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

pablo128 · 26-07-2016 05:58PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

There s no suggestion of his name either(even if I made a mistake earlier) but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a name. He wasn't found guilty of rape so it wasn't mentioned in the article. Do you know the specific charges that were given to him?

pablo128 · 26-07-2016 05:59PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

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.

But would you agree it is possible he was originally charged with rape, irrespective of what he was convicted of?

the_syco · 26-07-2016 06:02PM

Tombi! wrote: »

Well, the man is near 80. Has a low chance of reoffending apparently and had a near heart attack recently.

The judge has given him a license to molest. At least put him under a curfew so he's only allowed out of the house for two hours a day.

26-07-2016 06:04PM

pablo128 wrote: »

There s no suggestion of his name either(even if I made a mistake earlier) but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a name. He wasn't found guilty of rape so it wasn't mentioned in the article. Do you know the specific charges that were given to him?

That certainly doesn't mean it's open season to speculate.

He was not convicted of rape. That much we know. We don't know the facts, we don't know the detail, the Judge commented that they were not at the serious end of the sexual assault spectrum.

Pro Hoc Vice · 26-07-2016 06:11PM

pablo128 wrote: »

But would you agree it is possible he was originally charged with rape, irrespective of what he was convicted of?

No not possible, Well we know he pleaded guilty to sexual assault, if he had been charged with rape then there would have been a trial for the rape charge.

Pro Hoc Vice · 26-07-2016 06:13PM

pablo128 wrote: »

There s no suggestion of his name either(even if I made a mistake earlier) but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a name. He wasn't found guilty of rape so it wasn't mentioned in the article. Do you know the specific charges that were given to him?

The reason for the no name is to protect the victims as they are related and ages are given to know the accused is to know the victim.

Pro Hoc Vice · 26-07-2016 06:15PM

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.

Of course it applies if he was charged with rape then 2 options plead guilty or a trial. If a trial and he not sentenced for rape then he would have to have been found not guilty of rape.

HensVassal · 26-07-2016 07:34PM

old_aussie wrote: »

And they say justice is blind. And people who take that attitude are no better themselves!

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

I can just see you at the court saying, "ah, no it will be fine, just let him go"

The scumbag should be given the same sentence what any other person would be given
Let the scumbag have the same protection in jail that he showed to his nieces, NONE!

And I bet you would be begging for the cops to help if your son was accused of rape, guilty or not, and the mouth frothing mob was outside the house ready to castrate him.

Save personal hysteria for things that are a little more base.

pablo128 · 26-07-2016 07:35PM

HensVassal wrote: »

And I bet you would be begging for the cops to help if your son was accused of rape, guilty or not, and the mouth frothing mob was outside the house ready to castrate him.

Save personal hysteria for things that are a little more base.

In this case the man has pleaded guilty.

HensVassal · 26-07-2016 07:41PM

pablo128 wrote: »

Many apologies so. I got it wrong, it appears I jumped the gun on this one. I have deleted the offending posts.

Other posts of mine will be edited to reflect my mistake.

It would help if you used the brain before the pitchfork as well. The IRA kneecapped an old man in Belfast because local kids used to call him "Lester the molester" purely because he was an old bachelor with a cat.

pablo128 · 26-07-2016 07:51PM

HensVassal wrote: »

It would help if you used the brain before the pitchfork as well. The IRA kneecapped an old man in Belfast because local kids used to call him "Lester the molester" purely because he was an old bachelor with a cat.

It's disgraceful that some posters can't accept a genuine and prompt apology in good faith, without seeing an opportunity to stick the boot in. My stance hasn't changed even with my mistake.

Throw up a link to your story there like a good chap.

HensVassal · 26-07-2016 08:10PM

hairyslug wrote: »

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

I'm not an expert in the administering of punishment, nor do I have an insight into what would constitute appropriate punishment. You ask a strawman regarding "should this old guy serve time". I can't really answer that. Will it make society safer if this guy is imprisoned until he croaks? Because some of the people on here who are baying for blood can't get past the notion that sometimes your lust for revenge doesn't get sated.

It's pointless. The man was convicted but there are people who would clamour to put him on life support just to keep him alive to be punished.

hairyslug · 26-07-2016 08:33PM

HensVassal wrote: »

I'm not an expert in the administering of punishment, nor do I have an insight into what would constitute appropriate punishment. You ask a strawman regarding "should this old guy serve time". I can't really answer that. Will it make society safer if this guy is imprisoned until he croaks? Because some of the people on here who are baying for blood can't get past the notion that sometimes your lust for revenge doesn't get sated.

It's pointless. The man was convicted but there are people who would clamour to put him on life support just to keep him alive to be punished.

But where do we draw the line on age and illness, yes prison is used for rehab but there has to be a deterrent too, granted we can only go on a basic newspaper piece in the op that gives little info, but the crime qualified as SA, against a very young child, I have to ask myself what is the difference between this and any number of other cases (Google a random elderly age and SA and you will get hits) where sentences where handed down.

Maybe if SA was not so wide ranging it maybe easier to understand the leniency of some cases compared to others.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-07-2016 08:50PM

hairyslug wrote:

But where do we draw the line on age and illness, yes prison is used for rehab but there has to be a deterrent too, granted we can only go on a basic newspaper piece in the op that gives little info, but the crime qualified as SA, against a very young child, I have to ask myself what is the difference between this and any number of other cases (Google a random elderly age and SA and you will get hits) where sentences where handed down.

Prison is part of the deterrent but it isn't the whole thing. Thefactshave come to light and the guy has been found guilty. The punishment of prison is to deprive the guilty party of freedom. The guy is ill and his freedom will mostly be taken by his illness.

Guilty people are sent to prison AS punishment, not FOR punishment. The guys illness means that there is little to gain from imprisoning him. It doesn't lessen the crime.

26-07-2016 09:07PM

I find it remarkable that some of the same people who defend the use of feminist jazz-hands because clapping is "triggering", are the same crowd defending a suspended sentence for sexual assault.

If it weren't so serious a story it would be laughable.

maudgonner · 26-07-2016 09:08PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Prison is part of the deterrent but it isn't the whole thing. Thefactshave come to light and the guy has been found guilty. The punishment of prison is to deprive the guilty party of freedom. The guy is ill and his freedom will mostly be taken by his illness.

Guilty people are sent to prison AS punishment, not FOR punishment. The guys illness means that there is little to gain from imprisoning him. It doesn't lessen the crime.

Prison is used to punish the guilty by depriving them of their freedom, yes. But it is also used as restorative justice - a way for the victims of the crime to see justice done.

That's what is so wrong with this suspended sentence, IMO. Those girls will watch this man go home with his wife and daughter as if nothing has happened. As long as he keeps his nose clean for the next two years he will basically pay no price for what he has done. That's disgraceful.

Pro Hoc Vice · 26-07-2016 09:24PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I find it remarkable that some of the same people who defend the use of feminist jazz-hands because clapping is "triggering", are the same crowd defending a suspended sentence for sexual assault.

If it weren't so serious a story it would be laughable.

Lol what's the relation between the two.

Samaris · 26-07-2016 10:30PM

There is an issue with whether this is the judge's -fault- though. It has been pointed out that he is well able (and has) sentenced more harshly for sexual assaults in the past (bear in mind though that circumstances may have been different, but the point is he's not known for being unreasonably lenient within the narrow scope he has for -deciding- a suitable punishment whilst keeping in the bounds of the current law on dealing with such crimes.

Basically, there's several things to be considered here, and none of them are implying that anyone -approves- of a suspended sentence for the betrayal and assault of two children, his own relatives at that.

- Given all the factors (and it doesn't matter if we -agree- with them, the factors influence what he can be tried under, and what he's tried under in some way proscribe his punishment. That's just how the law works. A judge can't unilaterally sentence someone who's committed a sexual assault to ten years any more than he can sentence him to death if the law doesn't allow it. The punishment -does not reflect- what the judge thinks is fair. It reflects what the judge thinks is fair within a proscribed set of parameters for such cases. If rape cannot be proved (and I must admit, when I first read that pregnant comment, I thought he'd admitted it! But given he was not tried/convicted of it, he could not be punished for it. The judge could no more pass judgement on him for rape if rape is unproven than he could pass the judgement set out for burglary.

- Then again, the judge -may- have had the option to put something much more onerous on him and simply chose not to. I would need some indication that that was the case though, but I do suspect it's the law at fault rather than the individual that answers to it. Given he has sentenced people harder for sexual assault in the past and it has been overturned on appeal, it does not seem to be a lack of willingness to punish sexual attacks.

In short, without proof that the judge willingly sentenced him to less than he could have gotten under law (taking into account any possible mitigating factors in the eyes of the law), blaming the judge for the legal system having weak penalties for sexual assault is hardly reasonable.

And yes, I think it was far too light a sentence for what he did. But given there's a pattern of these, it may be a much better use of all our time to demand a strengthening in the law and more stringent penalties.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-07-2016 10:43PM

maudgonner wrote:

Prison is used to punish the guilty by depriving them of their freedom, yes. But it is also used as restorative justice - a way for the victims of the crime to see justice done.

Again, it's part of it. The victims had their story verified and he was found guilty and it's a matter of public record. That's part if the restorative justice. I think imprisoning the perpetrator is important but it's not nearly as important the court acknowledging the fact that the abuse occurred.

Punishing the perpetrator might give some vengeance to the victim but I have my doubts that it is satisfying.

Ultimately the court is there to establish the facts and punish the guilty. It's not really about the victim. Asking the court to fix it for the victim is asking it to do something it's not really designed for - beyond the comfort that comes from acknowledging their abuse

maudgonner wrote:

That's what is so wrong with this suspended sentence, IMO. Those girls will watch this man go home with his wife and daughter as if nothing has happened. As long as he keeps his nose clean for the next two years he will basically pay no price for what he has done. That's disgraceful.

He was found guilty. That's not 'no price'. Unless you don't value your reputation as a non paedophile. If he is as sick as is alleged then it's not like he'll be enjoying the rest of his life in peace and comfort.

26-07-2016 10:48PM

Samaris wrote: »

Then again, the judge -may- have had the option to put something much more onerous on him and simply chose not to. I would need some indication that that was the case though, but I do suspect it's the law at fault rather than the individual that answers to it.

I think you make a very fair point, and it's difficult to come down on one side without being in full possession of the facts.

Nevertheless, I suggest people read the comments of Judge Keys and his implicit criticism of the Court of Appeal in its previous ruling which was critical of his sentencing (DPP v P. B, see my earlier link)

In that case, the Court of Appeal was critical of the Judge's comments and his lack of explanation as opposed to the sentence he imposed per se.

In the current case, Judge Keys is perhaps interpreting the Court of Appeal's decision with a degree of truculence, and binding himself in a way that I personally, (and altgough not a lawyer, am literate) cannot accept is justified, based on the Court of Appeal judgment.

Judges don't like to be overruled, no more than any professional does. It's a natural human reaction to ve annoyed, and I just hope this Judge isn't throwing his toys out of the pram in attempting to provoke the Court of Appeal.

maudgonner · 26-07-2016 11:04PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Again, it's part of it. The victims had their story verified and he was found guilty and it's a matter of public record. That's part if the restorative justice. I think imprisoning the perpetrator is important but it's not nearly as important the court acknowledging the fact that the abuse occurred.

Punishing the perpetrator might give some vengeance to the victim but I have my doubts that it is satisfying.

Ultimately the court is there to establish the facts and punish the guilty. It's not really about the victim. Asking the court to fix it for the victim is asking it to do something it's not really designed for - beyond the comfort that comes from acknowledging their abuse

Rubbish. Of course one of the functions of the criminal justice system is to provide justice to the victims of crime. The verdict alone is not justice, it requires an appropriate sentence as well. And a suspended sentence for a crime of this nature is not appropriate, in my opinion.

He was found guilty. That's not 'no price'. Unless you don't value your reputation as a non paedophile. If he is as sick as is alleged then it's not like he'll be enjoying the rest of his life in peace and comfort.

Well his illness is unrelated to the court case, not a consequence of the sentence. He would be suffering the same if he had never committed a crime, so I fail to see how that can be considered any kind of punishment, it's irrelevant.

His wife and daughter are standing by him, it appears, so what is the real consequence of losing his reputation? Shame, a loss of standing in the community? Is that really proportional to the crimes he has been convicted of? I hardly think so.

26-07-2016 11:13PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ultimately the court is there to establish the facts and punish the guilty. It's not really about the victim. Asking the court to fix it for the victim is asking it to do something it's not really designed for

This is repeated so often it's become something of a meme on bulletin boards.

It's true that a prosecution ought not be the legal representative of the Victim, and that the Victim only enjoys the status of a witness during the trial phase.

BUT That is not to suggest that a court has no special obligation to the witness. I believe that as a matter of public policy, and in the interests of preserving public confidence in the courts, the courts can and do afford special status to the Victim and, where appropriate, take into account his or her interests.

People often hear it said that the Prosecution is not there to defend the Victim. But sentencing is another matter entirely and judges are quite entitled, if not obligated, to consider the effect of a crime on victims as a salient factor when imposing sentence.

Icemancometh · 27-07-2016 12:19AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He was found guilty. That's not 'no price'. Unless you don't value your reputation as a non paedophile. If he is as sick as is alleged then it's not like he'll be enjoying the rest of his life in peace and comfort.

It just doesn't seem right. The man was found guilty of abusing children, and the court's response seems to be to shrug their shoulders, and tell him to go on his way. It's hard to have faith in out justice system when someone can commit crimes of this nature and suffer no penalty.

Summer wind · 27-07-2016 02:01AM

This man admitted he was guilty of sexual assault of a little girl of six years old. He did the crime he should also do the time. The victims of this evil twisted man must feel so let down by our justice system. The outcome of this case really beggars belief.

HensVassal · 27-07-2016 02:09AM

Yellow pack crisps wrote: »

Bizarre rational!

Why is it bizarre?

Tell me...all of us.

HensVassal · 27-07-2016 02:14AM

pablo128 wrote: »

Semantics, and you know it.

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

This isn't the "real world", it's a discussion forum. Contributors range from those who wish to kill (although probably not by their own hand) the defendant to those who have a somewhat higher IQ and can control their emotions to the point of actually examining fact and not surrendering to speculation ("he probably raped the niece(s)).

pablo128 · 27-07-2016 02:17AM

HensVassal wrote: »

This isn't the "real world", it's a discussion forum. Contributors range from those who wish to kill (although probably not by their own hand) the defendant to those who have a somewhat higher IQ and can control their emotions to the point of actually examining fact and not surrendering to speculation ("he probably raped the niece(s)).

I'm still waiting on the link to your IRA story.

Steve · 27-07-2016 02:28AM

Unfortunate reality is this country does not have a punitive legal system.

If someone can not be 'rehabilitated' then they get off. This is why we see stories of scroats with '100 previous'. It's sickening.

HensVassal · 27-07-2016 03:26AM

hairyslug wrote: »

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.

And when did anyone say that consensual kissing between an adult and a child was acceptable ? Certainly not I but it falls under the category of sexual abuse. Stop trying to scream "apologist" at everone who tries to state that the girls weren't raped, ok?

El_Duderino 09 · 27-07-2016 06:53AM

maudgonner wrote:

Rubbish. Of course one of the functions of the criminal justice system is to provide justice to the victims of crime. The verdict alone is not justice, it requires an appropriate sentence as well. And a suspended sentence for a crime of this nature is not appropriate, in my opinion.

You say 'rubbish', then go on to rephrase what I said.

maudgonner wrote:

Well his illness is unrelated to the court case, not a consequence of the sentence. He would be suffering the same if he had never committed a crime, so I fail to see how that can be considered any kind of punishment, it's irrelevant.

Sure you're right. But the court found him guilty and also found that there was no point in imposing a custodial sentence because of his illness. If he is as I'll as he says he is, then his freedom is gone anyway so the court can't take his freedom away.

maudgonner wrote:

His wife and daughter are standing by him, it appears, so what is the real consequence of losing his reputation? Shame, a loss of standing in the community? Is that really proportional to the crimes he has been convicted of? I hardly think so.

No its not proportional to the crime. The reason is that his illness was taken into account. That's the subject of the discussion.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

This is repeated so often it's become something of a meme on bulletin boards.

BUT That is not to suggest that a court has no special obligation to the witness. I believe that as a matter of public policy, and in the interests of preserving public confidence in the courts, the courts can and do afford special status to the Victim and, where appropriate, take into account his or her interests.

The victim might well take comfort in knowing that the perpetrator has been found guilty and will be punished. That's almost a side effect of the justice system. It's not fit for the purpose of making things better for the victim. It's about ruling on whether or not they found a perpetrator of a crime and dealing with that perpetrator. At its core, there's very little comfort for victims in that setup.

Healing the victim is a completely different system.

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

Comments