Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Am I missing something?

2»

Comments

  • #32
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    LostinKildare wrote: »
    ResearchWill, I apologise for being rude. It's an emotive topic and I got a bit carried away.

    I can't get my head around the fact that not only the effect of, but indeed the whole reason for the judge's suspension of the sentence was to allow the convicted child rapist to resume care of extremely vulnerable children. It would seem that there would be very strong grounds for denying him access to his autistic kids.

    Perhaps we'll get more detailed information on the judge's decision.

    I personally did not think of you as being rude, but upset by a perceived injustice, and thank you for the apology.

    If you live near Dublin I would advice going to the CCJ on Parkgate street, drop in to any circuit criminal court, Court 5 does sentencing in pleas if I remember correctly watch justice in action, one thing you will notice if you watch enough sentences, you will see reports of same don't fully reflect what happened. It's also funny you rarely see the banner headlines about the long sentences given which in these cases are the norm. The special and the central also sit in that building. It's also nice to see where our millions of euro was spent during the boom.

    BTW if you are not in Dublin any local Circuit Court will have regular criminal sessions again any citizen can go along unless in-camera and see how justice is administrated in our name.


  • #33
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,805 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    LostinKildare wrote: »
    ResearchWill, I apologise for being rude. It's an emotive topic and I got a bit carried away.

    I can't get my head around the fact that not only the effect of, but indeed the whole reason for the judge's suspension of the sentence was to allow the convicted child rapist to resume care of extremely vulnerable children. It would seem that that would be very strong grounds for denying him access to his autistic kids.

    Perhaps we'll get more detailed information on the judge's decision.
    I'm sorry, but there's nothing in any report I've seen to suggest that this man is a danger to children, particularly his own family. There's no detail in any of the reports that might explain the situation: the man has no other convictions. When he was 24, he had sex with a 14-year-old girl. We do not know whether it was violent rape or rape due to inability to consent.

    You cannot criticise the sentence without this information. You also have to take into account the doctors' reports indicating that the man's children had show significant disimprovement since their father's imprisonment. If, 30 years after the events, he has managed to put himself right and become a valuable member of society, then why shoul he be put into gaol, where he will inevitably become a scourge on society again?

    Also, recidivism rates here are practically incredible when compared to other CL jurisdictions. Be aware that the statistics only account for people who have been in prison, not people who have been convicted of crimes simpliciter.


  • #34
    valleyoftheunos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭valleyoftheunos


    I haven't read anything in the news reports of this case that suggest that the convicted man was either unrepentant or in anyway a danger to his children. A terrible act 30 years ago does not mean he is still a risk, to assume such is simply unfair. However the reports I read of the victim impact statement made very clear the offences were all assaults and capacity for consent was not the issue.

    From what I have read I believe the Judge's reasoning in making his decision was that if he were to imprison the convicted it would result in the suffering of his Autistic child and that this would not represent justice. essentially it would cause the child to pay for the sins of the father.

    The victim suffered as a chid, a prison sentence would result in the suffering of another child. I would ask you, do two wrongs make a right? Can that be justice? Personally I think not.


  • #35
    silentrust
    Closed Accounts Posts: 678 ✭✭✭silentrust


    valleyoftheunos wrote: »
    I haven't read anything in the news reports of this case that suggest that the convicted man was either unrepentant or in anyway a danger to his children. A terrible act 30 years ago does not mean he is still a risk, to assume such is simply unfair. However the reports I read of the victim impact statement made very clear the offences were all assaults and capacity for consent was not the issue.

    From what I have read I believe the Judge's reasoning in making his decision was that if he were to imprison the convicted it would result in the suffering of his Autistic child and that this would not represent justice. essentially it would cause the child to pay for the sins of the father.

    The victim suffered as a chid, a prison sentence would result in the suffering of another child. I would ask you, do two wrongs make a right? Can that be justice? Personally I think not.

    Hear hear- the assumption seems to be that prison should be assumed to be the sentence as a blanket policy - it doesn't seem to be the case but then why should it?

    Community based punishments like probation actually result in lower reoffending rates than prison - or at least this was true for the UK. If someone has data to show prison is more effective in Ireland please by all means post it!

    A relative of mine is a retired Probation Officer. When offenders appeared before a court his department would do a report about them to assist with sentencing. In virtually every case he tells me that going to prison allowed the offender to become a better criminal through meeting with more experienced people!

    This was particularly true for sex offenders who were perfecting methods to avoid detection - the less time spent with them the better say I!


  • #36
    LostinKildare
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 992 ✭✭✭LostinKildare


    hullaballoo wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but there's nothing in any report I've seen to suggest that this man is a danger to children, particularly his own family.

    Aside from his conviction for having repeatedly raped/sexually assaulted a child, in his own family?

    As I understand it, at the very least (i.e., in the absence of other conditions that may be imposed by a judge), convicted sex offenders of all sorts must notify gardai of where they live, and if they move, and they must inform prospective employers of the nature of their conviction if the work involves unsupervised access to children. They also must disclose it in garda vetting for work with voluntary organisations, and it would be highly unlikely that a school, hospital, church, GAA club, etc. apprised of his record would allow him to participate in activities that involve children or vulnerable adults. These restrictions indicate that both the legal system and society in general recognise that sex offenders, by the mere fact of their convictions, pose a possible risk to children.

    If this man has undergone rigorous psychiatric evaluation by professionals who have declared him to be zero risk to children, great. But we haven't heard that -- what we do have is the judge's reference to "self rehabilitation," and I'd be interested to know what that consisted of. You'd think that any kind of rehabiltation would involve admitting your guilt and apologising to your victim, but according to reports, he's done neither. From the Independent article:
    "How can a person who never pleaded guilty self-rehabilitate? [the victim] asked, adding that there was "no sign of regret; no apology" from her abuser. (valleyoftheunos, that is what I meant when I said he was unrepentant)
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/rapist-is-spared-jail-to-mind-his-autistic-children-29329286.html
    hullaballoo wrote: »
    When he was 24, he had sex with a 14-year-old girl. We do not know whether it was violent rape or rape due to inability to consent.
    You cannot criticise the sentence without this information.

    The judge said that "the offences lay at the top end of the midrange scale," and the "the court must acknowledge the huge suffering endured by the woman as a result of the rape." That, coupled with the victim impact statement -- "I just wanted to die because he caused me so much pain, anguish and turmoil. Part of me was stolen, killed and lost forever. . ." doesn't sound like consensual bar the ability to consent.
    hullaballoo wrote: »
    You also have to take into account the doctors' reports indicating that the man's children had show significant disimprovement since their father's imprisonment.

    I didn't see any mention of doctors' reports to that effect, where was that? I saw only a mention of one report from a teacher of one of the boys saying that his behaviour and progress had deteriorated since the father's imprisonment. Is the teacher qualified to make a determination about the causeof the change? I don't know. The reference to the GP report (in the IT) was a GP's opinion that the situation is putting a "huge strain" on the wife.
    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/suspended-sentence-for-man-who-raped-wife-s-14-year-old-sister-1.1420726
    hullaballoo wrote: »
    If, 30 years after the events, he has managed to put himself right and become a valuable member of society, then why shoul he be put into gaol, where he will inevitably become a scourge on society again?

    If it were a lesser crime I'd be inclined to agree with you. Property crimes, drug offences, lesser assaults. But multiple counts of rape and sexual assault of a child, no.

    I think (perhaps I'm wrong) that most people would agree that there are some crimes so serious that the convicted must serve a custodial sentence --- even if 27 years have passed since the crime, with no other convictions, and three high-needs children are suffering from their parent's incarceration (murder is an obvious example). Apparently this crime isn't serious enough to reach that bar.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    bon ami
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 85 ✭✭bon ami


    I find it extremely ironic that a convicted child rapist is excused a custodial sentence as he has a commitment to look after his two severely autistic children. He is really a suitable candidate to fill this role. How does a judge prioritise when it comes to making a decision which must clearly be extremely hurtful to the victim.

    I must say I have blatant issues with sentencing policy in Ireland when compared to the UK and other jurisdictions . It appears to me that the rights of the accused greatly outweigh the rights of the victims and the general public.


  • #38
    McCrack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,016 ✭✭✭McCrack


    I have to say I am not comfortable with this sentence in light of the fact the defendant pleaded not guilty and the matter ran to hearing. I am at odds to understand how the trial judge could say the defendant had self-rehabilitated yet go on to plead not guilty forcing the victim to give evidence and putting the State to the expense of a trial.

    I suspect the DPP will appeal this in the public interest.


  • #39
    valleyoftheunos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭valleyoftheunos


    LostinKildare wrote: »
    Aside from his conviction for having repeatedly raped/sexually assaulted a child, in his own family?

    As I understand it, at the very least (i.e., in the absence of other conditions that may be imposed by a judge), convicted sex offenders of all sorts must notify gardai of where they live, and if they move, and they must inform prospective employers of the nature of their conviction if the work involves unsupervised access to children. They also must disclose it in garda vetting for work with voluntary organisations, and it would be highly unlikely that a school, hospital, church, GAA club, etc. apprised of his record would allow him to participate in activities that involve children or vulnerable adults. These restrictions indicate that both the legal system and society in general recognise that sex offenders, by the mere fact of their convictions, pose a possible risk to children.

    If this man has undergone rigorous psychiatric evaluation by professionals who have declared him to be zero risk to children, great. But we haven't heard that -- what we do have is the judge's reference to "self rehabilitation," and I'd be interested to know what that consisted of. You'd think that any kind of rehabiltation would involve admitting your guilt and apologising to your victim, but according to reports, he's done neither. From the Independent article:
    "How can a person who never pleaded guilty self-rehabilitate? [the victim] asked, adding that there was "no sign of regret; no apology" from her abuser. (valleyoftheunos, that is what I meant when I said he was unrepentant)
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/rapist-is-spared-jail-to-mind-his-autistic-children-29329286.html



    The judge said that "the offences lay at the top end of the midrange scale," and the "the court must acknowledge the huge suffering endured by the woman as a result of the rape." That, coupled with the victim impact statement -- "I just wanted to die because he caused me so much pain, anguish and turmoil. Part of me was stolen, killed and lost forever. . ." doesn't sound like consensual bar the ability to consent.



    I didn't see any mention of doctors' reports to that effect, where was that? I saw only a mention of one report from a teacher of one of the boys saying that his behaviour and progress had deteriorated since the father's imprisonment. Is the teacher qualified to make a determination about the causeof the change? I don't know. The reference to the GP report (in the IT) was a GP's opinion that the situation is putting a "huge strain" on the wife.
    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/suspended-sentence-for-man-who-raped-wife-s-14-year-old-sister-1.1420726



    If it were a lesser crime I'd be inclined to agree with you. Property crimes, drug offences, lesser assaults. But multiple counts of rape and sexual assault of a child, no.

    I think (perhaps I'm wrong) that most people would agree that there are some crimes so serious that the convicted must serve a custodial sentence --- even if 27 years have passed since the crime, with no other convictions, and three high-needs children are suffering from their parent's incarceration (murder is an obvious example). Apparently this crime isn't serious enough to reach that bar.


    You do make valid points but you also disregard the historical nature of the crime all too easily. The crimes were committed many yeas ago and during a short period, for that reason I don't think it is fair to assume that his previous acts are a likely indicator of future behavior.

    We know he pled not guilty but we don't know what defence he raised and he could have pled not guilty on a number of grounds. Until we know that I don't think it is appropriate to make inferences about his character from his plea, particular considering that the judge chose not to make such inferences having heard the defence.

    I would hate to be the judge in this situation, regardless of his decision he would likely face criticism. I think he made a decision that he felt would cause the least amount of harm. I'm not comfortable with the sentence and for all I know the convicted man is a monster who should never be allowed walk the streets, however I have faith in the judicial system that if he were, he would have been sentenced appropriately.

    Locking people up in prison does precious little to solve the problems of criminality, even more so in a case such as this where to do so would be only an exercise in vengeance. What good if any would that serve society?


  • #40
    McCrack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,016 ✭✭✭McCrack


    The judgment (unusually published on courts.ie) for anybody that's interested:

    http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/241db5da9215340f80257b87003c586b?OpenDocument

    Again I just cannot square up in my mind how the trial Judge at paragraph 27 can say the defendant has self-rehabilitated yet he pleads not guilty to the offences and a jury decides otherwise.

    Surely putting ones hands up and accepting responsibility for criminal wrong-doing goes hand in hand with self-rehabilitation. How can he be self-rehabilitated and not admit his guilt and force a trial?


  • #41
    silentrust
    Closed Accounts Posts: 678 ✭✭✭silentrust


    McCrack wrote: »
    The judgment (unusually published on courts.ie) for anybody that's interested:

    http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/241db5da9215340f80257b87003c586b?OpenDocument

    Again I just cannot square up in my mind how the trial Judge at paragraph 27 can say the defendant has self-rehabilitated yet he pleads not guilty to the offences and a jury decides otherwise.

    Surely putting ones hands up and accepting responsibility for criminal wrong-doing goes hand in hand with self-rehabilitation. How can he be self-rehabilitated and not admit his guilt and force a trial?

    He may well have not wanted to go to prison for the sake of the children he's caring for as well as his own. I can (just about!) accept that someone can change sufficiently over 25 years not to pose a threat to society any more, so perhaps that's what they meant by rehabilitation - as you say though the not guilty plea could be seen as evidence he is in denial!


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,805 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    I suppose there is a possibility that a not guilty plea might be a risk worth taking where the evidence that would come out at a full hearing of the matter might be more informative to the sentencing judge than any evidence that might be appropriate to a plea in mitigation.

    It is a massive risk, though and I have absolutely no basis for this conjecture other than that it's the only reason I can think of for a person to plead in this way. I have no idea how he actually went about his defence, i.e., whether he denied the offences or just put the Prosecution on full proof, as he is entitled to do.


  • #43
    silentrust
    Closed Accounts Posts: 678 ✭✭✭silentrust


    hullaballoo wrote: »
    I suppose there is a possibility that a not guilty plea might be a risk worth taking where the evidence that would come out at a full hearing of the matter might be more informative to the sentencing judge than any evidence that might be appropriate to a plea in mitigation.

    It is a massive risk, though and I have absolutely no basis for this conjecture other than that it's the only reason I can think of for a person to plead in this way. I have no idea how he actually went about his defence, i.e., whether he denied the offences or just put the Prosecution on full proof, as he is entitled to do.

    As you say he was risking a more severe sentence than if he was found guilty on summary conviction. It's hard sometimes to have faith in this system but then if we were the ones in the dock accused of a crime, we'd want to be treated fairly too.


Advertisement