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

El_Duderino 09 · 26-07-2016 03:17PM

PARlance wrote:

To pick up on your point that all this is supposed to create a detterent effect, it fails that in this instance imo. In fact, it almost creates a "free pass" for a sick (in many senses) old man to do something similar.

The deterrent effect comes after being found guilty and punished. Imprisonment isn't appropriate in this situation so the full deterrent effect isn't being achieved. I doubt that there is anyone who is old, in ill health and considering abusing children, who is going to be emboldened by this decision not to imprison this guy.

The justice system is imperfect but it isn't as bad as some people are making out..

HensVassal · 26-07-2016 03:25PM

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

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.

But did he rape anyone?

The judge said:

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

I'm pretty sure that if the man actually raped the nieces the judge wouldn't have said the offences "don't come within the higher level of offending for these types of cases".

The "level of offending" doesn't get much higher than rape.

eviltwin · 26-07-2016 03:36PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I don't understand your post. When you say "a deep connection with the victims" - do you mean all victims? What sort of person has a deep connection with all victims? And if it is just the victims in question, then how would that affect their long term ability to cope in the profession. As a sexual abuse survivor, I find it disingenuous to suggest that any experience of sexual abuse or affinity with those who have been subjected to it are somehow too "fragile" to be able to work in a role requiring objectivity and an understanding of the legal system and how it operates.

With respect, I find an assertion that one lacks empathy to be an absolute criticism regardless of a disclaimer statement saying that it's not.

I never mentioned sex abuse survivors at all. I don't think they are fragile quite the opposite. A judge has to be unemotional, if he or she feels empathy towards the victims of crime it's going to make it harder to be impartial. That's all. It wasn't a dig at anyone but take it how you choose.

HensVassal · 26-07-2016 03:38PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

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

Did you read the article or are you just rabble-rousing?

Yellow pack crisps · 26-07-2016 03:38PM

Pretty disturbing language and sentencing laws in this country. Age should have nothing to do with any crime committed in this heinous way and if found guilty should be locked up with a severe sentence.

It's sickening the language he used to describe his nieces as it was justified and quite staggering that he was not repremandered over it.

Hope the two girls can rebuild their lives.

HensVassal · 26-07-2016 03:43PM

failinis wrote: »

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.

Well the judge would disagree with you since he said the offences weren't at the higher level of offending for this type of case.

While all sexual assault is abhorrent it has certain severities. You cannot lump in, e.g. "inappropriate fondling or touching" with actual forced penetration of the victim.

HensVassal · 26-07-2016 03:46PM

What sentence would you recommend then for the lad(s) who murdered him?

OldNotWIse · 26-07-2016 03:47PM

eviltwin wrote: »

I'd call it a person lacking empathy and that's not a criticism btw, I don't think anyone who has a deep connection with the victims could cope in the legal profession long term.

eviltwin wrote: »

I never mentioned sex abuse survivors at all. I don't think they are fragile quite the opposite. A judge has to be unemotional, if he or she feels empathy towards the victims of crime it's going to make it harder to be impartial. That's all. It wasn't a dig at anyone but take it how you choose.

So you think judges lack empathy? What a ridiculous assertion. I find it far more likely that a judge, rather than lacking empathy has in fact, garnered enough experience and expertise throughout their long running career to be professional enough to be able to put their emotions aside and be objective in applying the law rather than being ruled by their emotions. Being objective in the face of an emotive issue doesn't mean you lack empathy, it means you're professional. In the same vein that I am sure paediatric surgeons must also leave their emotions at the door when it comes to saving their patients lives - or do they too have to be this "certain kind of person" with no empathy?

eviltwin · 26-07-2016 03:48PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

So you think judges lack empathy? What a ridiculous assertion. I find it far more likely that a judge, rather than lacking empathy has in fact, garnered enough experience and expertise throughout their long running career to be professional enough to be able to put their emotions aside and be objective in applying the law rather than being ruled by their emotions. Being objective in the face of an emotive issue doesn't mean you lack empathy, it means you're professional. In the same vein that I am sure paediatric surgeons must also leave their emotions at the door when it comes to saving their patients lives - or do they too have to be this "certain kind of person" with no empathy?

Yes perhaps that's it.

Billy86 · 26-07-2016 03:49PM

Ageism, surely?

hairyslug · 26-07-2016 03:49PM

HensVassal wrote: »

Well the judge would disagree with you since he said the offences weren't at the higher level of offending for this type of case.

While all sexual assault is abhorrent it has certain severities. You cannot lump in, e.g. "inappropriate fondling or touching" with actual forced penetration of the victim.

But surely, "inappropriate fondling or touching" of a 6 year old is worthy of a prison sentence

Renegade Mechanic · 26-07-2016 03:49PM

He needs to rot in a crusty pool of his own piss, **** and bed sore seepage.
This is at least likely to happen in his own home. Who knows, he might even ""commit suicide"" by lighting up one of those little tesco portable barbecues in his room, sealing the door gaps with tape and drifting off....

It was never going to happen in a glorified hotel with free health care and a €70,000 per year bill, footed by taxpayers..

Edit: I dunno who yer nuking and removing from quoted posts all the time, ye must fair hate them, but they're not stopping...

OldNotWIse · 26-07-2016 03:51PM

hairyslug wrote: »

But surely, "inappropriate fondling or touching" of a 6 year old is worthy of a prison sentence

I think it is, but that still doesn't make it the same as rape.

Yellow pack crisps · 26-07-2016 03:53PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

So you think judges lack empathy? What a ridiculous assertion. I find it far more likely that a judge, rather than lacking empathy has in fact, garnered enough experience and expertise throughout their long running career to be professional enough to be able to put their emotions aside and be objective in applying the law rather than being ruled by their emotions. Being objective in the face of an emotive issue doesn't mean you lack empathy, it means you're professional. In the same vein that I am sure paediatric surgeons must also leave their emotions at the door when it comes to saving their patients lives - or do they too have to be this "certain kind of person" with no empathy?

I think with cases like this it's genuinely difficult to find justice in them. Of course we are not privy to lots of details but maybe people are just sick of reading about very low sentencing concerning convicted child abusers and perpetators of sexual assault in general. These laws are to old and to open to manipulation and really should be looked at to the view of reforming them.

HensVassal · 26-07-2016 03:55PM

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.

But you know nothing about the facts of the case. You don't know the defendant's name. You have no idea what this "sexual assault" consisted of. It could be anything from consensual kissing, to fondling, to masturbation.

Why does the wisdom and experience of a judge who know EVERYTHING about the case always seem to take second place to the "wisdom" of the braying mob who know sweet fuck ALL about the case?

Yellow pack crisps · 26-07-2016 03:56PM

HensVassal wrote: »

But you know nothing about the facts of the case. You don't know the defendant's name. You have no idea what this "sexual assault" consisted of. It could be anything from consensual kissing, to fondling, to masturbation.

Why does the wisdom and experience of a judge who know EVERYTHING about the case always seem to take second place to the "wisdom" of the braying mob who know sweet fuck ALL about the case?

Bizarre rational!

OldNotWIse · 26-07-2016 03:58PM

Yellow pack crisps wrote: »

I think with cases like this it's genuinely difficult to find justice in them. Of course we are not privy to lots of details but maybe people are just sick of reading about very low sentencing concerning convicted child abusers and perpetators of sexual assault in general. These laws are to old and to open to manipulation and really should be looked at to the view of reforming them.

I agree with you. In fact I was speaking to a co-worker about this at lunch and he made the point that for heinous crimes that involve sexual exploitation of children, there really is no "justifiable" sentence - no sentence however big will ever be big enough. How can we put any kind of measure on the destruction of childhood, to do so would be grotesque. However, we need a functioning society and legal system, so there needs to be a line in the sand somewhere.

On a purely personal level, I think that line could justifiably be extended for sex offences especially ones carried out on minors, and I would welcome increased sentencing.

Our system gives judges a lot of discretion when sentencing, and there is a reliance on precedence. Perhaps this is something that needs to change, however resistance to "prescribed" sentences for specific crimes would likely be met with strong resistance, as it was before.

hairyslug · 26-07-2016 03:58PM

consensual kissing of a 6 year old?
It was deamed by the judge as sexual assualt, no matter how grevious, it deserves a term.

With all of the expereince that a judge has, it still does not make him infallible.

26-07-2016 03:59PM

old_aussie wrote: »

I bet you'd sing a different tune if it was one of your daughters.

The bane of every legal discussion, the "but if it was your daughter" line.

As if the penalties should be set by parents, understandably, seeking retribution, or this is some yardstick for appropriate sentencing.

26-07-2016 04:01PM

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

One of the objects of sentencing is retribution.

There is a logical principle underpinning this. Human beings expect, and may even deserve, retribution for wrongs committed against them. It is better that this retribution be meted out by a court appointed and regulated by the Rule of Law than by mob rule.

If people lose confidence in the retributive capacity of the courts, there is a real danger that they will begin to take the law into their own hands, or that victims will lose confidence in the machinery of the legal system, and fail to report crimes altogether.

If I were a victim of sexual assault, reading this, I'd be thinking 'what's the point of coming forward?'.
If I were the parent of these victims I'd want retribution.

ScumLord wrote: »

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.

seamus wrote: »

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.

The man's wife and daughter came to court to support him. If they can stand by him at a time like this, in such a public way, I am fairly sure they'll be with him for the rest of his days.

26-07-2016 04:04PM

Yellow pack crisps wrote: »

I think they were 14 + 15 not that it makes a difference as they are still underage. Just clarifying.

The first girl was assaulted when she was 6 or 7 years of age, in 1992 and 1993.

Yellow pack crisps · 26-07-2016 04:06PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The first girl was assaulted when she was 6 or 7 years of age, in 1992 and 1993.

Yep sorry just read it again! Don't know how I missed that.

Deleted it.

HensVassal · 26-07-2016 04:13PM

eviltwin wrote: »

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

And the fact that you can't tell the difference between two distinct crimes or that you choose to lump them together to suit your own angle goes to prove that you couldn't be further removed for the legal system.

_Kaiser_ · 26-07-2016 04:22PM

The guy should be serving whatever time he has left behind bars.. simple.

All the whaterboutery (but.. but.. he's low risk, it wasn't actual rape, he'd cost us money) is irrelevant - and frankly astonishing. His victims have had their ordeal trivialised by the verdict, and the efforts of the Gardai to bring him to justice pissed away at the same time.

These were innocent children who were abused by someone they should have been able to trust, and this outcome shows yet again how broken our justice system really is.

Pro Hoc Vice · 26-07-2016 04:22PM

Yellow pack crisps wrote: »

I think they were 14 + 15 not that it makes a difference as they are still underage. Just clarifying.

There was 4 charges

1 invoked a sexual assault in 1992 or 1993 on a 6 or 7 year old
2 involved a sexual assault in 1996 or 1997 on a 14 or 15 year old
3 involved a sexual assault in 2009 on a 23 year old
In relation to the 4th charge the court accepted there was doubt it was intentional

Sexual assault is any unwanted assault on a person of a sexual nature.

Because of Ireland's very complicated sexual offences laws age can be very important in that while a 6 year old can never consent to such activity as neither can a 14 year old a 15 year old can consent to certain activities and of course a 17 year old can give informed consent to sexual activity.

A sentence in such a matter would usually take up a hour or more will involve a Garda setting out the offences, the reading of victim impact statements and any relevant medical information of the victim and the accused. Then the judge must take all that information and the law as set out by the Court of Criminal Appeal and come up with a sentence. This judge has proved in the past to be happy to impose sentences of 6 years in the past, so is able and willing to sentences.

Also when sentencing historic cases the judge is aware of the maximum sentence available at the time of the offence. You would be surprised how low that was for some sex offences a few years ago.

Also it is very hard to get a guilty verdict from a jury for historic event cases, and often the evidence getting the conviction is the accuseds own admissions. If judges gave very long sentences to old men in such cases many so accused would not make admissions and drag the case out so long that they end up dead or unable to stand trial due to dementia. That serves neither the victim or society.

OldNotWIse · 26-07-2016 04:26PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The guy should be serving whatever time he has left behind bars.. simple.

All the whaterboutery (but.. but.. he's low risk, it wasn't actual rape, he'd cost us money) is irrelevant - and frankly astonishing. His victims have had their ordeal trivialised by the verdict, and the efforts of the Gardai to bring him to justice pissed away at the same time.

These were innocent children who were abused by someone they should have been able to trust, and this outcome shows yet again how broken our justice system really is.

Just to clarify, there isn't one poster on here saying that his sentence (or lack thereof) is justified because "it wasn't actual rape" - such comments were in response to posters who are mistakenly lumping all sexual offences together as one and seemingly cannot comprehend that rape and sexual assault are two distinct offences.

Yellow pack crisps · 26-07-2016 04:55PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

There was 4 charges

1 invoked a sexual assault in 1992 or 1993 on a 6 or 7 year old
2 involved a sexual assault in 1996 or 1997 on a 14 or 15 year old
3 involved a sexual assault in 2009 on a 23 year old
In relation to the 4th charge the court accepted there was doubt it was intentional

Sexual assault is any unwanted assault on a person of a sexual nature.

Because of Ireland's very complicated sexual offences laws age can be very important in that while a 6 year old can never consent to such activity as neither can a 14 year old a 15 year old can consent to certain activities and of course a 17 year old can give informed consent to sexual activity.

A sentence in such a matter would usually take up a hour or more will involve a Garda setting out the offences, the reading of victim impact statements and any relevant medical information of the victim and the accused. Then the judge must take all that information and the law as set out by the Court of Criminal Appeal and come up with a sentence. This judge has proved in the past to be happy to impose sentences of 6 years in the past, so is able and willing to sentences.

Also when sentencing historic cases the judge is aware of the maximum sentence available at the time of the offence. You would be surprised how low that was for some sex offences a few years ago.

Also it is very hard to get a guilty verdict from a jury for historic event cases, and often the evidence getting the conviction is the accuseds own admissions. If judges gave very long sentences to old men in such cases many so accused would not make admissions and drag the case out so long that they end up dead or unable to stand trial due to dementia. That serves neither the victim or society.

Sure. It's why I said it needs to be reformed so it cannot be manipulated.

steddyeddy · 26-07-2016 04:58PM

HensVassal wrote: »

But you know nothing about the facts of the case. You don't know the defendant's name. You have no idea what this "sexual assault" consisted of. It could be anything from consensual kissing, to fondling, to masturbation.

Why does the wisdom and experience of a judge who know EVERYTHING about the case always seem to take second place to the "wisdom" of the braying mob who know sweet fuck ALL about the case?

Odd that defendent asked if one of his victims was pregnant from kissing.

Pro Hoc Vice · 26-07-2016 05:06PM

Yellow pack crisps wrote: »

Sure. It's why I said it needs to be reformed so it cannot be manipulated.

What needs to be reformed?

26-07-2016 05:08PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The guy should be serving whatever time he has left behind bars.. simple.

All the whaterboutery (but.. but.. he's low risk, it wasn't actual rape, he'd cost us money) is irrelevant - and frankly astonishing.

Hands up, I don't even know what that even means...

"Whataboutery...it wasn't actual rape...irrelevant - and frankly astonishing".

Surely pointing out that it wasn't rape is rather important in the context of determining whether or not it was rape and should be treated as rape? I mean, if it wasn't rape, then it's hardly whataboutery or some technicality to point out that it wasn't rape.

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

Comments