15 years for torching a pub but only 10 for raping a child

Nevyn

The person who wrote the piece is a reported and works the serious crime courts and sees all the cases and that is one of the most recent ones she has had to sit through and report on and she sees some of the results of the crimes commieted on the lives of women and girls who have come forward and who's cases get to court.

She is pointing out a pattern and how these crimes are not given the attentions they are due and how messed up the 'punishment' for them are.

Ickle Magoo

Out of interest, just how antiquated is the irish legal system - does anyone know if those charged with serious sexual crimes against children are still afforded the right to cross-examine them, even those like Walsh who have prior history?

pickarooney

Who is ultimately responsible for the lenience of the sentencing laws? Who is the person, or group of persons who have the power to make the changes the public, the police and the judges are regularly calling for and why aren't they doing something about this ongoing problem?

ztoical

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The Judge will take care of badgering or intimidation.
I think that people should be allowed to represent themselves in court.

Rape is not about sex it is about control and the simple act of a rapist sitting across a room from their victim is enough indimidation and there is nothing a judge can do about that. Would you have a 6/7 year old child questioned in front of a court room full of people by their attacker? What about cases of abuse which have gone on for years and the abuser had a high position of authority over the victim? Long term abuse victims are condition by their abusers and it takes so much for them to come forward and then they are expected to be ripped apart in a public setting. It's one of the main reasons so much rape and abuse goes unreported.

munchkin_utd

whats the problem?

the irish voters elect irish politicans, not to make laws (i.e. as legislators) but as representatives for your area who will get services for your area or pull strokes to get people a last minute passport or the likes.

if
a) people conciously voted for politicans that worked for the country, politicans that brought laws forward that made sence
AND
b) politicans spent less time on local matters and more on the bigger national picture

then you wouldnt have such nonesence as this lenient sentence.

(and you wouldnt have the banking crisis as that was also a symptom of the back scratching politics that has ruined ireland)

PCPhoto

amacachi wrote: »

Simply put it doesn't suit anyone in a position to do something about it to fix things. I'm not going to go off on one about the Gardaí and the rest of the law but in this country every element of law enforcement is rotten to the core. There are of course some Gardaí who do give a crap but I'd say most of them have that driven out of them pretty early on.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree - its the legal system in general just needs reform, unfortunately due to the nanny state we live in and the huge amount of "human rights" activists and small number of gardai who abuse their position.... we are in a situation where the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

- We do not have space to keep criminals in prison
- We do not have sufficient gardai on the streets to catch criminals and deter them from committing crimes.
- We do not have many judges who have a proper understanding of the effects of crime on a victim (be it robbery/rape/assault etc)
- We do not have proper resources to support victims of crime
- We do not have sufficient punishments to deter criminals


If I had my chance to change things I would set a mandatory minimum of 5yrs for any conviction following X number of convictions..... so as to attempt to deter career criminals - with increased sentencing for repeat criminals.(we have kids as young as 15 with over 50 convictions)
no remission - unless they actively changed and it was a visible change.
absolutely no drugs (they know how the drugs are getting in - its not that difficult to stop it) - granted this may cause issue with those addicted who are serving a sentence which may take less time than drug rehab...but tough nuggies.
absolutely no mobile phone reception within the prison - in this day and age its not that difficult to do these days

meh.... I could go on and on.

PCPhoto

munchkin_utd wrote: »

whats the problem?

the irish voters elect irish politicans, not to make laws (i.e. as legislators) but as representatives for your area who will get services for your area or pull strokes to get people a last minute passport or the likes.

if
a) people conciously voted for politicans that worked for the country, politicans that brought laws forward that made sence
AND
b) politicans spent less time on local matters and more on the bigger national picture

then you wouldnt have such nonesence as this lenient sentence.

(and you wouldnt have the banking crisis as that was also a symptom of the back scratching politics that has ruined ireland)

Hopefully people will ask the serious questions when the canvassing starts - I have a list of questions stuck to the back of the door for any political candidates that call to my door - unfortunately they never do - just get lackeys to throw their junk mail into my letterbox - despite my "no junkmail" sign.

metrovelvet

I think they have to come up with an entirely different paradigm for rape cases.

I dont think they allow pedophilia victims to be cross examined - I think they have set up a whole different method for kids, why cant they do this for adults?

Nevyn

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Out of interest, just how antiquated is the irish legal system - does anyone know if those charged with serious sexual crimes against children are still afforded the right to cross-examine them, even those like Walsh who have prior history?

The majority of the body of Irish laws are in fact British laws from when Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Were as the UK laws have under gone massive reform over the last 60 years that has been very very slow to happen here.

http://www.lawreform.ie

We do have a law reform commission established in 1975 but as often happens change is grindingly so and it's not until a case happens in the courts that change is called for.

The last referendum on abortion has still not be legislated for,
we have had the statutory rape case fall out which still has not be address with changes to the law, and the Kilkenny incest case which has show up the fact that a woman can't be charged with incest which is maddess and also the definition of rape under the law is skewed as well.

pickarooney wrote: »

Who is ultimately responsible for the lenience of the sentencing laws? Who is the person, or group of persons who have the power to make the changes the public, the police and the judges are regularly calling for and why aren't they doing something about this ongoing problem?

Sentencing guidelines are laid down by the Dept of Justice and appeals are handed by the The Court of Criminal Appeals when the Department of Prosecution brings one. If they choose not do then the victims has no recourse.

http://www.courts.ie/courts.ie/Library3.nsf/pagecurrent/B68454B7DF792E6480256D8700502304

An appeal may be made to the Court of Criminal Appeal against sentence only, conviction only or against both sentence and conviction. The DPP may also appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal on grounds of alleged undue leniency of sentence under the Criminal Justice Act 1993, Section 2

cdaly_

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Out of interest, just how antiquated is the irish legal system - does anyone know if those charged with serious sexual crimes against children are still afforded the right to cross-examine them, even those like Walsh who have prior history?

AIUI, prior history may not be mentioned during a trial. The trial concerns itself only with the facts* of this case and no other.




* Opinions are not allowed from any witness with the exception of an 'expert witness' who would be the author of something like a psychological report or a forensic report.

pickarooney

Thaedydal wrote: »

Sentencing guidelines are laid down by the Dept of Justice and appeals are handed by the The Court of Criminal Appeals when the Department of Prosecution brings one. If they choose not do then the victims has no recourse.

Who are these people though and why are they not responding to calls to reform an obviously flawed system? Can they be voted out?

Nevyn

pickarooney wrote: »

Who are these people though and why are they not responding to calls to reform an obviously flawed system? Can they be voted out?

It is up to the Minister for Justice to direct the civil servants to push law reform.

Nevyn

Victims do have the recourse for a civil damages case, it's a tatic now often used in the UK and USA were the criminal courts have failed. Today the high court awarded a large amount against a man who got a shockingly low sentence for child abuse. Victims have a lot more say in those types of civil cases.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1124/1224284025980.html

Child abuser ordered to pay €1.8m to victims

A MAN who sexually abused a female singer and another man when they were children has been ordered by a High Court jury to pay his victims €830,000 and €945,000 damages respectively.

Majella Murphy (37) told the jury yesterday that the five-month prison sentence served by her abuser Michael Butler (87), was less than some people had served for failing to have a television licence.

Butler, Maudlin Street, Kilkenny, had pleaded guilty at Kilkenny Circuit Court to six counts of indecently assaulting Ms Murphy on dates between April 1983 and October 1984.

Ms Murphy had waived her right to anonymity when Butler was sentenced last year to two years’ imprisonment, with 18 months suspended. He served five months after remission.

The second victim of Butler, a man now aged in his 30s, was awarded €945,000 after the jury found Butler had abused him between 1984 and 1991.

Butler was previously given a two-year sentence for abusing that man – whose identity cannot be disclosed by court order – and the entire two-year term was suspended.

Both victims had taken High Court proceedings against Butler, seeking damages for sexual assault and battery.

He did not defend the proceedings.

The jury was told both plaintiffs suffered horrific abuse at the hands of Butler who, it was stated, also preyed on other children.

Both plaintiffs said they found it difficult to return to their home town because Butler still lived there.

The man said he was particularly upset Butler still went to Mass every day as he thought this was “a kind of blasphemy”.

The court was told yesterday by Michael Gleeson SC, for Ms Murphy, that judgment in default of defence had previously been granted against Butler, who was not represented yesterday, and the case was before the jury for assessment of damages only.

The jury of six men and six women took about 45 minutes to find Butler had sexually assaulted Ms Murphy and about 40 minutes to find he did the same to the second victim before awarding them their respective damages.

Psychiatrists called on behalf of both victims said the abuse was the major factor in problems both had experienced afterwards. Ms Murphy developed an eating disorder and became an alcoholic, while the man also became an alcoholic, developed a drug problem and contemplated committing suicide, the court was told.

In evidence, Ms Murphy said Butler, a single man, regularly invited children to his home.

She said the abuse started when she was just eight years old.

Her parents were good people and did the best they could, but were under pressure at the time and she was having trouble at home, she said.

The abuse stopped when she was about 13 but she had never been able to tell her parents and it was not until she was about 22 that she told a friend about it, she said.

Butler intimidated her and went crying to neighbours telling the “most horrific lies” about her to such an extent that she was ostracised by neighbours and her family, she also said.

Ms Murphy said she had undergone a number of treatments for her eating disorder and alcoholism and today was a singer-songwriter and had been nominated two years ago for a Meteor award.

She had also written a book which she hoped to have published and was starting her second book, she said.

Ms Murphy added she thought it was “atrocious” Butler had only served a five-month sentence. The only way to stand up to the likes of Butler was to “shine a big bright light on them”.

In the man’s case, the jury heard Butler’s abuse of him started when he was aged five or six and continued until he was aged 13 or 14.

The man said he then started taking drink and drugs and had travelled extensively to “get away” from what Butler had done to him.

He was disgusted by Butler and could not believe his abuser was “still walking around” and had the audacity to continue living where he does, he said.

Wolfe Tone

I think that by removing the right of a person to represent themselves in particular cases will cast the accused in a guilty light, as it will be giving the impression that the person is in fact a rapist or whatever, before the court rules whether he or she actually is.



With regard to civil cases the reason why punishments are more severe, or you may see people being ruled against in civil cases and found innocent in civil cases rest on two main ideas:
In criminal cases a decision must be reached beyond reasonable doubt
Civil cases are decided on the balance of probabilities.

There is a HUGE difference, and rightfully so.

amacachi

PCPhoto wrote: »

I'm sorry but I have to disagree - its the legal system in general just needs reform, unfortunately due to the nanny state we live in and the huge amount of "human rights" activists and small number of gardai who abuse their position.... we are in a situation where the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

- We do not have space to keep criminals in prison
- We do not have sufficient gardai on the streets to catch criminals and deter them from committing crimes.
- We do not have many judges who have a proper understanding of the effects of crime on a victim (be it robbery/rape/assault etc)
- We do not have proper resources to support victims of crime
- We do not have sufficient punishments to deter criminals


If I had my chance to change things I would set a mandatory minimum of 5yrs for any conviction following X number of convictions..... so as to attempt to deter career criminals - with increased sentencing for repeat criminals.(we have kids as young as 15 with over 50 convictions)
no remission - unless they actively changed and it was a visible change.
absolutely no drugs (they know how the drugs are getting in - its not that difficult to stop it) - granted this may cause issue with those addicted who are serving a sentence which may take less time than drug rehab...but tough nuggies.
absolutely no mobile phone reception within the prison - in this day and age its not that difficult to do these days

meh.... I could go on and on.

I agree the legal system is a massive problem as well. A friend of a friend had dozens of charges for joyriding before he was 17. Then I saw him driving around again. Shocked, I asked how he got insurance. Turns out the charges he was done on weren't traffic offences, they only ever charged him with theft etc., so he was free to get a licence and insurance when he turned 17. The Gardai have to have known this, year they still made the "mistake". "Mistakes" from the Gardai have cost two young men their lives in the last 2 years that I know of in this town. I try not to attribute malice to that which can be attributed to incompetence, but I know enough to know that there are reasons for protecting certain people. When mistakes are made with the same suspects again and again one must marvel at how they continually get lucky with the Gardai making mistakes.

goose2005

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If you think an alleged rapist should be allowed to cross-examine, possibly badger and twist what their alleged victim is saying by giving them the power to converse directly with them then we clearly have very different ideas on what constitutes justice. It does no harm to an innocent man to have his counsel cross-examine the victim and have that as the legal norm in serious sexual crime situations - I can see no benefit and infinite harm in letting an alleged rapist cross-examine their alleged victim.

I'm actually astonished in this day and age that anyone would support someone who may very well be a rapist cross-examining their alleged victim. Why take the chance of giving an alleged rapist carte blanch to intimidate their alleged victim further if there is an alternative available? It seems like a thoroughly unnecessary and heartless practice designed to aggrandize an already horrendous experience.

fyp

By the way, there's no way he'll serve 10 years, probably only 6 or so. Even lifers can be released after 12 years.

Ickle Magoo

Of course it's alleged prior to verdict but the fact remains that if found guilty the irish legal system would have allowed/does allow a rapist to cross-examine their victim, something other countries did away with up to a decade ago. Sticking in an emboldened alleged in front of either rapist or victim doesn't change the point I'm making btw.

Wolfe Tone

If you say he cant then you already treating his as if he is guilty, which he may not be.

Ickle Magoo

cdaly_ wrote: »

AIUI, prior history may not be mentioned during a trial. The trial concerns itself only with the facts* of this case and no other.




* Opinions are not allowed from any witness with the exception of an 'expert witness' who would be the author of something like a psychological report or a forensic report.

I appreciate that, I just find it astonishing that a child rapist was released from his cell to allow him to conduct questioning on someone accusing him of likewise...its a rotten system, whatever way you look at it.

Ickle Magoo

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

If you say he cant then you already treating his as if he is guilty, which he may not be.

Why would this only be an issue here, though? Surely if everyone accused of a serious sexual crime had to have a legal representative question the alleged victim then it would still be a level playing field - as it is elsewhere. It seems incredibly backward to start from the assumption that no victim requires protection as they could be lying as opposed to protecting the victims of a crime that often stems from power-play and already has a dismal conviction rate.

Would you have minors cross-examined by their alleged abusers? Lest anyone think the abuser guilty by virtue of not being allowed to personally harangue the child in the dock?

Wolfe Tone

Well the courts are rightfully tipped in favor of the accused from the beginning. My concern would be if you say that he cannot represent himself if accused of serious sexual assaults, why not minor ones too?(remember its all subjective someone cold be hugely affected by a minor sexual assault) And while we are at it, why not assault cases too? The person may be terrified of the person who assaulted them.

Ickle Magoo

That's a bit of needless what-ifery which doesn't actually answer the question regarding why it should be viewed an absolute necessity that someone accused of a serious sexual crime should always be allowed to grill the person bringing the charges against them?

For the record I'd have no issue with someone not being able to question their victim regardless of the crime. Why in this day and age its deemed at all important that an alleged criminal should have the "right" to question their alleged victim regardless of circumstance strikes me as belonging in the annuls of history anyway. Thankfully law and the legal systems are not written in stone.

Wolfe Tone

Its not needless what ifery. How can you justify victims bein cross examined in one case and not in another? Or indeed being allowed to represent yourself in one case and not in another?
From where I am coming from it is an absolute necessity that people be allowed to conduct their defenses in court as they see fit(regardless of the nature of the crime), that includes being allowed to represent yourself.

alleged criminal should have the "right" to question their alleged victim

Why shouldn't they? They are innocent until proven guilty.

minidazzler

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Its not needless what ifery. How can you justify victims bein cross examined in one case and not in another? Or indeed being allowed to represent yourself in one case and not in another?
From where I am coming from it is an absolute necessity that people be allowed to conduct their defenses in court as they see fit(regardless of the nature of the crime), that includes being allowed to represent yourself.

Why shouldn't they? They are innocent until proven guilty.

Noone has said that victims should not be cross-examined, just that the accused shouldn't be cross-examining them. When you are terrified of someone and are forced to talk to them, how are you gonna think straight, especially while reliving the memory of why you are terrified of them.

Wolfe Tone

minidazzler wrote: »

Noone has said that victims should not be cross-examined, just that the accused shouldn't be cross-examining them. When you are terrified of someone and are forced to talk to them, how are you gonna think straight, especially while reliving the memory of why you are terrified of them.

Again we are going under the assumption that the accused is guilty.

minidazzler

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Again we are going under the assumption that the accused is guilty.

No, we are under the assumption that if the accused is guilty the victim is gonna be scared of them.

CamperMan

the problem here is that the guy burnt down a pub... this means that the government lost it's tax revenue whilst the pub was closed.. a serious crime in this money grabbing governments eyes...

raping a 10 year old... well, just look at the catholic church and what they got up to, even the pope said "we must get Church Pedophilia down to acceptable levels"

a disgrace !!

sam34

she has a major factual inaccuracy in her writings:

As we’ve seen in the case of Dan Foley from Listowel, who had his hand shaken by dozens of men as he awaited a sentence for the rape of a local woman, even public attitudes can be shockingly biased against the victim

Dan Foley was not "awaiting sentencing for rape" as he was not convicted of rape, he was convicted of sexual assault.

she's leaving herself wide open to a libel case there

Wolfe Tone

minidazzler wrote: »

No, we are under the assumption that if the accused is guilty the victim is gonna be scared of them.

So you are treating the accused as if he is guilty. Which is unfair.

Citygirl1

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I think that by removing the right of a person to represent themselves in particular cases will cast the accused in a guilty light, as it will be giving the impression that the person is in fact a rapist or whatever, before the court rules whether he or she actually is.


Mussolini. In a scenario where your own sister, daughter or wife had been a victim of rape, and was, naturally, absolutely terrified and intimidated by the perpetrator, can you honestly say that you would be comfortable for her to be cross-examined directly by the perpetrator, on the basis that this would be granting him his "rights".

It is naturally in his interest to humiliate the victim, and make her evidence less credible by upsetting her. We really couldn't expect more. The necessary cross examination can surely be done by the accused 's solicitor, and they could at least be expected to act like a professional.

What horrifies me about the legal system in Ireland is that it is geared almost entirely to the "rights" of the accused. They have the right to free legal aid (at our expense). There should be no reason why they should have to defend themselves. Why does the victim have no "rights" in this scenario?

If the accused is innocent, surely the defence team is better placed to ask the probing questions required to unveil this?