Sack the Judges

pokerwidow · 14-03-2007 01:19AM

Now paedos, medical definitions aside, have an illness. What do with them is the question. In the Western World we find some murderers "guilty but insane" so why is being a paedophile such a stigma? If somebody was to come out (excuse the pun) with their hands in the air and say "I'm attracted to children and want to clear on that" what would society's view on that be?

I feel the way I do because of fear. Isn't there some saying about how you hate what you fear? Anyway fear is not really my feeling but absolutely terrified is the proper description. I have three children and the thought of someone laying on finger on them drives me to a fit of rage, my husband feels the exact same way.

Imho looking at images of children is the first trigger and it arouses feelings which if given time and the right situations will lead to a child being abused. So therefore it is seriously wrong and the judicial system need to see the potential of the accused before them not just their actual crime.

If nothing is done about the situation here then I feel that vigilante groups will form and sort it out themselves. As a theory in general I am against taking the law into my own hands but where paedophiles are concerned then I have little sympathy for those that get burnt out of houses.

slipss · 14-03-2007 01:29AM

seamus wrote:

I think one of the major issues with our legal system is that judges are allowed to overrule minimum sentences if the judge thinks it's unreasonable. They are a little out of touch with reality in my opinion.

Sentence appeals should also be decided by juries instead of the current system, which would hopefully discourage scum from appealing their sentences and wasting our money.

I understand where your coming from, but there is a very real need for judges to be able to impose sentences based on the circumstances of each individual case. About a year or two ago I was in court supporting a friend who was up for sentencing on a drugs charge. It was posession with intent to supply a class A, so there is a "madatory" 10 year prison sentence if convicted. This person is not a major drug dealer and untill about a year or two ago they were not a major drug user. The amount of drugs they had was not a massive amount in real terms and was for thier own personel use. The gardai and DPP disagreed of course and they were convicted of a section 15. This person had no previous convictions was never in any trouble with the gardai and untill they had become addicted to drugs (after several family deaths and breakdown of a long term relationship) was in the final year of a four year apprenticeship.

After considering the circumstances of the case the judge ordered a 6 month probation period which included drug treatment and drug testing as well as counseling. The person obeyed fully with all the probation conditions and thanks to the treatment and counselling got off drugs and provided six months of clean drug tests while also regaining employment with thier old employer and re-commencing thier apprenticeship. Seeing this the judge decided to for go the recommended madatory sentence of ten years and imposed a 2 year suspended sentence. This person now has their life completely back on track, has completed thier apprenticeship and is on very good money, is back with thier old partner and they have one child and thier own home. If at the time this occured judges had no choice but to impose all madatory sentences regardless of the specific conditions of the case this person would be in prison now and for the next eight or so years. This would be 8 or so years that they would be locked up surrounded by people using and selling drugs they were addicted to and 8 years thier child would have to go through living in a council house with only one parent to provide for them. but luckily judges do have the power to impose sentencing on a case by case basis, and long may it continue.

As for your second paragraph, I'd imagine alot of sentencing appeals are based on legal matters of which the jury would have no ability to rule.

pokerwidow · 14-03-2007 01:31AM

Snake Plisken wrote:

Thats why I wouldn't allow even innocent family photos of my kids to be posted up on the net, you just don't know what kind of sick fcuks are going to look at them.

As for the rape rulings, the Judges in this country are way out of touch. Remember that cooks husband Allen was left off after he downloaded loads of kiddie porn.

We need to toughen up on all crimes be it peados/Rapists right down to joyriders

Snake

I am exactly the same, I cannot understand why people put pictures of their children on sites. I am not naming the site but there is an irish site for mothers that have loads of pics on their sigs. Now it is totally innocent and obviously these mums are very proud of their little ones but there are some sick fcuks out there. I wouldn't even let a stranger take a photo of my lot. Obviously I am a little paranoid.

It was Darina Allen's husband, Tim and he was fined €50,000 (?). No jail time served.

Time Magazine · 14-03-2007 01:37AM

Snake Plisken wrote:

We need to toughen up on all crimes be it peados/Rapists right down to joyriders

There's no contradiction in saying jail sentences need to be tougher and also saying that people who look at "innocent" pictures of children are child abusers or ever will be. I've no sympathy for child abusers. But I think they should be treated like insane murderers; guilty but insane. This is not because I condone what they do, it's just out of a general libertarian (even though I'm quite conservative, go figure) concern that honest justice be delivered, not mob justice.

pokerwidow wrote:

Imho looking at images of children is the first trigger and it arouses feelings which if given time and the right situations will lead to a child being abused. So therefore it is seriously wrong and the judicial system need to see the potential of the accused before them not just their actual crime.

I'd completely agree that it could be, and possibly often is, a slippery slope. I also would not trust myself near anyone who went near my Godson or even looked at photos of him.

But I argue that you simply cannot equate looking at pictures, even long-term looking at pictures, to physically abducting/tempting/whatever a child. Now I completely agree if it is agreed by experts/whoever that somebody is a threat that they should be monitored. This is in line with my opinion that somebody who threatens somebody should be monitored, by tagging if necessary. I don't think, however, that the assessment of threat should equate to a murder charge. Ditto child abduction/abuse/rape.

I think it's entirely possible that in a couple of decades or generations that people will see paedophilia as a sexual orientation. A sick, disgusting, dangerous sexual orientation, but something that cannot be fully avoided by the perpetrator. If they can't help it, it's like a disease in my opinion.

nusername · 14-03-2007 01:56AM

slipss wrote:

I understand where your coming from, but there is a very real need for judges to be able to impose sentences based on the circumstances of each individual case. About a year or two ago I was in court supporting a friend who was up for sentencing on a drugs charge. It was posession with intent to supply a class A, so there is a "madatory" 10 year prison sentence if convicted. This person is not a major drug dealer and untill about a year or two ago they were not a major drug user. The amount of drugs they had was not a massive amount in real terms and was for thier own personel use.

ye, blah, blah, blah, it's a drug case, completely different from raping someone. Has nothing to do with a judge giving 1 rapist 15 yr & another a slap on the wrist.

Supplying class A's doesn't mean a mandatory 10yr, it has to be worth (by gardai estimates) over €? (this varies from €10000 to €50000) which is it? or where is it?

Your case of the drug dealer is irrelevant, a rapist is a ****in rapist, end of story, completely different ball game & completely different circumstances.

This judge should be made stand down, or better yet, ****ing sacked for stupidity.

slipss · 14-03-2007 02:25AM

nusername wrote:

ye, blah, blah, blah, it's a drug case, completely different from raping someone. Has nothing to do with a judge giving 1 rapist 15 yr & another a slap on the wrist.

Supplying class A's doesn't mean a mandatory 10yr, it has to be worth (by gardai estimates) over €? (this varies from €10000 to €50000) which is it? or where is it?

Your case of the drug dealer is irrelevant, a rapist is a ****in rapist, end of story, completely different ball game & completely different circumstances.

This judge should be made stand down, or better yet, ****ing sacked for stupidity.

lol bla bla bla, I wasn't talking about a/the rape case you fukking idiot, I was replying to seamuses post, in which he didn't mention the rape case either if you look about 5 cm above the one you replied to. It is a mandatory 10 year sentence for a section 15 for class A's if you do not plead guilty. What kind of mental retardation do you suffer from that for your 5th ever post on this website you don't read the post you quote properly and then have nothing more productive to the argument to add other than "it has to be worth (by gardai estimates) over €? (this varies from €10000 to €50000) which is it? or where is it? what was I talking about again?" and "a rapist is a ****ing rapist", oh really we all thought a rapist was a ****ing locksmith. Fukk off and kill youself you fukking retarded cunnt!

I presume I'm banned now, so I won't get to reply if this fukking idiot replies to this post but ahh well as long as they know what a fukking idiot there are thats good enough for me. Sh1t I think I need a few valium or something.

DonJose · 14-03-2007 02:27AM

The 3 year suspended sentence case which shocked me isn't quite finished yet.

The victim bravely waived her right to anonymity and asked that the DPP appeal the sentence.

"A rape victim has asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to appeal a suspended sentence handed down to a man at the Central criminal Court yesterday.

20-year-old Adam Keane from Daragh, Co Clare, was given a three-year suspended sentence for rape by Mr Justice Paul Carney.

Mary Shannon from Ennis, a mother of three children, waived her right to anonymity in an attempt to get a stronger sentence for the man who broke into her home and raped her.

Speaking on RTÉ's Liveline she said she was devastated by the outcome of the trial.

She said she had to share a train with her rapist on the way back from the case yesterday."
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0313/rape.html

DonJose · 14-03-2007 02:32AM

"She said she had to share a train with her rapist on the way back from the case yesterday."

Thats sums it all up, sickening.

Sam Vimes · 14-03-2007 02:47AM

InFront wrote:

Even in cases where the paedophile has not participated directly in the abuse of the child, but has purchased access to observing that abuse, he is nevertheless participating in the abuse of a real child by aiding and perpetuating the system, financially or otherwise. This kind of person is still a threat to children, even without laying a hand on one.

but if the person didn't pay for the images is he/she (pretty much definitely he) contributing to the system?

is it ok to look at them if they were obtained for free?

|.Murderer.| wrote:

Surely each case should be judged on it's own merit and the judgement of other cases, however similar, should not have any bearing on the sentence!

common law works through precedent. essentially, a case is decided based on how previous similar cases were decided

Snake Plisken wrote:

downloading pictures of kids for any kind of sexual satisfaction is totally wrong as has been mentioned here its a downward spiral from there.

that's not really true tbh. that's the same logic of people who say hash should be banned because people who do it will go onto harder stuff, a "gateway" drug. i don't agree with the logic in that context and i don't in this one either.

people who are going to take coke will do it whether or not hash is available and people who are going to rape kids are going to do it whether or not they looked at pictures first

InFront and Snake Plisken are both missing the main issue. InFront says its wrong because it funds the industry. Snake Plisken says its wrong because it leads to worse things. its wrong in itself and doesn't need to cause something else to be considered wrong

Drax · 14-03-2007 08:24AM

DonJose wrote:

"She said she had to share a train with her rapist on the way back from the case yesterday."

Thats sums it all up, sickening.

Just read that too - unbelievable. The poor woman. She should have got the train driver to announce over the intercom - "Rapist in carraige 3, seat 11.... feel free to kick the ever-loving crap out of him."

:mad:

Gurgle · 14-03-2007 08:50AM

slipss wrote:

After considering the circumstances of the case the judge ordered a 6 month probation period which included drug treatment and drug testing as well as counseling. The person obeyed fully with all the probation conditions and thanks to the treatment and counselling got off drugs and provided six months of clean drug tests

His defence, from what I can tell from the crappy reporting, was that he had been drinking and had taken esctasy.

He allegedly didn't remember a thing (Bollox).

And of course a 60yo judge doesn't know the difference between a heroin addict and an e-popping scumbag, so drug rehab looks like a nice cuddly socially-conscious way to go.

Convenient circumstances for the lawyer to blame the drugs, not the rapist. Blame the drugs, do the rehab and you'll walk.

What message does this send?

If your going to rape someone, make sure you've an e or some pot in your pocket.

IMHO, anyone who uses drugs as a scapegoat for their actions should have their sentence automatically doubled.

seamus · 14-03-2007 10:37AM

slipss wrote:

I understand where your coming from, but there is a very real need for judges to be able to impose sentences based on the circumstances of each individual case.

Well, I'd definitely agree on that, and every single rape case has to be taken on its own.

There's a world of difference between the 60-odd previous convictions scumbag who breaks into a woman's house and then rapes her purely because he's scum, and the guy who ends up far too hammered, hasn't a clue what's going on, and wakes up in some random girl's house with a rape charge hanging over his head.

I would also argue that there should be better classification of sexual assaults, as well as the penalties and/or convictions handed out for them. Rape is sexual assault, and will earn you a conviction. Pinching some girl's ass is also sexual assault, and on the wrong day may equally earn you a conviction. Would the latter be deserving of having a non-descript "Sexual Offender" title over his head for the rest of his life?
There has to be a balance between the effect on the victim and the effect on the offender. For the less serious cases, the actual conviction itself and the social stigma that goes with it is a worse sentence, and lasts a lot longer, than any custodial sentence. For the more serious cases, the impact on the victim is usually far more serious than a custodial sentence on the perp. In the Joseph Cummins case, for example, he has probably significantly shortened that woman's (already scant) remaining years, as well as making them a stressful and fearful time.

While there a lot of problems with the judicial system and sentencing that would be a terrible idea. A legal system needs to be above random public whims and mob rule.

This is surprisingly important. The Government cannot direct the judiciary or otherwise force them to do anything. It's vitally important the the authorities who make the laws, and the judiciary who enforce the laws are entirely separate entities. Otherwise you end with, as you say, a legal system vulnerable to public whim, or the personal whim of a government minister, or indeed the personal preference of a Government. In some other systems (the U.S. I think), Judges are appointed by the President of the time, and so laws will be both made and enforced according to the beliefs of the authorities.

Degsy · 14-03-2007 11:37AM

Ibid wrote:

Now paedos, medical definitions aside, have an illness. What do with them is the question. In the Western World we find some murderers "guilty but insane" so why is being a paedophile such a stigma?

Because,the manifestation of thier perversion is against CHILDREN.It is not like being homosexual where its a love(or sex) affair between two consenting ADULTS.Paedophiles prey on the youngest and most vulnerable people in society,children have not made thier minds up about matters of sexuality because they are not pysically or sexually mature.This is the reason that they have to be protected,this is the reason that traditionally they stay with parents untill they are sexually mature and can make thier own minds up about these matters.Peadophiles may well be suffering from an illness but because the symptoms of the illness are so grotesque and potentially harmfull to individuals and soiciety as a whole they should be kept away from children.It is my personal opinion that the majority of pedophiles are not suffering from illness,but are shrewd,cunning predators who use thier predilictions to excersise dominance over their victims.Its not a matter of love or even lust,its far crueller and far more twisted.They are,in my opinion,evil people who use every excuse under the sun to convince society they're doing nothing wrong.An LA detective said on some cop show "Sure he had a bad upbringing..i was poor as a child too, i never knew my father,but i'm not the one being arrested for raping children.That guy is a monster."

pokerwidow · 14-03-2007 05:00PM

There's a world of difference between the 60-odd previous convictions scumbag who breaks into a woman's house and then rapes her purely because he's scum, and the guy who ends up far too hammered, hasn't a clue what's going on, and wakes up in some random girl's house with a rape charge hanging over his head.

Really? What if her three children were in the next room and heard her screams and her crying? What if they heard the rapists threats that he was going to harm the children if she didn't do want he wanted? Is that alright? Now I don't know if the children were in the house at the time but he did break into her house. How can she ever feel safe there again. At least if he got a custodial sentence then she would feel safe from him and it would give her time to sell her house and move away.

seamus · 14-03-2007 05:32PM

pokerwidow wrote:

Really? What if her three children were in the next room and heard her screams and her crying? What if they heard the rapists threats that he was going to harm the children if she didn't do want he wanted? Is that alright? Now I don't know if the children were in the house at the time but he did break into her house. How can she ever feel safe there again. At least if he got a custodial sentence then she would feel safe from him and it would give her time to sell her house and move away.

Sorry, I wasn't actually referring to the other case at all. I was talking about the guy who goes out and meets someone in a bar...

InFront · 14-03-2007 05:53PM

Commander Vimes wrote:

but if the person didn't pay for the images is he/she (pretty much definitely he) contributing to the system?

is it ok to look at them if they were obtained for free?

With regard to the first question, if the person posting the material is not receiving a benefit of any kind, then the 'watcher' is not contributing to the system.
Secondly, no it's not okay to watch them if they were obtained without financial benefit, I certainly didn't say that, I think that anybody who engages with that sort of material (even without touching a child or aiding the abuser) should be dealt with severely by the law, and that being involved with child porn in this way should be taken far more seriously than it is imo.

InFront says its wrong because it funds the industry.

That's not what I said at all. I was responsing to dotsman's point that paedophilia and child porn are totally different things, and that the media love to make a scandal out of child pornographic material. My point was that actually there is often a very real link to the abuser and the 'watcher', and that relationship is often a financial one.
I'm not sure why that makes you think I'm saying that otherwise child porn is ok.

swingking · 14-03-2007 06:28PM

here is another case where a scumbag is getting away lightly

from breakingnews

breakingnews.ie wrote:

A 16-year-old boy, who violently mugged an elderly woman and left her physically and psychologically scarred, has been given a three-month suspended sentence, at the Dublin Children’s Court.

The boy, then aged 14, had ruined the woman’s quality of life and left her unable to do simple household chores and constantly feeling insecure, the court had heard.

The teenager had pleaded to robbing a handbag from the woman, who is in her seventies, at Convent Road, Clondalkin, on January 16, 2005.

Detective Garda John Cleary, of Clondalkin station, had told the court the victim had been waiting for a bus home after mass. The teen grabbed her handbag at which she was pulled and then dragged along the ground leaving her with back injuries.

The boy had no previous conviction, had pleaded guilty and had been deemed by the Probation and Welfare Services as being a low risk re-offender.

A victim impact report furnished to the court the woman outlined the effects the robbery had on her.

It said: "As a result of the attack I suffered injuries to my back and am in continuous pain, I have lack of movement and have to walk with the aid of a stick. My lifestyle was eroded. I was a frequent traveller but rarely go anywhere now."

The report also detailed how the woman now suffered from depression, was insecure in her own home, rarely went outdoors and needed help with her daily chores.

She no longer goes to mass and suffered a loss in confidence and her social life was also ruined.

The teen had expressed remorse in a letter which was to be forwarded to his victim. In the letter the boy, who was supported in court today by his mother, said: "I’m sorry for what happened, sorry for the pain and hardship I put you through. I have two grandmothers of my own and I know how angry I would be if it happened to them."

The boy, who is from south Dublin, had not come to garda notice since the offence.

Earlier Judge Timothy Lucey, who had heard the case, had ordered the boy’s mother to pay €1,000 to the victim as a gesture of remorse and added that if the sum was paid the teen would receive a three-month suspended sentence.

Yesterday presiding Judge Angela Ni Chonduin noted that the compensation had been handed into court. Finalising the case, she imposed a three month sentence but suspended it on condition that the teen was of good behaviour for a period of nine months.

it's ridiculous. Our legal system is

tallus · 14-03-2007 06:47PM

They should punish the parents if the child is below legal sentencing age. After all he was in their care.

daveirl · 14-03-2007 09:25PM

This post has been deleted.

Dave! · 14-03-2007 09:36PM

Was gonna start a thread in the Legal forum but might as well just post here.....

Are the judges in this country answerable to anybody? I've been reading the constitution (and wikipedia and oasis.gov.ie) to try and ascertain where we get these judges from, and from what I understand the President swears them on the government's advice, and the government is advised by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board. So does the decision really lie with the Minister for Justice?
http://www.dcmnr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/BB61244E-8700-4860-8FD5-E9F951CB6506/0/Constitution.pdf
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/justice/Courtroom/judge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland#The_Judicuary

If the judge hands down a sentence, then the person who has been convicted can appeal to higher courts for a more lenient sentence, I gather. And the prosecution appeals to whom for a harsher sentence? Is it the same courts?

If we take Mr Justice Carney for an example -- he gave out that 3 year suspended sentence to the rapist. Does he have to justify his decision to anybody? Is there anybody who he's answerable to, or who can give him a bollocking? I know that if you want a judge sacked, then a resolution has to be passed by the Seanad and the Dáil (John O Donoghue tried to get this process changed when he was Minister for Justice: http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0534/D.0534.200104100019.html), but other than that do they have free reign?

Also,

Celticfire wrote:

They along with the DPP should be made run for election every 5 years. Then at least they might have to answer to the people why they make these decisions.

The DPP doesn't have anything to do with sentencing, does he?

Can someone elaborate on why judges shouldn't be elected? It was mentioned that they shouldn't be subject to the whims of the public, but I don't really follow that line of argument

The judges can only act within the parameters of the laws, which are set by a different body, and the constitution, which can only be changed by referendum.
I can appreciate the points made about mandatory minimum sentences in that the judiciary is independent, but if the judges are elected by the people then would it not mean their decisions are more likely to be in line with public opinion? It could be said that then judges will just hang all joyriders or somethin, but there are maximum sentences set in the legislation, so again they'd still have to act within the parameters of the law. And also people DO have a degree of empathy in court cases, so if a judge decided a shoplifter should be stoned to death, then there'd be public outcry as much as if a rapist was let go free.

I'm not a legal mind so perhaps one of ye can point out where my logic falls down!

Use fancy words like "unconstitutional"

Takeshi_Kovacs · 14-03-2007 11:52PM

Yes the state of our legal system seems quite bizarre.. taking that mary shannon casr of her rapist being let free, and absurd cases like the mayo lads who were actually put in jail, just for protesting against shell over the proposed pipeline going near their homes... it is, a sad state...

I wonder how long in jail Mary Shannon would get, if she exacted revenge on that bit of scum..

Time Magazine · 15-03-2007 12:21AM

Takeshi_Kovacs wrote:

absurd cases like the mayo lads who were actually put in jail, just for protesting against shell over the proposed pipeline going near their homes... it is, a sad state...

In fairness that's not true. I'm not revealing my cards over the Shell issue because I'm not sure either way, but I don't like mis-information being put out there.

Shell were given permission by the state to build the pipe. After "incidents", the High Court told the protesters that if they didn't agree to stop interfering with the pipe they'd be put in jail. The Rossport 5, well, didn't agree with this order by our High Court. If people don't do what the courts tell them to (as opposed to appealing, etc.) what are we to do? They have to go to jail.

Brian Capture · 15-03-2007 12:58AM

boreds wrote:

They should abolish prison sentances altogether for rapists and just have hired goons to beat them within an inch of their lives and be held down while the victim gets to anally rape them with a giant dildo.
Do we have a part in our constitution about 'cruel and unusual punishment?

why anally?

why not force a giant dildo into their jap eye?

Sangre · 15-03-2007 01:45AM

Few quick answers to DaveMcG;

No Judges aren't really answerable to anyone, they can't be if they are to remain independent and unbiased. If they were answerable the President then how could they rule on a legal point without thinking about what their boss thinks? All law would ultimately lean in favour of 'boss's' current point of view. A Judge is prevent from having free reign by the appeals system, why act the fool if you know it will just be overturned?

It is also needed for separation of powers. Obviously one can be remove by a majority vote but that requires serious misconduct (e.g. convicted paedo....). Separation of powers is needed to prevent giving a majority government total control. Imagine if the judiciary couldn't reduce their powers? Once in power they could make a number of laws saying certain rights are gone, referendums are no longer needed, the constitution is on hold etc., While they were elected in that doesn't justify them removing the rights of travellers or whatever. Even if they stay within the constitution their is a lot of wiggle room (especially considering the Constitutions most powerful points are court made). This scenario has occurred countless times in history. The main reason Hitler slowly gained total power was judicial inactivity.

A defendant can appeal a harsh sentence, the DPP can appeal a lenient one. If I remember correctly its to the Central Criminal Court. There are legislative guidelines set down for it. It can't be that another judge might have put a higher sentence but that it was 'ridiculously low' or some other legal waffle.

Dave while our system of Judges aren't perfect and they still are elected in a way (appointed by the Government). The US method doesn't primarily focus on a candidate's legal knowledge or experience but rather their stance on the 'hot topics' e.g. rape or paedophilia or whatever. Completely ignoring the fact that criminal law is a big minority in the legal system.

A big problem with the current media view on the criminal system is it arises from district and circuit court proceedings, essentially the bottom rung on the judicial ladder. These Judges are essential the new fish of the legal world.

Legal principles should be based on democratic legislation or well developed legal precedent from the superior courts. It should not be affected by what the public wants. The public are idiots, especially in times of crisis. An example of current hysteria is Jade Goody, no doubt countless people would have seen her locked up.

Their is a lot of literature on the media's reaction to the legal system, it is usually knee-jerk, reactionary and only skims the surface. A paper is often much more willing to condem a boy who steals a pursue from a granny than a CEO who embezzles millions (for example).

I rushed this so ignore it if it seems like gibberish. I've tried to squeeze a lot into a short space. You asked a lot of important questions.

Boggles · 15-03-2007 11:13AM

I think it is pretty obvious what happened in this case, the Jury belived her, the judge simply didn't.

Takeshi_Kovacs · 15-03-2007 08:09PM

Ibid wrote:

In fairness that's not true. I'm not revealing my cards over the Shell issue because I'm not sure either way, but I don't like mis-information being put out there.

Shell were given permission by the state to build the pipe. After "incidents", the High Court told the protesters that if they didn't agree to stop interfering with the pipe they'd be put in jail. The Rossport 5, well, didn't agree with this order by our High Court. If people don't do what the courts tell them to (as opposed to appealing, etc.) what are we to do? They have to go to jail.

Alright, they weren't angels themselves.. but they must have felt that this was the only way they could make a stand.... C'mon you can expect people to let others sh1t all over them, and not try to do something about it, as insignificant as it maybe.
It is just seeing how a convicted rapist can be set free, is whats grinding my gears..
Also was just listening to the radio today, and i didn't catch the full particulars., but some lad who only served a short time in prison for manslaughter was set free a while back and has since committed over thirty criminal offenses..
Surely the line has to be drawn somewhere, and these criminals need to see that punishment will be dealt swiftly and harshly accordingly.

Wertz · 15-03-2007 09:14PM

Whatever about sacking judges, someone should promote that district court judge over in Monaghan who wants to free up the gun laws

...what a farce when he has to apologise for his comments but Jus. Craney doesn't have to say sh*t about his reasons on his non-sentence

Time Magazine · 16-03-2007 09:50AM

Takeshi_Kovacs wrote:

Alright, they weren't angels themselves.. but they must have felt that this was the only way they could make a stand...

I'm one of these kinda guys who doesn't have sympathy for people who don't accept the outcome of a court's decision.

If people don't accept the High Court's decision how the f*ck are we going to settle disputes in future?

Wertz wrote:

Jus. Craney doesn't have to say sh*t about his reasons on his non-sentence

He made a public speech and I imagine a written judgement will be made public soon enough.

Not saying I agree with it, but it's not as "unaccountable" as people think.

daveirl · 16-03-2007 10:38AM

This post has been deleted.

Tricity Bendix · 16-03-2007 11:35AM

In the absence of the flamingo brigade, allow me to start waving a little rainbow flag furiously.

ibid wrote:

If they can't help it, it's like a disease in my opinion.

ibid wrote:

I'd have sympathy for people who feel that way because in my opinion they have an illness. Now I don't have sympathy for cold-hearted child abusers, read that last sentence again. If people are attracted to children - and don't act on it - can you not see similarities to homosexual people? Over the last several decades the public have (rightly) been pushing for equal rights for gays. Now I know when gay people act out on it it's consentual adult behaviour and completely different to tempting/raping kids. However the feelings are similar, are they not?

Right, I can see the flamings coming from here so let me clarify in advance. I am not saying homosexual lovin' is linkable to child abuse. I am not condoning child abuse.

You may not be linking homosexuality with child abuse, but you definately have classified homosexuality as an illness. You are wrong in both cases. Homosexuality is not something to be cured or treated. Providing we don't want to discriminate against someone solely on the basis of their orientation, and if paedophilia is just another orientation, then logically one would have to conclude that it cannot be cured or treated either. If, on the other hand, you regard paedophilia to be more than just a sexual preference and see it as a danger to society (not unlike the manner in which homosexuality has been viewed down through the ages) treating its manifestation at the earliest stage possible would be a public good. Personally, I'd like to strict re-education schemes that include electro-shock therapy and liberal doses of Wagner.

There is a small movement in Holland that wants to see paedophilia recognised as a sexual preference, but it wasn't very successful. I would wager that this is one minority which shall continue to be discriminated against for a very long time. And one that I would be happy to discriminate against.

In the Western World we find some murderers "guilty but insane" so why is being a paedophile such a stigma?

Because in the Western World we have always afforded our children a higher degree of protection than we do our selves.

Sack the Judges

Comments