Sex offender free to go

Smidge

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/bus-sex-offender-free-to-go-despite-deportation-order-29554396.html

Didn't see anything posted about this on here so thought I'd put it up as I found it mind-boggling.
I know the judicial system here is a bit of a farce but surely this takes that cake.

What got to me from the article that he was convicted of 7 counts of sexual assault and only served 14 months in prison.
And now free to roam at his hearts content.

MadsL

Fast track the deportation, problem solved. It is not the judicial system at fault here, he has done his time.

Sh1tbag OToole

Smidge wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/bus-sex-offender-free-to-go-despite-deportation-order-29554396.html

Didn't see anything posted about this on here so thought I'd put it up as I found it mind-boggling.
I know the judicial system here is a bit of a farce but surely this takes that cake.

What got to me from the article that he was convicted of 7 counts of sexual assault and only served 14 months in prison.
And now free to roam at his hearts content.

How long do you want him to be locked up for? What he did was fairly low down on the scale of sex offences. A step or two up from Neil Prendeville but nothing too desperate

NuckingFacker

Bus wanker.

Smidge

MadsL wrote: »

Fast track the deportation, problem solved. It is not the judicial system at fault here, he has done his time.

In the article it states that the offender has appealed the deportation order so it is a judicial matter. It cannot be "fast tracked".

Also, 14 months for 7 sexual assaults?
That's 2 months jail time for each assault.
I'm sure it will take those women a hell of a lot longer than 2 months to get over it.

Smidge

Smidge wrote: »

In the article it states that the offender has appealed the deportation order so it is a judicial matter. It cannot be "fast tracked".

Also, 14 months for 7 sexual assaults?
That's 2 months jail time for each assault.
I'm sure it will take those women a hell of a lot longer than 2 months to get over it.

Not much of a deterrent, only 14 months.

He should be under something like a supervision order - at least - until the deportation is sorted out.

If he's dangerous enough to want out of the country, he's dangerous enough to keep an eye on, at the absolute least he should be reporting daily to the guards or a probation officer. How that can be legally made to come about though, I don't know.

Holsten

He jacked off on a bus... hardly the worst like.

How long it takes them to get over it has no relation to how long he should be locked up for.

My name is URL

Holsten wrote: »

He jacked off on a bus... hardly the worst like.

Well, there's a bit more to it than that!

GalwayGuy2

Fairly vague language used in article.

Max Power1

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

How long do you want him to be locked up for? What he did was fairly low down on the scale of sex offences. A step or two up from Neil Prendeville but nothing too desperate

So, some sexual offences are acceptable?

Can you provide me a breakdown of which you consider acceptable, so I can perpetrate them on the women in your life :rolleyes:

Sexual offenders should not be allowed walk free, it is a sad state of affairs (sniggers) when that happens

NuckingFacker

Holsten wrote: »

He jacked off on a bus... hardly the worst like.

How long it takes them to get over it has no relation to how long he should be locked up for.

Ohh, the empathy. Good take on things right there.. emm..

Holsten

Holsten wrote: »

He jacked off on a bus... hardly the worst like.

No, he sat beside women, put his hands on them and wanked, publicly.

If he sat on an outside seat, they were effectively trapped, especially if shock immobilised them, then they were touched by a complete stranger while he masturbated.

Don't underestimate how horrible something like that is for them to endure, or excuse him.

newmug

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

How long do you want him to be locked up for? What he did was fairly low down on the scale of sex offences. A step or two up from Neil Prendeville but nothing too desperate

Smidge wrote: »

Also, 14 months for 7 sexual assaults?
That's 2 months jail time for each assault.
I'm sure it will take those women a hell of a lot longer than 2 months to get over it.

Two years per assault would be more like it. Maybe not for the first offence, but second offence on, he has no excuse.

Smidge

Holsten wrote: »

He jacked off on a bus... hardly the worst like.

How long it takes them to get over it has no relation to how long he should be locked up for.

If he did this once ie as you say "jacked off on a bus" you might think "Idiot".
But he repeatedly targeted women with this behaviour on multiple occasions.

I find it interesting that in other threads like the customer service one, people got highly annoyed over little things like sneezing while doing someones hair.

But targeting women and commiting a sexual assault is seen as "hardly the worst".

UCDVet

Ummm - can someone explain this to me?

He was convicted of a crime.
He went to jail.
Now he is being released, because his jail time is up?

So he is free to ago, after serving his sentence for the crime he committed?

I don't see why this is something to be outraged over. If you feel all criminals should be in jail *forever* - that's a fine enough stance to have, but until the laws change, we don't have mandatory life sentences.

Smidge

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Ohh, the empathy. Good take on things right there.. emm..

I always wonder how people would feel if their Mam or little sister had been one of these women who were assaulted and came in from work etc shaking and shocked(its not normal for a stranger to sit next to you on a bus and grope you while masturbating)?

2 months might really feel like an added insult if these woman were your family but then again this type of thing "always happens to someone else".
Doesn't it?

Holsten

Smidge wrote: »

I always wonder how people would feel if their Mam or little sister had been one of these women who were assaulted and came in from work etc shaking and shocked(its not normal for a stranger to sit next to you on a bus and grope you while masturbating)?

2 months might really feel like an added insult if these woman were your family but then again this type of thing "always happens to someone else".
Doesn't it?

You can't look at it like that and thankfully neither does the justice system.

Red Kev

So this seems to be a good opportunity for Shatter to introduce a system where it's possible to accelerate the appeal process to prevent this happening again.

Will he do this? More than likely not. And that's another failing of the justice system, nobody at the top seems to want to change anything.

Smidge

UCDVet wrote: »

Ummm - can someone explain this to me?

He was convicted of a crime.
He went to jail.
Now he is being released, because his jail time is up?

So he is free to ago, after serving his sentence for the crime he committed?

I don't see why this is something to be outraged over. If you feel all criminals should be in jail *forever* - that's a fine enough stance to have, but until the laws change, we don't have mandatory life sentences.

I dont think anyone is saying he should be in jail forever.
But he committed multiple sexual assaults(not just one)and has proved himself a sexual predator.
It is the length of the time served(his probation is longer than the time served)and the fact that he was sentenced to be deported upon release.
He is now free and has appealed the deportation order, so is walking free.

NuckingFacker

Holsten wrote: »

You can't look at it like that and thankfully neither does the justice system.

if it's alright with you, I'll pick me own way of looking at it. If it was one of my sisters he'd done this to, or my daughter, I'd be taking a fairly dim view. I take a fairly dim view no matter who's sister, mum or daughter he did this to also, btw. He is a predator, and a cowardly one at that. He needs to be slapped with a deportation order.

Smidge

Holsten wrote: »

You can't look at it like that and thankfully neither does the justice system.

But you can look at it like that because its exactly like that.
Its not like getting your pocket picked.
Its a physical, sexual assault on a person. Who has feelings and emotions.
The court does not look at it that way but the people who have been assaulted do.

UCDVet

Smidge wrote: »

I dont think anyone is saying he should be in jail forever.
But he committed multiple sexual assaults(not just one)and has proved himself a sexual predator.
It is the length of the time served(his probation is longer than the time served)and the fact that he was sentenced to be deported upon release.
He is now free and has appealed the deportation order, so is walking free.

Fair enough - I just would have expected people to get upset when the judge sentenced him, instead of when he was being released.

It seems reasonable that he'd be free after being released. And it seems reasonable that someone might appeal a deportation order, given that people are allowed to do that and we have a process for it.

I know I'm on the extreme end of this - but I really think the world would be a better place if we would sentence these types of criminals *to death*. But I understand there are issues what that and most people aren't going to share my view.

But regardless, this seems like exactly what we would expect.

Smidge

UCDVet wrote: »

Fair enough - I just would have expected people to get upset when the judge sentenced him, instead of when he was being released.

It seems reasonable that he'd be free after being released. And it seems reasonable that someone might appeal a deportation order, given that people are allowed to do that and we have a process for it.

I know I'm on the extreme end of this - but I really think the world would be a better place if we would sentence these types of criminals *to death*. But I understand there are issues what that and most people aren't going to share my view.

But regardless, this seems like exactly what we would expect.

I'm not too sure if you are being facetious here.

newmug

UCDVet wrote: »

Ummm - can someone explain this to me?

He was convicted of a crime.
He went to jail.
Now he is being released, because his jail time is up?

So he is free to ago, after serving his sentence for the crime he committed?

I don't see why this is something to be outraged over. If you feel all criminals should be in jail *forever* - that's a fine enough stance to have, but until the laws change, we don't have mandatory life sentences.

No probs UCDvet, I'll explain it:

This is something to be outraged over because:

1. The lad didn't get enough time in jail. The time he did get was not just. And that is what a justice system is supposed to be all about, being just.
2. The lad did this 7 times. He clearly has a problem, and is a threat to our population. But, due to red tape, he is now walking free. Red tape won the day over our safety.

However, those two reasons should not cause concern. They should cause fury.

I always get the feeling, when someone shows indifference to a particular injustice, that they would secretly love it to happen to them!

Nodin

newmug wrote: »

No probs UCDvet, I'll explain it:

This is something to be outraged over because:

1. The lad didn't get enough time in jail. The time he did get was not just. And that is what a justice system is supposed to be all about, being just.
2. The lad did this 7 times. He clearly has a problem, and is a threat to our population. But, due to red tape, he is now walking free. Red tape won the day over our safety.

However, those two reasons should not cause concern. They should cause fury.

I always get the feeling, when someone shows indifference to a particular injustice, that they would secretly love it to happen to them!

...he has a problem, was sentenced, is on the sex offenders register. He isn't free because of "red tape". He's free because he has served the time he was sentenced too, and - until his appeal succeeds or otherwise - is entitled to be out by law.

UCDVet

newmug wrote: »

No probs UCDvet, I'll explain it:

This is something to be outraged over because:

1. The lad didn't get enough time in jail. The time he did get was not just. And that is what a justice system is supposed to be all about, being just.
2. The lad did this 7 times. He clearly has a problem, and is a threat to our population. But, due to red tape, he is now walking free. Red tape won the day over our safety.

However, those two reasons should not cause concern. They should cause fury.

I always get the feeling, when someone shows indifference to a particular injustice, that they would secretly love it to happen to them!

I suppose I would have expected outrage at the time when he was sentenced. A judge, reviewed the case, made a judgement call and sentenced him to a certain time in jail. Maybe it was a big deal at the time, and I just missed it, but this is news to me.

Now he's been released after serving the sentence he was given. It just seems odd to me that we'd be upset about that.

The deportation thing, maybe it is red-tape, but it seems like nothing new. If we should change it, I'd probably support it, but the newspaper article is written as if this was somehow unexpected.

At least, that is my interpretation.

GalwayGuy2

It is ridiculous that he wasn't forced into rehabilitation.

Sh1tbag OToole

Max Power1 wrote: »

So, some sexual offences are acceptable?

Can you provide me a breakdown of which you consider acceptable, so I can perpetrate them on the women in your life :rolleyes:

Sexual offenders should not be allowed walk free, it is a sad state of affairs (sniggers) when that happens

I never claimed they were acceptable but he done 2 months in jail for each one. Although not a nice experience I doubt these women are traumatised for life because someone copped a feel off them and had a **** beside them on the bus.

His sentence should be enough to 'learn him'.

mitosis

Candie wrote: »

No, he sat beside women, put his hands on them and wanked, publicly.

If he sat on an outside seat, they were effectively trapped, especially if shock immobilised them, then they were touched by a complete stranger while he masturbated.

Don't underestimate how horrible something like that is for them to endure, or excuse him.

I'm having trouble finding this anywhere.

The guy should definitely be sent home, and from the way he committed the offence, safe to say he generally, if not always, sat on the outside.

Smidge

mitosis wrote: »

I'm having trouble finding this anywhere.

The guy should definitely be sent home, and from the way he committed the offence, safe to say he generally, if not always, sat on the outside.

It's the last line of the article

Smidge

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

I never claimed they were acceptable but he done 2 months in jail for each one. Although not a nice experience I doubt these women are traumatised for life because someone copped a feel off them and had a **** beside them on the bus.

His sentence should be enough to 'learn him'.

And this is the kind of attitude that ensures that sexual offences against women are not taken seriously here.

"Shure what's the problem? I was only having a laugh, de frigid b1tch"

johnty56

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

I never claimed they were acceptable but he done 2 months in jail for each one. Although not a nice experience I doubt these women are traumatised for life because someone copped a feel off them and had a **** beside them on the bus.

His sentence should be enough to 'learn him'.

In fairness, would you like it if some guy came and sat next to you on the bus, grabbed your junk and had a ****? Seriously

Frosty McSnowballs

Woohoo I'm free

Yuuuus!

Nodin

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

I never claimed they were acceptable but he done 2 months in jail for each one. Although not a nice experience I doubt these women are traumatised for life because someone copped a feel off them and had a **** beside them on the bus.

His sentence should be enough to 'learn him'.

....there's a bit of a difference between a guy pulling his wire on a bus numerous times and some eejit shoplifting or up to petty crime, in terms of mentality etc

GalwayGuy2

Can't you find these court cases online? If there's any doubts about the groping part of the sexual assault then they should be shown on there.

NuckingFacker

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Woohoo I'm free

Yuuuus!

They didn't mention yer man having fancy trousers.. I'm gonna call bogus on this.

Amirani

Max Power1 wrote: »

Sexual offenders should not be allowed walk free, it is a sad state of affairs (sniggers) when that happens

Lifetime imprisonment so is it?

Smidge

NiallSparky wrote: »

Lifetime imprisonment so is it?

If he had committed ONE of these assaults you might think "bloody hell, he got off lightly there" but it wouldn't have stuck in my craw.

To have been convicted of SEVEN of these assaults, and to do 2 months a piece?
That's a joke, except its not funny.
He is a serial sexual offender and got a slap on the wrist for it.

The women who came forward must feel like the got a slap in the face for their trouble.

Frosty McSnowballs

NuckingFacker wrote: »

They didn't mention yer man having fancy trousers.. I'm gonna call bogus on this.

Eh, they were off! Duh

Judgement Day

mitosis wrote: »

I'm having trouble finding this anywhere.

The guy should definitely be sent home, and from the way he committed the offence, safe to say he generally, if not always, sat on the outside.

He should be kicked out permanently - not just for 10 years - and the authorities in whatever country he is deported to should be informed of his conviction. The trivialising of what he did by some posters is quite pathetic and I wonder if they would feel the same if happened to a family member, girlfriend etc.

UCDVet

Smidge wrote: »

I'm not too sure if you are being facetious here.

No, no joking. I'm actually 100% serious and I think my stance actually makes a lot of sense.

I understand that people make mistakes. I also acknowledge that life isn't fair and not everyone gets the same opportunity as other people. If someone steals because they are hungry....well, I don't support that act. But I can understand it. I don't support killing these people. If someone wants to use drugs, well, I'm actually 100% fine with that. Your life, your choice (IMHO). If someone breaks into my house tonight and steals my PC, well, I'm not happy about it - but I could forgive them and, at some point in the future, they could make amends.

But there are crimes that 'cross a line'. Senseless crimes. Crimes that can't be undone. Sexual assault is a great example. You can't unrape someone. I could never forgive someone who sexually assaulted my wife or daughter. If someone breaks into my house tonight with a knife or a gun, there is nothing that can come from that except harm. That crosses a line. Hate crimes, unprovoked violence, sexually assaults, I mean, there are lots of examples. Irrational, hateful crime.

When someone does something that of that nature, repeatedly, I believe we should kill them.

It's not that killing them will undo their action, but it is the only truly effective way of preventing it. In many cases, repeat offenders get progressively worse as they repeat too. This guy might move on to full rape in a few years.

Sexual assault, multiple times, over the course of four years.

The world would be better off without him.

Most people aren't important. I'm not. Most of you aren't. We live our lives, we pay our taxes. And that's grand. I'm not Einstein, I won't cure cancer. I just go about my life, love my family, and try to make the best of it. 99.9999% of people are just like me. The amount of good I can do, is very limited. I can spend some time, do some charity work, donate some (insignificantly small) amount of money.

The amount of good most people can do is quite small.

But it's really easy to do bad. How many nice gestures does it take from a guy like me to 'cancel out' one rape?

If I raped your wife, how many trivial nice things would it take before you felt like we were even?

Right, so I believe we live in a world where it is very, very easy to do an immeasurable amount of bad. But really hard to do much good. The feeling you'd get if I stabbed and robbed you - assuming you lived - is going to be worse than the sum of all the good I could ever do.

So, it seems reasonable to me, that we cut our losses. I think we should promptly and efficiently kill people that pose serious threats to our collective well-being. It's not meant to be a deterrent, it's not meant to 'make things right' - but it would be the most effective way to make our streets safe.

I read the paper most days and most of the criminals I read about have rap sheets a mile long. They've been committing senseless crime *THEIR WHOLE LIFE*. Most of them get progressively worse.

Maybe their life is priceless. But the lives of their victims should be equally priceless. You minimize the total amount of suffering by removing the bad apples.

Yes, it's extreme, and yes it has problems, but I do believe it is the best solution that *could* be implemented (even though it never will be).

Nodin

Smidge wrote: »

If he had committed ONE of these assaults you might think "bloody hell, he got off lightly there" but it wouldn't have stuck in my craw.

To have been convicted of SEVEN of these assaults, and to do 2 months a piece?
That's a joke, except its not funny.
He is a serial sexual offender and got a slap on the wrist for it.

The women who came forward must feel like the got a slap in the face for their trouble.

Considering the sentences handed out here for rape and sexual assault, it's not particularily suprising.

ArmaniJeanss

"You'd have a different opinion if was your sister/wife" must be one of the most annoying and frankly stupid arguments on AH.
Because of course I'd like the guy violently executed if it was a relative of mine he'd done it to, much like if I had my way the guy who burgled my house back in '06 should get life in a dimly lit dungeon and the pickpocket who got my wallet back in 1998 should have had his hands broken imo.

Which is why, since around the middle ages, all sensible rational justice systems don't actually allow the victim or their relatives to be the jury or judge.

Smidge

@ UCDvet
I was just checking!

I appreciate your post as it sums up a lot about the "taking away" that comes with any form of sexual assault.

What I think a lot of people don't understand is that sexual assault is very rarely about sex or the sex act.

Its about power.

Smidge

Nodin wrote: »

Considering the sentences handed out here for rape and sexual assault, it's not particularily suprising.

This is what I think.

This guy is a serial sexual offender.
He got a ridiculously short sentence.

But what gets to me is that he was ordered to be deported.
He has appealed this decision and is walking free.

If someone were of a mind to think in such a fashion they might think that this guy is saying to himself....

"I did exactly what I wanted to do and got a piddly sentence in a fairly cushy Irish prison(cushy compared to a Polish one). This seems like a great place to ply my trade for a while longer as really, what is the deterrent?"

Nodin

Smidge wrote: »

This is what I think.

This guy is a serial sexual offender.
He got a ridiculously short sentence.

No, he got quite a stiff sentence, when you consider the kind handed out here. There's no point in having a conniption at this specifically.

Smidge wrote: »

But what gets to me is that he was ordered to be deported.
He has appealed this decision and is walking free..

....because presumably, there are no legal grounds to detain him.

Smidge wrote: »

"I did exactly what I wanted to do and got a piddly sentence in a fairly cushy Irish prison(cushy compared to a Polish one). This seems like a great place to ply my trade for a while longer as really, what is the deterrent?"

I doubt his thinking is that joined up. The joy is not particularily "cushy" either.

Amirani

Smidge wrote: »

If he had committed ONE of these assaults you might think "bloody hell, he got off lightly there" but it wouldn't have stuck in my craw.

To have been convicted of SEVEN of these assaults, and to do 2 months a piece?
That's a joke, except its not funny.
He is a serial sexual offender and got a slap on the wrist for it.

The women who came forward must feel like the got a slap in the face for their trouble.

I'm not saying the sentence he was given was appropriate. I am saying though that lifetime imprisonment or execution (like that UCDvet fellow is suggesting) is disproportionate.

Amirani

UCDVet wrote: »

No, no joking. I'm actually 100% serious and I think my stance actually makes a lot of sense.

I understand that people make mistakes. I also acknowledge that life isn't fair and not everyone gets the same opportunity as other people. If someone steals because they are hungry....well, I don't support that act. But I can understand it. I don't support killing these people. If someone wants to use drugs, well, I'm actually 100% fine with that. Your life, your choice (IMHO). If someone breaks into my house tonight and steals my PC, well, I'm not happy about it - but I could forgive them and, at some point in the future, they could make amends.

But there are crimes that 'cross a line'. Senseless crimes. Crimes that can't be undone. Sexual assault is a great example. You can't unrape someone. I could never forgive someone who sexually assaulted my wife or daughter. If someone breaks into my house tonight with a knife or a gun, there is nothing that can come from that except harm. That crosses a line. Hate crimes, unprovoked violence, sexually assaults, I mean, there are lots of examples. Irrational, hateful crime.

When someone does something that of that nature, repeatedly, I believe we should kill them.

It's not that killing them will undo their action, but it is the only truly effective way of preventing it. In many cases, repeat offenders get progressively worse as they repeat too. This guy might move on to full rape in a few years.

Sexual assault, multiple times, over the course of four years.

The world would be better off without him.

Most people aren't important. I'm not. Most of you aren't. We live our lives, we pay our taxes. And that's grand. I'm not Einstein, I won't cure cancer. I just go about my life, love my family, and try to make the best of it. 99.9999% of people are just like me. The amount of good I can do, is very limited. I can spend some time, do some charity work, donate some (insignificantly small) amount of money.

The amount of good most people can do is quite small.

But it's really easy to do bad. How many nice gestures does it take from a guy like me to 'cancel out' one rape?

If I raped your wife, how many trivial nice things would it take before you felt like we were even?

Right, so I believe we live in a world where it is very, very easy to do an immeasurable amount of bad. But really hard to do much good. The feeling you'd get if I stabbed and robbed you - assuming you lived - is going to be worse than the sum of all the good I could ever do.

So, it seems reasonable to me, that we cut our losses. I think we should promptly and efficiently kill people that pose serious threats to our collective well-being. It's not meant to be a deterrent, it's not meant to 'make things right' - but it would be the most effective way to make our streets safe.

I read the paper most days and most of the criminals I read about have rap sheets a mile long. They've been committing senseless crime *THEIR WHOLE LIFE*. Most of them get progressively worse.

Maybe their life is priceless. But the lives of their victims should be equally priceless. You minimize the total amount of suffering by removing the bad apples.

Yes, it's extreme, and yes it has problems, but I do believe it is the best solution that *could* be implemented (even though it never will be).

This is one of the most troubling posts I've read on boards in quite a while. Not because it's the post of a rambling lunatic or some crazy extremist, but because it comes from someone who seems relatively normal.

I found this post extremely cold and lacking any degree of empathy whatsoever. It's may not even be the suggestions that are so troubling, perhaps more the language that you use to describe your views.

You think that "unprovoked violence", as vague as that is, warrants execution?

You think that because "This guy might move on to full rape in a few years.", that we should execute him?

You think we should execute people because "it would be the most effective way to make our streets safe."

You describe this as letting us "cut our losses".

To be honest, I couldn't in starker disagreement with you. A lot of these statements have previously been used as an argument for eugenics and genocide of certain racial groups, in extremely similar language. I find that troubling. I would rather end my life than live in a society that reflected the points you made in that post.

Smidge

Nodin wrote: »

No, he got quite a stiff sentence, when you consider the kind handed out here. There's no point in having a conniption at this specifically.



....because presumably, there are no legal grounds to detain him.





I doubt his thinking is that joined up. The joy is not particularily "cushy" either.

That's the point. The sentences here are a joke. His looks normal on paper, crazy given the extent of his crimes.

On your second point, there should be no leave for a convicted serial sex offender to appeal a deportation order. The judiciary is an ass for allowing this loophole.

Thirdly, in comparison to Polish prisons I'd say the joy is cushy.
And someone who targets woman after woman?
I'd say his thinking is more than joined up in that regard.

mitosis

Smidge wrote: »

It's the last line of the article

Not in the one linked, it's not.

Smidge

mitosis wrote: »

Not in the one linked, it's not.

Have another read.
It is.