How ridiculous is this?

My name is URL

I'm not usually one for rabble but I'm left shocked after hearing about two separate incidents and court hearings on the radio just now.

The first case was in relation to a man who attempted to rape a woman back in 2009, he recieved a 12 year sentence with 3 suspended. That sounds lenient to me, but probably about right for such a crime.

The second, about a father who sexually assaulted three 13 year olds in his daughters bed while they were at a sleepover.. what sentence is he handed? 7 fcuking years.. 7! Granted it was reduced from 10. 10 is still absurdly low is it not?

from the article -

His sentencing hearing heard that all three of his victims suffered from extreme emotional distress following the abuse and one girl made a “serious attempt” at suicide, damaging her liver in the process.

What the sweet fcuk was going through that judges head when he suspended 3 years because of the guy's work history.. what the hell does that have to do with the case? It's a kick in the teeth to the girls he abused and left scarred for life. Who are these idiots accountable to anyway? They seem to have a free run of the law and nothing can change that

AckwelFoley

maybe he got a discount for 3

The law.

Its complicated.

Judgements are subject to circumstances and interpretation

Biggins

We have more care today about prisoner rights than we do about victims rights.
That to me is sad and very unfair. Its an issue that come up frequently but in legal terms, nothing seems to be changing - and that too is bad.

Teutorix

Buy two get one free.

Royal Irish

So with good behaviour he could be out in 5 years?

I think thats right, that they can get 1/3 off their sentence for that. If true its a joke.

Donkey Oaty

From the press report, this is almost as sickening as the abuse itself:

Another of his victims was bullied in school as a result of reporting the abuse. The court heard she was called a “whore” and a “homewrecker” by her schoolmates.

What kind of country are we turning into?

Chaotic_Forces

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

From the press report, this is almost as sickening as the abuse itself:

[/COLOR]

What kind of country are we turning into?[/LEFT]

Well I could understand the "homewrecker" comment quite easily. I don't see how anyone can't understand it.

Teutorix

Royal Irish wrote: »

So with good behaviour he could be out in 5 years?

I think thats right, that they can get 1/3 off their sentence for that. If true its a joke.

yep, though in britain they have 1/2 remission, so we are slightly harder on sentences in that respect

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Well I could understand the "homewrecker" comment quite easily. I don't see how anyone can't understand it.

Im sure its the fella who raped her that was the ''homewrecker'' she didnt go looking for it.

Gunsfortoys

It is ridiculous, the problem is the cost of keeping them in jail is more than if they were released early.

alexlyons

Teutorix wrote: »

Buy two get one free.

more like buy 1 get two free

FunkZ

snyper wrote: »

maybe he got a discount for 3

The law.

Its complicated.

Judgements are subject to circumstances and interpretation

I bet you have a few lines like these memorized incase you're in trouble in the future, eh Snypes? :rolleyes:

Chaotic_Forces

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Well I could understand the "homewrecker" comment quite easily. I don't see how anyone can't understand it.

Understanding the statement and understanding the logic of it are two completely different things.:rolleyes:

squod

If any of them owned a bank they'd get off scot free !

token56

So many things wrong with the legal system and this is one of the big problems. There needs to be a complete rethink in terms of what the appropriate sentences are for different crimes and what the maximum sentences should be. First of all let a life time sentence mean life in jail and work the way down from there. I dont understand why there is some upper limit on what jail sentences should be and severe cases like those above are usually in the order of 10-15 with suspended sentences of course. Why can't they be 30 or 40 years with options of reducing sentences tentatively given successful rehabilitation rather than just good behaviour?

It's rather ridiculous but of course nothing is ever to change for a long time. At the moment we have a legal system where the majority of people who should be are prosecuted somewhat fairly and given some jail term (unless you are politician/banker/property developer). It sort of works to an extent and there are always other issues which take priority over things like this.

cherryghost

The legal system here is a shambles

Teutorix

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

It is ridiculous, the problem is the cost of keeping them in jail is more than if they were released early.

Death sentence for pedos?

What really pisses me off is people being jailed for offences that dont really deserve jail time. Murder, rape, theft, jail is fine. Fraud? tax evasion? come on.

Chaotic_Forces

Teutorix wrote: »

Im sure its the fella who raped her that was the ''homewrecker'' she didnt go looking for it.

Not really; I'm not saying she shouldn't have said anything.

But she is a homewrecker. At least in the meaning of the word.

RVP 11 wrote: »

Understanding the statement and understanding the logic of it are two completely different things.:rolleyes:

Logically she wrecked the family home; a "homewrecker"...

Seriously, how do youse not understand it?

Yes it was bad to call her it but there was a reason.

My name is URL

snyper wrote: »

The law.

Its complicated.

Judgements are subject to circumstances and interpretation

I don't doubt that it's complicated, but it's nevertheless ridiculous that such a level of inconsistency can exist within the judicial system, and I don't believe for one second that it's down to interpretation.. if it is there are even bigger problems at hand. How can such a horrible crime be interpreted so differently by different judges. As for circumstance, that should be meaningless when the actual seriousness of the crime is taken into account.

Chaotic_Forces

Teutorix wrote: »

Death sentence for pedos?

What really pisses me off is people being jailed for offences that dont really deserve jail time. Murder, rape, theft, jail is fine. Fraud? tax evasion? come on.

Pedos? Seriously?

13 isn't classed as pedophilia...

Besdies; it's not people that like kids that are dangerous; if that was the case then I want everyone who likes anything to be in prision.

But I'm not going to go OT.

Teutorix

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Pedos? Seriously?

13 isn't classed as pedophilia...

Besdies; it's not people that like kids that are dangerous; if that was the case then I want everyone who likes anything to be in prision.

But I'm not going to go OT.

Hebephiles then. pedantic or what?

Chaotic_Forces

Teutorix wrote: »

Hebephiles then. pedantic or what?

So having an attraction to teenagers = death sentence?

ILA

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't doubt that it's complicated, but it's nevertheless ridiculous that such a level of inconsistency can exist within the judicial system, and I don't believe for one second that it's down to interpretation.. if it is there are even bigger problems at hand. How can such a horrible crime be interpreted so differently by different judges. As for circumstance, that should be meaningless when the actual seriousness of the crime is taken into account.

Common Law System.

prinz

Teutorix wrote: »

Hebephiles then. pedantic or what?

Not very. Tbh it's an important distinction to make when it comes to trying to stop it in future.

Teutorix

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

So having an attraction to teenagers = death sentence?

hebephilia is 11-14, ephebophilia is teenagers. Also i wasnt serious about the death penalty, im totally against it. I wouldnt be against capital punishment though, if a guy rapes somebody he deserves to be smacked around by a medieval flail.

Chaotic_Forces

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Not really; I'm not saying she shouldn't have said anything.

But she is a homewrecker. At least in the meaning of the word.



Logically she wrecked the family home; a "homewrecker"...

Seriously, how do youse not understand it?

Yes it was bad to call her it but there was a reason.

Reason being kids are cruel and look for any reason to be centre of attention and make funny statements to get a laugh.
A bit like yourself i might add.

Chaotic_Forces

RVP 11 wrote: »

Reason being kids are cruel and look for any reason to be centre of attention and make funny statements to get a laugh.
A bit like yourself i might add.

That's nice. Thank you for that.

But I was right all along; thanks for agreeing.

Teutorix wrote: »

hebephilia is 11-14, ephebophilia is teenagers. Also i wasnt serious about the death penalty, im totally against it. I wouldnt be against capital punishment though, if a guy rapes somebody he deserves to be smacked around by a medieval flail.

13 is a teenager...

scientific1982

Hard labour is the way forward.

AckwelFoley

FunkZ wrote: »

I bet you have a few lines like these memorized incase you're in trouble in the future, eh Snypes? :rolleyes:

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't doubt that it's complicated, but it's nevertheless ridiculous that such a level of inconsistency can exist within the judicial system, and I don't believe for one second that it's down to interpretation.. if it is there are even bigger problems at hand. How can such a horrible crime be interpreted so differently by different judges. As for circumstance, that should be meaningless when the actual seriousness of the crime is taken into account.

Look, im not a legal eagle, but i do know enough to know that its never black and white.. what the accused did is wrong, and there i no defending that, and if i had my way the jail sentances would be more in line with that of the USA. But cases differ. My ex is a barrister and her job was as a researcher for the judges in the high court. She would never discuss specific cases, but when we would discuss why there can be such a perceived disparity between what would be similar cases you might understand why it takes so long to becume a legal professional

The easy answer is to say the law is an arse - this is shocking and continue on a line off rabble rabble that is similar to that of the brain dead opinions and solutions expressed about the running of our country without knowing a single thing about it, but the reality is different.

I just would prefer and i think society would prefer if the base level sentances were higher

sagat2

scientific1982 wrote: »

Hard labour is the way forward.

Include castration and I'll fully agree.

Teutorix

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

13 is a teenager...

Well numerically yes, 13 is still a child in terms of maturity though.

Chaotic_Forces

snyper wrote: »

The easy answer is to say the law is an arse

I'd imagine it's just that people are human; they given different sentences. Some judge might see rape as the ultimate crime and others would see it as worth a fine.

flyton5

This seems to be fitting punishment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Centipede_(First_Sequence)

Chaotic_Forces

Teutorix wrote: »

Well numerically yes, 13 is still a child in terms of maturity though.

I meant it for the other user.

Meh; it depends. Some people look in their early 20s at age 12/13

Teutorix

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

I meant it for the other user.

Meh; it depends. Some people look in their early 20s at age 12/13

I didnt mean aesthetically, I meant mentally.

optogirl

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

So having an attraction to teenagers = death sentence?

No - raping 13 year old girls is the problem here - not having an attraction to teenagers. Any normally socialised adult man would NOT be attracted to girls of 13 years of age.

Chaotic_Forces

Teutorix wrote: »

I didnt mean aesthetically, I meant mentally.

Again; it can depend. Some kids are forced to grow up far faster than you or I.

Of course I'm not actually saying they should be raped or anything.

optogirl wrote: »

No - raping 13 year old girls is the problem here - not having an attraction to teenagers. Any normally socialised adult man would NOT be attracted to girls of 13 years of age.

Except that some 13 year old girls look like grown women at times.
And yes raping is wrong; regardless of age.

optogirl

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

I meant it for the other user.

Meh; it depends. Some people look in their early 20s at age 12/13

They were his daughter's friends - he hardly thought a group of 20 somethings were coming round for a sleepover with his 13 year old daughter???

jimthemental

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Not really; I'm not saying she shouldn't have said anything.

But she is a homewrecker. At least in the meaning of the word.



Logically she wrecked the family home; a "homewrecker"...

Seriously, how do youse not understand it?

Yes it was bad to call her it but there was a reason.

That is completely out of line. You know you're just trying to elicit a response here but I don't get why. This man disgusts me and I hate to say it but the judge disgusts me too. I would give this animal the maximum possible and have him placed on the offenders list for life. Sick.

Chaotic_Forces

optogirl wrote: »

They were his daughter's friends - he hardly thought a group of 20 somethings were coming round for a sleepover with his 13 year old daughter???

I'm not talking about the girls in this case obviously; I'm talking about in general it can happen...

Chaotic_Forces

jimthemental wrote: »

That is completely out of line. You know you're just trying to elicit a response here but I don't get why. This man disgusts me and I hate to say it but the judge disgusts me too. I would give this animal the maximum possible and have him placed on the offenders list for life. Sick.

I'm not saying she deserved it! But you know whatever; I'm comfortable that I understand why they called her it.

AckwelFoley

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

I'd imagine it's just that people are human; they given different sentences. Some judge might see rape as the ultimate crime and others would see it as worth a fine.

A judge doesnt pull a decision out of thin air or at a whim. Their decision generally is taken from legal precedent set.If a judge decides to use his own opinion that for example goes outside a set precedent, it will be challenged and likely to be overturned, hence - if a decision appears too harsh or too lenient, it will be challenged and unless there is precedent set, its likely the challenge will be sucessful

Snakeblood

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Not really; I'm not saying she shouldn't have said anything.

But she is a homewrecker. At least in the meaning of the word.



Logically she wrecked the family home; a "homewrecker"...

Seriously, how do youse not understand it?

Yes it was bad to call her it but there was a reason.

She didn't wreck the home. She was attacked.

There's no reason to call her that.

A homewrecker is a negative statement implying she actively contributed to the wrecking of a home, which she didn't.

Teutorix

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

I'm not talking about the girls in this case obviously; I'm talking about in general it can happen...

It can happen? so a guy might rape a girl and in court say i thought she was 18 :rolleyes: dosent make it any better.

Chaotic_Forces

snyper wrote: »

A judge doesnt pull a decision out of thin air or at a whim. Their decision generally is taken from legal precedent set.If a judge decides to use his own opinion that for example goes outside a set precedent, it will be challenged and likely to be overturned, hence - if a decision appears too harsh or too lenient, it will be challenged and unless there is precedent set, its likely the challenge will be sucessful

Okay; too much legally talk. :P

Basically: set rules and restrictions, go outside them and it's challenged?

Chaotic_Forces

Snakeblood wrote: »

She didn't wreck the home. She was attacked.

There's no reason to call her that.

A homewrecker is a negative statement implying she actively contributed to the wrecking of a home, which she didn't.

Let's say I'm married. I cheat with a girl; she has no idea I'm married.

People can still think she's a homewrecker. It doesn't mean she is though.

THat help you understand?

Teutorix wrote: »

It can happen? so a guy might rape a girl and in court say i thought she was 18 :rolleyes: dosent make it any better.

Please stop suggesting I ever said it was okay to rape a girl.

Snakeblood

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Let's say I'm married. I cheat with a girl; she has no idea I'm married.

People can still think she's a homewrecker. It doesn't mean she is though.

THat help you understand?

Well, no, because this guy attacked a girl. It's a different circumstance, with a predator rather than a consensual act. I don't really understand, and I doubt I'm going to.

Chaotic_Forces

Snakeblood wrote: »

Well, no, because this guy attacked a girl. It's a different circumstance, with a predator rather than a consensual act. I don't really understand, and I doubt I'm going to.

That's fine; I've tried to help you see my logic.

Agree to disagree?

Saadyst

I'm glad you "understand" why the victims of sexual abuse could be called "homewreckers" Chaotic... It's great you got the meaningful stuff sorted out quick right? :rolleyes:

Chaotic_Forces

Saadyst wrote: »

I'm glad you "understand" why the victims of sexual abuse could be called "homewreckers" Chaotic... It's great you got the meaningful stuff sorted out quick right? :rolleyes:

It's not that hard to understand TBH.

She was attacked, told and caused the husband to go.

She did technically wreck the home by telling; that's the logic the schoolkids think by too.
So did she deserve it? No obviously. Is she one? Meh; depends on your view. I don't think she is but I can easily understand why people would think it.

optogirl

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

It's not that hard to understand TBH.

She was attacked, told and caused the husband to go.

She did technically wreck the home by telling; that's the logic the schoolkids think by too.
So did she deserve it? No obviously. Is she one? Meh; depends on your view. I don't think she is but I can easily understand why people would think it.

She would have no reason to 'tell' if the fúckwit hadn't attacked her. In no way can she be seen as a homewrecker - that home is better off without him. And 'Meh' is not an appropriate response to questions about rape

optogirl

optogirl wrote: »

She would have no reason to 'tell' if the fúckwit hadn't attacked her. In no way can she be seen as a homewrecker - that home is better off without him. And 'Meh' is not an appropriate response to questions about rape

It is when you think your the "Tommy Tiernan" of Boards.ie.:rolleyes: