Am I missing something?

bon ami

I have never had an experience on either side of the justice system but having read today's headline about the man who raped a 14 year old child , his wife's sister, being given a suspended sentence because of his "family commitments" he has two special needs children who are difficult to manage, can this type of decision be challenged by the Gardai DPP etc.

I find it illogical to say the least that someone who has abused a child ( i know it happened many years ago) can get away with the crime because the have a commitment to other children?

johnnyskeleton

Didn't see that particular case, but the Dpp can appeal any sentence they consider unduly lenient.

deandean

Yup, that's our justice system. By the same reasonings you'll see a woman with dependant children walming free from almost any crime.
I feel for the gardai in this type of case, it must do their head in to see an outcome like this. and then there is the victom...

I reckon mods could set up a 'when the sentence doesn't fit the crime' sticky here to highlight decisions like the one you raise. It'd make for very frustrating reading after a few weeks I reckon.

NoQuarter

bon ami wrote: »

I have never had an experience on either side of the justice system but having read today's headline about the man who raped a 14 year old child , his wife's sister, being given a suspended sentence because of his "family commitments" he has two special needs children who are difficult to manage, can this type of decision be challenged by the Gardai DPP etc.

I find it illogical to say the least that someone who has abused a child ( i know it happened many years ago) can get away with the crime because the have a commitment to other children?

It is possible and the judgment and reasons are well explained http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/rapist-avoids-jail-for-sex-attacks-on-wifes-little-sister-because-his-children-have-special-needs-29328073.html

The judge does state that its a wholly exceptional case. Also, he isn't "getting away with it" as he has been in prison since last February and a suspended sentence is a sentence that hangs over you so any wrong move in the next 5 years and the full sentence will be activated.

Now, it may well be lenient, I wasnt in the court for the trial and sentence so I dont have all the facts, nor do you, but if it is lenient, the DPP can and will appeal. That is what the appeal process is there for and is regularly used.

ResearchWill

bon ami wrote: »

I have never had an experience on either side of the justice system but having read today's headline about the man who raped a 14 year old child , his wife's sister, being given a suspended sentence because of his "family commitments" he has two special needs children who are difficult to manage, can this type of decision be challenged by the Gardai DPP etc.

I find it illogical to say the least that someone who has abused a child ( i know it happened many years ago) can get away with the crime because the have a commitment to other children?

The court must weigh up a number f issues when sentencing. Relevant factors in this case the events happened almost 30 years ago, no previous convictions no convictions since these events. The convicted man has 3 very ill children. The convicted person had been in jail since February. A quote from the judge "Imprisonment...will impose extreme hardship on his family, particularly on his partner and his son." Maybe the bard said it best,

The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown.
His scepter shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings.
But mercy is above this sceptered sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings;
It is an attribute of God himself;
And earthly power doth then show like God's
When mercy seasons justice.

LowKeyReturn

deandean wrote: »

I reckon mods could set up a 'when the sentence doesn't fit the crime' sticky here to highlight decisions like the one you raise. It'd make for very frustrating reading after a few weeks I reckon.

Who would be the arbiter of such things? It's already been decided by a highly qualified individual who was privy to all the facts.

deandean

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Who would be the arbiter of such things? It's already been decided by a highly qualified individual who was privy to all the facts.

A thead doesn't need an arbriter. Just don't cause potential liabilities for boards.ie as I have been reminded. Obviously in court there is one arbitrator!

The purpose of the proposed thread is for Joe Bloggs to be able to post what he / she opines as a major difference between the crime, and the sentence.

And the thread would be impartial, e.g. on one side you could highlight garlic-man's 6yr sentence and on the other hand you could highlight the OP's thread.

Think it's be worth a post in the 'new threads request' forum

hullaballoo

deandean wrote: »

A thead doesn't need an arbriter. Just don't cause potential liabilities for boards.ie as I have been reminded. Obviously in court there is one arbitrator!

The purpose of the proposed thread is for Joe Bloggs to be able to post what he / she opines as a major difference between the crime, and the sentence.

And the thread would be impartial, e.g. on one side you could highlight garlic-man's 6yr sentence and on the other hand you could highlight the OP's thread.

Think it's be worth a post in the 'new threads request' forum

Absolutely no way. Please read the charter before posting in this forum again.


If you want to mindlessly criticise something you know nothing about, there's always After Hours.

LostinKildare

OP, I was disturbed when I read this, too. My heart goes out to that girl -- now broken woman -- who he raped (twice) and sexually assaulted (twice).

How did he "self-rehabilitate"? I'd be interested to know how a child rapist "self-rehabilitates," since most experts seem to agree that it is very very difficult even for professionals to rehabilitate child molesters. Note that in this case, he didn't even admit guilt.

Is a convicted child rapist a suitable caretaker for vulnerable autistic children (even his own)?

Leaving aside the focus on his suffering family, what about the victim? Mercy must be balanced by justice! The judge says that it is "in the interests of society" that the rapist's family is "preserved and supported." What about the societal interest in seeing that rape and violent crimes against children are punished appropriately, and that victims are not discouraged from coming forward?

Ugh it turns my stomach.

NoQuarter

deandean wrote: »

A thead doesn't need an arbriter. Just don't cause potential liabilities for boards.ie as I have been reminded. Obviously in court there is one arbitrator!

The purpose of the proposed thread is for Joe Bloggs to be able to post what he / she opines as a major difference between the crime, and the sentence.

And the thread would be impartial, e.g. on one side you could highlight garlic-man's 6yr sentence and on the other hand you could highlight the OP's thread.

Think it's be worth a post in the 'new threads request' forum

That is ridiculous. Sure why not have a similar thread in soccer, motors etc etc so joe bloggs can opine about stuff they haven't a blind notion about!

I think AH is there for that. Post this OP in AH and you'll get plenty of mindless answers.

The decision will likely be appealed, give it a week or two.

J K

ResearchWill wrote: »

T
The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown.
His scepter shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings.
But mercy is above this sceptered sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings;
It is an attribute of God himself;
And earthly power doth then show like God's
When mercy seasons justice.

I would credit the Kings capacity for mercy when he himself was wronged.

ResearchWill

J K wrote: »

I would credit the Kings capacity for mercy when he himself was wronged.

Thankfully as a society we decided many years ago not to let the victims of crime decide on punishment, but to allow impartial judges make that decision.

LostinKildare

ResearchWill wrote: »

Thankfully as a society we decided many years ago not to let the victims of crime decide on punishment, but to allow impartial judges make that decision.

Ironically, the speech from The Merchant of Venice that you quoted is a very famous attempt to do just that!

The speaker, Portia, is appealing to Shylock, the "victim" at court (actually, the lender of a loan on which Portia's lover, Antonio, has defaulted) to have mercy on Antonio when the legal authority refuses to overturn a legal contract.

Because Antonio failed to repay the loan on time, by terms of the agreement Shylock may extract a pound of his flesh.

Unlike in the present-day case, where the "self-rehabilitated" rapist doesn't even admit guilt/show remorse, in the play, Antonio attempts to make it right, even offering to pay twice the amount owed as compensation. (Shylock refuses -- he wants blood.)

The legal judge in the play, the Duke of Venice, though appalled by the cruelty of Shylock and sympathetic to Antonio, cannot/will not overturn the law.

BTW I do agree of course that cases must be decided by impartial judges and juries. I just think that this one is very wrong.

ResearchWill

LostinKildare wrote: »

Ironically, the speech from The Merchant of Venice that you quoted is a very famous attempt to do just that!

The speaker, Portia, is appealing to Shylock, the "victim" at court (actually, the lender of a loan on which Portia's lover, Antonio, has defaulted) to have mercy on Antonio when the legal authority refuses to overturn a legal contract.

Because Antonio failed to repay the loan on time, by terms of the agreement Shylock may extract a pound of his flesh.

Unlike in the present-day case, where the "self-rehabilitated" rapist doesn't even admit guilt/show remorse, in the play, Antonio attempts to make it right, even offering to pay twice the amount owed as compensation. (Shylock refuses -- he wants blood.)

The legal judge in the play, the Duke of Venice, though appalled by the cruelty of Shylock and sympathetic to Antonio, cannot/will not overturn the law.

BTW I do agree of course that cases must be decided by impartial judges and juries. I just think that this one is very wrong.

I think based on the facts that the decision was correct. The guilty party has not committed any offence in 27 years, the only people punished by his further incarceration would be his family. If the DPP thinks the decision is lenient then they may of course appeal the the Court of Criminal Appeal who may decide to impose a further custodial sentence.

LostinKildare

ResearchWill wrote: »

The guilty party has not committed any offence in 27 years, the only people punished by his further incarceration would be his family.

Whether or not he's committed any other offences (and of course we do not know if he's committed any other crimes, only that he has not been convicted of any other crimes) is irrelevant. He committed these crimes -- two counts of rape and two counts of sexual assault of a child! Those are heinous crimes, and a suspended sentence is grossly insufficient.

What do you mean, "the only people punished by his further incarceration would be his family"? HE would be punished by further incarceration, for what HE did.

The fallout for his wife and children is terrible, yes, but sadly many many children's lives are damaged -- even ruined -- when a parent goes to prison. Should all felons with dependents be excused from custodial sentences? Should, say, murderers be released because their children are grievously suffering? Or just child rapists?

We cannot put the interests of a criminal's family ahead of the interests of the victim, or above the "let-the-punishment-fit-the-crime" fairness of the justice system.

ResearchWill

LostinKildare wrote: »

Whether or not he's committed any other offences (and of course we do not know if he's committed any other crimes, only that he has not been convicted of any other crimes) is irrelevant. He committed these crimes -- two counts of rape and two counts of sexual assault of a child! Those are heinous crimes, and a suspended sentence is grossly insufficient.

What do you mean, "the only people punished by his further incarceration would be his family"? HE would be punished by further incarceration, for what HE did.

The fallout for his wife and children is terrible, yes, but sadly many many children's lives are damaged -- even ruined -- when a parent goes to prison. Should all felons with dependents be excused from custodial sentences? Should, say, murderers be released because their children are grievously suffering? Or just child rapists?

We cannot put the interests of a criminal's family ahead of the interests of the victim, or above the "let-the-punishment-fit-the-crime" fairness of the justice system.

Previous and subsequent convictions are and should be taken into account by any court. The fact that there have been no further convictions in 27 years is something to be taken into account.

This is not a case where children will be put out be imprisonment of one parent, it is a case where 2 children are autistic and a third child has medical problems. Again this is something the court must take into account.

Taking all the relevant information into account I believe it is the correct decision. The court don't put any particular person ahead of another the court weighs up all the important factors and tries to come up with the correct decision.

NoQuarter

LostinKildare wrote: »

We cannot put the interests of a criminal's family ahead of the interests of the victim, or above the "let-the-punishment-fit-the-crime" fairness of the justice system.

What punishment would you think appropriate?

LostinKildare

ResearchWill wrote: »

Previous and subsequent convictions are and should be taken into account by any court. The fact that there have been no further convictions in 27 years is something to be taken into account.

And no doubt it was, when he was sentenced to 7 years. My point is that the fact that he was convicted of no other crimes does not negate the need to appropriately punish him for the crimes for which he HAS been convicted. You don't get one rape free. It's the most serious crime there is, after murder.

ResearchWill wrote: »

This is not a case where children will be put out be imprisonment of one parent, it is a case where 2 children are autistic and a third child has medical problems.

I'm not talking about children being "put out" by the imprisonment of a parent. In fact, I said:

LostinKildare wrote: »

. . .sadly many many children's lives are damaged -- even ruined -- when a parent goes to prison. . . their children are grievously suffering

I feel very very sorry for the children of prisoners. But having special needs children cannot be a get-out-of-jail free card for serious crimes.

You don't seem too concerned about justice for the victim, or about the effects of this decision on society as whole (e.g., the practical consequences of having a convicted child rapist walking free in public, the damage to people's faith in the justice system, the chilling effect it may have on other rape victims thinking of coming forward). So how about those children? Do you think it's a good decision that extremely vulnerable kids will be cared for by an unrepentant, [for the most part] unpunished child rapist? A man who repeatedly attacked a child -- a member of his own family -- in his care, in his own home? Happy with that?

ResearchWill

LostinKildare wrote: »

And no doubt it was, when he was sentenced to 7 years. My point is that the fact that he was convicted of no other crimes does not negate the need to appropriately punish him for the crimes for which he HAS been convicted. You don't get one rape free. It's the most serious crime there is, after murder.



I'm not talking about children being "put out" by the imprisonment of a parent. In fact, I said:



I feel very very sorry for the children of prisoners. But having special needs children cannot be a get-out-of-jail free card for serious crimes.

You don't seem too concerned about justice for the victim, or about the effects of this decision on society as whole (e.g., the practical consequences of having a convicted child rapist walking free in public, the damage to people's faith in the justice system, the chilling effect it may have on other rape victims thinking of coming forward). So how about those children? Do you think it's a good decision that extremely vulnerable kids will be cared for by an unrepentant, [for the most part] unpunished child rapist? A man who repeatedly attacked a child -- a member of his own family -- in his care, in his own home? Happy with that?

Your last paragraph forgets that this person has been convicted, has been given a 7 year sentence has served 3 months and has his sentence suspended for a period of 5 years.

I think the punishment does justice for every party in the case. I take offence at your last question to be honest. I don't think any right thinking member of society would be happy with this case. Just because I can understand the judges logic does not mean I'm happy, that a child was attacked in this way. It just means I can understand the outcome of the case. So your statment that he went unpunished is factually incorrect. I assume you mean he was not punished enough for your liking. So if you want to keep up the discussion I will be happy to do so but less of the Are you happy with child rape type questions that's just stupid.

LostinKildare

NoQuarter wrote: »

What punishment would you think appropriate?

Serving the 7-year sentence he was given at trial.

I take it from this that you think that's far too harsh?:

NoQuarter wrote: »

. . . he isn't "getting away with it" as he has been in prison since last February and a suspended sentence is a sentence that hangs over you so any wrong move in the next 5 years and the full sentence will be activated.

because three months and a suspended sentence for multiple child rapes does seem to be "getting away with it" to me.

LostinKildare

ResearchWill wrote: »

Your last paragraph forgets that this person has been convicted, has been given a 7 year sentence has served 3 months and has his sentence suspended for a period of 5 years.

I think the punishment does justice for every party in the case. I take offence at your last question to be honest. I don't think any right thinking member of society would be happy with this case. Just because I can understand the judges logic does not mean I'm happy, that a child was attacked in this way. It just means I can understand the outcome of the case. So your statment that he went unpunished is factually incorrect. I assume you mean he was not punished enough for your liking. So if you want to keep up the discussion I will be happy to do so but less of the Are you happy with child rape type questions that's just stupid.

You're misrepresenting my posts. I didn't say that he went unpunished, I said that he was "[for the most part] unpunished," meaning mostly unpunished (meaning that 3 months served is next to nothing for multiple child rapes).

And I also certainly did not ask if you were happy that a child was attacked; I asked if you were happy with the decision whose effect will allow an unrepentant convicted child rapist -- who previously attacked a member of his family in his care, in his home -- to care for extremely vulnerable children, members of his family, in his home.

Here is that part of my post:

LostinKildare wrote: »

Do you think it's a good decision that extremely vulnerable kids will be cared for by an unrepentant, [for the most part] unpunished child rapist? A man who repeatedly attacked a child -- a member of his own family -- in his care, in his own home? Happy with that?

In previous posts you expressed satisfaction with the decision:

ResearchWill wrote: »

I think the punishment does justice for every party in the case.

ResearchWill wrote: »

Taking all the relevant information into account I believe it is the correct decision.

ResearchWill wrote: »

I think based on the facts that the decision was correct.

So, can I be any clearer? Do you really believe that this decision --- which will return an unrepentant, 3-months serving, multiple-count convicted child rapist back into a situation of caring for vulnerable children family members in his home --- do you believe that this is the "correct decision"?

Sulla Felix

If you didn't believe it the first three times, is a fourth really going to convince you?

ResearchWill

LostinKildare wrote: »

You're misrepresenting my posts. I didn't say that he went unpunished, I said that he was "[for the most part] unpunished," meaning mostly unpunished (meaning that 3 months served is next to nothing for multiple child rapes).

And I also certainly did not ask if you were happy that a child was attacked; I asked if you were happy with the decision whose effect will allow an unrepentant convicted child rapist -- who previously attacked a member of his family in his care, in his home -- to care for extremely vulnerable children, members of his family, in his home.

Here is that part of my post:



In previous posts you expressed satisfaction with the decision:







So, can I be any clearer? Do you really believe that this decision --- which will return an unrepentant, 3-months serving, multiple-count convicted child rapist back into a situation of caring for vulnerable children family members in his home --- do you believe that this is the "correct decision"?

My previous quotes I believe answer your question.

"I think the punishment does justice for every party in the case."

"Taking all the relevant information into account I believe it is the correct decision"

"I think based on the facts that the decision was correct."

Sentencing must take into account previous convictions, subsequent convictions, time already served, time since criminal activity, the effect of prison on the guilty party and or family. The effect of prison on society, the effect on the victim which in such cases is taken into account through victim impact statements. Judges like all the rest of us live in this society, they have family and more than most have been exposed to the effect of crime. But they have to leave personal issues outside the court room and balance every thread to come to a decision.

Ken.

2 quick questions for the legal egales.
1.Could the victim in the case appeal the leniency of the sentence or does it have to be the DPP?.
2.Can the victim in any case appeal the leniency of a sentence of a person convicted of a crime against them?

ResearchWill

ken wrote: »

2 quick questions for the legal egales.
1.Could the victim in the case appeal the leniency of the sentence or does it have to be the DPP?.
2.Can the victim in any case appeal the leniency of a sentence of a person convicted of a crime against them?

It can only be the DPP. The DPP will of course take any opinion of the victim into account.

Only the DPP can take indictable offences to court. Or more correctly if a common informer brings such a case the DPP must take it over and therefore only the DPP has carriage of such cases.

LostinKildare

ResearchWill wrote: »

Sentencing must take into account previous convictions, subsequent convictions, time already served, time since criminal activity, the effect of prison on the guilty party and or family. The effect of prison on society, the effect on the victim which in such cases is taken into account through victim impact statements. Judges like all the rest of us live in this society, they have family and more than most have been exposed to the effect of crime. But they have to leave personal issues outside the court room and balance every thread to come to a decision.

Blah, blah, blah. Not going to address my point, asked several times:

LostinKildare wrote: »

So, can I be any clearer? Do you really believe that this decision --- which will return an unrepentant, 3-months serving, multiple-count convicted child rapist back into a situation of caring for vulnerable children family members in his home --- do you believe that this is the "correct decision"?

What a surprise.

I really despair. Here we are in Ireland in 2013, victims of rape are still denied justice, and the most vulnerable children are commended to the care of a convicted child rapist. Plus ca change

Good night.

hullaballoo

ken wrote: »

2 quick questions for the legal egales.
1.Could the victim in the case appeal the leniency of the sentence or does it have to be the DPP?.
2.Can the victim in any case appeal the leniency of a sentence of a person convicted of a crime against them?

Generally, no.

Crimes are prosecuted by the DPP because they are viewed as a breach of the social contract. As such, the victim's role is limited to presenting evidence to the Court in relation to the breach. The victim is not technically a party to the action, which is usually the State v. John Doe.

If the sentence is viewed as being too lenient, a non-party cannot appeal the decision, even if their involvement is central to the case.

hullaballoo

LostinKildare wrote: »

Blah, blah, blah. Not going to address my point, asked several times:



What a surprise.

I really despair. Here we are in Ireland in 2013, victims of rape are still denied justice, and the most vulnerable children are commended to the care of a convicted child rapist. Plus ca change

Good night.

Less of this, please.

ResearchWill

LostinKildare wrote: »

Blah, blah, blah. Not going to address my point, asked several times:



What a surprise.

I really despair. Here we are in Ireland in 2013, victims of rape are still denied justice, and the most vulnerable children are commended to the care of a convicted child rapist. Plus ca change

I answered your points several times, but if you don't like the answer then tough. It's what I believe, I have set out what a judge must take into account and why I believe he was correct. That does not mean that people are denied justice only that in this case I believe justice was done. The average custodial sentence in this country for rape is 10-15 years. Time served is about 7 years. This case is outside the norm and has been sentenced accordingly.

Just some facts on sentencing

http://www.irishsentencing.ie/en/ISIS/Pages/WP09000225

silentrust

ResearchWill wrote: »

The court must weigh up a number f issues when sentencing. Relevant factors in this case the events happened almost 30 years ago, no previous convictions no convictions since these events. The convicted man has 3 very ill children. The convicted person had been in jail since February. A quote from the judge "Imprisonment...will impose extreme hardship on his family, particularly on his partner and his son." Maybe the bard said it best,

The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown.
His scepter shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings.
But mercy is above this sceptered sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings;
It is an attribute of God himself;
And earthly power doth then show like God's
When mercy seasons justice.

Have to say I agree. The length of time passed since the crime was committed in addition to the fact that more innocent people would suffer if he were locked up means the sentence was appropriate.

I would say I am with Norway on this one, there should be a statute of limitations on crimes of 25 years, I don't see the good in prosecuting cases this far down the line due to lack of evidence, might also encourage people to come forward sooner.

LostinKildare

ResearchWill, I apologise for being rude. It's an emotive topic and I got a bit carried away.

I can't get my head around the fact that not only the effect of, but indeed the whole reason for the judge's suspension of the sentence was to allow the convicted child rapist to resume care of extremely vulnerable children. It would seem that that would be very strong grounds for denying him access to his autistic kids.

Perhaps we'll get more detailed information on the judge's decision.

ResearchWill

LostinKildare wrote: »

ResearchWill, I apologise for being rude. It's an emotive topic and I got a bit carried away.

I can't get my head around the fact that not only the effect of, but indeed the whole reason for the judge's suspension of the sentence was to allow the convicted child rapist to resume care of extremely vulnerable children. It would seem that there would be very strong grounds for denying him access to his autistic kids.

Perhaps we'll get more detailed information on the judge's decision.

I personally did not think of you as being rude, but upset by a perceived injustice, and thank you for the apology.

If you live near Dublin I would advice going to the CCJ on Parkgate street, drop in to any circuit criminal court, Court 5 does sentencing in pleas if I remember correctly watch justice in action, one thing you will notice if you watch enough sentences, you will see reports of same don't fully reflect what happened. It's also funny you rarely see the banner headlines about the long sentences given which in these cases are the norm. The special and the central also sit in that building. It's also nice to see where our millions of euro was spent during the boom.

BTW if you are not in Dublin any local Circuit Court will have regular criminal sessions again any citizen can go along unless in-camera and see how justice is administrated in our name.

hullaballoo

LostinKildare wrote: »

ResearchWill, I apologise for being rude. It's an emotive topic and I got a bit carried away.

I can't get my head around the fact that not only the effect of, but indeed the whole reason for the judge's suspension of the sentence was to allow the convicted child rapist to resume care of extremely vulnerable children. It would seem that that would be very strong grounds for denying him access to his autistic kids.

Perhaps we'll get more detailed information on the judge's decision.

I'm sorry, but there's nothing in any report I've seen to suggest that this man is a danger to children, particularly his own family. There's no detail in any of the reports that might explain the situation: the man has no other convictions. When he was 24, he had sex with a 14-year-old girl. We do not know whether it was violent rape or rape due to inability to consent.

You cannot criticise the sentence without this information. You also have to take into account the doctors' reports indicating that the man's children had show significant disimprovement since their father's imprisonment. If, 30 years after the events, he has managed to put himself right and become a valuable member of society, then why shoul he be put into gaol, where he will inevitably become a scourge on society again?

Also, recidivism rates here are practically incredible when compared to other CL jurisdictions. Be aware that the statistics only account for people who have been in prison, not people who have been convicted of crimes simpliciter.

valleyoftheunos

I haven't read anything in the news reports of this case that suggest that the convicted man was either unrepentant or in anyway a danger to his children. A terrible act 30 years ago does not mean he is still a risk, to assume such is simply unfair. However the reports I read of the victim impact statement made very clear the offences were all assaults and capacity for consent was not the issue.

From what I have read I believe the Judge's reasoning in making his decision was that if he were to imprison the convicted it would result in the suffering of his Autistic child and that this would not represent justice. essentially it would cause the child to pay for the sins of the father.

The victim suffered as a chid, a prison sentence would result in the suffering of another child. I would ask you, do two wrongs make a right? Can that be justice? Personally I think not.

silentrust

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

I haven't read anything in the news reports of this case that suggest that the convicted man was either unrepentant or in anyway a danger to his children. A terrible act 30 years ago does not mean he is still a risk, to assume such is simply unfair. However the reports I read of the victim impact statement made very clear the offences were all assaults and capacity for consent was not the issue.

From what I have read I believe the Judge's reasoning in making his decision was that if he were to imprison the convicted it would result in the suffering of his Autistic child and that this would not represent justice. essentially it would cause the child to pay for the sins of the father.

The victim suffered as a chid, a prison sentence would result in the suffering of another child. I would ask you, do two wrongs make a right? Can that be justice? Personally I think not.

Hear hear- the assumption seems to be that prison should be assumed to be the sentence as a blanket policy - it doesn't seem to be the case but then why should it?

Community based punishments like probation actually result in lower reoffending rates than prison - or at least this was true for the UK. If someone has data to show prison is more effective in Ireland please by all means post it!

A relative of mine is a retired Probation Officer. When offenders appeared before a court his department would do a report about them to assist with sentencing. In virtually every case he tells me that going to prison allowed the offender to become a better criminal through meeting with more experienced people!

This was particularly true for sex offenders who were perfecting methods to avoid detection - the less time spent with them the better say I!

LostinKildare

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'm sorry, but there's nothing in any report I've seen to suggest that this man is a danger to children, particularly his own family.

Aside from his conviction for having repeatedly raped/sexually assaulted a child, in his own family?

As I understand it, at the very least (i.e., in the absence of other conditions that may be imposed by a judge), convicted sex offenders of all sorts must notify gardai of where they live, and if they move, and they must inform prospective employers of the nature of their conviction if the work involves unsupervised access to children. They also must disclose it in garda vetting for work with voluntary organisations, and it would be highly unlikely that a school, hospital, church, GAA club, etc. apprised of his record would allow him to participate in activities that involve children or vulnerable adults. These restrictions indicate that both the legal system and society in general recognise that sex offenders, by the mere fact of their convictions, pose a possible risk to children.

If this man has undergone rigorous psychiatric evaluation by professionals who have declared him to be zero risk to children, great. But we haven't heard that -- what we do have is the judge's reference to "self rehabilitation," and I'd be interested to know what that consisted of. You'd think that any kind of rehabiltation would involve admitting your guilt and apologising to your victim, but according to reports, he's done neither. From the Independent article:
"How can a person who never pleaded guilty self-rehabilitate? [the victim] asked, adding that there was "no sign of regret; no apology" from her abuser. (valleyoftheunos, that is what I meant when I said he was unrepentant)
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/rapist-is-spared-jail-to-mind-his-autistic-children-29329286.html

hullaballoo wrote: »

When he was 24, he had sex with a 14-year-old girl. We do not know whether it was violent rape or rape due to inability to consent.
You cannot criticise the sentence without this information.

The judge said that "the offences lay at the top end of the midrange scale," and the "the court must acknowledge the huge suffering endured by the woman as a result of the rape." That, coupled with the victim impact statement -- "I just wanted to die because he caused me so much pain, anguish and turmoil. Part of me was stolen, killed and lost forever. . ." doesn't sound like consensual bar the ability to consent.

hullaballoo wrote: »

You also have to take into account the doctors' reports indicating that the man's children had show significant disimprovement since their father's imprisonment.

I didn't see any mention of doctors' reports to that effect, where was that? I saw only a mention of one report from a teacher of one of the boys saying that his behaviour and progress had deteriorated since the father's imprisonment. Is the teacher qualified to make a determination about the causeof the change? I don't know. The reference to the GP report (in the IT) was a GP's opinion that the situation is putting a "huge strain" on the wife.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/suspended-sentence-for-man-who-raped-wife-s-14-year-old-sister-1.1420726

hullaballoo wrote: »

If, 30 years after the events, he has managed to put himself right and become a valuable member of society, then why shoul he be put into gaol, where he will inevitably become a scourge on society again?

If it were a lesser crime I'd be inclined to agree with you. Property crimes, drug offences, lesser assaults. But multiple counts of rape and sexual assault of a child, no.

I think (perhaps I'm wrong) that most people would agree that there are some crimes so serious that the convicted must serve a custodial sentence --- even if 27 years have passed since the crime, with no other convictions, and three high-needs children are suffering from their parent's incarceration (murder is an obvious example). Apparently this crime isn't serious enough to reach that bar.

bon ami

I find it extremely ironic that a convicted child rapist is excused a custodial sentence as he has a commitment to look after his two severely autistic children. He is really a suitable candidate to fill this role. How does a judge prioritise when it comes to making a decision which must clearly be extremely hurtful to the victim.

I must say I have blatant issues with sentencing policy in Ireland when compared to the UK and other jurisdictions . It appears to me that the rights of the accused greatly outweigh the rights of the victims and the general public.

McCrack

I have to say I am not comfortable with this sentence in light of the fact the defendant pleaded not guilty and the matter ran to hearing. I am at odds to understand how the trial judge could say the defendant had self-rehabilitated yet go on to plead not guilty forcing the victim to give evidence and putting the State to the expense of a trial.

I suspect the DPP will appeal this in the public interest.

valleyoftheunos

LostinKildare wrote: »

Aside from his conviction for having repeatedly raped/sexually assaulted a child, in his own family?

As I understand it, at the very least (i.e., in the absence of other conditions that may be imposed by a judge), convicted sex offenders of all sorts must notify gardai of where they live, and if they move, and they must inform prospective employers of the nature of their conviction if the work involves unsupervised access to children. They also must disclose it in garda vetting for work with voluntary organisations, and it would be highly unlikely that a school, hospital, church, GAA club, etc. apprised of his record would allow him to participate in activities that involve children or vulnerable adults. These restrictions indicate that both the legal system and society in general recognise that sex offenders, by the mere fact of their convictions, pose a possible risk to children.

If this man has undergone rigorous psychiatric evaluation by professionals who have declared him to be zero risk to children, great. But we haven't heard that -- what we do have is the judge's reference to "self rehabilitation," and I'd be interested to know what that consisted of. You'd think that any kind of rehabiltation would involve admitting your guilt and apologising to your victim, but according to reports, he's done neither. From the Independent article:
"How can a person who never pleaded guilty self-rehabilitate? [the victim] asked, adding that there was "no sign of regret; no apology" from her abuser. (valleyoftheunos, that is what I meant when I said he was unrepentant)
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/rapist-is-spared-jail-to-mind-his-autistic-children-29329286.html



The judge said that "the offences lay at the top end of the midrange scale," and the "the court must acknowledge the huge suffering endured by the woman as a result of the rape." That, coupled with the victim impact statement -- "I just wanted to die because he caused me so much pain, anguish and turmoil. Part of me was stolen, killed and lost forever. . ." doesn't sound like consensual bar the ability to consent.



I didn't see any mention of doctors' reports to that effect, where was that? I saw only a mention of one report from a teacher of one of the boys saying that his behaviour and progress had deteriorated since the father's imprisonment. Is the teacher qualified to make a determination about the causeof the change? I don't know. The reference to the GP report (in the IT) was a GP's opinion that the situation is putting a "huge strain" on the wife.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/suspended-sentence-for-man-who-raped-wife-s-14-year-old-sister-1.1420726



If it were a lesser crime I'd be inclined to agree with you. Property crimes, drug offences, lesser assaults. But multiple counts of rape and sexual assault of a child, no.

I think (perhaps I'm wrong) that most people would agree that there are some crimes so serious that the convicted must serve a custodial sentence --- even if 27 years have passed since the crime, with no other convictions, and three high-needs children are suffering from their parent's incarceration (murder is an obvious example). Apparently this crime isn't serious enough to reach that bar.

You do make valid points but you also disregard the historical nature of the crime all too easily. The crimes were committed many yeas ago and during a short period, for that reason I don't think it is fair to assume that his previous acts are a likely indicator of future behavior.

We know he pled not guilty but we don't know what defence he raised and he could have pled not guilty on a number of grounds. Until we know that I don't think it is appropriate to make inferences about his character from his plea, particular considering that the judge chose not to make such inferences having heard the defence.

I would hate to be the judge in this situation, regardless of his decision he would likely face criticism. I think he made a decision that he felt would cause the least amount of harm. I'm not comfortable with the sentence and for all I know the convicted man is a monster who should never be allowed walk the streets, however I have faith in the judicial system that if he were, he would have been sentenced appropriately.

Locking people up in prison does precious little to solve the problems of criminality, even more so in a case such as this where to do so would be only an exercise in vengeance. What good if any would that serve society?

McCrack

The judgment (unusually published on courts.ie) for anybody that's interested:

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/241db5da9215340f80257b87003c586b?OpenDocument

Again I just cannot square up in my mind how the trial Judge at paragraph 27 can say the defendant has self-rehabilitated yet he pleads not guilty to the offences and a jury decides otherwise.

Surely putting ones hands up and accepting responsibility for criminal wrong-doing goes hand in hand with self-rehabilitation. How can he be self-rehabilitated and not admit his guilt and force a trial?

silentrust

McCrack wrote: »

The judgment (unusually published on courts.ie) for anybody that's interested:

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/241db5da9215340f80257b87003c586b?OpenDocument

Again I just cannot square up in my mind how the trial Judge at paragraph 27 can say the defendant has self-rehabilitated yet he pleads not guilty to the offences and a jury decides otherwise.

Surely putting ones hands up and accepting responsibility for criminal wrong-doing goes hand in hand with self-rehabilitation. How can he be self-rehabilitated and not admit his guilt and force a trial?

He may well have not wanted to go to prison for the sake of the children he's caring for as well as his own. I can (just about!) accept that someone can change sufficiently over 25 years not to pose a threat to society any more, so perhaps that's what they meant by rehabilitation - as you say though the not guilty plea could be seen as evidence he is in denial!

hullaballoo

I suppose there is a possibility that a not guilty plea might be a risk worth taking where the evidence that would come out at a full hearing of the matter might be more informative to the sentencing judge than any evidence that might be appropriate to a plea in mitigation.

It is a massive risk, though and I have absolutely no basis for this conjecture other than that it's the only reason I can think of for a person to plead in this way. I have no idea how he actually went about his defence, i.e., whether he denied the offences or just put the Prosecution on full proof, as he is entitled to do.

silentrust

hullaballoo wrote: »

I suppose there is a possibility that a not guilty plea might be a risk worth taking where the evidence that would come out at a full hearing of the matter might be more informative to the sentencing judge than any evidence that might be appropriate to a plea in mitigation.

It is a massive risk, though and I have absolutely no basis for this conjecture other than that it's the only reason I can think of for a person to plead in this way. I have no idea how he actually went about his defence, i.e., whether he denied the offences or just put the Prosecution on full proof, as he is entitled to do.

As you say he was risking a more severe sentence than if he was found guilty on summary conviction. It's hard sometimes to have faith in this system but then if we were the ones in the dock accused of a crime, we'd want to be treated fairly too.