Rennaws wrote: » Is your context based on imagination as well ? Or did you attend the trial ?
nullzero wrote: » It seems that there is a prevailing attitude here that if a man is accused of sexual assault/rape that he should be punished in some way. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial and the outcome should be accepted once the trial has been conducted correctly. The issue of sentencing being lenient is something I would take issue with as needing to change but that is the same across the board in all criminal justice cases. Ireland is simply too lenient on all offenders, which is in part due to the lack of adequate prison space. Sexual offences are horrific but we have way more violent offenders and other criminals who are roaming the streets, in and out of court or having half their sentences suspended or getting out early for being well behaved in prison. It's an issue which transcends this topic but is also indicative of the culture of overly lenient sentencing all over our criminal justice system.
Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: » Your answer was a custodial sentence greater than 0 days. But if the man had been imprisoned for 1 day, I'm sure you'd be giving out about that too. "One day in prison for sexual assault! This is disgraceful!" If you can't tell us what sentence you personally would have believed appropriate in this case, then your protests about inappropriate sentencing don't carry much weight. You give out about judges treating sexual assault too leniently, but you don't seem to know what you want them to do instead.
SusieBlue wrote: » Well he is currently spending 0 days in prison, so anything more than that would be an improvement.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Nobody has said that. can you point to some posts that suggest it?
nullzero wrote: » Fao ohnonotgmail.
nullzero wrote: » See above.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Like your mate rennaws you seem to think those posts refer to the trial in the OP. they dont.
SusieBlue wrote: » I don't have to tell you anything, I don't owe you an explanation and I don't have to answer your Spanish inquisition. I gave a reasonable reply yet you are hounding me with the same question over and over again. I have been more than clear, I know what I want, I think custodial sentences should be imposed on those who admit or who are convicted of sexual offenses. If you are still failing to understand what I'm saying, I can't help you any further.
SusieBlue wrote: » In this case the defendant admitted guilt, there was no doubt about his culpability, so no, not based on my imagination.
nullzero wrote: » My comment didn't refer to that trial either. Try reading it again, I'll wait.
Rennaws wrote: » Nobody is saying an assault didn’t take place. But you seem to believe you know better then the judge with regard to sentencing in the case so you must have the same facts to hand to make that decision.. Or are you basing it on the imaginary facts in your head ?
SusieBlue wrote: » Tougher sentencing is absolutely needed across the board, but seeing as the topic of this thread is sexual assault, I was focusing on those. As for the bolded, that really isn't your place to say. You can't categorically say that getting the cr*p beaten out of you is more serious than waking up to find a random man has his fingers up you. Try telling the victim of such a crime that it isn't that serious. Its a very serious matter to them. If you violate a persons bodily integrity I believe a custodial sentence should be imposed. Its a very serious crime and the sentence should reflect that.
tritium wrote: » how much tougher? 10 years is the current average for rape. Longer than most crimes bar murder. What should it be?
SusieBlue wrote: » Well then you are taking my reply out of context, because that post was in regards to the case where a man who was admitted guilt and was convicted of sexually assaulting a sleeping woman and received a suspended sentence. You used my reply to prove your point that people here were calling for people who are accused of sexual assault to be punished, when that's not what my post was about. My post was about someone who was actually convicted. You are being deliberately obtuse.
Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: » Greater than 0 days is the prevailing answer.
nullzero wrote: » It seems that there is a prevailing attitude here that if a man is accused of sexual assault/rape that he should be punished in some way.
Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: » I asked you not what you believe should happen in general, but what specific sentence you would have imposed in the case you yourself cited. Man inserts fingers into a sleeping woman's vagina after a party, admits sexual assault in court, the victim says she is satisfied with his public admission of guilt, and the judge gives him a two-year suspended sentence. Your stance is that he got off too lightly -- and yet you won't say anything beyond that he should have received a custodial sentence of greater than 0 days. But if the judge had put him in jail for two weeks, I'm sure that would have caused outrage too, no?
Sleeper12 wrote: » Do you even know the vows taken when getting married? Once he cheated he broke his vow and lied. He lied while standing on the alter or register office.
nullzero wrote: » You didn't read the whole post then, just the part that triggered you.
nullzero wrote: » Fao ohnonotgmail.Originally Posted by SusieBlue View Post Well he is currently spending 0 days in prison, so anything more than that would be an improvement.
Sleeper12 wrote: » A man stands up in front of a hundred of his family and friends & makes sworn promises to his wife. If he can lie in front of all of his friends then he can easily lie under oath. This is what the DPP would have been pushing in court. So much deflection on this thread. The thread is about why her thong & the barristers comment were allowed at All. This guy seems to be a complete dope but that is not what the thread is about. Still waiting for someone to come up with a genuine answer as to why the judge allowed this
Lillybloom wrote: » Most married people break their vows at some point, no contract can change the nature of human sexuality.
Candie wrote: » What do you think you would consider a proper sentence if you fell asleep after drinking and woke up to find a mans fingers inside you? "Sorry mate, my bad"? This thread is disappointing. The names might change but the same obdurate victim blaming remains, and also proof that women can be among the worst misogynists.
tritium wrote: » Ah yeah, this ****e. If you don’t agree with us you’re just a misogynist. Was wondering when we’d get to this. Seriously, this isn’t a personal echo chamber in spite of the tendency on this thread for one side to stick their fingers in their ears and go lalalalala to anything that doesn’t fit their world view of oppression. Whether you like it or not, we have a system that doesn’t just go around lynching the accused on the back of an accusation. Whatever the changes we want in the legal system, removing the right of a defendant to a fair trial isn’t one of them. Especially on the back of whipped up outrage based on a trial that few seem to know all the details about. If we hang on long enough I’m sure “rape culture” will make an appearance.
Bannasidhe wrote: » My understanding is the Victim did not say she was satisfied. She said she was vindicated. Which could mean that she felt vindicated because her accusation of assault was proven correct.
Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: » She said in a statement that she was "entirely vindicated." Therefore, I assume she was satisfied with the outcome, hair-splitting semantics aside.
