Now there is no justice in Ireland

Ph3n0m · 30-05-2006 02:26PM #1

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/05/30/story261120.html

The law gone mad? Opinions?

Giblet · 30-05-2006 02:31PM

Jesus, I don't see this going over well. A precedent has been set and now we'll be seeing more of this scum.

BoozyBabe · 30-05-2006 02:32PM

In this case, yes, it's fcuking ridiculous!!!!!
If it was say a 17year old who slept with the 14 year old thinking she was a legal age, then you can understand where the new law is coming from.

But that pervert knew he was atleast 20years older than her & filled her full of drink to have sex with her.

How can they justify that as being legal? Of course he knew what he was doing

Heinrich · 30-05-2006 02:33PM

When yo see this:

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2004/0525/4191118674HM1LEAD.html

then you get the message!

Thirdfox · 30-05-2006 02:36PM

Nope - this is to do with the recent ruling (last Wednesday if I'm not mistaken) that there is no defence to statutory rape. It was ruled unconstitutional and therefore people convicted under that assumption may be set free.

Thirdfox · 30-05-2006 02:37PM

They probably couldn't have a retrial since that would be against the rules of double jeopardy.

I see the legal point of the ruling but of course I dislike it on a moral point.

30-05-2006 02:38PM

Kersh · 30-05-2006 02:39PM

The long term answer to this will be decided upon at election time.
DONT VOTE THEM BACK IN>>>>>>>

whitetrash · 30-05-2006 02:39PM

The greater age difference shouldn't automatically grant a conviction of statutory rape so overturning his conviction in that sense is correct.

However, if he did fill her with drink (ie incapacitate her) and did actually rape her then he should have been tried for sexual assault.

Thirdfox · 30-05-2006 02:41PM

But to retry someone who has been acquitted, wouldn't that be a great injustice too? This case people can see the validity of it, but what happens in the next case where the DPP just want to retry under they get a conviction?

Roen · 30-05-2006 02:42PM

I thought I had misheard the radio in the car when I heard this tramp had been freed, WTF? He should have been shot in the first place.

whitetrash · 30-05-2006 02:43PM

Sorry, I mean he should have been tried for sexual assault in the first place, rather than getting an automatic statutory rape conviction for, techincally, being the man in that situation.

Hagar · 30-05-2006 02:46PM

Until we get legislators who know their ass from their elbow this type of thing is going to keep happening.

I would caution posters that regardless of what you think this man is innocent of any crime.
Be careful of what you say.

Thirdfox · 30-05-2006 02:48PM

whitetrash wrote:

Sorry, I mean he should have been tried for sexual assault in the first place, rather than getting an automatic statutory rape conviction for, techincally, being the man in that situation.

From the DPP's view they probably just took the easy conviction of stat. rape. Didn't know the SC would change the law later on... but kind of ironic as I argued in my criminal exam (on the morning of the day the law was changed) that the automatic conviction was probably unconstitutional and could be a problem.

The law on rape is quite unsatisfactory in my opinion (having improved a lot over the years) hopefully these type of cases coupled with public outrage will force the Government to correct the anomalies once and for all.

Thirdfox · 30-05-2006 02:54PM

For example the 1935 Criminal Law Amendment Act (that the SC ruled partially unconstitutional) didn't mention underage sexual intercourse with boys - clearly an infringement of the guarantee of equality article in the Constitution.

So even on equality grounds the provision would probably have been ruled unconstitutional...

whitetrash · 30-05-2006 02:55PM

Thirdfox wrote:

hopefully these type of cases coupled with public outrage will force the Government to correct the anomalies once and for all.

I may be wrong, but I think public opinion on hearing the words "rape" and "no longer an automatic conviction for" will automatically swing towards complaining that the law was changed at all.

Thirdfox · 30-05-2006 03:01PM

I just hope the Gov. doesn't have a knee jerk reaction and just seek to plug holes in the law - they should use this as an opportunity to really rethink the theory behind the law on rape and what could be done to improve it.

I am glad to hear that Minister McDowell has, in his new plans, included the extra offence of underage male statutory rape.

The public is very easily swayed by these "hard" cases - I remember hearing about the X abortion case and how the Supreme Court was forced to follow public opinion and completely misinterpretate the Constitution - again the "right" result was achieved but at the cost of an effective legal system...

biko · 30-05-2006 03:02PM

Any adult (18+) that would fill up a child (-16) with drink and then have sex with her is just very very very wrong :mad:

whitetrash · 30-05-2006 03:07PM

biko wrote:

Any adult (18+) that would fill up a child (-16) with drink and then have sex with her is just very very very wrong :mad:

I don't think anybody disputes the morality of what the man in this case did (or is accused of doing at least), the problem is with an automatic conviction of statutory rape being put against him because of his sex. And, of course, his subsiquient accquital because of the DPP's not bringing him up on sexual assault charges.

super_furry · 30-05-2006 03:09PM

I hope that paedophile is tracked down and dealt with properly. It might not be lawful, but it would be justice.

Thirdfox · 30-05-2006 03:11PM

Any adult (18+) that would fill up a child (-16) with drink and then have sex with her is just very very very wrong

There was the English case where a man had consensual intercourse with a girl that he honestly believed with over 18 (she was in an over 18s club, subjectively looked over 18 and told him she was over 18) but that was not taken into account when convicting as the law stated that once underage then the person is liable - now where is the justice in that?

astrofool · 30-05-2006 03:49PM

I'd agree with Thirdfox that they take this as an oppertunity to amend/bring in a new set of laws covering rape/sex/age of consent/who is liable, preferably without letting the church get at all involved, and let it be representative of the reality that we live in today, where people do have sex when under the age of consent.

Something which places the onus on a person to reasonably have age of the other party proven, and obviously to sort out the difference in crimes between consentual sex of underage people, and non-consentual.

whitetrash · 30-05-2006 03:53PM

"reasonably have age of the other party proven" is quite vague though. How can this be enforced or even practiced in a normal social situation? Ask every girl you sleep with for id beforehand? There are too many older-looking young people and younger-looking older people for any kind of lawful rule to made about this isn't there?

astrofool · 30-05-2006 04:00PM

I think the case in law would be "beyond a reasonable doubt", and its really something that people have to have done a bit of study on before they can comment on it.

After all, there are very very few crimes which can be 100% proven, but beyond a reasonable doubt is what is used. If someone was shown to have gone to reasonable lengths to ensure they were legal, then they shouldn't be blamed, whereas if someone just took it for granted because they were in an over 18's club, then they could probably be held liable. Proving this type of thing is the exact reason we have court cases, otherwise we'd just have sentences being handed out without a trial.

And yes, it could require some re-education of the general public so as to keep themselves safe from prosecution.

whitetrash · 30-05-2006 04:03PM

I would have thought that meeting somebody in an over 18's club, it was resonable to assume they were over 18, had id checked at the door if they looked young, were deemed old enough by the managment of the club to be old enough to enter and be served drink.

astrofool · 30-05-2006 04:13PM

If you think the management of clubs do any sort of real checking on people, you are incredibly naive. Most clubs only really start really checking when close to being full. Thats a whole other problem to deal with, but fact is, the onus of responsibility is on the person themselves, and not the management of a club, that the person they have sex with is legal or not.

hepcat · 30-05-2006 04:16PM

This is going to cause mayhem...it is a very emotive topic, obviously, and seeing a 42yo let off on what has only recently become a loophole (well for 42year olds who rape drunk 12 year olds) just seems so wrong. Surely the conviction was lawful at that time, and surely there should be some temporary measure to fill the void left by the SC's decision rather than just letting all rapists of kids out because the law has changed..McDowell has already said he intends to take into account the age difference issue...

Well at least he had served half his sentence :rolleyes:

Thirdfox · 30-05-2006 04:18PM

Technically that law never existed (that's what a finding of unconstitutionality does) - that's why the guy can be set free after conviction. And unfortunately so can anyone else who has been convicted of this provision in the past, however long ago (as far as I know)...

whitetrash · 30-05-2006 04:23PM

astrofool wrote:

If you think the management of clubs do any sort of real checking on people, you are incredibly naive.

I don't believe appropriate checks are in place, but if an under 18 year old girl managed to get into the club who, I presume, are under similar rules to ensure nobody under the age gets in but were also fooled by this girl, plus the fact that I am aware of the law stating that nobody under the age of 18 should be there, then is it not resonable of me to assume that the law is being enforced (ie the club is successfully keeping under age people out) and that the girl is at least 18?

The evidence I have of her age is: 1) Her word, 2) She looks (presumably) at least 18, 3) she is in a place that is deemed by law to only allow people who are at least 18 entry. It seems my only other recourse would be to demand she produces ID :P

Sam Vimes · 30-05-2006 04:27PM

whitetrash wrote:

I don't believe appropriate checks are in place, but if an under 18 year old girl managed to get into the club who, I presume, are under similar rules to ensure nobody under the age gets in but were also fooled by this girl, plus the fact that I am aware of the law stating that nobody under the age of 18 should be there, then is it not resonable of me to assume that the law is being enforced (ie the club is successfully keeping under age people out) and that the girl is at least 18?

The evidence I have of her age is: 1) Her word, 2) She looks (presumably) at least 18, 3) she is in a place that is deemed by law to only allow people who are at least 18 entry. It seems my only other recourse would be to demand she produces ID :P

[joke. please don't flame]

if there's grass on the field you can play

[/joke. please don't flame]

astrofool · 30-05-2006 04:28PM

Well, look at it this way, if the club are caught with someone under 18, then they probably won't get into much trouble, if you sleep with her, then you could go to jail, so you're going to want to be at least alot more thorough than a club, which does indeed ask for ID.

Commander Vimes wrote:

[joke. please don't flame]

if there's grass on the field you can play

[/joke. please don't flame]

AFAIK, it's "If there's grass on the wicket, play cricket"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3Fterm%3Dgrass%2Bon%2Bthe%2Bwicket&e=15235&ei=-3J8RMbVGLecRaCn_LMO

Now there is no justice in Ireland

Comments