Only 12 years for grooming, raping and getting his child pregant.

Morag

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0517/1224297121116.html

A man who admitted grooming his daughter before raping and sexually assaulting her, after which she became pregnant, has received a 12-year sentence to run consecutively to an earlier jail term for raping two other teenage girls.

The 42-year-old man pleaded guilty at the Central Criminal Court to raping the eight-year-old girl from April 20th, 2000, to April 14th, 2007.

Mr Justice Paul Carney, who previously imposed a 12-year sentence on him for raping two other teenagers, said the man had a “propensity when faced with adversity to rape children and young girls”.

He ordered that the 12-year term for raping his daughter begin “upon the lawful termination” of the earlier sentence

He pleaded guilty in 2007 and is only being sentenced now so that's 4 years already served and he only got 6 years each for the two other girls he raped.

I swear that while there are thing I disagree with Andrea Dworkin about there are time her words still hold true.

"We have been asked by many people to accept that women are making progress, because one sees our presence in these places where we weren't before. And those of us who are berated for being radicals have been saying:

'That is not the way we measure progress. We count the number of rapes. We count the women who are being battered. We keep track of the children who are being raped by their fathers. We count the dead. And when those numbers start to change in a way that is meaningful, we will then talk to you about whether or not we can measure progress.'"

--Andrea Dworkin, MASS MURDER IN MONTRÉAL -- The Sexual Politics of Killing Women
in Life and Death.

So he has another 20 years to go. I was afraid it said "concurrently" at the start there.

I wonder if that is the theoretical maximum - I mean is the sentence a result of law or the judge? It's a bit of a relief it IS 20 and not something really absurd as is typical.

Horrific stuff either way, it really is.

eco2live

The second 12 years only kicks in after the first one ends. So 24 years really and one of the longer sentences given out in Ireland.

In my mind he should be killed or spend the rest of his life in prison. I read that his daughter said that she hopes he rots in prison.

What also makes me sick is the suspended sentences given out by judges. If it was their child or partner would they give them a suspended sentence.

I read two stories in the paper over the past two days. One was the oral rape of a 3 year old (5 years suspended). The other was yer man off crimeline with child porn on his computer.

The punishment does not fit the crime or the long term effects on peoples lives.

Morag

24 years in total for raping 3 children one of them his own, I don't think it's long enough at all.

djdrobins

As most of these crimes (most) are committed by men, why do they not impose castration, as well as the obvious jail terms - which should be life in my opinion!

That would curb all disgusting urges, that should be done to all rapists, molesters and abusers once convicted - regardless if they do the time or not. We do it to cats and dogs to stop them straying, or getting into trouble, why not to the sick b#*&ards.

Sorry, perhaps there are some human rights issues - but it would be safer for everyone.

Wibbs

Sharrow wrote: »

24 years in total for raping 3 children one of them his own, I don't think it's long enough at all.

Oh I agree, but by Irish terms S that's pretty damn long. Our sentencing for serious crimes against the person are laughably low.

djdrobins wrote:

Sorry, perhaps there are some human rights issues - but it would be safer for everyone

Yea well for me the first part of our sentence trumps the second. In any case it's unlikely to have any effect. Execution has no effect on murder rates so I suspect castration would be similar.

mike65

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I agree, but by Irish terms S that's pretty damn long. Our sentencing for serious crimes against the person are laughably low.

Yea well for me the first part of our sentence trumps the second. In any case it's unlikely to have any effect. Execution has no effect on murder rates so I suspect castration would be similar.

Thats the thing isn't it, last nights Prime Time Investigates about the Taxi trade included a section about a convicted rapist (the X case) who was out in three years after a subsequent rape in his taxi! The guy should be locked up for good.

dearg lady

Wibbs wrote: »

Yea well for me the first part of our sentence trumps the second. In any case it's unlikely to have any effect. Execution has no effect on murder rates so I suspect castration would be similar.

I don't think castration could be considered a deterent for the crime being committed in the first place, more so to stop a second incident with the same rapist. In any case, I can't condone it, although I did see a programme once about voluntary chemical castration for sex offenders. This was people who were leaving prison and requested it, as they knew that they would otherwise re-offend.

Max Power1

The irish justice (if we can call it that) system is way too lenient.

Some crimes should get a mandatory life sentence. And life should mean "life" as in rot in prison for the rest of your days.

Rape, especially involving children, should definetly be a lifelong prison sentence (at least - if I had my way it would be castration and or execution.) There is just no excuse or sane reasoning behind rape, and if someone commits the crime once they are likely to do it again. Once a rapist/paedophile, always one.

howamidifferent

djdrobins wrote: »

As most of these crimes (most) are committed by men, why do they not impose castration, as well as the obvious jail terms - which should be life in my opinion!

That would curb all disgusting urges, that should be done to all rapists, molesters and abusers once convicted - regardless if they do the time or not. We do it to cats and dogs to stop them straying, or getting into trouble, why not to the sick b#*&ards.

Sorry, perhaps there are some human rights issues - but it would be safer for everyone.

And how would you deal with the issue of men who are wrongly accused and convicted of rape, like the case last year whereby a girl in her 20's admitted she had accused a man of molesting her when she was 10, because her family coached her to say so? He spent years in jail when innocent....based on the recent number of headlines on women who have been proven to cry rape then later admit it was a lie, this appears to happen quite frequently, frequently enough to never put your suggestion into practise...I'm not for one minute defending the guilty, but there are enough innocently accused to warrent caution here....And on that point, where a woman shouts rape where no rape happened, I believe she should get the sentence of life, as the mans life is ruined by rumour and suspicion anyway at that point...:mad:

dearg lady

howamidifferent wrote: »

And on that point, where a woman shouts rape where no rape happened, I believe she should get the sentence of life, as the mans life is ruined by rumour and suspicion anyway at that point...:mad:

what in general is the punishment in this situation do you know?
It's a horrible thing to do, ruins the mans reputation and leaves people more sceptical whenever they hear of a rape claim.

Ms.Odgeynist

Sharrow wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0517/1224297121116.html



He pleaded guilty in 2007 and is only being sentenced now so that's 4 years already served and he only got 6 years each for the two other girls he raped.

I swear that while there are thing I disagree with Andrea Dworkin about there are time her words still hold true.

"We have been asked by many people to accept that women are making progress, because one sees our presence in these places where we weren't before. And those of us who are berated for being radicals have been saying:

'That is not the way we measure progress. We count the number of rapes. We count the women who are being battered. We keep track of the children who are being raped by their fathers. We count the dead. And when those numbers start to change in a way that is meaningful, we will then talk to you about whether or not we can measure progress.'"

--Andrea Dworkin, MASS MURDER IN MONTRÉAL -- The Sexual Politics of Killing Women
in Life and Death.

I have a real problem with discussing women's progress in the context of child rape, or any rape for that matter.
These individuals are sick and extremely dangerous. However, I fear that regardless of how far we come as a society, locally or globally, in terms of gender equality, there will always be mental illness, violence and horrific breaches of justice.
But the urge to castrate these individuals, while understandable, seems ill-judged. These situations test our humanity to the extreme, but lashing out with violence will not serve our future generations well.

Raze_them_all

djdrobins wrote: »

As most of these crimes (most) are committed by men, why do they not impose castration, as well as the obvious jail terms - which should be life in my opinion!

That would curb all disgusting urges, that should be done to all rapists, molesters and abusers once convicted - regardless if they do the time or not. We do it to cats and dogs to stop them straying, or getting into trouble, why not to the sick b#*&ards.

Sorry, perhaps there are some human rights issues - but it would be safer for everyone.

I can honestly see 2 things wrong with this, 1's already been brought; what if the guy has been wrongly convicted?

2. If castration is implimented, those that have been castrated could probably commit rape with impliments and that could be a whole lot nastier.

Raze_them_all

dearg lady wrote: »

what in general is the punishment in this situation do you know?
It's a horrible thing to do, ruins the mans reputation and leaves people more sceptical whenever they hear of a rape claim.

Not severe enough that's for sure.


What punishment would the girl who suggested castration for men suggest happen to women? I remember last year or the year before a mother was convicted of forcing 2 or 3 of her sons to have sex with her


Edit: I actually applaud the judge for imposing a decent sentence that will run as soon as his other one ends. Makes a big difference from the norm in this country.

howamidifferent

Raze_them_all wrote: »

Edit: I actually applaud the judge for imposing a decent sentence that will run as soon as his other one ends. Makes a big difference from the norm in this country.

+1 And likewise I hope he is never released.

squeakyduck

Raze_them_all wrote: »

Not severe enough that's for sure.


What punishment would the girl who suggested castration for men suggest happen to women? I remember last year or the year before a mother was convicted of forcing 2 or 3 of her sons to have sex with her

I remember that news story. Horriffic and so sad.

Personally I think they should be left in a confined space and left to starve and rot. I just don't understand why people have the desire to do something so awful and disgusting. :mad::mad::mad::(

LittleBook

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

I have a real problem with discussing women's progress in the context of child rape, or any rape for that matter.
These individuals are sick and extremely dangerous. However, I fear that regardless of how far we come as a society, locally or globally, in terms of gender equality, there will always be mental illness, violence and horrific breaches of justice.

I agree that these types of crimes may always be with us.

But how these crimes are punished is inextricably linked with the women's progress (or that of any group). Ireland has an utterly abyssmal record for rape reporting and conviction and it's not that long ago that a young man found guilty of raping his girlfriend was told by the judge that he should pay towards a nice holiday for her and received no custodial sentence.

Regarding the Roscommon incest/abuse case:

Judge Reynolds said she would be dealing with the sentencing of the woman with legislation that dates back to 1908.

She pointed out that the maximum sentence she can hand down under this legislation is a term of seven years in prison.

'Had this being a case of a male person being convicted - a much longer sentence would be allowed under more recently amended legislation. A man convicted of incest can be jailed up to a maximum of a life sentence,' she said.

Not exactly progress and beyond insulting to the victims.

So maybe we could all agree to dial back on the calls for castration and I'm sure we all agree that all people convicted of such heinous should be treated equally (harshly) by our justice system.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Wow, I think this is the first time I've ever seen consecutive sentencing used here

Its a pity the judge didn't give consecutive sentences for the two girls he first raped too.

LittleBook

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Wow, I think this is the first time I've ever seen consecutive sentencing used here

Its a pity the judge didn't give consecutive sentences for the two girls he first raped too.

"Concurrent" has become one of my most hated words in the English language :mad:

Ms.Odgeynist

LittleBook wrote: »

I agree that these types of crimes may always be with us.

But how these crimes are punished is inextricably linked with the women's progress (or that of any group). Ireland has an utterly abyssmal record for rape reporting and conviction and it's not that long ago that a young man found guilty of raping his girlfriend was told by the judge that he should pay towards a nice holiday for her and received no custodial sentence.

Regarding the Roscommon incest/abuse case:



Not exactly progress and beyond insulting to the victims.

So maybe we could all agree to dial back on the calls for castration and I'm sure we all agree that all people convicted of such heinous should be treated equally (harshly) by our justice system.

I agree. The harshest punishment is called for.But, while it is extremely difficult, removing emotion from our reactions to these stories is essential in coming to better understand them. Sexual crimes are so prevalent, and so heinous, that action is of course required. But the prevailing attitude sometimes seems to suggest that the perpetrators are simply men who 'can't keep it in their pants', or are too easily influenced by what are instinctual sexual drives.
As a society, our relationship with desire has become so convoluted that a serious rethinking is required. When sex has been criminalised to the point where desire is blamed for paedophilia, or rape, then as a race, we are in trouble.

thebullkf

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I agree, but by Irish terms S that's pretty damn long. Our sentencing for serious crimes against the person are laughably low.

Yea well for me the first part of our sentence trumps the second. In any case it's unlikely to have any effect. Execution has no effect on murder rates so I suspect castration would be similar.

don't think thats right tbh, anyway, the castration will do nothing, these people get mental stiumulation from their actions, if he had no *appendage* he'd use his finger/something else.

An interesting thread in Chridstianity @ the moment about Capital Punishment... do posters here believe this man should be put to death

jimmycrackcorm

How can 24 years be considered lenient when if you murder someone you are out in approx 10 years...

stephendevlin

he should have his "equipment" removed along with other offenders.

Ms.Odgeynist

stephendevlin wrote: »

he should have his "equipment" removed along with other offenders.

U from Saudi by any chance?

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

How can 24 years be considered lenient when if you murder someone you are out in approx 10 years...

Because there are 3 crimes involved here, not 1

stephendevlin

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

U from Saudi by any chance?

Is that what they do there?... Im sure they can come up with something harmelss that can kill the urges. (small guilitine).

kiwi123

This is absolutely criminal... both the rapist and the sentence passed down to him.


I do not agree with the death penalty by any means but i do not believe that this man should be allowed to resume a normal life after the sentence.

I always thought that my own family situation is the norm - supportive, loving parents that want nothing but the best for me. Over the last few years, the older I have gotten I have actually started to consider myself lucky to have a relatively normal (by normal i mean loving, supportive and to be honest - non abusive) family.

I think it's disgusting cases like this have become so common that both myself and many of my friends consider ourselves LUCKY to have a normal upbringing. It's absolutely heartbreaking.


That poor poor girl. I cant even imagine what it's like to be exposed to such abuse.
It just highlights that there is no regulation on what absolute scumbag can have children. something that is considered so sacred by so many and yet still completely abused and neglected by too many
:mad:

LittleBook

bluewolf wrote: »

Because there are 3 crimes involved here, not 1

Three victims ... I'm sure the crime was perpetrated many, many more times than three.

Giselle

Raze_them_all wrote: »

I can honestly see 2 things wrong with this, 1's already been brought; what if the guy has been wrongly convicted?

2. If castration is implimented, those that have been castrated could probably commit rape with impliments and that could be a whole lot nastier.

I believe in legal terms when castration is mentioned, its not physical castration but chemical castration via libido suppressing drugs.

If the libido is suppressed, all sexual urges are greatly diminished (as far as I know), and its reversible on cessation of the drug.

Both men and women can be chemically 'castrated'.

Even so, I greatly object to it. Removal from society is much more acceptable than removing someones rights over their own body.

I know others will say that that is the nature of the crime of rape or sexual assault, but I'm uneasy at that as justification.

Ickle Magoo

stephendevlin wrote: »

Is that what they do there?... Im sure they can come up with something harmelss that can kill the urges. (small guilitine).

In reality it would have to be a lobotomy. While a truly vile and despicable crime, loping the sexual organs off male offenders is not the answer. A) How can such legislation cover women child abusers and rapists Penis/testicles are not the sole domain of urges, most of which involve the brain far more than sexual organs and C) Much like the death penalty, how do you right the wrongs made in the name of justice when you've permanently disfigured someone?

I applaud longer sentences for crimes committed, frankly I'd be happy for them to throw away the key - but do they do anything to reduce the incidence of child abuse and or rape? I'd love to think that huge sentences would be imposed and this would be a crime we hear little of but unfortunately I don't think that would necessarily be the case.

Ms.Odgeynist

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

In reality it would have to be a lobotomy. While a truly vile and despicable crime, loping the sexual organs off male offenders is not the answer. A) How can such legislation cover women child abusers and rapists Penis/testicles are not the sole domain of urges, most of which involve the brain far more than sexual organs and C) Much like the death penalty, how do you right the wrongs made in the name of justice when you've permanently disfigured someone?

I applaud longer sentences for crimes committed, frankly I'd be happy for them to throw away the key - but do they do anything to reduce the incidence of child abuse and or rape? I'd love to think that huge sentences would be imposed and this would be a crime we hear little of but unfortunately I don't think that would necessarily be the case.

Chopping off testicles/penis would in fact be pretty pointless. In most cases of paedophilia, penetration does not occur.

Morag

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

How can 24 years be considered lenient when if you murder someone you are out in approx 10 years...

The 24 year is for the years of abuse of his daughter AND for raping two other girls.
And who knows how soon he'll be out.

Giselle

Wiki's page on chemical castration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration

In 1981, in an experiment by P. Gagne, 48 males with long standing histories of sexually deviant behaviour were given medroxyprogesterone acetate for as long as 12 months. Forty of those subjects were recorded as to have diminished desires for deviant sexual behaviour, less frequent sexual fantasies, and greater control over sexual urges. The research recorded a continuation of this more positive behaviour after the administration of the drug had ended, with no evidence of adverse side effects, and recommended medroxyprogesterone acetate along with counselling as a successful method of treatment for serial sex offenders.

Its been used as a parole condition in the US.

Ms.Odgeynist

Giselle wrote: »

Wiki's page on chemical castration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration



Its been used as a parole condition in the US.

I can see the temptation, and if an offender asks for such a treatment then I feel it should offered. However forcing someone to take any chemical is a step backwards in my opinion.

Morag

I started this thread to point out the case and that this stuff still happens and how he got off lightly and how we still as a society still have far to go to try and protect our kids and that we need increased discussion and awareness, for so many people think this sort of thing doesn't happen, it does and very few cases get to court and that we need to educate and advocate to change the attitudes.

But I am dismayed to see it's become focused on men.

Neyite

Giselle wrote: »

I believe in legal terms when castration is mentioned, its not physical castration but chemical castration via libido suppressing drugs.

If the libido is suppressed, all sexual urges are greatly diminished (as far as I know), and its reversible on cessation of the drug.

Both men and women can be chemically 'castrated'.

Even so, I greatly object to it. Removal from society is much more acceptable than removing someones rights over their own body.

I know others will say that that is the nature of the crime of rape or sexual assault, but I'm uneasy at that as justification.

Are we not told that rape is about power, not sex? Therefore, removal of sexual urges from a person will not stop their urges to dominate another and use force. The only difference is that they will use implements instead of their penis, as its about dominance, humiliation, torture and control.
And I cant believe an evil monster turns into a benevolent "Werthers original" grandad due to medication/ surgical procedure. No medication is that good, that it changes a persons personality, surely?

tan11ie

djdrobins wrote: »

Sorry, perhaps there are some human rights issues - but it would be safer for everyone.

Men like that don't deserve human rights!! They are F***ing BEASTS !

Ms.Odgeynist

Sharrow wrote: »

I started this thread to point out the case and that this stuff still happens and how he got off lightly and how we still as a society still have far to go to try and protect our kids and that we need increased discussion and awareness, for so many people think this sort of thing doesn't happen, it does and very few cases get to court and that we need to educate and advocate to change the attitudes.

But I am dismayed to see it's become focused on men.

I think you'll find it is focused on punishment.
With all due respect Sharrow, I feel you are overly sensitive. Noone has mentioned 'men' as a topic, only punishment options, ethics etc..

Maguined

Sharrow wrote: »

I started this thread to point out the case and that this stuff still happens and how he got off lightly and how we still as a society still have far to go to try and protect our kids and that we need increased discussion and awareness, for so many people think this sort of thing doesn't happen, it does and very few cases get to court and that we need to educate and advocate to change the attitudes.

But I am dismayed to see it's become focused on men.

What do you mean by needing to educate and advocate to change the attitudes?

I think most people are dismayed at the little sentencing that happens to serious crime, I have never had a conversation about criminal sentencing with anyone who thought that the current terms were sufficient and did not need to be more severe for such severe crimes.

I think the average person wants more severe sentences but we do not control the law and there is no political party that has made a mandate on criminal sentencing for people to vote for.

rainbow kirby

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

With all due respect Sharrow, I feel you are overly sensitive.

Attack the post, not the poster.

Wibbs

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

However forcing someone to take any chemical is a step backwards in my opinion.

One could argue that people with dangerous delusions caused by mental illness are "forced" to take chemicals for their own good and the good of society. If chemical castration works or helps alleviate these abhorrent urges I don't see what the problem is making it court mandated.

Ms.Odgeynist

Wibbs wrote: »

One could argue that people with dangerous delusions caused by mental illness are "forced" to take chemicals for their own good and the good of society. If chemical castration works or helps alleviate these abhorrent urges I don't see what the problem is making it court mandated.

I don't think we can equate drugs that are administered by doctors for the relief of an assumed Psychological condition with drugs administered at the behest of judges. The use of drugs for the treatment of the mentally ill is controversial as it is, I don't think dosing prisoners will help matters.

djdrobins

I apologize, I think that I may have inadvertently introduced anger in the form of punishment with my comment.
I suggested the Castration issue, as, like has been mentioned here, it can be done both physically and chemically and also to both parties.
My initial point of castration was not for the physical punishment but for the behavioural reconditioning - as with the comment with the cats and dogs - it curbs urges that are primordial. I think (being a man, and totally disgusted by the thought etc) that sometimes the act of rape is not always for sexual pleasure, or dominance, but some people are just wired wrong.
And the point of wrongful prosecution - then the chemical castration can be used where appeals etc are introduced. But where there is none and the party has been convicted rightfully - then this should be a non-runner - physical castration. (although my biology is not great, not sure how to castrate a female).
Again sorry if this seems to be getting off the topic of the judges decision with the sentence, but no sentence is long enough. I can't imagine if one of my 3 daughters was ever touched by someone - but I know the judge would not listen to my plea for temporary insanity when I am after slaughtering the pig who touches my girls!

LeeHoffmann

I think the average person wants more severe sentences but we do not control the law and there is no political party that has made a mandate on criminal sentencing for people to vote for.

we need increased discussion and awareness, for so many people think this sort of thing doesn't happen, it does and very few cases get to court and that we need to educate and advocate to change the attitudes.

I agree with both. I agree that most people (most people I've spoken with about this topic) seem to think things like this are exceptional. That needs to change IMO as the stats say 1 in 4. I read recently that in Ireland 12% of all reported rapes make it to court and 7% of those end in a conviction OR 12% of rapes are reported and 7% end in a conviction (Can't remember which - anyone heard of it? I can't find it on google). Either way it means that less than 1% of rapes end in a conviction. Apparently only 2% of rapes around the world end in conviction http://drexelwomensstudies.wordpress.com/resources/rape-what-you-should-know/

However I also agree that most people want to see more severe sentences for convicted rapists/paedophiles etc. I can't begin to comprehend why they tend to be so lenient :eek:

borderlinemeath

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

I can see the temptation, and if an offender asks for such a treatment then I feel it should offered. However forcing someone to take any chemical is a step backwards in my opinion.

I feel that it should be used on repeat offenders - such as the case in point. If they have been continually forcing themselves on victims then they should lose the ability to perpetrate the crime, as they have shown scant concern for their victims welfare.

I also think that if a first time offender that has pled guilty and has been released early/paroled from his sentance - that chemical castration should be a very real threat as a punishment should they reoffend.

Max Power1

tan11ie wrote: »

Men (and women) like that don't deserve human rights!! They are F***ing BEASTS !

+1, but FYP

Rape is not a crime solely perpetrated by males.

Ickle Magoo

Max Power1 wrote: »

Rape is not a crime solely perpetrated by males.

While that is true, it is also not a 50/50 ratio - nothing like it, in fact. I think that can & should be acknowledged without the usual drum banging.

I don't think it is at all unreasonable for the ladies of the ladies lounge to discuss rape, on a thread about the rape of a female child by their father using phraseology such as "men like that"...

Giselle

Neyite wrote: »

Are we not told that rape is about power, not sex? Therefore, removal of sexual urges from a person will not stop their urges to dominate another and use force. The only difference is that they will use implements instead of their penis, as its about dominance, humiliation, torture and control.
And I cant believe an evil monster turns into a benevolent "Werthers original" grandad due to medication/ surgical procedure. No medication is that good, that it changes a persons personality, surely?

Rape is about power, pedophilia is an orientation.

Rape as power using forced sex as the weapon of exerting it, could be perhaps neutralised by a reduction in sexual desire.

Pedophilia is a combination of irresistable urge/orientation, and a reduction in libido would reduce the urge to act on the impulse.

I don't advocate it, in fact while I see the potential benefits to society it just makes me uncomfortable to think of a person under obligation in that way.

It won't change someone into the Werthers grandad, but your sexuality is certainly part of who you are, so in that way yes, I do think it has character changing potential.

BengaLover

They should bring back the stocks especially for paedophiles...and let the public at em..:mad:

diddlybit

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I agree with both. I agree that most people (most people I've spoken with about this topic) seem to think things like this are exceptional. That needs to change IMO as the stats say 1 in 4. I read recently that in Ireland 12% of all reported rapes make it to court and 7% of those end in a conviction OR 12% of rapes are reported and 7% end in a conviction (Can't remember which - anyone heard of it? I can't find it on google). Either way it means that less than 1% of rapes end in a conviction. Apparently only 2% of rapes around the world end in conviction http://drexelwomensstudies.wordpress.com/resources/rape-what-you-should-know/

These statistics on conviction are taken from the SAVI report published in 2000:

Of 238 women that reported rape in the study, 180 were reported to the guards, of those 51 had criminal procedings which resulted in 2 convictions. About 1% rate.

Pretty horrendous stuff.

The executive report is here

http://epubs.rcsi.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=psycholrep&sei-redir=1#search="savi+report"

LeeHoffmann

Pedophilia is a combination of irresistable urge/orientation

if he/she can't resist it, then he/she is not to blame.

a reduction in libido would reduce the urge to act on the impulse.
I don't advocate it, in fact while I see the potential benefits to society it just makes me uncomfortable to think of a person under obligation in that way

. I'm not comfortable with castration either but if I believed that paedophilia was an irresistable urge and therefore the paedophile had no choice but to do it, and also believed that castration would reduce that irrestistable urge that made him/her do it, then I would be a lot more uncomfortable with leaving the paedophile with his/her irresistable time-bomb urges