Why does a CONVICTED incestious paedophile like this remain anonymous, while...

hatrickpatrick

...others who have merely been accused of sexual crimes are allowed to be paraded as guilty by the media before they have even gone to trial?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0521/1224297466706.html

A 27-YEAR-OLD Co Laois man has been given a one-year sentence for sexually assaulting his niece when she was 11 years old.

The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was convicted by a jury at the Central Criminal Court on two counts of sexually assaulting the girl at her home between June 1998 and June 2001.

What sort of f*cked up system do we have? What provision of the law allows a convicted man's name to remain anonymous in certain circumstances, whilst in other cases a mere accusation is enough to smear his name? Thinking of people like Strauss Kahn here for example

Biggins

I can see your point but the court is thinking of the childs future, not the mans present.

January

Other victims also waive their right to anonymity so the convicted person can be named.

galwayrush

Don't worry, his fellow inmates will discover who he is.

Ulysses Gaze

Forget the anonymity.

More pertinent question would be, why this piece of **** was only given a 1 year sentence?

Biggins

The court is also trying to ensure that the childs future is more so defined by their own actions and not by the record of someone elses be known following them around publicly.

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Forget the anonymity.

More pertinent question would be, why this piece of **** was only given a 1 year sentence?

True.

Dionysus

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Forget the anonymity.

More pertinent question would be, why this piece of **** was only given a 1 year sentence?

I'd imagine that in reality he'll be serving a life sentence for this crime, which he committed when he was between the ages of 14 and 17 - i.e. he was not an adult when he committed this crime. It's more likely that it will eat away at him and he'll commit suicide or at least develop an addiction of some sort and piss away his life. Either way, I doubt anybody will envy his life.

Against this, a year or even five years in prison is the easy part.

abccormac

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Forget the anonymity.

More pertinent question would be, why this piece of **** was only given a 1 year sentence?

Probably because he was a child himself when he committed the offense.

SarahBeep!

abccormac wrote: »

Probably because he was a child himself when he committed the offense.

Are you saying that at between 14 and 17, he wasn't old enough to know better??

OutlawPete

When he was 17 he sexually assaulted (pretty big umbrella term, so God knows what that was) his 11 year old niece .. and seems to have left her alone ever since. I would say a one year sentence seems fair, what would you want him to get for something he did ten years ago for such a crime exactly?

Have to say, that given this country's record on far worse crimes - the sentence seems harsh if anything:

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/crime/farmer-to-pay-350k-for-raping-niece-150145.html

Daegerty

Omg! It's paedophile!!

I'm SO outraged!!!

*proceeds to read the Daily Fail in order to build up a stronger fear and hatred for paedophiles*

sdanseo

It says between 98 and 01 - doesn't say at which point she was 11. There could only be two years of an age gap.

That of course does not make any such crime more excuseable, especially as they are related - but sexual assault in a non-related couple can include something like statutory rape or attempted statutory rape, which with a 2 year gap would not in my opinion warrant a custodial sentence at that age.

Just my 2c, and PURE speculation, we know nothing of the case and long may it stay that way.

roast

Saw this in the paper, and I was thoroughly sickened.
Just one year in jail for torturing her mind forever? Christ...

OutlawPete

roast wrote: »

Just one year in jail for torturing her mind forever? Christ...

I know you mean well, but it is this attitude that contributes to abused children having 'tortured minds'. If society acts like sexually abused kids are going to traumatized for life and have tortured minds "forever" - then these kids will pick up on that. Just look at the effect that just catholic guilt and the catholic church's teachings have had on the catholic people of the world. Well in my mind, this crap is no different. People need to stop running around like headless chickens when sexual abuse is mentioned and speaking of it's victims like they are destroyed and "tortured for life, they are not. Is it any wonder so many people who are abused take their own lives when that is how society sees them ffs.

roast

OutlawPete wrote: »

I know you mean well, but it is this attitude that contributes to abused children having 'tortured minds'. If society acts like sexually abused kids are going to traumatized for life and have tortured minds "forever" - then these kids will pick up on that. Just look at the effect that just catholic guilt and the catholic church's teachings have had on the catholic people of the world. Well in my mind, this crap is no different. People need to stop running around like headless chickens when sexual abuse is mentioned and speaking of it's victims like they are destroyed and "tortured for life, they are not. Is it any wonder so many people who are abused take their own lives when that is how society sees them ffs.

I understand your point - and under any circumstances I'd feel the same way.

However, my post is based on a quotation from the victim herself.

Kojak

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What sort of f*cked up system do we have? What provision of the law allows a convicted man's name to remain anonymous in certain circumstances, whilst in other cases a mere accusation is enough to smear his name? Thinking of people like Strauss Kahn here for example

Firstly, Strauss Kahn committed his act in another country which have completly different procedures legally speaking than Ireland.

As well as that the convicts name would have to remain anonomyous to protect the child (who is actually in her mid 20's by now)

OutlawPete

roast wrote: »

However, my post is based on a quotation from the victim herself.

Fair enough and I'm not sure why they are not disclosing what this guy did at 17. From what the girl said, it sounds like violent rape almost for a prolonged period, but yet the conviction is for just two counts of "sexual assault". Quite hard to know what to say with regards to the sentence in many ways. As we see from cases all the time, they are usually very explicit in what took place, not sure why everything is so non-specific here and with just two counts of sexual assault also. The statements from the girl almost sound like they are from another case.

tommyboy2222

Rabble rabble internet warrior