Sentencing reforms

Hal3000

When are we going to start getting tough with sentencing for viewing child abuse material online in this country. Anyone viewing child abuse material should be sentenced severely. I just can't belive how our judiciary can let people off on suspended sentences for viewing absolutely horrific material online. Nothing is changing in this country and more and more are getting caught and walking away with pathetic sentences. When is this going to end? I'm absolutely sick to death with how our judiciary is being soft on everything in this country including viewing child abuse material. This needs to end now, it feels like our society is being run into the ground.

decky1

As would I,there is no form of justice for the victum when it goes to court, as has been said here before it's all about the 'Poor guy he's had an awful childhood and he turned to drink and drugs to help himself he did'nt know what he was doing when he attacked the old person, their laughing at the justice system.there need to be a change in our laws big time, something that will make them think before doing it again.But then the do-gooders will step in and start their crying that the law is to harsh, Think about the Victum not the criminal .

Hal3000

Perfect example... Just let this sink in. He got 2 years in prison with the last 6 months suspended.

https://www.thejournal.ie/man-sentenced-assault-sleepovers-4730123-Jul2019/

decky1

Hal3000 wrote: »

Perfect example... Just let this sink in. He got 2 years in prison with the last 6 months suspended.

https://www.thejournal.ie/man-sentenced-assault-sleepovers-4730123-Jul2019/

There you go , why give a sentence and then suspend most of it? only in Ireland:mad:

Hal3000

I wish victims would start some type of a repeal style movement or campaign to overhaul the justice system. Everyday we keep seing the same thing and nothing is happening. 2 years for a sexual assault on a minor.. It's beyond belief.

hullaballoo

Moderator: Very little in the way of legal discussion here so far. Is there a legal point to be engaged with here? Have we research and statistics maybe around penalizing wrongdoers and sentencing reforms?

Maybe even some actual comparative studies on recidivism rates in countries with "harsh sentecing" in place already? Some information on how longer periods of incarceration for minor offences is to be funded?

Hal3000

hullaballoo wrote: »

Moderator: Very little in the way of legal discussion here so far. Is there a legal point to be engaged with here? Have we research and statistics maybe around penalizing wrongdoers and sentencing reforms?

Maybe even some actual comparative studies on recidivism rates in countries with "harsh sentecing" in place already? Some information on how longer periods of incarceration for minor offences is to be funded?

OK, from a legal standpoint can somebody here explain to me how a sexual offence on a minor can get a 2 year sentence with final 6 months suspended? Can someone please explain how that is appropriate justice? Am I the only one who absolutely perplexed by the lightness of these sentences? I cannot understand how are justice system works anymore? I would have assumed that sexual offences on minors is a very serious matter, but obviously not in the eyes of the judges anymore.

decky1

Hal3000 wrote: »

OK, from a legal standpoint can somebody here explain to me how a sexual offence on a minor can get a 2 year sentence with final 6 months suspended? Can someone please explain how that is appropriate justice? Am I the only one who absolutely perplexed by the lightness of these sentences? I cannot understand how are justice system works anymore? I would have assumed that sexual offences on minors is a very serious matter, but obviously not in the eyes of the judges anymore.

well said, are they more interested in giving out penalty points for no seat belts, no tax, etc, loads of money coming in from the easy targets.

Samuel T. Cogley

I'd rather we focus on violent repeat offenders getting 5 years for manslaughter or very serious assults, than fill the prison places with people who will be so scared of even a short stint in prison they are extremely unlikely to reoffend.

Furthermore, although I think there should be a short sentance and a prohibition on owning a computer etc. these people should be engaging with mental health services.

Samuel T. Cogley

decky1 wrote: »

well said, are they more interested in giving out penalty points for no seat belts, no tax, etc, loads of money coming in from the easy targets.

If only there was a specific polcing unit that dealt with those sort of things and we could generally cut out the court system all together... :pac:

Hal3000

https://www.thejournal.ie/clare-man-jailed-rape-13-year-old-4734881-Jul2019/

The accused has 37 previous convictions of which 17 are for sexual offences.

MAJJ

'Dangerous sexual predator' who raped girl (13) after chasing her around church grounds jailed for nine years

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/dangerous-sexual-predator-who-raped-girl-13-after-chasing-her-around-church-grounds-jailed-for-nine-years-38334761.html

Perhaps someone could help me understand the sentencing element below from the article linked.? Thank you, I have refrained from further comment.

In 2004, he was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for these 17 charges of sexual assault and buggery committed against five different child victims aged between 10 and 14.

It all comes down to prison capacity.

Until we make crime an election issue this isnt going to change.
When was the last time a party put itself forward on law and order or the public demanded it?

You think the sentencing is bad? What you dont hear about is the temporary release which happens after the media goes away.

Sonny noggs

He will serve a fraction of that.

MAJJ

MAJJ wrote: »

'Dangerous sexual predator' who raped girl (13) after chasing her around church grounds jailed for nine years

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/dangerous-sexual-predator-who-raped-girl-13-after-chasing-her-around-church-grounds-jailed-for-nine-years-38334761.html

Perhaps someone could help me understand the sentencing element below from the article linked.? Thank you, I have refrained from further comment.

In 2004, he was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for these 17 charges of sexual assault and buggery committed against five different child victims aged between 10 and 14.

Would anyone from the legal side have a comment, perhaps it relates to his age in 2004?

hullaballoo

He would have been 22 in 2004 but I suppose what's unclear is what age he was when he committed the offences for which he was sentenced in 2004. There is a strong likelihood that he was a minor when those offences were committed, however, given the delays in prosecuting offences of this kind.

That being the case, and the fact that in general sentencing principles, the longest available sentence is life imprisonment, there is reluctance to incarcerate young people, taken with all of the other relevant facts of the case to which we are not privy, 4 years was selected as the sentence that balanced all of the relevant factors.

Marcusm

I can see that for the 2004 conviction and I can see that 9 years is a much longer tariff for the more recent offence. However, this seems to be a serious sexual offender with a predilection for significantly underage, sometimes prepubescent, children. With the level of recidivism shown, it’s hard to understand 9 years versus life. At least with a life sentence, there would have been the prospect of release at a later date if his gehaviour changed or was perceived to have changed. A 9 year sentence is presumably 4-5 years the rinse, wash, repeat. The existence of a life sentence hanging over him (bearing in mind this is at least an 18th sexual offence) might have forced him to engage with counselling, behavioural change etc.

hullaballoo

I don't completely disagree with the premise that 9 years imprisonment is an insufficient sentence.

However, the multiple issues in play from a penological perspective seem to be less commonly discussed, even though I believe some of the bigger ones are obvious on any level of critical analysis.

If you take the worst crime imaginable. A single offence, which is the worst imaginable offence that can be committed. The maximum sentence that that crime can attract is life imprisonment. Everything else is measured by reference to that offence carrying that sentence.

Add to this some known issues with imprisonment, such as capacity in Irish prisons, the "Criminal University" status that many of them have, the lack of any rehabilitative value to imprisonment on its own, the lack of resources to add any rehabilitative aspect to imprisonment, and the "contacts" made while incarcerated, the picture is less black and white and the lines of what ought to be are blurred.

Personally, I am hugely in favour of sentencing reform because the system is wholly unfit for purpose. However, what I have in mind versus what the baying mob have in mind when the words "sentencing reform" are bandied about are likely to be vastly different.

BaronVon

Hal3000 wrote: »

When are we going to start getting tough with sentencing for viewing child abuse material online in this country. Anyone viewing child abuse material should be sentenced severely. I just can't belive how our judiciary can let people off on suspended sentences for viewing absolutely horrific material online. Nothing is changing in this country and more and more are getting caught and walking away with pathetic sentences. When is this going to end? I'm absolutely sick to death with how our judiciary is being soft on everything in this country including viewing child abuse material. This needs to end now, it feels like our society is being run into the ground.

What do you hope to accomplish with longer sentences? There are 4 main reasons to imprison people:

1. Punish the offender
2. Deter other people from committing the same offence
3. Protect society from the offender
4. Rehabilitate offenders

Perhaps a combination of the above? Do offenders get rehabilitated? Is prison too easy? Should we bring back hard labour?

Does someone with an urge to view child porn not view it because he read in the paper of a lad who did and got a 2 year prison sentence with the last 6 months suspended?

Or does that encourage him to do it, because he deems the risk/reward to be worth it? Or will he download it regardless of any outside factors?

Hal3000

infacteh wrote: »

What do you hope to accomplish with longer sentences? There are 4 main reasons to imprison people:

1. Punish the offender
2. Deter other people from committing the same offence
3. Protect society from the offender
4. Rehabilitate offenders

Perhaps a combination of the above? Do offenders get rehabilitated? Is prison too easy? Should we bring back hard labour?

Does someone with an urge to view child porn not view it because he read in the paper of a lad who did and got a 2 year prison sentence with the last 6 months suspended?

Or does that encourage him to do it, because he deems the risk/reward to be worth it? Or will he download it regardless of any outside factors?

If viewing child porn had a 10 year sentence as opposed to a suspended sentence, do you not think people would be more deterred? If less people viewed this material would that decrease the amount of people making it? You know, supply and demand! Children are vulnerable and must be protected at all costs. Rehab can occur during or after the sentence. The detterents must be there first. We are absolutely pathetic in our current sentecing regarding abuse and child porn.

Lackey

Genuine question......

If I were the victim of a crime committed by an offender who has 100+ previous convictions for similar offences can I sue the state/judge for not carrying out their duty of care to protect me,
When there were 100+ Indications that the offender would strike again?

Hal3000

Lackey wrote: »

Genuine question......

If I were the victim of a crime committed by an offender who has 100+ previous convictions for similar offences can I sue the state/judge for not carrying out their duty of care to protect me,
When there were 100+ Indications that the offender would strike again?

That's an excellent question. Does the state have a duty of care to its citizens?

L1011

Hal3000 wrote: »

If viewing child porn had a 10 year sentence as opposed to a suspended sentence, do you not think people would be more deterred? If less people viewed this material would that decrease the amount of people making it? You know, supply and demand! Children are vulnerable and must be protected at all costs. Rehab can occur during or after the sentence. The detterents must be there first. We are absolutely pathetic in our current sentecing regarding abuse and child porn.

If you're convicted for it, you aren't going to have a job or a social life or likely any real interpersonal relationships ever again no matter what the length of the sentence. That doesn't seem to work as a detterant. If someone isn't at risk of reoffending you are just feeding cash in to the incinerator with a long sentence

Marcusm

hullaballoo wrote: »

I don't completely disagree with the premise that 9 years imprisonment is an insufficient sentence.

However, the multiple issues in play from a penological perspective seem to be less commonly discussed, even though I believe some of the bigger ones are obvious on any level of critical analysis.

If you take the worst crime imaginable. A single offence, which is the worst imaginable offence that can be committed. The maximum sentence that that crime can attract is life imprisonment. Everything else is measured by reference to that offence carrying that sentence.

Add to this some known issues with imprisonment, such as capacity in Irish prisons, the "Criminal University" status that many of them have, the lack of any rehabilitative value to imprisonment on its own, the lack of resources to add any rehabilitative aspect to imprisonment, and the "contacts" made while incarcerated, the picture is less black and white and the lines of what ought to be are blurred.

Personally, I am hugely in favour of sentencing reform because the system is wholly unfit for purpose. However, what I have in mind versus what the baying mob have in mind when the words "sentencing reform" are bandied about are likely to be vastly different.

I think you and I are coming from the same perspective. As regardsnthe "worst crime imaginable", is it not the case that the minimum (not the maximum) sentence is life imprisonment. Whether life is served is a different matter. While I disagree with some of the 3 strikes rules in the US and the idea that a person's liberty should be down to administrative decision-making, I think that for a multiple recidivist serious sexual offender, the sentence should be life with the possibility of parole. Even if the sentence actually served equated to 9 years with parole, I think the shock of the possibility of life behind bars plus the possibility of being retutrned there for any serious infraction might be sufficient to turn some people away from future offending. By contrast, once a person has served 4-5 years, they might be quite prepared to risk being imprisoned for a further such term rather than truly seek help.

Peregrinus

Marcusm wrote: »

I think you and I are coming from the same perspective. As regardsnthe "worst crime imaginable", is it not the case that the minimum (not the maximum) sentence is life imprisonment. Whether life is served is a different matter. While I disagree with some of the 3 strikes rules in the US and the idea that a person's liberty should be down to administrative decision-making, I think that for a multiple recidivist serious sexual offender, the sentence should be life with the possibility of parole. Even if the sentence actually served equated to 9 years with parole, I think the shock of the possibility of life behind bars plus the possibility of being retutrned there for any serious infraction might be sufficient to turn some people away from future offending. By contrast, once a person has served 4-5 years, they might be quite prepared to risk being imprisoned for a further such term rather than truly seek help.

I get why you would think this, or at least hope it, but there's no evidence that longer sentences are an effective deterrent. And they are phenomenally expensive, so they consume resources that could be spent on more effective measures. For example, improved detection rates are an effective deterrent, so in general you are better off spending the extra money on police, not prisons. Or, in the case of sexual offending, early intervention programmes might be a better option, or better post-sentencing supervision/support.

The problem is that voters react to headlines (as, indeed, this thread shows). The crime that is successfully averted, that never takes takes place, does not generate a headline. So the political reward is greater not for effectively deterring or avoiding sex crimes, but for savagely punishing them after they have happened, even though the allocation of resources to that priority probably reduces public safety. I'm not sure that there's an easy fix for this particular problem.

NUTLEY BOY

For interest see this from the Sentencing Council for England and Wales

QUOTE BEGINS

Possession of indecent photograph of child/ Indecent photographs of children

Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.160, Protection of Children Act 1978 (section 1)

Effective from: 01 April 2014

Possession of indecent photograph of child, Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.160

Triable either way
Maximum: 5 years’ custody
Offence range: Community order – 3 years’ custody

Indecent photographs of children, Protection of Children Act 1978, s.1

Triable either way

Maximum: 10 years’ custody

Offence range: Community order – 9 years’ custody

For section 1 offences committed on or after 3 December 2012, this is an offence listed in Part 1 of Schedule 15B for the purposes of section 224A (life sentence for second listed offence) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

For convictions on or after 3 December 2012 (irrespective of the date of commission of the offence), these are specified offences for the purposes of section 226A (extended sentence for certain violent or sexual offences) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

QUOTE ENDS

Here is a link to their website https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/
You can see the exact guidelines set down for Magistrates and the Crown Court.

Hal3000

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

For interest see this from the Sentencing Council for England and Wales

QUOTE BEGINS

Possession of indecent photograph of child/ Indecent photographs of children

Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.160, Protection of Children Act 1978 (section 1)

Effective from: 01 April 2014

Possession of indecent photograph of child, Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.160

Triable either way
Maximum: 5 years’ custody
Offence range: Community order – 3 years’ custody

Indecent photographs of children, Protection of Children Act 1978, s.1

Triable either way

Maximum: 10 years’ custody

Offence range: Community order – 9 years’ custody

For section 1 offences committed on or after 3 December 2012, this is an offence listed in Part 1 of Schedule 15B for the purposes of section 224A (life sentence for second listed offence) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

For convictions on or after 3 December 2012 (irrespective of the date of commission of the offence), these are specified offences for the purposes of section 226A (extended sentence for certain violent or sexual offences) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

QUOTE ENDS

Here is a link to their website https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/
You can see the exact guidelines set down for Magistrates and the Crown Court.

So they reduced the sentencing for child pornography in the UK. That is very telling.

Peregrinus

Hal3000 wrote: »

So they reduced the sentencing for child pornography in the UK. That is very telling.

No. Layout of the sentencing guidelines is confusing; possibly a formatting issue. The position, I think, is that the 1978 Act offence is for making and/or distributing indecent images of children; the later offence is for simply possessing such images, which is regarded as a lesser offence and therefore attracts a lesser penalty.

Hal3000

https://www.thejournal.ie/man-injured-woman-masturbating-suspended-sentence-4739222-Jul2019/

She asked the judge not to impose a custodial sentence as “society in general would be better served”.

I just can't belive this country anymore.

Hal3000

Hal3000 wrote: »

If viewing child porn had a 10 year sentence as opposed to a suspended sentence, do you not think people would be more deterred?

There's absolutely no evidence that the length of a potential prison sentence deters criminal acts. The likelihood of being caught is the primary deterrent.

If the length of prison sentences was a deterrent then the United States should have the lowest crime and recidivism rate on earth.

Hal3000

Another

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/court-hears-child-porn-video-was-discovered-on-phone-of-father-of-two-after-it-was-left-in-for-repair-939451.html

Samuel T. Cogley

The rationale for the sentence is given in the report.

Hal3000

Suspended sentences for sexual assault of minors is now the norm in Ireland

https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-man-sexual-assault-cousins-4744600-Jul2019/

hullaballoo

Hal3000 wrote: »

Suspended sentences for sexual assault of minors is now the norm in Ireland

https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-man-sexual-assault-cousins-4744600-Jul2019/

Tbh, I think despite the efforts we've made to engage in proper discussion on the legal points here, you are not really engaging on that.

Your above post is just sensationalist nonsense.

In order to make a statement like x "is now the norm in Ireland", you have to show that over a period of time, in every case (or nearly every case) of a similar type, x has happened.

We cannot engage you on the issues of sentencing and sentencing reform without some valid arguable starting point.

If we tried and engage on your above premise, things would get pretty surreal and absurd fairly quickly.

Hal3000

hullaballoo wrote: »

Tbh, I think despite the efforts we've made to engage in proper discussion on the legal points here, you are not really engaging on that.

Your above post is just sensationalist nonsense.

In order to make a statement like x "is now the norm in Ireland", you have to show that over a period of time, in every case (or nearly every case) of a similar type, x has happened.

We cannot engage you on the issues of sentencing and sentencing reform without some valid arguable starting point.

If we tried and engage on your above premise, things would get pretty surreal and absurd fairly quickly.

Would you like me to link every suspended sentence handed out for similar crimes also including viewing child abuse imagery? Sensationalist? Get a grip. It's happening every day now and most are getting suspended sentences, therefore they are becoming the norm when dealing with this type of crime. I could ask you to prove the opposite and show proper sentences handed down by the courts for similar crimes?

CIARAN_BOYLE

Hal3000 wrote: »

Would you like me to link every suspended sentence handed out for similar crimes also including viewing child abuse imagery? Sensationalist? Get a grip. It's happening every day now.

He wants you to discuss some form of legal point rather than dumping links.

This is a legal discussion forum.

Anyway a point worth some level of discussion is that a moderate reoffending risk is apparently acceptable without the need to put the perpetrator through a rehabilitative program within a jail.

Samuel T. Cogley

As I indicated above sespended sentances are used, especially in the first instance, due to limited prison places. Should we be letting out violent offenders with multiple convictions in order to jail people who are very unlikely to re-offend.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

As I indicated above sespended sentances are used, especially in the first instance, due to limited prison places. Should we be letting out violent offenders with multiple convictions in order to jail people who are very unlikely to re-offend.

Perhaps you would know more than I would.

The most recent article states that the probation service felt that the offender would be moderately likely to reoffend.

Moderately likely is not imo very unlikely but I have no idea what type of range the probation service attaches the word moderately to.

Is it 10% or 30% or 45%?

To me moderately likely is a not insignificant risk.

While this is a first time conviction its multiple counts with multiple victims and moderately likely to reoccur. If my understanding of moderately likely is in anyway in line with the probation service it is probably too high.

Peregrinus

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

The most recent article states that the probation service felt that the offender would be moderately likely to reoffend.

And did they think he was less likely to reoffend if he received a custodial sentence?

Hal3000

Hal3000 wrote: »

Would you like me to link every suspended sentence handed out for similar crimes also including viewing child abuse imagery? Sensationalist? Get a grip. It's happening every day now and most are getting suspended sentences, therefore they are becoming the norm when dealing with this type of crime. I could ask you to prove the opposite and show proper sentences handed down by the courts for similar crimes?

That's not how reasoned argument works. You have posited a theory that suspended sentences for sexual offences are now the norm in Ireland. To support that theory you have posted one or two articles from newspapers. It has been suggested to you that this is unrepresentative of the actual legal situation. If you think about it, that becomes obvious. Newspaper articles are self-selecting, so they are more likely to print cases that will grab public attention. Any form of "soft" sentence in sexual offences will usually make the papers. But you don't get the reasons why the sentence was given.

In a fantastic study conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology it has been shown that when people have all the facts of a case, and hear the pleas in mitigation and from the prosecution, the vast majority think the judges give appropriate sentences. When asked to select an appropriate sentence themselves, on average more than half select a less severe punishment than the judge.

Various studies have also shown that media narratives (which tend to focus on more extreme cases) lead to a broad public misperception of both the levels of crime and the punishment of crime.


So, you have made a broad generalisation without any real empirical basis beyond your own perceptions based upon media reports. But to discuss this properly we need to have a real understanding of what is going on. If you want to broaden your views on this and discuss it properly, that information is out there.

Hal3000

And another to discuss...

https://www.thejournal.ie/man-vigilante-sting-sexual-exploitation-4746740-Jul2019/

rayfitzharris

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

As I indicated above sespended sentances are used, especially in the first instance, due to limited prison places. Should we be letting out violent offenders with multiple convictions in order to jail people who are very unlikely to re-offend.

Hi Samuel, shouldn't the provision of justice to victims of crimes be independent of the number of prison places available?

By extension does't the provision of more prison places increase our ability to provide justice?

Should it really a be concern of the judiciary at all? Surely it should be matter/issue for the state only.

Would the quality/lenght of sentencing improve upon the provision of more prison places?

In that case we have to agree that current sentencing is inadequate and leaves a lot to be desired.

It seems the state needs to embark on a rapid prison building program, because
It's sickening reading constantly about seemingly crazy light sentencing from habitual reoffenders with incredulous numbers of previous convictions.

Samuel T. Cogley

Answers in bold

rayfitzharris wrote: »

Hi Samuel, shouldn't the provision of justice to victims of crimes be independent of the number of prison places available?

Yes - but it isn't


By extension does't the provision of more prison places increase our ability to provide justice?


Justice is one thing, longer sentences doesn't necessarily provide that but I'll take the risk given some of the sentences given for violent crimes.


Should it really a be concern of the judiciary at all? Surely it should be matter/issue for the state only.


No it shouldn't but what's a Judge to do if the prisoner is going to be turned away at the prison - which is what will eventually happen.


Would the quality/lenght of sentencing improve upon the provision of more prison places?


Cart before the horse. More prison places would no doubt (IMHO) result in longer sentences.


In that case we have to agree that current sentencing is inadequate and leaves a lot to be desired.


I don't agree with longer sentences per se, only for certain crimes. Prisons are vastly expensive.


It seems the state needs to embark on a rapid prison building program, because
It's sickening reading constantly about seemingly crazy light sentencing from habitual reoffenders with incredulous numbers of previous convictions.

Samuel T. Cogley

Hal3000 wrote: »

And another to discuss...

https://www.thejournal.ie/man-vigilante-sting-sexual-exploitation-4746740-Jul2019/

Go on then...

hullaballoo

I knew that would come up.

You really won't like it but my professional view on that one is that it wasn't a criminal offence what he did never mind that he was sentenced at the mid range available.

rayfitzharris

Thanks Samuel I appreciate the reply.
I had hoped there would be a proper seperation of state and judiciary, unfortunately there seems to be a gaping hole via prison place provision for the state to exert direct influence here.

I think the judges should just be able to do their job and sentence with regard to the crime. Leave it be someone else's problem if they have to foist some repeat offender back onto society. The public back lash would then fall where it's deserved.

Indeed prisons are expensive.
Has there ever been a ground up costing done on the total cost to the taxpayer and society of the current revolving door system?
Cost of crime, Garda time and resources, legal aid, cost of courts, judges, solicitors, barristers, appeals, rehab programs, social welfare,housing/intermittent stays in the big house etc for repeat offenders?

Maybe the equation is more balanced and the added benefits to society might even be worth it.

____________________________________
Would the quality/lenght of sentencing improve upon the provision of more prison places?


Cart before the horse. More prison places would no doubt (IMHO) result in longer sentences.

Cause or effect, it still points to an existing problem.

Hal3000

Finally... A decent bloody sentence

https://www.thejournal.ie/jail-rape-prostitute-4748214-Jul2019/

Hal3000

And guess what? Another suspended sentence for sexual assault. That's 3 this week alone.

https://www.thejournal.ie/male-sexually-assaulted-his-teenage-cousin-disability-4749761-Aug2019/


Mod
Thanks for these. Anything you wish to discuss?