Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

245678

Comments

  • #32
    not yet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,008 ✭✭✭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.


  • #33
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #34
    Tombi!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,689 ✭✭✭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


  • #35
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #36
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Your Face
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,275 ✭✭✭Your Face


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


  • #38
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #39
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 57,077 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #40
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,210 ✭✭✭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.


  • #41
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #43
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #44
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #45
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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".


  • #46
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #47
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,210 ✭✭✭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.


  • #48
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #49
    hairyslug
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,561 ✭✭✭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.


  • #50
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #51
    jiltloop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I think Conor works in the legal system which may explain his posting style.

    Hence I object to "we don't really know the facts, in fact we don't even know the basic difference between sexual assault and rape, but sure hang everyone anyway".

    But tbh that's not because I work in the legal system. It's because I have common sense.


  • #53
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Deleted User wrote: »
    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".

    It's not hysterical, most posters here have kids, nieces, nephews etc. I have a six yr old and if someone did this to him I would hurt them and I'm deadly serious about that. I work with victims of sexual abuse too and if you saw the damage this type of sentencing does it would break your heart. Victims already have to do so much just to get a case to court. To get a conviction and then see your attacker walk free is another trauma they don't need. He got away with it. That's unacceptable no matter how old he is.


  • #54
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    eviltwin wrote: »
    It's not hysterical, most posters here have kids, nieces, nephews etc. I have a six yr old and if someone did this to him I would hurt them and I'm deadly serious about that. I work with victims of sexual abuse too and if you saw the damage this type of sentencing does it would break your heart. Victims already have to do so much just to get a case to court. To get a conviction and then see your attacker walk free is another trauma they don't need. He got away with it. That's unacceptable no matter how old he is.

    I was sexually abused as a kid - I'm not hysterical. I also know the difference between rape and sexual assault.


  • #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.

    No it's not.

    The swearing and violence doesn't make it so.

    As a matter of fact, rape and sexual assault are two different offences. You having a daughter doesn't change that.


  • #56
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Hence I object to "we don't really know the facts, in fact we don't even know the basic difference between sexual assault and rape, but sure hang everyone anyway".

    But tbh that's not because I work in the legal system. It's because I have common sense.

    But not much empathy


  • #57
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    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.

    Just read this case http://m.rte.ie/news/2016/0725/804810-edenderry-murder/

    That's why we have a trial system and a sentence and if needed an appeal.


  • #58
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No it's not.

    The swearing and violence doesn't make it so.

    As a matter of fact, rape and sexual assault are two different offences. You having a daughter doesn't change that.

    Do you think his sentence was appropriate


  • #59
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    eviltwin wrote: »
    But not much empathy

    Do you think the fact that someone is objective means they don't have empathy for abuse victims? That's a shocking assertion tbh :(




    I would rather not live in a country with a legal system fuelled by hysterical vigilantism and decision makers guided by their (albeit well-justified) emotions.


  • #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    eviltwin wrote: »
    It's not hysterical, most posters here have kids, nieces, nephews etc. I have a six yr old and if someone did this to him I would hurt them and I'm deadly serious about that. I work with victims of sexual abuse too and if you saw the damage this type of sentencing does it would break your heart. Victims already have to do so much just to get a case to court. To get a conviction and then see your attacker walk free is another trauma they don't need. He got away with it. That's unacceptable no matter how old he is.

    It is hysterical to say "we don't know the facts, some of us don't even know the law and just swear and threaten violence...but the legal system should be based around our reaction".

    I fully agree that victims have to do a lot to get a case into Court. If you read my posts about rape, you would see that I have very strong views. I certainly would not trivialise it by saying it's just the same as any sexual assault.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,087 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    The justice system isn't really there to make the victim feel better. It's primarily there to punish the perpetrator and protect society from their crimes and rehabilitate them. All this is supposed to create a deterrent effect.

    There isn't time to punish him or rehabilitate him. He is in ill health and has been found guilty is at low risk of being able or having opportunity to reoffend.

    No sentence would have repaired the damage done to the victims. There needs to be a separate system to provide support to the victims. The justice system deals primarily with criminals, not victims.


Advertisement
Advertisement