could be argued that politics permeates everything.

Dave!

Wertz wrote: »

Why should the word of a politician, a reference if you will, have any bearing on anything to do with a crime, unless they're A) an alibi or a witness?

Should we do away with character witnesses then? Obviously when it comes to the facts of the crime, facts are facts, but when deciding on a sentence for example, a character witness could lead to a lighter sentence because they say it was out of character for the person, etc. (of course, in this instance Lynch didn't know the accused personally, but I'm talking in general terms here).

If people traditionally held in high esteem such as doctors and priests are to have their opinion taken into consideration (with no mandate), then surely someone with thousands of votes behind them should be taken even more seriously.

Wertz

Dudess wrote: »

Now Wertz boy, Kathleen is pure working class! As is John Murray.

But, and I'm on the fence here, it could be argued that politics permeates everything.

I couldn't give a damn if they lived in Blackrock castle, this is favouritism with an end to personal gain. The "good background" thing is usually an indication of a more "middle class" persuasion, hence my classist jibe.
Politics permeates everything, but the legal process is supposed to be compartmentalised away any outside influence, including meddling by politicians...

DaveMcG: what qualifies the character witness is what should matter (how does getting a few thousand votes make you any the better a judge of character, or add influence to your word?) and testimony to character should only have bearing on lesser crimes...crimes against the person, especially of a sexual nature cannot be moderated just because they are out of character. That's my stance on it anyway.

connundrum

For a politician to get involved where she doesn't actually know the accused is silly.

And for a judge to take the accused's 'good family name' into account when deciding on a sentence is as silly. The accused party should stand alone and be judged on who he/she is and what he/she did. End of.

nomorebadtown

she backed the wrong horse there.
win some, lose some.

Earthhorse

DaveMcG wrote: »

Yo.

What up, dawg?

Karoma

Dudess wrote: »

But, and I'm on the fence here, it could be argued that politics permeates everything.

Damn, I thought someone might nitpick "politics".
I mean politicians are there to steer the country, and as part of that, the legal system from above. They should not get involved in particular cases unless there is a wider implication. Otherwise, they're just meddling in affairs that don't concern them and getting in the way and end up doing more damage than good. The only potential far-reaching implication that could come from such an action is that it becomes widespread policy that the word of a politician has some bearing on the outcome of a trial which is as absurd as it is unethical.