Rallying around a rapist

NachoBusiness

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

These days it really is guilty until you can prove your innocence.

With certain crimes, it sure appears that way.

Personally I think that it's more about self preservation for such people, rather than any sense of repulsion and belief of guilt. It's really about fear of what their friends and colleagues will think of them if they continue to associate with a person accused of such crimes.

FactCheck

NachoBusiness wrote: »

With certain crimes, it sure appears that way.

Personally I think that it's more about self preservation for such people, rather than any sense of repulsion and belief of guilt. It's really about fear of what their friends and colleagues will think of them if they continue to associate with a person accused of such crimes.

Right, but how is any of that relevant here, where the mob has risen up in protest after he was convicted?

Neyite

Wibbs wrote: »

Jesus. Part Deux. Are you serious? Have you never heard of wrongful accusation? Mistaken identity, miscarriages of justice? So in your mind being charged with a crime is enough? Or is it only the emotive stuff that overrides your logic?

To be honest, I'd distance myself from someone brought up on charges of child sex abuse until I knew the outcome of the trial. After all, I wouldn't be privvy to the evidence. I'd want to believe that a friend is that innocent, but I've seen too many people affected by abuse and their abusers all grand upstanding members of society and local community who couldn't possibly have done those heinous things to little kids. Except they did.

In the UK, social services can and do threaten to take your kids off you if you refuse to leave an abusive partner or a partner who is facing trial for child sex offences. So ensuring that SS dont need to intervene in my family would be more of a priority than sticking up for a friend who presumably the DPP have enough evidence on to bring to trial.

For me, its not about being over emotive, just practical.

QuinDixie

FactCheck wrote: »

It's very kind of you both to give the benefit of the doubt to the mob in court, but I'm afraid you're both quite wrong. Character references are taken by the court after conviction (what would be the point of doing so before? What a waste of time). The article also makes clear that the "petition" was gathered since the conviction which occurred earlier this month.

These people have chosen to rally around a convicted child rapist. Now, I have no doubt they firmly believe his testimony that he woke up to find the child in question having sex with him. Much like Danny Foley's supporters in Listowel decided that the CCTV evidence and the eyewitness testimony from two Gardai was outweighed by his insistence that his unconscious victim was coming on to him.

Those people all believed that, and they were all very deeply stupid people. I can see where posters are coming from in believing that there's a point at which that deep stupidity crosses into actual wickedness. I don't personally have an opinion on where that is, I can't see into their hearts. I only know that what they've chosen to do is contrary to all evidence, good sense, and decency.

The sad thing is that in this country we have a well-established cultural tradition of overlooking abuse if committed by someone we like and respect. We like to tell ourselves we're past all that, but you don't put such a deep societal sickness to bed so quickly or so easily.

well said, especially about when character references are taken. Worse for me is the girlfriend giving him a reference and she has a young child.

First sexual assault should see min. of 10 years in prison.
A Second offence should see chemical castration and a min. of 20 years in prison. Prison terms are always halved anyway.

El_Duderino 09

AudreyHepburn wrote:

I'm complaining about seemingly rational right thinking people sympathising with and supporting a child molester.

It doesn't follow though. They have experience of him as a hard worker or a committed team player. That's what they say because it's their experience.

AudreyHepburn wrote:

I'm not complaining about that, they can say what they like about him, it won't change what he is.

That's not what you're doing though. You're saying anyone who gives evidence of their experience of him is guilty by association. You're also saying they are supporting him or dismissing the severity of his crime. You can't have it both ways

Wibbs

FactCheck wrote: »

Right, but how is any of that relevant here, where the mob has risen up in protest after he was convicted?

To be fair I was wrong there mistakenly thinking this was before conviction. Yes they are utter twats. However I would still not think of them as equally guilty as some are suggesting.

El_Duderino 09

AudreyHepburn wrote:

No but I would see it as you agreeing with what he did. And to me that makes you just as bad ....but that's my own personal opinion.

It's your opinion and it's really silly

FactCheck

Wibbs wrote: »

To be fair I was wrong there mistakenly thinking this was before conviction. Yes they are utter twats. However I would still not think of them as equally guilty as some are suggesting.

There's something honestly darkly amusing about seeing people go "check the facts!" and give the benefit of the doubt, and urge against mob rule, when you yourself hadn't read the article properly and jumped to a conclusion. Thanks for correcting it.

steddyeddy

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

Your post is stupid beyond belief.

Guilty by association, eh?

Actually they are guilty. These kids had their lives ruined. They reported it which took major courage considering the guy was seen as a pillar of the community. Then these grown men offer public support to the guy who raped these kids.

Of course they're guilty and they're prolonging the suffering of these children. There's a vast difference between being being associated with a rapist and supporting one after he was convicted of raping kids.

One of the worst things that can happen to rape victims is "I don't believe you" and this is what's happening here from a whole community.

Samaris

foggy_lad wrote: »

If I was asked to defend or speak up for someone even accused of such crimes I would no longer consider them my friend!

As soon as I found out they were suspected of such a crime the friendship would end!

Christ, your friends better hope that they are never falsely accused of anything. They obviously couldn't rely on any faith in them from you.

As for this case, it is a weird and disturbing one, and I would like to know what's going on behind the scenes. It does remind me rather of that awful Lisdowel case. It's like sometimes...people just dig in their heels, normal, otherwise well-adjusted people that would neither harm a child or condone it happening, and they become blind to the facts of the case. It's a nasty event to find out that a mate, someone you trusted as a decent person, could do something so evil.

Fortunately at least, this is why our judges are not usually within the tiny community where the crime took place and should, at least, be impartial to friendships and community bonds, so they can make a judgement on evidence, not emotion.

AudreyHepburn

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's your opinion and it's really silly

Being disgusted with people supporting a convicted child rapist is silly? Seeing such support as them condoning what he did is silly?

Really?

AudreyHepburn

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It doesn't follow though. They have experience of him as a hard worker or a committed team player. That's what they say because it's their experience.



That's not what you're doing though. You're saying anyone who gives evidence of their experience of him is guilty by association. You're also saying they are supporting him or dismissing the severity of his crime. You can't have it both ways

I think there's been some crossed wires here tbh.

I wasn't complaining about them giving their experiences with him as evidence....they were character witnesses by the sounds of it, that's what they were there for.

I was complaining about the fact that they continue to support him now that he has been convicted....that's what I have a problem with.

Sorry if it doesn't come across that way.

AlanG

As mentioned earlier it would be interesting to see what this petition said and when it was gathered, the indo is not a great source if you want the full story and it is not clear even from the article when all the signatures were gathered. A lot of Indo journalism is just copying and pasting tweets.

If you were asked to sign a petition for a friend who you know quite well and had done a lot of good for you and your family would you refuse this friend based solely on an accusation of someone you don’t know. The petition may simply say that to the best of your knowledge and experience they are a good person. In that case you would be refusing to tell the truth as you know it about a friend because of the nature of the accusation.

If the petition was fully gathered between the conviction and sentencing then it is a totally different story as your knowledge of that friend will have changed. As for the people complaining in court after the sentencing they are a real disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves.

Wibbs

FactCheck wrote: »

There's something honestly darkly amusing about seeing people go "check the facts!" and give the benefit of the doubt, and urge against mob rule, when you yourself hadn't read the article properly and jumped to a conclusion. Thanks for correcting it.

The difference is my "mob rule" assumed innocence not guilt. I know which society I'd rather live in.

lanos

The number of character references a pedophile receives prior to a conviction should be irrelevant.
Pedophiles by their nature are experts at deceiving and manipulating people.
how else can they access victims (deceiving)
and keep the victims from speaking out (manipulating)

and all this public display of disgust is just pointless
The victims identity is protected and we will never know if the
gullible supporters are maintaining their position.

FactCheck

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It doesn't follow though. They have experience of him as a hard worker or a committed team player. That's what they say because it's their experience.

The problem is, though, and this is just me, but if I found out that a good mate that I had been playing sport with or working closely with, and I thought they were generally a good person, and then it turned out the whole time I had known them, they had been repeatedly raping a child, and I had had no idea - see, I would take a look at myself and say "well, clearly I'm a terrible judge of character here. I had no idea. How could I have missed this? What a terrible mistake I've made". I wouldn't be rushing into court to sign a petition, shout at a judge, or write up how great I had thought he was. I would be looking at myself thinking, who the hell cares what I thought, I was clearly a fool.

That's not to say there isn't a place for character references. Somebody criticised Mickey Harte up above, but at least the guy he was a reference for had pled guilty and so there was presumably some remorse there and a reference could have been along the lines of "this is how he's trying to rebuild his life and contribute positively to society".

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're saying anyone who gives evidence of their experience of him is guilty by association. You're also saying they are supporting him or dismissing the severity of his crime. You can't have it both ways

I mean, his defence was that he woke up three times to find the child having sex with him. At point does someone who chooses to believe that, against the decision of the court, cease to be stupid and just become wicked? It's hard to tell. It's not a question I have any interest in (I couldn't care less if they're bad or just stupid), but I can see why Audrey would have an opinion, and it's not outrageous IMO to believe them to be wicked.

NachoBusiness

The "misguided" letter from the "supporter" that said they had “lost faith in justice” was referenced after the man was found guilty, right?

Well 1) who was this letter sent to? and 2) why was the letter referenced at all at that stage?

I mean, I get that letters of support, character references etc are allowed to be submitted and taken into consideration before verdicts are reached, but what relevance has anybody's opinion on matters got to do with anything after that point?

FactCheck

Wibbs wrote: »

The difference is my "mob rule" assumed innocence not guilt. I know which society I'd rather live in.

Yes but probably the best society to live in is one in which people try to inform themselves by reading the whole article before drawing a conclusion?

smash

NachoBusiness wrote: »

So the letter from a "supporter" that said they had “lost faith in justice” was referenced after the man was found guilty?

This person needs a kick up the arse. There were victim impact statements plus elements of admittance from the accused and yet someone still wrote a letter to say they'd lost faith in justice... I wonder how they'd feel if it was their daughters.

QuinDixie

lanos wrote: »

The number of character references a pedophile receives prior to a conviction should be irrelevant.
Pedophiles by their nature are experts at deceiving and manipulating people.
how else can they access victims (deceiving)
and keep the victims from speaking out (manipulating)

and all this public display of disgust is just pointless
The victims identity is protected and we will never know if the
gullible supporters are maintaining their position.

Can we still be disgusted with the lenient prison terms sexual predators receive?
9 years, out in 4 and a half. Is that enough punishment for such a heinous crime.

MrWalsh

FactCheck wrote: »

The problem is, though, and this is just me, but if I found out that a good mate that I had been playing sport with or working closely with, and I thought they were generally a good person, and then it turned out the whole time I had known them, they had been repeatedly raping a child, and I had had no idea - see, I would take a look at myself and say "well, clearly I'm a terrible judge of character here. I had no idea. How could I have missed this? What a terrible mistake I've made".

If it was a good friend or family member it is more likely that you would be thinking, "No, they must be wrong, yer man COULDNT have done such an awful thing, there is a terrible mistake here, but yer man just COULDNT have done something like that, the only possible explanation is that this is all a terrible mistake".

Barely There

QuinDixie wrote: »

9 years, out in 4 and a half. Is that enough punishment for such a heinous crime.

You tell us.

VisibleGorilla

QuinDixie wrote: »

Can we still be disgusted with the lenient prison terms sexual predators receive?
9 years, out in 4 and a half. Is that enough punishment for such a heinous crime.

Where are you getting lenient from?

He will get out in 6.75 years provided he actually gets his remission.

He will be nearly 51 years old, a sex offender for life... how is that lenient?!

MrWalsh

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

Where are you getting lenient from?

He will get out in 6.75 years provided he actually gets his remission.

He will be nearly 51 years old, a sex offender for life... how is that lenient?!

This post is disturbing.

He ruined the lives of 2 girls by violently sexually assaulting them as children, raping them, destroying any chance at a normal enjoyable sex life for them and probably also ruined the life of their mother, and associated family and friends.

You cannot "cure" pedophilia and this was not a one off event that he was under the influence of drink or drugs for, it was sustained and premeditated series of attacks over years.

IMO he should be locked up for life.

FactCheck

NachoBusiness wrote: »

The "misguided" letter from the "supporter" that said they had “lost faith in justice” was referenced after the man was found guilty, right?

Well 1) who was this letter sent to? and 2) why was the letter referenced at all at that stage?

I mean, I get that letters of support, character references etc are allowed to be submitted and taken into consideration before verdicts are reached, but what relevance has anybody's opinion on matters got to do with after that point?

No, you've actually got it back to front here. It works like this:

Accusation is made. Gardai gather evidence. Gardai send file of evidence to DPP. DPP decide whether they think there is enough evidence to prosecute. They bring trial. Trial takes place before judge and jury.

Evidence at trial does not include stuff like "sure he's a lovely guy, I play gaa with him every Sunday, I'm sure he'd never do something like this". That's not evidence!

Verdict is reached - in this case accused is found guilty. Judge adjourns sentencing to give time for victim to make impact statement, convicted to gather character references. Judge needs to consider all mitigating and aggravating factors (this does take time as if their judgement doesn't mention all of them it's grounds to appeal the sentence). They will order reports into health issues, mental health issues, drug issues now too if they are considered relevant. If convicted is in a drug treatment programme for example they'd get them to write up that they are engaging with it.

This is the time for the character references along the lines of "ah sure I play gaa with him every Sunday, he's always volunteering to coach blah blah blah". There are appropriate and inappropriate ways to write a reference. Saying that to the best of your knowledge they have always behaved well and you think they're a credit to the community is ok (though a lot of people, most people, wouldn't want to do this because they'd feel like they'd been hoodwinked and manipulated by a rapist at this point - and that's fine). Saying "you bastard judge, this is a miscarriage of justice!!" is not okay. The judge clearly got a lot of "letters"/references, along those lines. Likewise, starting a petition to say "this is a miscarriage of justice, that child seduced him!" (this was his defence) is not an appropriate part of the process. (Someone who thinks they are the victim of a miscarriage of justice has the appeals process to follow).

Causing a scene in the courtroom as the judge delivers the sentence is absolutely the wrong way to go about it. Lining up to shake the convicted person's hand (in front of the victim) ala Listowel is also completely inappropriate.

Samaris

Memory Orb wrote: »

So what should be done with people who are attracted to children? Should they be locked away for life?

Being attracted to children is a horrible, tragic illness that can ruin the life of the person who has it. It is far more common than we think from the looks of it, BUT many people with these attractions do not act on them and would never consider acting on them. That is the difference. No, we cannot and shouldn't just lock up anyone who has that twisted wire in their brain, but we can and should come down hard on anyone who acts on it and thus inflicts their mental illness onto innocent kids to ruin their lives too.

Thought crime = not illegal
Raping/molesting a child = very, very illegal.

VisibleGorilla

MrWalsh wrote: »

This post is disturbing.

He ruined the lives of 2 girls by violently sexually assaulting them as children, raping them, destroying any chance at a normal enjoyable sex life for them and probably also ruined the life of their mother, and associated family and friends.

You cannot "cure" pedophilia and this was not a one off event that he was under the influence of drink or drugs for, it was sustained and premeditated series of attacks over years.

IMO he should be locked up for life.

Disturbing why? As I have a different view? That his punishment is not in fact lenient?

Is he even a pedophile? Does he have a medical diagnoses? He was in his early 20's when he attacked a 12 year old girl. A pedophile is someone with an exclusive attraction to pre-pubescent children. If you read the stats you'll see the majority of people who sexually abuse children are not actual pedophiles.

FactCheck

MrWalsh wrote: »

If it was a good friend or family member it is more likely that you would be thinking, "No, they must be wrong, yer man COULDNT have done such an awful thing, there is a terrible mistake here, but yer man just COULDNT have done something like that, the only possible explanation is that this is all a terrible mistake".

Right, and at the early stages, when it's just an accusation, or even when the trial is upcoming (so the Gardai and DPP believe there's a case to answer, but guilt is not yet established), I get that.

But I don't get the level of self-deception and cognitive dissonance it must take to continue to think that when you are listening to a defence of "that child snuck into bed with me and had sex with me three times while I was asleep". Or in the case of Listowel, I don't see how someone can continue to believe "sure she was the one coming on to him" when there is CCTV evidence of him dragging her unconscious body around and two guards caught him in the act.

Even then, I can see someone's mother or brother lying to themselves and ignoring evidence to protect their own self-image. But "just" friends?

I can't understand it. And yet, I'm trying to, because it is so common. So much more common than we let on. This is the hangover from decades of looking the other way when a person (a teacher, a priest) that was liked and respected abused over and over again.

MrWalsh

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

Disturbing why? As I have a different view? That his punishment is not in fact lenient?

Is he even a pedophile? Does he have a medical diagnoses? He was in his early 20's when he attacked a 12 year old girl. A pedophile is someone with an exclusive attraction to pre-pubescent children. If you read the stats you'll see the majority of people who sexually abuse children are not actual pedophiles.

Your views on pedophilia are disturbing.

The majority of people who sexually abuse children are not pedophiles? Words fail me.

MrWalsh

FactCheck wrote: »

I can't understand it. And yet, I'm trying to, because it is so common. So much more common than we let on. This is the hangover from decades of looking the other way when a person (a teacher, a priest) that was liked and respected abused over and over again.

The only way I can get my head around it is that it is similar to the denial mechanism that kicks in for alcoholics or addicts.

They know person A, a kindly, friendly helpful man who they have a relationship with stretching back 20 years or whatever. Person B is a monster who rapes children. The two just cannot be reconciled in their head.