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

123578

Comments

  • #122
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Odd that defendent asked if one of his victims was pregnant from kissing.

    Again, I presume the inference was that was raised in the context of the promiscuity alleged by him.

    There is no suggestion he said "was she pregnant as a result of what I did". And again the Judge specifically said it was not at the serious end of sexual assault, which would be bizarre if it involved sexual intercourse.


  • #123
    Irish Guitarist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,736 ✭✭✭Irish Guitarist


    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?

    If you do enough to a six year old child that you're charged with sexual assault and your defense isn't that you didn't do it but that she was bold and deserved it you should get a sentence somewhat harsher than absolutely nothing.

    And 'consensual kissing' of a six year old? "Oh, it could have just been a bit of fondling or masturbation". What the fuck?


  • #124
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Deleted User wrote: »
    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.

    It seems that any kind of preference for fact or objectivity makes us "just as guilty" as the perpetrator. Pointing out that rape and sexual assault are two separate and distinct offences makes you pedantic. A judge's impartiality and professionalism makes him/her lack empathy.

    I would have thought the "whataboutery" accusation was misplaced, considering the amount of time and energy spent on statements such as "what if it was your daughter" / "what if it was the judge's family" / "what if he does it again" etc.

    Rape is not sexual assault. Sexual assault is not rape. But none of that matters if you have a heightened indignation, a child of your own and a pitchfork.


  • #125
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Irish Guitarist wrote: »
    If you do enough to a six year old child that you're charged with sexual assault and your defense isn't that you didn't do it but that she was bold and deserved it you should get a sentence somewhat harsher than absolutely nothing.

    And 'consensual kissing' of a six year old? "Oh, it could have just been a bit of fondling or masturbation". What the fuck?


    What the fúck is right because that's not actually what the poster said.


  • #126
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,210 ✭✭✭pablo128


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    It seems that any kind of preference for fact or objectivity makes us "just as guilty" as the perpetrator. Pointing out that rape and sexual assault are two separate and distinct offences makes you pedantic. A judge's impartiality and professionalism makes him/her lack empathy.

    I would have thought the "whataboutery" accusation was misplaced, considering the amount of time and energy spent on statements such as "what if it was your daughter" / "what if it was the judge's family" / "what if he does it again" etc.

    Rape is not sexual assault. Sexual assault is not rape. But none of that matters if you have a heightened indignation, a child of your own and a pitchfork.
    Sexual assault is something a rape charge could be downgraded to if the actual penetration couldn't be proved due to legal arguments.

    Correct me if I'm wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    pablo128 wrote: »
    Sexual assault is something a rape charge could be downgraded to if the actual penetration couldn't be proved due to legal arguments.

    Correct me if I'm wrong.

    It's still a separate offence so your post is not wrong, just irrelevant.


  • #128
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,210 ✭✭✭pablo128


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    It's still a separate offence so your post is not wrong, just irrelevant.

    I thought as much.;)


  • #129
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,242 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    This is the original Barry case which the Judge used for the purpose of comparison

    http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/447ec9ccdd536e3c80257f380054aae3?OpenDocument

    That case involved a minimal level of sexual contact, i.e. non-invasive touching, and the Defendant was sentenced to five years imprisonment on each offence by the Court of Appeal, with three years suspended.

    The Judge described the offending in the instant case as "very serious", although we don't know its nature, but only gave two years suspended?

    I hope this sentence fairly reflects the nature of the offending, and that it isn't a case of the judge basically trolling the Court of Appeal for its criticism of his previous sentencing. It wouldn't be totally unheard of for that kind of behaviour to have probably arisen in the past, with a now-deceased judge.


  • #130
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 29,968 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Again, I presume the inference was that was raised in the context of the promiscuity alleged by him.

    There is no suggestion he said "was she pregnant as a result of what I did". And again the Judge specifically said it was not at the serious end of sexual assault, which would be bizarre if it involved sexual intercourse.
    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    It seems that any kind of preference for fact or objectivity makes us "just as guilty" as the perpetrator. Pointing out that rape and sexual assault are two separate and distinct offences makes you pedantic. A judge's impartiality and professionalism makes him/her lack empathy.

    I would have thought the "whataboutery" accusation was misplaced, considering the amount of time and energy spent on statements such as "what if it was your daughter" / "what if it was the judge's family" / "what if he does it again" etc.

    Rape is not sexual assault. Sexual assault is not rape. But none of that matters if you have a heightened indignation, a child of your own and a pitchfork.

    The point that you both are missing is that in the context of this case - the sexual assault and abuse of a 6 year old and her sister - you arguing about the semantics of the class of the crime is irrelevant.

    It's this sort of legal semantic nonsense that is exactly why so many perpetrators get off on technicalities, or are handed reduced sentences.

    In the real world, whether he actually raped them or just "felt them up a bit" is equally unacceptable in this scenario and he should have faced real time for it.


  • #131
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Irish Guitarist wrote: »
    If you do enough to a six year old child that you're charged with sexual assault and your defense isn't that you didn't do it but that she was bold and deserved it you should get a sentence somewhat harsher than absolutely nothing.

    And 'consensual kissing' of a six year old? "Oh, it could have just been a bit of fondling or masturbation". What the fuck?


    While his Garda Interview raised a number of worrying issues, by pleading guilty he abandoned all defences no matter how bizarre. Such statements of the accused would be in the book of evidence and the judge would have been aware of what was stated. Also during sentence to give flavour to the case certain of the statement would be read in court.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    scdublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 643 ✭✭✭scdublin


    What the f*ck did I just read?! The audacity of him to say that they were egging him on, when one of the kids was 6/7 when he started assaulting her? Omfg.


  • #133
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    pablo128 wrote: »
    I thought as much.;)

    That your point was irrelevant? Nobody is disputing the possibility of an alternative verdict (from rape to sexual assault, you might note a sexual assault charge cannot be "upgraded" to rape), what is disputed is whether they are two separate offences, which they are. The fact that one can be downgraded to another in the absence of sufficient evidence does not make them the same offence.


  • #134
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    The point that you both are missing is that in the context of this case - the sexual assault and abuse of a 6 year old and her sister - you arguing about the semantics of the class of the crime is irrelevant.

    It's this sort of legal semantic nonsense that is exactly why so many perpetrators get off on technicalities, or are handed reduced sentences.

    In the real world, whether he actually raped them or just "felt them up a bit" is equally unacceptable in this scenario and he should have faced real time for it.

    It's not semantics. It's the law. It's worrying that so many people think it's ok to have such a blasé attitude to the law to be honest. If your lawyer went into court and leveled "any old charge" at the Defence, you wouldn't get very far in vindicating your rights.

    Again, nobody is trying to take from the severity of what happened and nobody is saying he should have escaped prison time, but there is nothing wrong with educating yourself and getting your facts right before you speak about it. There is no excuse for ignorance.


  • #135
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    The point that you both are missing is that in the context of this case - the sexual assault and abuse of a 6 year old and her sister - you arguing about the semantics of the class of the crime is irrelevant.

    It's this sort of legal semantic nonsense that is exactly why so many perpetrators get off on technicalities, or are handed reduced sentences.

    In the real world, whether he actually raped them or just "felt them up a bit" is equally unacceptable in this scenario and he should have faced real time for it.

    Putting a hand on a persons bottom can be sexual assault as can pinching a breast as can oral sex or indeed kissing. Sexual assault is very very broad where as Rape has a very specific defenition and involves penetration of the vagina by the penis however slight. Section 4 rape broadens the acts which are rape under that section.

    While feeling them up and rape are both criminal acts the legislation and the courts treat them differently for sentencing.


  • #136
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,210 ✭✭✭pablo128


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    That your point was irrelevant? Nobody is disputing the possibility of an alternative verdict (from rape to sexual assault, you might note a sexual assault charge cannot be "upgraded" to rape), what is disputed is whether they are two separate offences, which they are. The fact that one can be downgraded to another in the absence of sufficient evidence does not make them the same offence.

    Semantics, and you know it.

    Just so you know, this isn't the law library, it's the real world.


  • #137
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,242 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    OVER-RULED


  • #138
    not yet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,008 ✭✭✭not yet


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    It seems that any kind of preference for fact or objectivity makes us "just as guilty" as the perpetrator. Pointing out that rape and sexual assault are two separate and distinct offences makes you pedantic. A judge's impartiality and professionalism makes him/her lack empathy.

    I would have thought the "whataboutery" accusation was misplaced, considering the amount of time and energy spent on statements such as "what if it was your daughter" / "what if it was the judge's family" / "what if he does it again" etc.

    Rape is not sexual assault. Sexual assault is not rape. But none of that matters if you have a heightened indignation, a child of your own and a pitchfork.


    As the devil said to his balls....

    There's a pair of you in it.


  • #139
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    pablo128 wrote: »
    Semantics, and you know it.

    Just so you know, this isn't the law library, it's the real world.

    You call it semantics, I call it the law. Each to their own. :)


  • #140
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    pablo128 wrote: »
    Sexual assault is something a rape charge could be downgraded to if the actual penetration couldn't be proved due to legal arguments.

    Correct me if I'm wrong.

    Only if the facts prove the lesser and included charge. A person who commits rape does by definition satisfy the definition for sexual assault. But rape is a very specific legal crime where for example penetration is not proved could be sexual assault.


  • #141
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »
    Only if the facts prove the lesser and included charge. A person who commits rape does by definition satisfy the definition for sexual assault. But rape is a very specific legal crime where for example penetration is not proved could be sexual assault.

    How dare you come in here with your logic and reason. :P


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,210 ✭✭✭pablo128


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    How dare you come in here with your logic and reason. :P

    Well he just contradicted you, didn't he.


  • #143
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    pablo128 wrote: »
    Well he just contradicted you, didn't he.

    No.


  • #144
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,210 ✭✭✭pablo128


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    , what is disputed is whether they are two separate offences, which they are. The fact that one can be downgraded to another in the absence of sufficient evidence does not make them the same offence.
    Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »
    Only if the facts prove the lesser and included charge. A person who commits rape does by definition satisfy the definition for sexual assault. But rape is a very specific legal crime where for example penetration is not proved could be sexual assault.
    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    No.

    Yes.


  • #145
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    pablo128 wrote: »
    Yes.

    They are two separate offences. It really is that simple. I am not engaging with you on this carousel anymore.


  • #146
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    pablo128 wrote: »
    Yes.

    Just to clarify in most trials a person accused of Rape will usually be also sepertaly charged with sexual assault often such cases can have multiple charges under different legal headings.


  • #147
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    In the real world, whether he actually raped them or just "felt them up a bit" is equally unacceptable in this scenario and he should have faced real time for it.

    Groping a person is not comparable with rape at all.

    Just yesterday we had sentences of 13 and 10 years handed down in 2 rape cases.


  • #148
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,210 ✭✭✭pablo128


    Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »
    Just to clarify in most trials a person accused of Rape will usually be also sepertaly charged with sexual assault often such cases can have multiple charges under different legal headings.

    I get you, thanks. In my opinion the other poster is trying his damndest to completely separate the 2 charges, which doesn't really apply here.


  • #149
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Groping a person is not comparable with rape at all.

    Just yesterday we had sentences of 13 and 10 years handed down in 2 rape cases.

    In fact in last few years life sentences for rape have become more common from my reading the usual is 8-15 years for rape.


  • #150
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    pablo128 wrote: »
    I get you, thanks. In my opinion the other poster is trying his damndest to completely separate the 2 charges, which doesn't really apply here.

    There is no rape here. There is no suggestion in the article that he was charged with rape at any stage, or that the offences amounted to rape. Rape is indeed often preceded by another charge, assault, sexual assault, even trespass, but that is not to say that trespass and rape are comparable.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    pablo128 wrote: »
    I get you, thanks. In my opinion the other poster is trying his damndest to completely separate the 2 charges, which doesn't really apply here.

    I don't think the other poster is saying that at all. While it may be correct to say a person who commits rape may have committed sexual assault the opposite can never be true that a sexual assault is a rape.

    Just because one offence has the ingredients of an other does not make it the same.


Advertisement
Advertisement