Sean O Fearghail’s character reference

harr

https://kfmradio.com/news/27022020-1113/listen-kildare-sexual-abuse-survivor-calls-ceann-comhairle-apologise-writing

Shocked at the amount of intimidation these people experienced and for a sitting TD to hand in a reference after the man was convicted of child abuse is shocking.
Is this the norm in rural Ireland if you go up against a prominent member of the community.

whippet

what's the issue here ? it was 2006 <SNIP>

James Brown

whippet wrote: »

what's the issue here ? it was 2006 <SNIP>

The victim tweeted about his appointment the other day.

Seth Brundle

More info here on Sean O'Fearghails wrtiting of a character reference to a paedophile (I can't open the KFM link in the OP's post here in work).
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/victims-reject-sean-o-fearghails-self-serving-statement-about-his-reference-for-convicted-paedophile-984023.html

Any politician who would entertain a request such as this has no morals and is in my opinion completely unfit for public office. He is scum.

whippet

Bowie wrote: »

The victim tweeted about his appointment the other day.

My comment was to be taken with more than a grain of salt ... in essence we have a plethora of elected members of the dail of all colours that that less than proper history.

For some reason the comment was snipped .. but as an electorate we are all too willing to ‘forgive’ our flavour of politician for deeds of the past

Penn

Seth Brundle wrote: »

More info here on Sean O'Fearghails wrtiting of a character reference to a paedophile (I can't open the KFM link in the OP's post here in work).
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/victims-reject-sean-o-fearghails-self-serving-statement-about-his-reference-for-convicted-paedophile-984023.html

Any politician who would entertain a request such as this has no morals and is in my opinion completely unfit for public office. He is scum.

The very act of providing a reference from a TD, even if they just say "I'm unaware of this person having done anything wrong and their family is a decent family", is in itself a character reference in the persons defence. Otherwise the person's solictor/family wouldn't have bothered asking for it. A letter from a TD carries a fair amount of weight due to their position.

His excuse that he basically just wrote a letter saying nothing more than "This man exists" is either bullsh*t or willful ignorance. No-one would have asked him to write it if that's all it was.

James Brown

whippet wrote: »

My comment was to be taken with more than a grain of salt ... in essence we have a plethora of elected members of the dail of all colours that that less than proper history.

For some reason the comment was snipped .. but as an electorate we are all too willing to ‘forgive’ our flavour of politician for deeds of the past

That's your assumption.
I agree some get more press than others, but that's down to a biased media looking for the most salacious angle.
The victim in this case was actually commenting on the lack of any mention in the press upon his re-appointment.

is_that_so

Seth Brundle wrote: »

More info here on Sean O'Fearghails wrtiting of a character reference to a paedophile (I can't open the KFM link in the OP's post here in work).
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/victims-reject-sean-o-fearghails-self-serving-statement-about-his-reference-for-convicted-paedophile-984023.html

Any politician who would entertain a request such as this has no morals and is in my opinion completely unfit for public office. He is scum.

Others have been caught like this. Sargent as well I believe ended up embroiled in a criminal case. It's not an uncommon act to make representations on behalf of a constituent but cases like this should be high on the list of things a TD will not do as it looks all wrong no matter what they claim it to be.

harr

Doesn’t look god on the guards part when the victims had to go to a station further away because he seemed to be getting hassled from the local guards.. the Paedophile actually told the victim the local guards wouldn’t listen to him if it was reported.
It’s kind of surprising that more media outlets haven’t picked this up.
The fact he gave the reference letter after the man was convicted is crazy , the TD and man were well know to each other and also the man in question was a member of the local school board you would wonder if he targeted other kids in the locality.

Mortelaro

is_that_so wrote: »

Others have been caught like this. Sargent as well I believe ended up embroiled in a criminal case. It's not an uncommon act to make representations on behalf of a constituent but cases like this should be high on the list of things a TD will not do as it looks all wrong no matter what they claim it to be.

Agreed
I presume it was brought up 4 years ago also?

dam099

is_that_so wrote: »

Sargent as well I believe ended up embroiled in a criminal case.

The most shocking aspect of the Sargent case is that he actually resigned over it, almost any other Irish politician would have brazened it out. And I believe he was making representations for the victim not a convicted criminal (still was an error of judgement, TDs should stay out of the workings of the Criminal Justice system).

The Satanist

I guess the media are only interested in SF, shameful.

FrancieBrady

The Satanist wrote: »

I guess the media are only interested in SF, shameful.

Are certain party leaders not queuing up to have their photos taken on the steps of the Dáil with these victims?

I'm amazed!

Stovepipe

I asked a retired Garda about this letter writing and his response was that it has been going on for years, every TD, senator and councillor has had letters pleading for them to do something for some toerag /misunderstood(!) youth/comes from a respected local family/wants to turn his life around,etc,etc and the pols and gardai are put under pressure to do favours for people, such as quashing summons, looking the other way when someone is caught drunk driving and so on. Heather Humphries should have thrown the letter in the bin from the off.

McMurphy

Broadsheet have a fairly detailed article on it.

Hard to see how he will survive this tbh.

James Brown

McMurphy wrote: »

Broadsheet have a fairly detailed article on it.

Hard to see how he will survive this tbh.

Hypocrisy that's how. He's on his second term sure.
The Pat Rabbite 'just something you do to get elected' is a poor excuse.

Muahahaha

In Feaghails letter explaining why he did it he says "I do not know if the character reference was ever presented to the Court"

Then in the Broadsheet article linked above it says

After Joe Dempsey was convicted but before his sentencing, a character reference written by then Fianna Fáil TD Seán Ó Fearghaíl, who is now the Ceann Comhairle, was read out in court.

Shane and Emma-Jane are now calling for Ó Fearghaíl to resign and for an end to the practice of elected representatives providing character references for people charged with child sexual abuse crimes.

Then Fearghail goes on to say

I did not seek clemency or leniency for the perpetrator of these horrendous acts

Why else would you be sending a letter to a court judge right before sentencing if not to seek leniency. Does he think people are stupid or something?

stockshares

I was reminded of this story today when Sean O made the headlines for giving a speech in the Dail.

How did this man survive this.

What is wrong with the country that allows a Politician who supported a Paedophile to retain his job?

feargale

Phishnet wrote: »

“You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil?“

Let me get this straight. Are you all saying that in a criminal trial the court should hear nothing good about the accused, only bad things? Just like in China or North Korea?

feargale

feargale wrote: »

Let me get this straight. Are you all saying that in a criminal trial the court should hear nothing good about the accused, only bad things? Just like in China or North Korea?

a character reference should have no part or act in a court of law

nor should any attack on a character

just the facts relevant to the case

this isnt complex stuff. the law industry would just have you believe otherwise.

Seth Brundle

Phishnet wrote: »

What difference will it make after a man is convicted of CHILD SEX ABUSE to hear all the good things he has done, for those deeds are but disguises for what he is, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Sure some of our fellow citizens like to openly show our preference in court for sexual attackers rather than offer sympathy towards the victim...
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20108061.html

feargale

Phishnet wrote: »

What difference will it make after a man is convicted of CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE to hear all the good things he has done, for those deeds are but disguises for what he is, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

I see. You are a fan of North Korean jurisprudence. Very good.

feargale

[Deleted User] wrote: »

a character reference should have no part or act in a court of law

nor should any attack on a character

just the facts relevant to the case

this isnt complex stuff. the law industry would just have you believe otherwise.

So if you're done for speeding you won't be telling the judge that it's a first offence.

Your post shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of a criminal trial under our legal system. In fact I doubt that any system in the civilised world operates differently in relation to criminal trials and admissibility of character evidence. Glib references to the law Industry do nothing to undermine that. Less heat and more light please.

stockshares

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Sure some of our fellow citizens like to openly show our preference in court for sexual attackers rather than offer sympathy towards the victim...
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20108061.html

That said a lot about our society, even the Parish Priest stood by him.

Not one of them showed any empathy for the victim.

Gregor Samsa

Character references aren't part of the trial, they're submitted after conviction and prior to sentencing. The idea of them is that they give the judge a rounded view of who the accused is, and what they are like. The claim seems to be that they don't carry much weight with judges in terms of sentences handed down, but that they can't hurt.

I know someone who killed someone. But aside from that one act, he is and was a very good person in every way you could describe a person. That doesn't mean he shouldn't have been punished for his crime (he was), but it also doesn't mean that the killing alone defines him.

I think that we as a society should either decide that character references are allowed - and specifically have our elected representatives protected from any repercussions for giving them, or we should prohibit them outright.

I don't think it's right that our legal system encourages character references to be submitted formally to courts, and then we vilify those who do so.

Personally i think if it's true that judges don't pay much heed to them, and it appears that they cast a shadow over those who give them in many cases, they should probably be done away with.

feargale

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Character references aren't part of the trial, they're submitted after conviction and prior to sentencing. The idea of them is that they give the judge a rounded view of who the accused is, and what they are like. The claim seems to be that they don't carry much weight with judges in terms of sentences handed down, but that they can't hurt.

I know someone who killed someone. But aside from that one act, he is and was a very good person in every way you could describe a person. That doesn't mean he shouldn't have been punished for his crime (he was), but it also doesn't mean that the killing alone defines him.

I think that we as a society should either decide that character references are allowed - and specifically have our elected representatives protected from any repercussions for giving them, or we should prohibit them outright.

I don't think it's right that our legal system encourages character references to be submitted formally to courts, and then we vilify those who do so.

Personally i think if it's true that judges don't pay much heed to them, and it appears that they cast a shadow over those who give them in many cases, they should probably be done away with.

A thoughtful, measured hysteria-free contribution.

feargale

Phishnet wrote: »

In Cihild Sex Abuse cases, a "character reference" is an affront to the child. The horror of offence itself speaks volumes about the offender's character.

Look up "Audi alteram partem."

feargale

Phishnet wrote: »

The offender would already have availed of this principle in full. The trial is finished, the offender has been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In Child Sex Abuse cases, there should be no character reference of the offender heard before the court for the reasons I have already alluded to.

Are you enunciating a principle of law or expressing an opinion as to what the law should be, I.e. advocating a change of the existing law?

Eric Cartman

Phishnet wrote: »

In Child Sex Abuse cases, a "character reference" is an affront to the child. The horror of offence itself speaks volumes about the offender's character.

absolutely +1 , it still sickens me how David Norris is allowed remain in politics and the green parties continued support of Peter tatchell.

feargale

Phishnet wrote: »

Maybe, in child sex abuse cases in particular, the whole palava of allowing a “character” reference of the offender to be put before the court should be reviewed.

The process is repugnant to the Child victim and is an unnecessary diversion away from the gravity and nature of the offence to which the offender has already been convicted of.

You haven't answered the question.