Peregrinus wrote: » It is entirely justifiable to debate this case. What's not so easily justified is framing the debate on the basis that the defendant is a rapist, and the sentence should be one appropriate to rape. The defendant wasn't accused of, charged with, or convicted of rape; he couldn't possibly be sentenced for rape. And, when the response from the OP when this is pointed out is, basically, "I don't care", this ceases to be a debate about whether the sentence in this case is appropriate or not. What the OP actually wants to debate is, seemingly, the appropriate sentence for rape, not the appropriate sentence in this case.
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » My point is that to some people the race and religion of the accused is far more important than the actual crime committed and that they are far more outraged about that than the actual crime.
WillieMason wrote: » Why are you picking on the Muslim rapists and not the Irish ones? this is so racist
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » That's the third time that joke has been made in anticipation of someone making the point seriously. I think it's worth pointing out that nobody has actually raised a racist angle to thy story except some clown aaying Leo is a Muslim, hence a lenient sentence for a fellow Muslim (this is so stupid it might be ironic, apologies if this is the case) The funny thing is that the story is about how he didn't apologise to the girl when ambushed by journalist outside the prison. Why would anyone think that's a good time to make an unprepared statement?
John Sacrimoni wrote: » Its nothing to do with race, this fella will abuse again 100%. 10 months for raping a child, how are people standing for this? The may aswell have invited him to target more kids.
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » That is the right question to answer. Are sentences for rape overtly lenient? Especially against children? How is the conviction rate? How does Ireland compare to other countries? Discussions about the man's race or religion are entirely irrelevant from a legal standpoint, since those are not taken into account. It's entirely justified to debate the case, but "shure de Muslims!"
kneemos wrote: » El_Duderino 09 wrote: » That's the third time that joke has been made in anticipation of someone making the point seriously. I think it's worth pointing out that nobody has actually raised a racist angle to thy story except some clown aaying Leo is a Muslim, hence a lenient sentence for a fellow Muslim (this is so stupid it might be ironic, apologies if this is the case) The funny thing is that the story is about how he didn't apologise to the girl when ambushed by journalist outside the prison. Why would anyone think that's a good time to make an unprepared statement? How did the journalist know he was leaving the prison?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » I don't know how these things work. Call the prison and ask whose being released today? Bribe a prison officer? What's that got to do with the post you quoted
Mike9832 wrote: » Why is he not being deported back to his **** hole? What do ye expect when we have a Muslim leader
kneemos wrote: » How did the journalist know he was leaving the prison?
Peregrinus wrote: » He is not. Nor is he from a Muslim background. He himself is not religious. His mother is a Catholic. His father is a Hindu from a Parsee background. But these are the kind of subtle distinctions that escape Islamophobes, to whom everybody with any degree of non-white background is a Muslim.
Will I Am Not wrote: » In his own words he was teaching the girl an Islamic ritual... in a mosque... It’s hardly a wild jump to a conclusion in this case.
Aydin Shy Mumps wrote: » The judge accepted a report that he was schizophrenic and delusional. There was a further report that said he wasn't. I'm not clear on whether they conflict or refer to dufferent times. It doesn't say if he is being treated for schizophrenia.
The court heard that a psychological report stated that Rashid currently meets the diagnostic criteria for schziophrenia and delusional disorder and is psychologically vulnerable. A further psychiatric report indicated that at present he is not suffering from a psychiatric illness.
I didn't see whether he will be able to continue his career teaching children. I would assume no, but if he is then that is the most outrageous thing of all.
Allinall wrote: » Jaysus lads. Peregrinus is responding to the knob head who said Leo is a Muslim .
Aydin Shy Mumps wrote: » The Herald selectively report things so they have the most dramatic story. Here is a report on it from the Irish Timeshttps://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/teacher-gets-suspended-sentence-for-sex-assault-at-dublin-mosque-1.3703130?mode=amp The judge accepted a report that he was schizophrenic and delusional. There was a further report that said he wasn't. I'm not clear on whether they conflict or refer to dufferent times. It doesn't say if he is being treated for schizophrenia. Also they said him being Bangladeshi would make prison more difficult, and he had a family. I didn't see whether he will be able to continue his career teaching children. I would assume no, but if he is then that is the most outrageous thing of all. I don't see how any of this makes him less dangerous, or how it is reasonable to accept as mitigating factors.
Peregrinus wrote: » I don't think he has a "career as a teacher"; from the newspaper report, he works as a chef. He's described as "a teacher in a Dublin mosque", but I think this was a voluntary, part-time thing, in the equivalent of a Sunday school. Like you, I assume that particular gig is permanently up. (None of the reporting of this has suggested that the mosque authorities were obstructive, unhelpful or in any kind of denial. Unlike some denominations that we could think of.) Coverage of the psychological/psychiatric reports is confusing, I agree. And what's completely missing from the reports is any opinion expressed in the reports as to whether he poses a future risk, or whether any risk can be or is being managed through engagement with treatment services. These would certainly be relevant considerations in sentencing.
Aydin Shy Mumps wrote: » I doubt he is engaging with treatment. He denies doing anything. I extrapolate from that that he doesn't accept any diagnosis.
Aydin Shy Mumps wrote: » If the act was realted to schizophrenia, you'd think that he would be monitored, and be committed if he starts heading into a state where he might do something like this. However mental health services in Ireland only seem to activate at crisis point so I doubt this is the case.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » He’s an Irish citizen? Who’s the Muslim leader , Obama?
Peregrinus wrote: » That thought occurred to me too. If he's basically in denial about what he has done, this doesn't bode well for his engagement with support services. On the other hand, what he says to a journalist when ambushed in the street in stressful circumstances by media that he will presume to be hostile and what he says to his family, his doctor or his counsellors are not necessarily the same thing. Plus, of course, whatever he said to journalists on release can't have been a factor in sentencing; he hadn't said it then. We don't know what mental health treatment or support the guy is getting. People suffering from schizophrenia rarely present a threat to others - they are much more likely to present a threat to themselves. It would be unusual for somebody with schizophrenia to be sectioned, thought it does happen. Realistically, it won't happen unless (at the very least) he or someone very close to him seeks it (and, even then, only if the medics agree). Note that he is still subject to supervision by the probation services while the suspended part of his sentence is served. Vengeance fantasies notwithstanding, in terms of community protection there is value to a part-suspension of a sentence, so that the offender's transition to community services can be monitored, managed and, if necessary, enforced. This is particularly important if he does have mental health issues that are contributing to his offending behaviour.
Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: » The Gardai will be watching him very closely (including his internet traffic). One small slip up, if he sneezes the wrong way, id say he be brought in.
Aydin Shy Mumps wrote: » If his schizophrenia was a factor in him molesting a child, then his specific case of schizophrenia does present a risk to others. If his schizophrenia was not a factor then I disagree with it being accepted as a mitigating factor.
Aydin Shy Mumps wrote: » Slightly off topic, but being a danger to yourself is sufficient grounds for sectioning, you don't have to be a threat to others as well.
Peregrinus wrote: » But if it was his undiagnosed, untreated schizophrenia which contributed to the offence then, yes, it's a factor that mitigates in sentencing, since it reduces his personal culpability and it suggests that risk to the community may be mitigated by diagnosis/treatment. I think we agree that the newspaper reports of the psych reports are confusing, but one possible reading of this. . . . . . is that, as a result of the diagnosis made in the first report, Rashid has received treatment which means that although still "psychologically vulnerable", he's not now "sufferingfrom a psychiatric illness". (It's also worth pointing out that, if mental health issues are part of what's at the root of his offending, then in terms of risk to the community the longer he spends in prison the worse, since prison is not a place conducive to good or improved mental health.) Also slightly off-topic: Yes, I know.
Aydin Shy Mumps wrote: » Yes it occurred to me that he's unlikely to have stabilised after being convicted of a heinous crime and imprisoned for it unless there was significant intervention. For all we know he is on high doses of haliperidol, in which case I doubt he's a threat to anybody right now. Cheaper than keeping him in prison too.
