Let off too easy

DeadlyTwig

There was an article in the newspaper today about a woman who got groped by a man a few months ago. They went to court and he received a five hundred euro fine :eek: that was it

Also, last year, a man was caught touching himself while parked at a primary school near my house. He was caught and fined 250e

How can people be let away with things like this?? As a girl, its unnerving to know that people like that can walk around without any monitoring.

Any thoughts?

Wolfe Tone

Well what do you want? Micro-chipped? Bracelet? Gardaí to follow them around? All are impracticable and unjustified

liah

I hate, to the bottom of my heart, the fact that I have to say this, but I think we just have to put up with it.

At least that guy got a fine. There's a hell of a lot more who didn't and never will. It's so unbelievably common, it's like some guys think they have the right to touch you just because they like the look of you and expect you to reciprocate, it's bloody fecking infuriating but there's no real way to police it.

PeteEd

the "ladies" can get let off quite easy too...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056181720

DeadlyTwig

people like that clearly have something wrong with them though. They should be at least be put on a sex register.

phasers

I think it's hard to strike a balance here tbh. I don't think groping warrants any kind of prison sentence personally.

Wolfe Tone

DeadlyTwig wrote: »

people like that clearly have something wrong with them though. They should be at least be put on a sex register.

Is that really fair though? When people mention "sex register" they think of predatory paedophiles and the like, not relatively "minor" sexual offences

liah

DeadlyTwig wrote: »

people like that clearly have something wrong with them though. They should be at least be put on a sex register.

Not necessarily true, I think with a large amount of them it's that they just don't think, at all, about the implications of their actions or how it could be perceived as anything but a compliment.

They just need to learn it's not okay, I don't think they (at least, not all of them) necessarily have anything fundamentally wrong with them. It's like teaching a child not to hit, they're not hitting 'cuz there's something wrong with them, just that they haven't been taught it's wrong yet.

DeadlyTwig

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Is that really fair though? When people mention "sex register" they think of predatory paedophiles and the like, not relatively "minor" sexual offences

ok I agree that groping is very minor. But touching yourself around kids? I mean its an accident thats waiting to happen. It's no use after something has happened to say "oh well we thought he might be prone to things like that". peoples lives are already affected at that point.

Maple

PeteEd wrote: »

the "ladies" can get let off quite easy too...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056181720

PeteEd, please do not turn this into another gender debate. Also don't link threads from other forums.

Please familiarise yourself with the charter before posting again in The Ladies Lounge.

Maple.

Wolfe Tone

DeadlyTwig wrote: »

ok I agree that groping is very minor. But touching yourself around kids? I mean its an accident thats waiting to happen. It's no use after something has happened to say "oh well we thought he might be prone to things like that". peoples lives are already affected at that point.

Thats a dangerous road to go down tbf, disgusting as your example is, you cant go around punishing people for stuff they may do

DeadlyTwig

liah wrote: »

Not necessarily true, I think with a large amount of them it's that they just don't think, at all, about the implications of their actions or how it could be perceived as anything but a compliment.

They just need to learn it's not okay, I don't think they (at least, not all of them) necessarily have anything fundamentally wrong with them. It's like teaching a child not to hit, they're not hitting 'cuz there's something wrong with them, just that they haven't been taught it's wrong yet.

I never thought about it that way. Maybe its too easy to condemn. They should be given the resources, therapy etc, to help them recover. A fine is clearly doing nobody any good

DeadlyTwig

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Thats a dangerous road to go down tbf, disgusting as your example is, you cant go around punishing people for stuff they may do

I'm not saying more punishment is needed. Maybe more monitoring of situations like this

PeteEd

ok
apologies

Wolfe Tone

DeadlyTwig wrote: »

I'm not saying more punishment is needed. Maybe more monitoring of situations like this

Well if you stick everyone on the sex register there is no point in having one as they wont be able to monitor a huge amount of people. Even if they could, is that justifiable? It is a clear violation of the persons rights and its a slippery slope

DeadlyTwig

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Well if you stick everyone on the sex register there is no point in having one as they wont be able to monitor a huge amount of people. Even if they could, is that justifiable? It is a clear violation of the persons rights and its a slippery slope

I don't think so. The sex register in England is freely accessible. I mean, what if that guy was a teacher, or a swimming pool instructor?! Vulnerable people shouldn't be needlessly exposed.

It would be naive to think that such a large amount of people could be monitored. It just seemed to me that a fine was a ridiculous way to handle the situation.

Ickle Magoo

And even if they were on a sex offenders register, how exactly is that going to prevent anyone progressing to bigger crimes, anyway? I think most people would be fairly horrified if they knew the volume of criminals, perverts and reprobates that live within a mile of them - it doesn't stop us going about our daily lives.

As horrible as getting groped or fondling near schools is, in the grand scheme of some of the horrificness that goes on out there, it's pretty tame and the judicial sentencing will reflect that.

twinQuins

DeadlyTwig wrote: »

I don't think so. The sex register in England is freely accessible. I mean, what if that guy was a teacher, or a swimming pool instructor?! Vulnerable people shouldn't be needlessly exposed.

And someone who's made a mistake should not be doomed to the life of a social pariah. The authorities are the only people who should have access to such lists, where they are implemented.

I know it's an extreme example but there was a case in the US where a man was put on a sex offenders register because he urinated in public. Worst of all it was only because the bathroom at a filling station was locked.

It would be naive to think that such a large amount of people could be monitored. It just seemed to me that a fine was a ridiculous way to handle the situation.

The problem with this is that all too often the average person gets the story without all the facts that the courts have access to.

Cheap Thrills!

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think most people would be fairly horrified if they knew the volume of criminals, perverts and reprobates that live within a mile of them

I know, people seem to think the only ones are the ones they read about in the paper or see in court, but they're all over the place.

Young, old, apparently respectable, scruffy, everything.

The ones we know about who make it to court are the tip of the iceberg.

goose2005

But why only a register for sex offences? Wouldn't you also want to know if your neighbour was a murderer or a thief? Or that your boyfriend had a domestic violence conviction?

Tea drinker

Are there any womens rights groups willing to pressure the judiciary about this kind of slack sentencing? Why are women forced to put up with this kind of people running around when they are basically defenceless against them? Why do the judiciary insist on pushing these deviants back into society? Is it because the law is lacking (why?) or because FF spent all the money and we can't afford to keep them in prison (e.g 20Mill for a field of farmland to house a new prison) This is the kind of thing:

A CONVICTED rapist attacked a woman just 14 hours after he was released from jail and while he was under garda surveillance.
Trevor Byrne attacked three women during the past 18 years despite only being out of jail for hours during that time. He will be sentenced next month.

Everyday we hear about some repeat offender killing or seriously injuring a person.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rapist-attacked-woman-just-hours-after-release-2547329.html

Raze_them_all

Tea drinker wrote: »

Are there any womens rights groups willing to pressure the judiciary about this kind of slack sentencing? Why are women forced to put up with this kind of people running around when they are basically defenceless against them? Why do the judiciary insist on pushing these deviants back into society? Is it because the law is lacking (why?) or because FF spent all the money and we can't afford to keep them in prison (e.g 20Mill for a field of farmland to house a new prison) This is the kind of thing:

Everyday we hear about some repeat offender killing or seriously injuring a person.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rapist-attacked-woman-just-hours-after-release-2547329.html

No, Women are not. It's thinking like that that makes it easier to victimize someone.

Mat the trasher

Tea drinker wrote: »

Are there any womens rights groups willing to pressure the judiciary about this kind of slack sentencing? Why are women forced to put up with this kind of people running around when they are basically defenceless against them? Why do the judiciary insist on pushing these deviants back into society? Is it because the law is lacking (why?) or because FF spent all the money and we can't afford to keep them in prison (e.g 20Mill for a field of farmland to house a new prison) This is the kind of thing:


Everyday we hear about some repeat offender killing or seriously injuring a person.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rapist-attacked-woman-just-hours-after-release-2547329.html

Perhaps you'd prefer a good ole stoning? As sensible an answer as your sexist post deserves.

Fighting Irish

DeadlyTwig wrote: »

ok I agree that groping is very minor. But touching yourself around kids? I mean its an accident thats waiting to happen. It's no use after something has happened to say "oh well we thought he might be prone to things like that". peoples lives are already affected at that point.

So you want people to be added to the sex offenders list incase something might happen? :rolleyes:

Tea drinker

Mat the trasher wrote: »

Perhaps you'd prefer a good ole stoning? As sensible an answer as your sexist post deserves.

Wow just wow! Seems to me you just want rapists walking the street.
Is that a suitable retort to your answer? If you could just get over your sensitivity to sexist issues and see that this could be one of the best ways to clean up the street...Womens groups have a lot of power and if they complained they might be listened to. If they can get the scum off the street I will gladly cheer them. How is that sexist? Isn't it merely understanding the society we live in and trying to do so using the best method?

Raze them all: Guy has already raped 3 women, so it's 3-0, at least that we know of) that we know of. I don't think women are doing well against this freak. So yeah they seem a bit defenceless. Most men would probably be defencless against him too for that matter. Where is your evidence that 3 or more women have tackled him succesfully?

Amazing the amount of people who will debate the symantics and spelling just because they find a post offensive, but can't think of a pc way to voice why they personally find it offensive.

Ickle Magoo

Can I remind everyone that this is the Ladies Lounge, somewhere for the ladies of boards to discuss issues from a female perspective...if anyone wants to discuss things from any other perspective, use rolley-eyes in response, etc can they take it to the relevant forum.

Cheers. :cool: