Rapist Prick gets his just desserts

AlmightyCushion · 25-12-2007 12:18AM

Mmmmm dessert.

*drools*

walt0r · 28-12-2007 03:46PM

There is a lot more to this story than meets the eye...

HollyB · 28-12-2007 04:16PM

walt0r wrote: »

There is a lot more to this story than meets the eye...

In what way - that the conviction was wrong, or that the sentence review is only a response to public outcry?

Dudess · 28-12-2007 04:21PM

Read backalong, Holly. There appear to be some inconsistencies in her story.

nesf · 28-12-2007 04:33PM

HollyB wrote: »

Unfortunately, they may be the only way to avoid against ludicrous sentences like the one in this case, and in the Lavinia Kerwick case, for example.

With the implication that avoiding these is worth tying judges' hands and potentially forcing them to in future give harsher sentences than would be "deserved".

HollyB · 28-12-2007 04:44PM

Dudess wrote: »

Read backalong, Holly. There appear to be some inconsistencies in her story.

We've only seen a part of the story. The jury heard a heck of a lot more, and found him guilty.

Dudess · 28-12-2007 04:45PM

Could the media have swayed them though? And it would be naive to think that gender, class, age etc aren't still taken into account by juries.

HollyB · 28-12-2007 04:57PM

Dudess wrote: »

Could the media have swayed them though? And it would be naive to think that gender, class, age etc aren't still taken into account by juries.

Are jurors not instructed to judge the case solely on the evidence presented in the court? How much media coverage of the case was there prior to the conviction and sentencing?

Dudess · 28-12-2007 05:00PM

I know - in theory. There was substantial media coverage after the first sentencing.

walt0r · 28-12-2007 05:17PM

I can't really say. Just that there is two sides to every story. No angels.

HollyB · 28-12-2007 05:48PM

Dudess wrote: »

I know - in theory. There was substantial media coverage after the first sentencing.

Unless the members of jury that found him guilty were all gifted with precognitive abilities, I don't see that impacting their verdict. What I am interested in is the level of media coverage before the trial, and while the trial was in progress.

HollyB · 28-12-2007 05:50PM

walt0r wrote: »

I can't really say. Just that there is two sides to every story. No angels.

And it is for the jury to decide, based on the evidence and testimony presented, which side is telling the truth.

kodute · 28-12-2007 05:57PM

That guy was in my primary school class, little scumbags grow up to be big scumbags... go figure...

Dudess · 28-12-2007 06:01PM

HollyB wrote: »

An extremely disturbing sentiment, even if it is expressed in jest.

Wow! That post barely lasted any time at all. And the idiot who posted it has been sitebanned already. Now THAT's the kind of mod I hope to be!
If it was in jest it would be funny, but it's just sad. Attention-seeking by a pitiful loser.

galwayrush · 28-12-2007 06:13PM

kodute wrote: »

That guy was in my primary school class, little scumbags grow up to be big scumbags... go figure...

Yes they do.
One thing that i found strange was where the Judge in the original trial said the attacker was from " a good background":rolleyes:

HollyB · 28-12-2007 06:13PM

Dudess wrote: »

Wow! That post barely lasted any time at all. And the idiot who posted it has been sitebanned already. Now THAT's the kind of mod I hope to be!
If it was in jest it would be funny, but it's just sad. Attention-seeking by a pitiful loser.

I'm impressed. That's quick work on the mods' part. I'm going to edit my post to get rid of the quote.

Dudess · 28-12-2007 06:22PM

galwayrush wrote: »

One thing that i found strange was where the Judge in the original trial said the attacker was from " a good background":rolleyes:

Why's that strange?

kodute · 28-12-2007 06:46PM

Dudess wrote: »

Why's that strange?

Because he wasn't and someone who could do something like that clearly had something wrong in their background...

Dudess · 28-12-2007 06:49PM

Do you know for definite he was from a bad background? I know he went to your school but did you know his family circumstances?

And I disagree. A person from an excellent background could be capable of what he did.

galwayrush · 28-12-2007 06:50PM

Dudess wrote: »

Why's that strange?

Because reading articles about him since the trial, he seemingly was always a scumbag, and other members of his family are well known to the Garda.

walt0r · 28-12-2007 07:59PM

His brother bit a guys ear off in Ennis about a year ago and is doing time for it now as well.
But all that aside...there ain't no angels in this love story

Muff_Daddy · 28-12-2007 08:24PM

nesf wrote: »

Mandatory sentences are bad things and should be avoided tbh.

Why?

This is a point of view that baffles me. Why should the law place a higher value on the criminal's right than above the victims, or the law abiding public at large? Surely a 10 year mandatory sentence for any rapist is a just sentence (or not harsh enough, depending on your viewpoint), anything less than that seems leaniant to me.

I am talking about convicted rapists here, not those accused of rape.

europhile · 28-12-2007 08:27PM

It's "just deserts" by the way.

Dudess · 28-12-2007 08:55PM

Indeed. It's a term that derives from "deserve" - "he got his just deserts" means the same as "he got what he deserved" but because it sounds like "desserts" that's how it's often spelled. Quite confuddling.

europhile · 28-12-2007 08:57PM

Thank god. I was expecting you all to tell me I was wrong.

HollyB · 28-12-2007 09:00PM

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

Why?

This is a point of view that baffles me. Why should the law place a higher value on the criminal's right than above the victims, or the law abiding public at large? Surely a 10 year mandatory sentence for any rapist is a just sentence (or not harsh enough, depending on your viewpoint), anything less than that seems leaniant to me.

I am talking about convicted rapists here, not those accused of rape.

I was advocating a mandatory minimum sentence - I would have no objections if a stiffer penalty was to be imposed, especially if we're talking about the rape of a child.

Muff_Daddy · 28-12-2007 09:31PM

HollyB wrote: »

I was advocating a mandatory minimum sentence - I would have no objections if a stiffer penalty was to be imposed, especially if we're talking about the rape of a child.

I understand. I was just saying 10 years for arguement sake. I would also agree that some forms of rape should have stiffer sentences than others, and longer than 10 years too.

SubjectSean · 28-12-2007 09:51PM

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

I understand. I was just saying 10 years for arguement sake. I would also agree that some forms of rape should have stiffer sentences than others, and longer than 10 years too.

So say if you go back to a girls place and you're in the middle of having sex, even approaching the finish line, and then she suddenly says 'NO' but you being drunk/ignorant still go ahead and finish off. You deserve 10 years in jail no questions?

Muff_Daddy · 28-12-2007 09:56PM

SubjectSean wrote: »

So say if you go back to a girls place and you're in the middle of having sex, even approaching the finish line, and then she suddenly says 'NO' but you being drunk/ignorant still go ahead and finish off. You deserve 10 years in jail no questions?

In a word, yes.

SubjectSean · 28-12-2007 10:13PM

That's plain crazy I think. Where's the justice there?

Rapist Prick gets his just desserts

Comments