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

Rakish Paddy · 26-07-2016 12:46PM #1

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 · 26-07-2016 12:48PM

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

Tombi! · 26-07-2016 12:49PM

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 · 26-07-2016 12:51PM

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 · 26-07-2016 12:51PM

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 · 26-07-2016 12:58PM

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 · 26-07-2016 12:58PM

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 · 26-07-2016 12:59PM

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 · 26-07-2016 01:00PM

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 · 26-07-2016 01:00PM

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 · 26-07-2016 01:02PM

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 · 26-07-2016 01:03PM

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 · 26-07-2016 01:04PM

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 · 26-07-2016 01:05PM

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

ScumLord · 26-07-2016 01:06PM

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 · 26-07-2016 01:09PM

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! · 26-07-2016 01:11PM

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 · 26-07-2016 01:12PM

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 · 26-07-2016 01:15PM

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

Bubbaclaus · 26-07-2016 01:17PM

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

Tombi! · 26-07-2016 01:20PM

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 · 26-07-2016 01:21PM

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

26-07-2016 01:23PM

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 · 26-07-2016 01:24PM

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.

26-07-2016 01:24PM

Read through the article.

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

Rakish Paddy · 26-07-2016 01:29PM

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 · 26-07-2016 01:31PM

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 · 26-07-2016 01:31PM

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 · 26-07-2016 01:33PM

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 · 26-07-2016 01:35PM

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 · 26-07-2016 01:35PM

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.

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

Comments