Rapist Takes Court Action Against Media (RTE News)

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Unless you have spent a few years in prison, I don't think you are in any position to say that 13 years in a prison cell isn't enough punishment. If I try to imagine spending the next 13 years of my life in prison, it scares the hell out of me. I'd rather die. And yes, I'm aware that rape is effectively a life sentence for victims, but this isn't about the victims.

Also, the media don't exist to punish individuals. That is the jurisdiction of our courts, judges and juries. The fact that the sentence may not be considered long enough by most people does not give the media, or anyone else the right to inflict their own vigilante brand of punishment. If we think sentences are too lenient, then we should lobby our politicians for tougher sentences.

Also, I do care about this guys rights, as I do for any persons rights. If you start to ignore 1 persons rights, it becomes a slippery slope and you end up in a very bad place.

Hate/despise this guy all you want, but the media have no business persecuting him. They are meant to report the news, nothing more and nothing less. For this reason, he will win his case, and this rapist that you hate so much will end up with a nice bank balance at the end of it all.

yes, because taking the victims into consideration would be just lunacy... honestly ffs

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Sorry, but I really can't put it much more clearer than saying, and I quote "this kind of thing puts journalism almost on a par with scumbags". For heaven's sake, man, you highlighted it in your reply to me, how can you still be uncertain?

You can say it as often and as loud as you like, but it does not change the facts that YOU are the one who misread it, YOU are the one who brought about the direct rapist interpretation and you are the one who implied that I meant rapists. I really can not help you with that. Stop trying to blame other people for your mistakes.

okay, i will ask you this then: are rapists scumbags?

aDeener wrote: »

okay, i will ask you this then: are rapists scumbags?

Why do you feel the need to ask? Are you asking everyone or just me? If I say "NO" how do I know you'll actually get the message?

Pittens

For this reason, he will win his case, and this rapist that you hate so much will end up with a nice bank balance at the end of it all.

Until his victims sue him for it.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Why do you feel the need to ask? Are you asking everyone or just me? If I say "NO" how do I know you'll actually get the message?

because you equated journalists to scumbags, and if you believe rapists are scumbags then you are equating journalists to them. its pretty clear. if you dont think rapists are scum, well thats your own issue that i certainly dont agree with.

Andrew33 wrote: »

this twat, this evil (and I don't use that word lightly) monster preyed on weak individuals and should never have seen the light of day for what he did, and he did a huge amount more than he was EVER convicted for. This guy is Irelands Ripper, lets not be in any doubt about that

Are you sure about that? Or is that just what you read in the Media?

aDeener wrote: »

because you equated journalists to scumbags, and if you believe rapists are scumbags then you are equating journalists to them. its pretty clear. if you dont think rapists are scum, well thats your own issue that i certainly dont agree with.

Wrong. Again.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

... but scumbags aren't nessecarily rapists. Again, stop implying that I said "rapists" when I cleary did not.

Wow aDeener you're really flogging the Kevin Bacon logic huh?

"Hitler had a moustache; Mother Theresa had a moustache; Therefore, Mother Theresa was Hitler"

More and more these days people have clung on to the Term Scumbag and run away with it in their own heads to mean virtually all levels of depravity.... aDeener you cannot use 1 (one) term ("Scumbag") To describe what probably works out to a thousand different levels of depravity; from being drunk and disorderly in public; to invading someone's privacy; to stealing from old ladies; to raping someone; to torturing and maiming people.

A broad vocabulary is handy.

Just because the law says that a few years in prison is the current punishment in Ireland, it doesn't necessarily mean that he has "served his debt to society" or whatever people call it. In some countries, he'd be executed. In others, he'd get no punishment at all. I'm sure the liberals won't agree, but I think it would be great if we had a system of justice like they had in ancient Babylon I think it was, where whatever crime you commit gets done to you. So, since this creature raped 4 women, he can get butt-raped by 4 men. Then lock him up and throw away the key to be sure that he doesn't re-offend. I'm sure it'd be a deterrent to others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

StormWarrior wrote: »

Just because the law says that a few years in prison is the current punishment in Ireland, it doesn't necessarily mean that he has "served his debt to society" or whatever people call it. In some countries, he'd be executed. In others, he'd get no punishment at all. I'm sure the liberals won't agree, but I think it would be great if we had a system of justice like they had in ancient Babylon I think it was, where whatever crime you commit gets done to you. So, since this creature raped 4 women, he can get butt-raped by 4 men. Then lock him up and throw away the key to be sure that he doesn't re-offend. I'm sure it'd be a deterrent to others.

Kess73 wrote: »

Those four women were not the only people that animal harmed. He had form before that for sexual assault and also for exposing himself to children.

The most recent place he turned up to live was in Thurles, and the abode he got was extremely close to both schools.

Um, that's like saying his house was close to a Post Office. Completely pointless.

StormWarrior wrote: »

Just because the law says that a few years in prison is the current punishment in Ireland, it doesn't necessarily mean that he has "served his debt to society" or whatever people call it.

Legally, yes it does. As in the guilty party gets punished by an appointed judge, that sentence is carrie out, he does not get punished by any more or by any one else, unless he commits a fresh crime. If someones else does they're carrying out a fresh offence. Like it or not, that's the focal poinht of the legal system.

In some countries, he'd be executed. In others, he'd get no punishment at all. I'm sure the liberals won't agree, but I think it would be great if we had a system of justice like they had in ancient Babylon I think it was, where whatever crime you commit gets done to you. So, since this creature raped 4 women, he can get butt-raped by 4 men. Then lock him up and throw away the key to be sure that he doesn't re-offend. I'm sure it'd be a deterrent to others.

So, if you rape a child, you get raped by a child...?

Key word highlighted.

StormWarrior wrote: »

Just because the law says that a few years in prison is the current punishment in Ireland, it doesn't necessarily mean that he has "served his debt to society" or whatever people call it. In some countries, he'd be executed. In others, he'd get no punishment at all. I'm sure the liberals won't agree, but I think it would be great if we had a system of justice like they had in ancient Babylon I think it was, where whatever crime you commit gets done to you. So, since this creature raped 4 women, he can get butt-raped by 4 men. Then lock him up and throw away the key to be sure that he doesn't re-offend. I'm sure it'd be a deterrent to others.

I actually think you're slightly unhinged if I'm honest with you.

Overheal wrote: »

Wow aDeener you're really flogging the Kevin Bacon logic huh?

"Hitler had a moustache; Mother Theresa had a moustache; Therefore, Mother Theresa was Hitler"

More and more these days people have clung on to the Term Scumbag and run away with it in their own heads to mean virtually all levels of depravity.... aDeener you cannot use 1 (one) term ("Scumbag") To describe what probably works out to a thousand different levels of depravity; from being drunk and disorderly in public; to invading someone's privacy; to stealing from old ladies; to raping someone; to torturing and maiming people.

A broad vocabulary is handy.

it is not up to me to decide what level of scumbaggery yer man is equating journalism to. he should have specified, as any logical person would agree that a rapist is a scumbag.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

So, if you rape a child, you get raped by a child...?

I lol'd

Andrew33

Overheal wrote: »

Are you sure about that? Or is that just what you read in the Media?

Definitely not what I read/heard in the media, I don't buy papers, if this is the guy from the Wicklow area, I knew all about him before he got convicted, if its not, then I know nothing.

Anyway, just to get this back on track, crimnals (all of them, aDeener, not jsut the rapists) sueing journalists - or any civil case for that matter - yes? No?

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Legally, yes it does. As in the guilty party gets punished by an appointed judge, that sentence is carrie out, he does not get punished by any more or by any one else, unless he commits a fresh crime. If someones else does they're carrying out a fresh offence. Like it or not, that's the focal poinht of the legal system.
.

I meant to say that just bcause it's legal doesn't mean it's fair. Eg- I read about a woman who was gang raped in Africa but the men were not punished at all because it was considered a tribal matter. Then in some other countries you could be executed for rape. People's opinions of what is fair obviously differ, so the only fair thing is to do to the criminal what they did to their victim.

And if you raped a child you would not be raped by a child. You, I assume, are much bigger than a child, thereby causing more pain and suffering to the child. So you would be raped by someone much bigger than you, to get the same pain and suffering.

StormWarrior wrote: »

I meant to say that just bcause it's legal doesn't mean it's fair. Eg- I read about a woman who was gang raped in Africa but the men were not punished at all because it was considered a tribal matter. Then in some other countries you could be executed for rape. People's opinions of what is fair obviously differ, so the only fair thing is to do to the criminal what they did to their victim.

True, but doesn't change the fact that what the judge says, goes. Accusers do have the right to launch an appeal if they feel the sentence was too lenient.

And if you raped a child you would not be raped by a child. You, I assume, are much bigger than a child, thereby causing more pain and suffering to the child. So you would be raped by someone much bigger than you, to get the same pain and suffering.

Send an email to your TD with that one. Let me know how he repsonds. Please.

StormWarrior wrote: »

I meant to say that just bcause it's legal doesn't mean it's fair. Eg- I read about a woman who was gang raped in Africa but the men were not punished at all because it was considered a tribal matter. Then in some other countries you could be executed for rape. People's opinions of what is fair obviously differ, so the only fair thing is to do to the criminal what they did to their victim.

And if you raped a child you would not be raped by a child. You, I assume, are much bigger than a child, thereby causing more pain and suffering to the child. So you would be raped by someone much bigger than you, to get the same pain and suffering.

Oh right, opening up more civil servant jobs. Be a professional rapist for your country.

This is a ridiculously stupid idea and I really hope you're just making light of a rape thread rather than actually have any faith in what you propose. Otherwise I truly worry about your mental state.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Anyway, just to get this back on track, crimnals (all of them, aDeener, not jsut the rapists) sueing journalists - or any civil case for that matter - yes? No?

Yes. The justice system is not above scrutiny.

aDeener wrote: »

it is not up to me to decide what level of scumbaggery yer man is equating journalism to. he should have specified, as any logical person would agree that a rapist is a scumbag.

I'm too tired to go look for one, so just assume you're looking at a picture of Jean-Luc Picard here.

Whats stupid about it? It would be a much better deterrent than the punishments currently on offer, and has been practised by societies in the past.

StormWarrior wrote: »

Whats stupid about it? It would be a much better deterrent than the punishments currently on offer, and has been practised by societies in the past.

Name one society that used rape as a punishemnt. Not as a torture method, as a punishment for a convited offence. Also, who does the raping?

StormWarrior wrote: »

Whats stupid about it? It would be a much better deterrent than the punishments currently on offer, and has been practised by societies in the past.

Who the f*ck do you want to do the raping? (Please say "I dunno.. some gay fella.")

Is my tax money paying a professional rapist?

Is my tax money being spent on several other sadists?

What purpose exactly do you believe is being served by this farce? Do you think that the victims are like "Well I was feeling fairly sh*tty but f*ck me you should have seen his face when yer man rammed his cock up his arse!"

Are you a troll?

Kold wrote: »

Yes. The justice system is not above scrutiny.

Agree. Also, journalists who turn around and break the law should be held accoutable.

This isn't about Michael Murray or the justice system, this is about unscruplous journalists trying to create a story where no story exists just so taht they can report it.

Assuming it happened as someone posted, I'd love to know the identity of the guy who asked the police if he could go along with the guard when the gaurd was checking up on him. Also, who was the guard in question who said yes (and is he stiill in his job?).

El Weirdo

StormWarrior wrote: »

So you would be raped by someone much bigger than you, to get the same pain and suffering.

So who would do the punishment raping?

Can't wait to see that job offered on publicjobs.ie.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Name one society that used rape as a punishemnt. Not as a torture method, as a punishment for a convited offence. Also, who does the raping?

A good example of this might be homosexual rape in the Middle Assyrian period. This was a crime, but not a community-threatening one, so the punishment was ‘matched’ to the crime:

“If a man sodomizes his comrade and they prove the charges against him and find him guilty, they shall sodomize him and they shall turn him into a eunuch [that is, castrate him]” [MAL 20]

From:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com
which has a section on various laws throughout history