Insensitive comments by judge

Gyalist

A man who raped a woman he had asked to clean his house has been sentenced to 7½ years, after a judge said he couldn’t “buy himself out” of a custodial sentence.

Thomas Egan (47), Cahermurphy, Kilmihill, Co Clare, paid over €10,000 in court to be forwarded to his victim, who has since returned to Brazil.

Mr Justice Barry White also said that on reading the victim impact report, he did not believe the rape had “a profound psychological effect” on her.

“It strikes me that your victim is more interested in compensation rather than anything else,” he said.

He sentenced Egan to 7½ years in prison with the final 3½ years suspended. He directed that €50 given by Egan to the woman at the time of the offence be sent to the St Vincent de Paul. He noted that Egan had a previous “unblemished record” apart from a minor road traffic offence.

LINK

What an outrageous comment by the judge! It is as if he believes that the victim somehow tricked the defendant into raping her.

Newaglish

Gyalist wrote: »

LINK

What an outrageous comment by the judge! It is as if he believes that the victim somehow tricked the defendant into raping her.

I don't understand how you get from your first comment to your second comment.

Senna

It strikes me that your victim is more interested in compensation rather than anything else

This is the comment that should be in bold.

FTA69

Un-f*cking-believable. Rape is rape like, and by the sounds of it the judge nearly felt sorry about sentencing a convicted sex-offender as he "hadn't used gratuitous violence" (as if all rape was accompanied by battery). The comments about the victim beggar belief, almost as if she was some sort of foreign siren after this poor man's money. This bastard now will be lucky to serve 18 months for a crime of this nature.

There seems to be a systemically sh*t attitude to women where things like this are concerned.

seamus

Newaglish wrote: »

I don't understand how you get from your first comment to your second comment.

This.

It would be moronic of anyone to comment on what the judge said unless they heard or read the victim impact statement themselves.

Tzardine

Maybe he is right. Maybe it did not have a profound psychological affect on her.

He has after all got the victim impact statement and has listened to all the evidence.

I am not for one second saying that rape does not have a psychological affect on people, but it is possible that for some they can deal with it.

vitani

I can only hope that the full phrase was 'thankfully, the rape did not have a profound psychological effect' on the victim.

Tombo2001

Look.....the issue here is not that Judge would be out of touch on the issue of sexual crimes......because we know that already.

The issue here is that there is no accountability.

The reason he is saying what he is saying is that the last Judge who said / did something similarly ignorant and stupid was not held accountable for it.

Tombo2001

Tzardine wrote: »

Maybe he is right. Maybe it did not have a profound psychological affect on her.

He has after all got the victim impact statement and has listened to all the evidence.

I am not for one second saying that rape does not have a psychological affect on people, but it is possible that for some they can deal with it.

I'm sure she is delighted that the Judge is sitting there saying.....'look at her, she's grand'

Tombo2001

FTA69 wrote: »

The comments about the victim beggar belief, almost as if she was some sort of foreign siren after this poor man's money. .

I agree completely.

If this was a local Doctor's daughter would he be speaking this way about her.

But if its some Latvian or Lithuanian.....

DeanAustin

seamus wrote: »

This.

It would be moronic of anyone to comment on what the judge said unless they heard or read the victim impact statement themselves.

Exactly. A lot of knee jerk PC nonsense on this thread.

What the judge said may have been insensitive and hurtful. Or it may have been pretty accurate. None of us know because we don't have all the facts in front of us.

gramar

He directed that €50 given by Egan to the woman at the time of the offence be sent to the St Vincent de Paul.

Egan gave her 50€ at the time of the offence and now she has to send it to the SvdeP? That doesn't make any sense.

FTA69

seamus wrote: »

This.

It would be moronic of anyone to comment on what the judge said unless they heard or read the victim impact statement themselves.

Anyone who says rape doesn't have a psychological impact on a victim has a deeply sh*t view of the subject.

ArmaniJeanss

gramar wrote: »

He directed that €50 given by Egan to the woman at the time of the offence be sent to the St Vincent de Paul.

Egan gave her 50€ at the time of the offence and now she has to send it to the SvdeP? That doesn't make any sense.

Perhaps she doesn't want anything to with that specific €50 note because it is from the day of the rape?

*******

In general the Irish Times appear to have done a terrible job here with their selective quotes from the judges sentencing speech. It appears to be just random phrases taken from it, with absolutely no context given or whether they relate to something the judge had referred previously.

You'd really need to see the entire sentencing speech to get an idea whether the judge is actually being insensitive or not.

Tombo2001

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Perhaps she doesn't want anything to with that specific €50 note because it is from the day of the rape?

*******

In general the Irish Times appear to have done a terrible job here with their selective quotes from the judges sentencing speech. It appears to be just random phrases taken from it, with absolutely no context given or whether they relate to something the judge had referred previously.

You'd really need to see the entire sentencing speech to get an idea whether the judge is actually being insensitive or not.

Why do you need context for his statement that she hasnt suffered deep psychological distress?

What sort of context makes that remark acceptable?

Please tell me? i'd like to know.......

Tzardine

FTA69 wrote: »

Anyone who says rape doesn't have a psychological impact on a victim has a deeply sh*t view of the subject.

But you cant say how it affects everybody.

Look at people who were fighting in wars such as Vietnam. They all saw some truly horrific stuff , but not all of them got PTSD. Some people have a capability to deal with the worst of situations.

DeanAustin

FTA69 wrote: »

Anyone who says rape doesn't have a psychological impact on a victim has a deeply sh*t view of the subject.

Except that's not what the judge said.

He said it didn't seem to have a 'profound psychological impact'.

If you accept for a second that there is a possibility, however remote, that a woman could be raped, not be profoundly affected by it and use it to get compensation then the judge's comments could be fair. I think it's unlikely but not beyond the bounds of possibility so I find it hard to damn the judge without more information or context.

jane82

I find it strange that she never said no, never put up a fight, yer man never raised his voice or used violence.
The victim was too afraid to.
Im sure there is something missing in the story.

WellThen?

What the hell is wrong with some of you...whether she's distraught for the duration of the rape or for months/years afterwards the woman was bloody raped. And oh she's looking for compensation...too fu*king right.

That judge is an out of touch ,uneducated waste of our tax money.

I am 100% against women using this as a tool, crying rape..makes me sick. But this guy has confessed.

FTA69

DeanAustin wrote: »

Except that's not what the judge said.

He said it didn't seem to have a 'profound psychological impact'.

If you accept for a second that there is a possibility, however remote, that a woman could be raped, not be profoundly affected by it and use it to get compensation then the judge's comments could be fair. I think it's unlikely but not beyond the bounds of possibility so I find it hard to damn the judge without more information or context.

Sorry, I don't accept that rape won't have a profound psychological impact. It's one of the worst things you can do to a person which is why in normal society's eyes, it's one of the most serious crimes.

ArmaniJeanss

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Why do you need context for his statement that she hasnt suffered deep psychological distress?

What sort of context makes that remark acceptable?

Perhaps he spoke in relative depth re the physical,psychological and social effects of what happened, pointed out that they are never zero but that in this case that the psychological effects seem to be at the lower end of the scale. For example, perhaps she hasn't let the event stop her socialising, working, commuting, holidaying and that she is getting on with life compared to other victims who are unable to do these things because of the effect it has. Therefore to use his phrase 'not profound'.

I wasn't there so I don't know, and the summation in the paper doesn't help.

wilser

WellThen? wrote: »

I am 100% against women using this as a tool, crying rape..makes me sick. But this guy has confessed.

could you please direct me to where in the op link he confessed, he said they had consensual sex, cant find it myself.

mitosis

WellThen? wrote: »

What the hell is wrong with some of you...whether she's distraught for the duration of the rape or for months/years afterwards the woman was bloody raped. And oh she's looking for compensation...too fu*king right.

That judge is an out of touch ,uneducated waste of our tax money.

I am 100% against women using this as a tool, crying rape..makes me sick. But this guy has confessed.

The article would not support your assertion.

Det Garda Colette Acton told the court that during Garda interviews, Egan maintained there had been consensual sex.

Collie D

WellThen? wrote: »

What the hell is wrong with some of you...whether she's distraught for the duration of the rape or for months/years afterwards the woman was bloody raped. And oh she's looking for compensation...too fu*king right.

That judge is an out of touch ,uneducated waste of our tax money.

I am 100% against women using this as a tool, crying rape..makes me sick. But this guy has confessed.

Det Garda Colette Acton told the court that during Garda interviews, Egan maintained there had been consensual sex.

Don't think he confessed. Does seem to be something off about this case but as I don't know all of the evidence or circumstances I have no option but to accept the jury's verdict.

DeanAustin

FTA69 wrote: »

Sorry, I don't accept that rape won't have a profound psychological impact. It's one of the worst things you can do to a person which is why in normal society's eyes, it's one of the most serious crimes.

I agree with your general point but people deal with things differently. Without knowing the detail of this case, I think it's harsh to damn the judge on the basis of that report.

Filling in the blanks, it seems like yer man came to an agreement with his victim on compensation that would have meant him not doing any time and she was happy with that. The judge wasn't having it and ensured he got locked up. That's me guessing but that report raises more questions than it gives answers.

Tombo2001

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Perhaps he spoke in relative depth re the physical,psychological and social effects of what happened, pointed out that they are never zero but that in this case that the psychological effects seem to be at the lower end of the scale. For example, perhaps she hasn't let the event stop her socialising, working, commuting, holidaying and that she is getting on with life compared to other victims who are unable to do these things because of the effect it has. Therefore to use his phrase 'not profound'.

I wasn't there so I don't know, and the summation in the paper doesn't help.

turn it on its head.

is there a possibility that, if this woman was raped, as the judge is saying she has been.....that she has sufferred deep pyschological distress?

Yes, undoubtedly there is.

Even if she 'doesnt appear to', is it still possible that she has sufferred deep pyschological distress.

Without doubt yes.

In that scenario, do you come out publicly and announce to the public in a courtroom that she 'doesnt appear to have sufferred deep psychological distress'.....no absolutely you do not say that. Because if she has sufferred deep psychological distress, then that is just an almighty kick in the gut.

WellThen?

wilser wrote: »

could you please direct me to where in the op link he confessed, he said they had consensual sex, cant find it myself.

Well I obviously read that article wrong! See what happens when you skim down a story and comment....

Apologies....i'll just get back to work

ArmaniJeanss

Tombo2001 wrote: »

turn it on its head.

is there a possibility that, if this woman was raped, as the judge is saying she has been.....that she has sufferred deep pyschological distress?

Yes, undoubtedly there is.

Even if she 'doesnt appear to', is it still possible that she has sufferred deep pyschological distress.

Without doubt yes.

In that scenario, do you come out publicly and announce to the public in a courtroom that she 'doesnt appear to have sufferred deep psychological distress'.....no absolutely you do not say that. Because if she has sufferred deep psychological distress, then that is just an almighty kick in the gut.

I don't disagree with your general point.

But as I understand the judge gets handed various reports to read, victim impact report, victim impact statements etc where an attempt is actually made to quantify these things, and as part of the standard sentencing speech he makes reference to them and the conclusions they've come to.

So what I think you are saying is because these reports/conclusions may be incorrect that he shouldn't actually refer to them at all. Which is fine I suppose, but would be a fairly major upheaval of the way things are done.

Dravokivich

Tombo2001 wrote: »

turn it on its head.

is there a possibility that, if this woman was raped, as the judge is saying she has been.....that she has sufferred deep pyschological distress?

Yes, undoubtedly there is.

Even if she 'doesnt appear to', is it still possible that she has sufferred deep pyschological distress.

Without doubt yes.

In that scenario, do you come out publicly and announce to the public in a courtroom that she 'doesnt appear to have sufferred deep psychological distress'.....no absolutely you do not say that. Because if she has sufferred deep psychological distress, then that is just an almighty kick in the gut.

The comment isn't about rape in itself, it's about how the victim has represented herself. His comment is solely in reference to her. She doesn't appear to see herself as a victim, from the line following what that was bolded:

“It strikes me that your victim is more interested in compensation rather than anything else,” he said.

Gyalist

jane82 wrote: »

I find it strange that she never said no, never put up a fight, yer man never raised his voice or used violence.
The victim was too afraid to.
Im sure there is something missing in the story.

Yes, it wasn't a legitimate rape.

SEPT 23 1989

What is it about the judiciary and sex crimes in this country?

Tombo2001

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

What is it about the judiciary and sex crimes in this country?

At least we're not in India.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Tombo2001 wrote: »

At least we're not in India.

so what, like wtf has that to do with it?

strandroad

She is foreign and most likely was not accustomed with the usual rhetoric of Irish victim impact statements as they not standard around the world. I suppose that for this judge if he did not see the usual "my life has been shattered beyond repair and I dread going to sleep at night" she must have seemed callous or unaffected.

Never understood how the "who can write the most dramatic statement" contest can have impact on the verdict anyway. You judge the deed, not how outspoken the victim is.

Tombo2001

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

so what, like wtf has that to do with it?

Indian judges have a notoriously lax attitude to sex crimes.

Thats what it has to do with it.

If my comment was 'I might have ice cream for dessert' I might see where you are getting your 'wtf's from.

As it is, my point is relevant.

DeanAustin

mhge wrote: »

She is foreign and most likely was not accustomed with the usual rhetoric of Irish victim impact statements as they not standard around the world. I suppose that for this judge if he did not see the usual "my life has been shattered beyond repair and I dread going to sleep at night" she must have seemed callous or unaffected.

Never understood how the "who can write the most dramatic statement" contest can have impact on the verdict anyway. You judge the deed, not how outspoken the victim is.

And the judge did "judge the deed" by locking this fella up when it seems that both he and his victim would have been happy for him to remain a free man whilst paying compensation.

Snickers Man

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

In general the Irish Times appear to have done a terrible job here with their selective quotes from the judges sentencing speech. It appears to be just random phrases taken from it, with absolutely no context given or whether they relate to something the judge had referred previously.

In fairness, newspapers have to be very careful wrt libel and defamation laws (don't mention Pantigate) when dealing with issues of this kind.

Read through the Irish Times report of the event carefully and think for yourself what MIGHT have happened here.

Bare facts: man accosts immigrant woman in street. They get into a car and drive to a house. They have sex. He reckons its consensual. He gives her €50. What does that sound like to you?

Woman later has regrets and makes a complaint.

I'm not inferring anything from these facts as reported in the paper. I wouldn't dare. There are many possible explanations for what happened that fit the facts we have been allowed to know.

As Sir Thomas More said in A Man For All Seasons "The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law"

Gyalist

You know, over the years I've helped a few non-Irish people who had serious crimes committed against them. These are often people with little or no command of the language, thousands of miles away from home and any support systems, terrified that if they report the crimes that it would count against them when trying to renew their visas, or used to corrupt officials in their home countries who won't help them and therefore feel that their experience here would be the same.

Reading the reported comments of the judge and the mental gymnastics by some of the posters on this thread trying to justify what he said makes me realise that their fears were not altogether unfounded.

suicide_circus

If Judge Barry White saved your life or got you back with your ex-wife..

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Indian judges have a notoriously lax attitude to sex crimes.

Thats what it has to do with it.

If my comment was 'I might have ice cream for dessert' I might see where you are getting your 'wtf's from.

As it is, my point is relevant.

You point is wholly irrelevant.
We are talking about Irish judges and their overly lax attitudes to violent crimes against women, no amount of pathetic attempts at deflection can take away from that fact.
BTW An Indian Judge recently sentenced 4 men to death by hanging for rape, hardly lax!

seamus

FTA69 wrote: »

Anyone who says rape doesn't have a psychological impact on a victim has a deeply sh*t view of the subject.

So you read the victim impact statement then? What did it say?

FTA69

seamus wrote: »

So you read the victim impact statement then? What did it say?

I doubt it said "I was raped but sure I'm grand now." You seem to be suggesting that some people can be raped with little effect being had on them.

My name is URL

FTA69 wrote: »

I doubt it said "I was raped but sure I'm grand now." You seem to be suggesting that some people can be raped with little effect being had on them.

Do you think it affects everyone in the same way?

suicide_circus

judging by barry's comments I imagine the victim spent the majority of th VIS talking about compensation. I heard on rte radio this morning that civil/criminal proceedings happen simultaneously in brazil and victim statements tend to focus on demands for cash which probably sat weirdly with an irish court. maybe the victim was poorly advised in this regard.

seamus

FTA69 wrote: »

I doubt it said "I was raped but sure I'm grand now." You seem to be suggesting that some people can be raped with little effect being had on them.

Yeah, why not? Events have different effects on different people.
Some people get burgled and spend years in fear of being home alone, whereas others just get on with it and don't really think about it. One person get beaten up on their way home and chalk it down as "**** happens", whereas another person might develop crippling agoraphobia.

Is rape a deeply invasive crime? Sure. But depending on a person's upbringing and culture, the effect it will have will differ.

It's insanely closed-minded to think that the effect of a rape is the exact same on everyone and that everyone who is raped is inconsolably devastated by it. It's just safe to start from that assumption when dealing with a victim.

But without knowing the content of the victim impact statement, you're literally just making stuff up about the impact on this victim. Or you're suggesting that the judge is making stuff up?

judging by barry's comments I imagine the victim spent the majority of th VIS talking about compensation. I heard on rte radio this morning that civil/criminal proceedings happen simultaneously in brazil and victim statements tend to focus on demands for cash which probably sat weirdly with an irish court. maybe the victim was poorly advised in this regard.

That's interesting. If that was the case, it certainly would look odd to an Irish judge.

Tombo2001

seamus wrote: »

It's insanely closed-minded to think that the effect of a rape is the exact same on everyone and that everyone who is raped is inconsolably devastated by it. It's just safe to start from that assumption when dealing with a victim.

.

Thats a strawman Seamus.

The point here is not whether the woman in question is deeply traumatised or not, or whether everyone is affected by rape in the same way.

The point is that the judge is not in a position to draw a conclusion on it, regardless of what reports have been drawn up or what the victim impact says, and shouldnt do so publicly.

seamus

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The point is that the judge is not in a position to draw a conclusion on it, regardless of what reports have been drawn up or what the victim impact says, and shouldnt do so publicly.

You are not in a position to draw that conclusion without seeing the victim impact statement. For all you know she did write, "I'm OK, it's not that big a deal".

You are telling us how the victim must feel, with zero information whatsoever.

The depressing part about this is that Judge White has been a good guy in this; he turned down all attempts at compensation and said that the attacker couldn't buy his way out of jail time. That's a huge shift in attitude from other judges who have allowed rapists off with suspended sentences in exchange for cash.

Instead, he makes an off-the-cuff minor remark - which clearly didn't have any factor in his sentencing - and some people are up in arms.

Recognise the actual win that's in this case, stop searching for things so that you can be offended by proxy.

FTA69

Yeah, why not? Events have different effects on different people.

Because rape is universally accepted as being one of the most traumatic things that can be inflicted on a person. A person's ability to overcome that injury doesn't negate the effect it initially had on them.

It's insanely closed-minded to think that the effect of a rape is the exact same on everyone and that everyone who is raped is inconsolably devastated by it. It's just safe to start from that assumption when dealing with a victim.

It's safe to say that it would have a profound effect on someone, the same way losing a loved one or suffering a bereavement would have a profound effect in someone. The judge here seems to be trivialising the incident entirely based on one letter.

Or you're suggesting that the judge is making stuff up?

I'm saying the judge has a terrible attitude toward this particular victim, unfortunately it's an attitude that has been displayed time and time again by many men in authority when dealing with rape cases.

Tombo2001

seamus wrote: »

You are not in a position to draw that conclusion without seeing the victim impact statement. For all you know she did write, "I'm OK, it's not that big a deal".

You are telling us how the victim must feel, with zero information whatsoever.

Exactly the opposite.

I have reached no conclusion on the actual victim impact, and I am saying the judge shouldnt have either.

seamus

FTA69 wrote: »

It's safe to say that it would have a profound effect on someone, the same way losing a loved one or suffering a bereavement would have a profound effect in someone. The judge here seems to be trivialising the incident entirely based on one letter.

Some people are unaffected by bereavement. In fact, some people feel relief. There is no one-emotion-fits-all here. You seem to be blowing an off-the-cuff remark out of all proportion based on your personal idealised version of events.

I'm saying the judge has a terrible attitude toward this particular victim, unfortunately it's an attitude that has been displayed time and time again by many men in authority when dealing with rape cases.

So he tells the man that he can't buy his way out of this crime and sends him to jail for 3.5 years, and you think that the judge has a terrible attitude towards rape? What did you want? A public flogging? Castration?

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I have reached no conclusion on the actual victim impact, and I am saying the judge shouldnt have either.

So what's the point in victim impact statements if judges shouldn't use them to draw conclusions?

FTA69

seamus wrote: »

There is no one-emotion-fits-all here. You seem to be blowing an off-the-cuff remark out of all proportion based on your personal idealised version of events

I have no idealised version, I'm of the opinion that rape will have a profoundly negative impact on anyone subjected to it and that your suggestion that people would be able to just brush it off is total nonsense.

So he tells the man that he can't buy his way out of this crime and sends him to jail for 3.5 years, and you think that the judge has a terrible attitude towards rape?

That's an absurdly low sentence for rape. And yes, his publically referring to the victim as some sort of money-grabber who wasn't really that put out by a rape is an archaic and deeply flawed view of the subject.