Admit to raping your underage nieces, and you can walk free from court

Rakish Paddy

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/clare-man-who-sexually-assaulted-nieces-given-suspended-sentence-1.2733943

To take a few excerpts from the article:

"Outlining the aggravating factors in the case, Judge Keys said: “You suggested that both your nieces led you on and that they were promiscuous; you abused both your nieces for your sexual gratification; you used your position as a close family relative to invite your nieces to your house for treats and your lack of appreciation for your wrong doing.”

"In sentencing the man, Judge Keys said: “Sexual assault is a very serious offence which has a profound effect on both of your nieces and no doubt has caused great upset to both families."

“The seriousness of these offences can’t be ignored and while they don’t come within the higher level of offending for these type of cases, nonetheless, they are serious offences that have an everlasting effect on nieces and families as a whole."


And the judge saw fit to let this man off, after he actually admitted to sexually assaulting his underage nieces.


I have seen some shocking sentencing from judges in this country, but surely this is one of the worst slaps in the face that one of our judges has given to a victim of sexual or violent crime.


Do we need some mechanism to quickly and easily remove judges who display such an appalling lack of judgement?

mzungu

The scumbag should be locked up for the rest of his days. I couldn't give a toss how bad his health is.

Tombi!

Well, the man is near 80. Has a low chance of reoffending apparently and had a near heart attack recently.

So I don't really see why you'd lock him up to waste more money

GLaDOS

Tombi! wrote: »

Well, the man is near 80. Has a low chance of reoffending apparently and had a near heart attack recently.

So I don't really see why you'd lock him up to waste more money

When it comes to sexual abuse thats not good enough tbh.

tayto lover

Tombi! wrote: »

Well, the man is near 80. Has a low chance of reoffending apparently and had a near heart attack recently.

So I don't really see why you'd lock him up to waste more money when a single little bullet would suffice.

FYP.

Rakish Paddy

Tombi! wrote: »

Well, the man is near 80. Has a low chance of reoffending apparently and had a near heart attack recently.

So I don't really see why you'd lock him up to waste more money

I would lock him up for the maximum period allowed, to send out the message that there are consequences to sexually assaulting children. It doesn't matter if he's now physically no longer able to rape an underage kid.

Sapphire

That must be awful for his victims. To finally be brave enough to come forward and to see a court case though, only to have him walk due to 'ill health'.

And the amount of man hours the Gardai put in to it too and see that outcome must be frustrating for them too.

Sonics2k

Tombi! wrote: »

Well, the man is near 80. Has a low chance of reoffending apparently and had a near heart attack recently.

So I don't really see why you'd lock him up to waste more money

Bull. Shít.

hairyslug

I was going to ask if the Court of Criminal Appeal would look at this but going by what was said in the article, it does not look likely.

steddyeddy

Tombi! wrote: »

Well, the man is near 80. Has a low chance of reoffending apparently and had a near heart attack recently.

So I don't really see why you'd lock him up to waste more money

I do. I think it's right that the neices, who went through sexual abuse and had their innocence taken away from them see that justice is done. It's conducive to their healing process. His health is irrelevent.

jiltloop

Tombi! wrote: »

Well, the man is near 80. Has a low chance of reoffending apparently and had a near heart attack recently.

So I don't really see why you'd lock him up to waste more money

So he should be able to live out the rest of his days as a free man?!

He should spend the rest of his miserable life in prison, heart attack or not. Risk of reoffending should be considered for parole after some time has been served not for whether a sentence should be custodial or not.

intheclouds

There was a recent case before the courts where a man who raped 4 daughters got 4 years. A year for destroying each childs life.

I dont care how likely it is that the person will re-offend. This man has given his nieces a life sentence.

steddyeddy

Sapphire wrote: »

That must be awful for his victims. To finally be brave enough to come forward and to see a court case though, only to have him walk due to 'ill health'.

And the amount of man hours the Gardai put in to it too and see that outcome must be frustrating for them too.

That's exactly it. These girls went through hell and very bravely went to the gaurds seeking justice. These girls weren't protected when they were younger and it was up to society to say that what happened to them was wrong. It didn't and you can't underestimate the effect this will have on these girls and anyone who feels like reporting abuse.

pablo128

Bring him up the mountains, kick him into a ditch and forget about him.

ScumLord

steddyeddy wrote: »

His health is irrelevent.

It may be morally irrelevant but in practical terms he'd be a liability to the state, we'd basically be taking on his health care.

The fact is he's going to rot at home, the place where he lives now knows the truth so he can probably expect a lonely death. He'll probably have difficulty hiring private carers if they're aware of he's conviction, so he may well have a slow painful death confined to his own home.

If you want him to suffer more you could always go through stones at his windows.

seamus

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

Do we need some mechanism to quickly and easily remove judges who display such an appalling lack of judgement?

No. Think about how easily such a mechanism would be abused until you only had judges who give the "right" judgements.

A process exists whereby a sentence can be reviewed by making an appeal. If the State doesn't appeal the leniency of this sentence then it tacitly agrees with the reasoning of the judge. And therefore, the system works.

In this case, it's always a tough call. Brutalising criminals is obviously not on, that's the domain of barbarians. So throwing a gravely ill man into a standard prison is inhumane and pointless.

But at the same time justice isn't really served if there doesn't appear to be some consequences for one's actions, regardless of how old you are or how long ago the crime was. Although as ScumLord rightly points out; any reputation he may have had is now in tatters. He will not only die a lonely death, disregarded by his local community, but his family may have to leave the area after his death to escape the stigma of what he's done.

I think we're long overdue the introduction of house arrest for situations just like this; where someone can't be reasonable accommodated in a standard prison but also can't just be allowed walk free.

Tombi!

I wasn't saying he should go free. I'm saying the judge most likely came to the decision by considering that his poor health will kill him off right soon and there's no point in trying to waste money imprisioning him when he won't reoffend

hairyslug

We can hope he is ostacised, thats about it.
As for his medical care, it could be possible that it is already covered by the state. As he gets older, needs access to hospital, it will be covered by the state, but by christ, I would prefer to see him handcuffed to a hospital bed than being able to walk around a ward.

He needs to be punished, people talking about him to his face or behind his back about this is not punishment enough.

Where do we draw the line with crime/age/illness.

eviltwin

Bastard blamed the victims too. I don't care how old or sick he is, he should be jailed.

Bubbaclaus

He doesn't appear to show any signs of remorse either. Sick bastard.

Tombi!

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

He doesn't appear to show any signs of remorse either. Sick bastard.

Er
Judge Keys said the mitigation factors in the case were the man’s plea of guilt; his expression of regret and remorse

eviltwin

Tombi! wrote: »

Er
Judge Keys said the mitigation factors in the case were the man’s plea of guilt; his expression of regret and remorse

Sorry he got caught most likely

Sleeper12

Judges take into account the age of the guilty party in cases like this but seem to ignore the age of the victims. This needs to be reversed

VinLieger

Tombi! wrote: »

Well, the man is near 80. Has a low chance of reoffending apparently and had a near heart attack recently.

So I don't really see why you'd lock him up to waste more money

To show the victims of this specific crime and others like it that no crime goes unpunished?

You know how justice is meant to work and all?

Who cares about his age or health, it has nothing to do with it.

Read through the article.

Where is the reference to rape as contained in the thread title?

Rakish Paddy

Deleted User wrote: »

Read through the article.

Where is the reference to rape as contained in the thread title?

My mistake, it refers to sexual assault and sexual abuse. It (thankfully) doesn't go into detail of the exact nature of what he did to the young girls. It doesn't make the non-sentence any less insulting to the victims in this case or victims of sexual crimes in general.

pablo128

Deleted User wrote: »

Read through the article.

Where is the reference to rape as contained in the thread title?

Oral rape, anal rape, take your pick. What is your definition of raping a 6 yr old who went to visit her uncle for some biscuits?

He also asked a garda during an interview if one of his victims was pregnant.

failinis

Deleted User wrote: »

Read through the article.

Where is the reference to rape as contained in the thread title?

It says sexual assault, even if it was not rape as the definition in courts give, its still a deeply damaging and horrific crime, which he spread over years from what the article showed.
Does not make it any less, but yes the title is incorrect if you want to be pedantic.

eviltwin

Deleted User wrote: »

Read through the article.

Where is the reference to rape as contained in the thread title?

I'd be surprised if he didn't penetrate them in some way. Rape is harder to prove than sexual abuse. It doesn't make it any less horrific for the victim who was SIX at the time.

Bubbaclaus

Tombi! wrote: »

Er
Judge Keys said the mitigation factors in the case were the man’s plea of guilt; his expression of regret and remorse

Sorry he got caught more like. He claimed they had led him on ffs.

hairyslug

We are talking about a young child (not that if it was ana adult it would be any better) but penetration or contact, its still a crime, one that deserves a sentence.

not yet

Tombi! wrote: »

I wasn't saying he should go free. I'm saying the judge most likely came to the decision by considering that his poor health will kill him off right soon and there's no point in trying to waste money imprisioning him when he won't reoffend

Basically what your saying is If I had the Spanish dancer and had 6 months to live I could do the fcuk what I wanted and the courts should let me walk free because I'm dying...

We're all fcuking Dying, this cnut should be castrated and left to bleed out.

Rakish Paddy

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

It doesn't make the non-sentence any less insulting to the victims in this case or victims of sexual crimes in general.

Errrrrrm, it kinda does. In fact the detail of the offence is fairly fundamental. To conflate every sexual assault with rape demeans and diminishes the latter.

eviltwin wrote: »

I'd be surprised if he didn't penetrate them in some way. Rape is harder to prove than sexual abuse. It doesn't make it any less horrific for the victim who was SIX at the time.

Seriously, stuff like "he probably penetrated her"? That is pure and utter speculation.

The Judge noted that the offence was not at the more serious end of the sexual assault spectrum, while clarifying that of course sexual assault is serious. I very much doubt he'd say that if the matter involved penetration of a child with the penis or an object.

Tombi!

not yet wrote: »

Basically what your saying is If I had the Spanish dancer and had 6 months to live I could do the fcuk what I wanted and the courts should let me walk free because I'm dying...

We're all fcuking Dying, this cnut should castrated and left to bleed out.

No. I explained my understanding of the situation and why the judge gave the verdict he did.
I didn't try to justify or condemn the man's actions

pablo128

pablo128 wrote: »

Oral rape, anal rape, take your pick. What is your definition of raping a 6 yr old who went to visit her uncle for some biscuits?

He also asked a garda during an interview if one of his victims was pregnant.

Good Lord.

Sure yeah, everything is rape. Oral, anal, a grope, tis all the same. Cos something something biscuits.

OldNotWIse

pablo128 wrote: »

Oral rape, anal rape, take your pick. What is your definition of raping a 6 yr old who went to visit her uncle for some biscuits?

He also asked a garda during an interview if one of his victims was pregnant.

Nobody is trying to detract from the hideousness of the crimes he committed, but there is a distinction between these whether you like it or not. Rape is the penetration of a vagina with a penis. Rape under Section 4 is a separate offence and covers "anal rape". Another poster does not need to provide you with a "definition" because the law already does.

Your Face

Serious question: why is this type of sentencing allowed to happen?

eviltwin

Deleted User wrote: »

Errrrrrm, it kinda does. In fact the detail of the offence is fairly fundamental. To conflate every sexual assault with rape demeans and diminishes the latter.



Seriously, stuff like "he probably penetrated her"? That is pure and utter speculation.

The Judge noted that the offence was not at the more serious end of the sexual assault spectrum, while clarifying that of course sexual assault is serious. I very much doubt he'd say that if the matter involved penetration of a child with the penis or an object.

I know it's speculating but it's likely given he asked if the girl was pregnant. Why else would he think that. The judge is making his comments based on the conviction of sexual abuse. That doesn't mean there was no other more serious offences committed.

tayto lover

I hope the DPP appeals it and that this Judge is struck-off.
Shocking decision when the offender's condition counts more than the victim's.

pablo128

Deleted User wrote: »

Errrrrrm, it kinda does. In fact the detail of the offence is fairly fundamental. To conflate every sexual assault with rape demeans and diminishes the latter.



Seriously, stuff like "he probably penetrated her"? That is pure and utter speculation.

The Judge noted that the offence was not at the more serious end of the sexual assault spectrum, while clarifying that of course sexual assault is serious. I very much doubt he'd say that if the matter involved penetration of a child with the penis or an object.

You don't get it, do you? You are so obsessed with being pedantic that you fail to realise that he lured children, his own brother or sisters children to his home with the offer of some treats and sexually attacked them at the very least.

How you can be nitpicking over what he did or didn't do to them is beyond me.

OldNotWIse

Your Face wrote: »

Serious question: why is this type of sentencing allowed to happen?

Serious answer: because we don't have "prescribed" sentences in Ireland like the UK for example. Judges have a large amount of discretion when it comes to sentencing. Mandatory minimum sentences are rare.

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

I know it's speculating but it's likely given he asked if the girl was pregnant. Why else would he think that. The judge is making his comments based on the conviction of sexual abuse. That doesn't mean there was no other more serious offences committed.

! took that in the context of the reference to their promiscuity, not at all that she was likely to be pregnant as a result of their contact. If he had made the comment in that context, it's almost impossible to think of circumstances in which he wouldn't be charged with rape.

eviltwin

pablo128 wrote: »

You don't get it, do you? You are so obsessed with being pedantic that you fail to realise this man was in a position of trust, in charge of possibly hundreds of schoolchildren at a time. He lured children, his own brother or sisters children to his home with the offer of some treats and sexually attacked them at the very least.

How you can be nitpicking over what he did or didn't do to them is beyond me.

I think Conor works in the legal system which may explain his posting style.

OldNotWIse

pablo128 wrote: »

You don't get it, do you? You are so obsessed with being pedantic that you fail to realise this man was in a position of trust, in charge of possibly hundreds of schoolchildren at a time. He lured children, his own brother or sisters children to his home with the offer of some treats and sexually attacked them at the very least.

How you can be nitpicking over what he did or didn't do to them is beyond me.

It's not nitpicking, they are separate offences. Would you like to be charged with burglary if you'd committed theft? Sexual assault whilst being a very serious offence, is in the eyes of the legal system a less serious offence than rape, or rape under section 4.

pablo128

pablo128 wrote: »

You don't get it, do you? You are so obsessed with being pedantic that you fail to realise this man was in a position of trust, in charge of possibly hundreds of schoolchildren at a time. He lured children, his own brother or sisters children to his home with the offer of some treats and sexually attacked them at the very least.

How you can be nitpicking over what he did or didn't do to them is beyond me.

A someone who has worked with both the victims of rape and sexual assault as well as those accused of both, I think I very much "get it".

Hence I don't reach for the hysterical nonsense ala "sexual assault, anal rape, 'tis all the same, we don't know the law or the detail but hang the perp and sack the Judge".

eviltwin

Deleted User wrote: »

! took that in the context of the reference to their promiscuity, not at all that she was likely to be pregnant as a result of their contact. If he had made the comment in that context, it's almost impossible to think of circumstances in which he wouldn't be charged with rape.

You can't charge someone with rape on the basis of a comment like that can you? Wouldn't you need something more concrete to bring to court?

pablo128

Deleted User wrote: »

Good Lord.

Sure yeah, everything is rape. Oral, anal, a grope, tis all the same. Cos something something biscuits.

Yes it fcuking well is when it comes to a 6 year old child. I have a 7 year old daughter and if any person touched my child inappropriately it wouldn't even make it to a courtroom I can assure you.

seamus

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

He claimed they had led him on ffs.

From the limited study data being produced, there's growing evidence that one of the factors related to paedophiles is an inability to properly process and interpret social cues that come from children versus social cues that comes from adults.

That is, that when a child does something like give you a hug and ask to sit on your lap, a normal person should interpret that as a sign of affection and trust from child to adult, or a child in need of some comfort and security.

But if another adult did the same thing, we would generally interpret that as a sexual signal unless we have a specific reason to understand that it's not.

So one common thread among paedophiles appears to be an inability to distinguish the two. Thus, very naturally childish behaviours that children engage in are misinterpreted as sexual advances or "leading on" by paedophiles.

Goes without saying that this excuses nothing, but it can explain why people come out with bizarre statements saying that they believed a six-year-old was making sexual advances towards them.

And it may also help in a more general sense by helping paedophiles to realise they have a mental illness and seek help if they feel like they're getting "sexual signals" from a child.

hairyslug

tayto lover wrote: »

I hope the DPP appeals it and that this Judge is struck-off.
Shocking decision when the offender's condition counts more than the victim's.

From what I remember, part of the reason behind the leniancy of the sentence was down to a previous sentence the judge handed down to a teacher for what could be considered a worse crime, the court of criminal appeal had reduced the sentence from 6 to 2.5 years.

OldNotWIse

pablo128 wrote: »

Yes it fcuking well is when it comes to a 6 year old child. I have a 7 year old daughter and if any person touched my child inappropriately it wouldn't even make it to a courtroom I can assure you.

Except.... it's not.

jiltloop

Tombi! wrote: »

Er
Judge Keys said the mitigation factors in the case were the man’s plea of guilt; his expression of regret and remorse

Prior to this expression of remorse he tried to blame the victims, read the whole article. I think it's pretty reasonable to suspect that the remorse only appeared after his attempt to deflect guilt on to the victims failed.