nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

1 year in prison for raping 8-year-old over 50 times

ibarelycare

A female paedophile has been jailed for having sex with an eight-year-old boy more than fifty times.
Loren Morris, 21, was 16 when she first slept with the schoolboy, who cannot be identified, and continued until he was ten years old.

Story (Yes yes, Daily Mail, whatever)

I know this is a worn out argument, but if this was a man who had raped an 8 year old girl over 50 times, there is no way he would be sentenced to just 12 month in prison and 12 months on probation.

The article repeatedly states that the woman "had sex" with the boy. This is disgusting. She didn't have sex with a child, she raped him.

The judge was lenient because he said she realised what she was doing was wrong....after TWO years of raping a child???

He went on to say "I have come to the conclusion that due to the concern and embarrassment caused to both you and your family that you will not be offending again, let alone committing sexual offences. I am also aware of the effect this will have on your baby. I am pleased to hear your parents have started to build bridges with you."

So he thinks a paedophile will not re-offend because she has embarrassed herself and her family??? If that was a man, his child would be taken off him and he would be on the sex offenders register for life. How can anyone allow this woman to raise a child, knowing that she has been sexually attracted to children in the past?

This article has made me so angry. A boy of 8-10 cannot be deemed to be able to give consent to a woman aged 16-18 to have sex with him. This woman is sick and dangerous and should be sentenced based on 50 counts of rape. :mad:

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Wacker The Attacker

padd b1975 wrote: »

Ivana Battychick must be thrilled with this outcome.

I read this as Ivana Bottycrease.

You've also just given a horrific thought. Sharing it probably isnt worth the ban and potentially libellous

donegal__road

so long as she wasn't smuggling garlic.

Dick phelan

This is truly disgusting and horrific, someone mentioned threat to society, **** that the evil bitch raped a child! she should be locked up for 20 years IMO an evil act, no doubt gender played a part in this lenient and terrible sentence, i mean we aren't even talking a 15 or 16 year old who while underage can consent to an extent (not saying in any way this is right) but this was a young child no consent anyway possible joke of a judge. Also learning difficulties give me a break i have my own learning difficulties as do many guess what they don't make me considering raping a young child. What next "it's part of their culture" Rape is rape and regardless of Gender should carry heavy sentencing.

tritium

Artful_Badger wrote: »

But surely part of the reason (although I'll admit the Irish judicial system isnt known for its impeccable reasoning when it comes to sentencing) would be that male offenders of sexual crimes would be significantly more likely to re-offend, statistically speaking. And offences involving males (in relation to kids a similar age to the victim here) would more often than not involve force, threats, violence and a have a more traumatic effect on victims.

Can I presume you'd equally support the sentence handed down to that fine pillar of the community Anthony Lyons so? He would also be fairly unlikely to reoffend after all.

Strange that you think that being used for sex by an adult while you're still a child wouldnt have a traumatic effect in later life

I'm in no way trying to down play what this woman did but it started when she was herself a child of 16. She stopped doing it when she was 18. She was only caught as the kid was bragging about having sex with her. Which means he probably wasn't forced or threatened to get him to go along with it. Still utterly wrong and reprehensible and she was rightly convicted and jailed for it. But...

Yes you are trying to play it down. The child was 'bragging' - so what, was he asking for it so? Children don't have the same understanding or maturity to know about these things and hence may not need threats or force to coerce them. Thats why the law doesn't allow consent as a defence in such cases.

The chances of her doing what she did being down to her being an actual paedophile seems to me to be low. Lets not be misled by sensationalist moron feeding headlines from a muck raking rag like the daily mail. A paedophile is not someone who has sex with under age kids, its someone who is primarily sexually attracted to children. And its that which is of concern when sentencing as its that which determines the risk of re-offending.

The crime here isn't being sexually attracted to a child, its having sex with a child.

I haven't seen the stats but I'd assume women would be statistically less likely to be motivated by paedophillic tendency and less likely to re-offend as a result than men convicted of similar crimes. So perhaps its not men bad, women good but a difference in the severity of the majority of crimes and risk of re-offence of the offenders ?

Then again I dont got me no phd and I've never been on the radio...

Having sex 50 times with a child would seem pretty severe to me, would you disagree?

Artful_Badger

tritium wrote: »

Can I presume you'd equally support the sentence handed down to that fine pillar of the community Anthony Lyons so? He would also be fairly unlikely to reoffend after all.

Thats different, that was a 6 year sentence with 5 1/2 suspended. And he would be more likely to re-offend imo regardless of what the judge thought.

Strange that you think that being used for sex by an adult while you're still a child wouldnt have a traumatic effect in later life

I said have a more traumatic affect on a child. Not that what did woman did wouldnt have any traumatic affect on the kid.

Yes you are trying to play it down. The child was 'bragging' - so what, was he asking for it so?.

I stopped reading. I'm not gonna entertain you while you misrepresent my posts to try make me out to be downplaying or even supporting the sexual abuse of children.

vitani

donegal__road wrote: »

so long as she wasn't smuggling garlic.

What does evading €1.4 million in tax have to do with this?

Muise...

vitani wrote: »

What does evading €1.4 million in tax have to do with this?

Ah, ya know, 1 year in prison and the bankers and politicians still at large, bailout axe-grind, blah blah rabble.

tritium

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Thats different, that was a 6 year sentence with 5 1/2 suspended. And he would be more likely to re-offend imo regardless of what the judge thought.

This would be the judge who had access to all the evidence that you didn't .....

Artful_Badger

tritium wrote: »

This would be the judge who had access to all the evidence that you didn't .....

Yes, the very same judge you think handed down the wrong sentence. I assume you think the judge in the case that is the topic of this thread also got it wrong.

Funny how I have no point as I'm not the judge that presided over these cases but you seem to know better. Handy that.

So far you're contribution here on my points was telling me I'm not the judge, so I dont know anything in relation to the risk of offending. I said the kid wouldnt be traumatised, and he was "asking for it" when he was raped.

I think its safe to say you're not really worth talking to now isnt it ?

[Deleted User]

3 pages and not one nice joke

maybe A/H is growing up

Femme_Fatale

Deleted User wrote: »

3 pages and not one nice joke

maybe A/H is growing up

If the kid was five years older... maybe even just four years older... the thread would be awash with them.

tritium

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Yes, the very same judge you think handed down the wrong sentence. I assume you think the judge in the case that is the topic of this thread also got it wrong.

Funny how I have no point as I'm not the judge that presided over these cases but you seem to know better. Handy that.

So far you're contribution here on my points was telling me I'm not the judge, so I dont know anything in relation to the risk of offending. I said the kid wouldnt be traumatised, and he was "asking for it" when he was raped.

I think its safe to say you're not really worth talking to now isnt it ?

Please please stick me on ignore so, really I'm not that bothered being ignored by someone whose opening post is a mealy mouted pile of waffle that tries to somehow defend a rapist. Gems such as:

I'm in no way trying to downplay what this woman did but....

she was only caught as the kid was bragging about having sex with her

he probably wasn't forced or threatened to get him to go along with it

You spent your whole post bleating on about risk of reoffending blah blah blah, filled with lots of "in my opinion" and/or conjecture and bugger all substance.

An 8 year old child was raped repeatedly here

Grow up FFS

efb

tritium wrote: »

Please please stick me on ignore so, really I'm not that bothered being ignored by someone whose opening post is a mealy mouted pile of waffle that tries to somehow defend a rapist. Gems such as:

You spent your whole post bleating on about risk of reoffending blah blah blah, filled with lots of "in my opinion" and/or conjecture and bugger all substance.

An 8 year old child was raped repeatedly here

Grow up FFS

Again they weren't, he was sexually assaulted.

Rape requires penetration.

Femme_Fatale

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

I read this as Ivana Bottycrease.

You've also just given a horrific thought. Sharing it probably isnt worth the ban and potentially libellous

Not christian to be thanking stuff like this.

Artful_Badger

tritium wrote: »

Please please stick me on ignore so, really I'm not that bothered being ignored by someone whose opening post is a mealy mouted pile of waffle that tries to somehow defend a rapist. Gems such as:

You spent your whole post bleating on about risk of reoffending blah blah blah, filled with lots of "in my opinion" and/or conjecture and bugger all substance.

An 8 year old child was raped repeatedly here

Grow up FFS

I defended nobody. More moronic misrepresentation. So you've accused me of defending a rapist, downplaying child rape, saying rape doesnt traumatise kids and that the kid was asking to be raped. Quality stuff.

I get it though nobody here wants to discuss anything, Its an outraged mob that just wants to hiss and spit at the paedo they all read about from a daily mail article. Yeah, I'm the one that needs to grow up. I'll leave you all to it.

Femme_Fatale

Artful_Badger wrote: »

So no discussion lets all hiss and spit at the paedo we all read about from a daily mail article. Yeah, I'm the one that needs to grow up.

There is discussion - why such a lenient sentence, why the notion that she has changed her ways due to realising the gravity of what she did... when there is such a small likelihood (and I'm being generous) of the same take on a guy the same age repeatedly having sex with an eight-year-old (girl or boy). He would be deemed a paedophile and it's highly unlikely the notion of him making a mistake, and it only being just the one victim, would fly.

It's not simply a case of everyone in disagreement with you wanting to be a baying mob member (I hate that sh1t), it's viewing the case as clear-cut child abuse that should have appropriate repercussions.

tritium

efb wrote: »

Again they weren't, he was sexually assaulted.

Rape requires penetration.

You're quite right of course, and indeed if you check back a couple of posts you'll see I made a similar point. The CDC uses the term 'forced to penetrate'. However there is as Femme Fatale pointed out a more common use understanding of the word rape, with a difference between the letter of the law, imperfect as it is, and what we know to be wrong about a situation

In the interest of precision I'm happy to go back and edit the word rape to something like "sexually assaulted in a manner akin to being forced to have full intercourse against his will -a crime that the law is too big an ass to call rape as he's a boy". Would that factual accuracy make it better?

Artful_Badger

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

There is discussion - why such a lenient sentence, why the notion that she has changed her ways due to realising the gravity of what she did... when there is such a small likelihood (and I'm being generous) of the same take on a guy the same age repeatedly having sex with an eight-year-old (girl or boy). He would be deemed a paedophile and it's highly unlikely the notion of him making a mistake, and it only being just the one victim, would fly.

There is no discussion with that poster anyway given my posts on sentencing based on risk of re-offence and the possible difference in sentencing male and female offers of sexual crimes based on that risk of re-offence just got me absolutely moron horseshít accusing me of all sorts including claiming the kid was asking to be raped and I was defending child rapists. How the fcuk is that discussion that shíte I had to put up with ?

As I said previously sentences should take into account the risk of re-offence. I have already outlined why I think male and female offenders may be dealt with differently due to the differences of the nature of the crimes. The fact is a man didnt commit this crime so it is absolutely pointless to do anything but examine this crime, the possible risk of offence and then what sentence would be acceptable based on anything but what happened in this case.

Yet all I see is ranting about paedophiles being punished and women paedo's getting less punishment than men paedo's. Nobody here even seems to know what a paedophile actually is.

I'm out anyway, whatever discussion may have arisen with some people I'm too annoyed after dealing with tritiums horsehít to have much interest.

Muise...

Artful_Badger wrote: »

There is no discussion with that poster anyway given my posts on sentencing based on risk of re-offence and the possible difference in sentencing male and female offers of sexual crimes based on that risk of re-offence just got me absolutely moron horseshít accusing me of all sorts including claiming the kid was asking to be raped and I was defending child rapists. How the fcuk is that discussion that shíte I had to put up with ?

As I said previously sentences should take into account the risk of re-offence. I have already outlined why I think male and female offenders may be dealt with differently due to the differences of the nature of the crimes. The fact is a man didnt commit this crime so it is absolutely pointless to do anything but examine this crime, the possible risk of offence and then what sentence would be acceptable based on anything but what happened in this case.

Yet all I see is ranting about paedophiles being punished and women paedo's getting less punishment than men paedo's. Nobody here even seems to know what a paedophile actually is.

I'm out anyway, whatever discussion may have arisen with some people I'm too annoyed after dealing with tritiums horsehít to have much interest.

Have you tried writing clearly and calmly and backing up your posts with facts and figures?

dr.bollocko

mod:

Civil discourse please.

Lets not make light of the situation by posting southpark references or dumb jokes any more. Couple posts removed / carded.

We're treading in interesting waters. Lets try and keep things civil. If you feel the urge to report a post at any stage do - any insights you might have will help us to continue to improve how we handle threads like this in future.

py2006

I'm afraid to point out the obvious double standard.

There has been quite a lot of reports lately of female teachers having sex with under-age boys. I am not sure whether it is happening more often or that it is is being reported more. I presume the later.

What always bemuses me is the terminology, you will rarely read the words, 'predator', 'groomed', 'evil', 'pervert' when reading reports of women having sex with minors. Quite often you will see the word 'affair'. This is the first one I have come across that uses the word 'paedophile'.

Young teenage girls are more mature than their male counterparts (apparently) yet in these incidents they are treated very differently. Tis interesting.

Femme_Fatale

Artful_Badger wrote: »

As I said previously sentences should take into account the risk of re-offence. I have already outlined why I think male and female offenders may be dealt with differently due to the differences of the nature of the crimes. The fact is a man didnt commit this crime so it is absolutely pointless to do anything but examine this crime, the possible risk of offence and then what sentence would be acceptable based on anything but what happened in this case.

But I'm just wondering why the difference in how each gender is viewed? Sure, men and women are different, but child abuse is child abuse.
She actually had sex with a little boy... it's too horrible to linger on that thought.

Yet all I see is ranting about paedophiles being punished and women paedo's getting less punishment than men paedo's.

Well ranting is no use, but it's not irrelevant to refer to paedophilia/the gender double standard. I know one person with their bizarre Ivana Bacik comment seems to be relishing it, but otherwise, these are valid concerns.

Nobody here even seems to know what a paedophile actually is.

An adult who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. This young woman is at least close to fulfilling the criteria.

tritium

Artful_Badger wrote: »

There is no discussion with that poster anyway given my posts on sentencing based on risk of re-offence and the possible difference in sentencing male and female offers of sexual crimes based on that risk of re-offence just got me absolutely moron horseshít accusing me of all sorts including claiming the kid was asking to be raped and I was defending child rapists. How the fcuk is that discussion that shíte I had to put up with ?

now lets not be economical with the truth here - what I called you on was the following principally

I'm in no way trying to down play what this woman did but (1) it started when she was herself a child of 16. (2)She stopped doing it when she was 18. (3) She was only caught as the kid was bragging about having sex with her. (4)Which means he probably wasn't forced or threatened to get him to go along with it. Still utterly wrong and reprehensible and she was rightly convicted and jailed for it. But...

so, just since you don't seem to understand what the word means:
Downplay:
to make (something) seem smaller or less important

Synonyms
de-emphasize, soft–pedal, play down

- tell me how the above quote isn't downplaying it so? - 4 separate points to minimise it!!

That was around the point where you got all outraged with me and decided you didn't want to address any of the other points......

Artful_Badger

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

But I'm just wondering why the difference in how each gender is viewed? Sure, men and women are different, but child abuse is child abuse.
She actually had sex with a little boy... it's too horrible to linger on that thought.

My thinking on the why of the difference in how they are viewed is as I said previously. The majority of sexual crimes involving male offenders and under aged kids maybe involve force, violence, threats, more traumatic experience and re-offence or multiple offences. Which may lead people to think with women offenders having less of those things they are not as likely to be acting on paedophilic tendencies or likely to re-offend. The actual offence may be categorised as "rape" but the sentencing taking all into account including the risk posed may be more lenient in general for those facts.

Well ranting is no use, but it's not irrelevant to refer to paedophilia/the gender double standard. I know one person with their bizarre Ivana Bacik comment seems to be relishing it, but otherwise, these are valid concerns.

Its not irrelevant to refer to it but at some stage it has to be discussed. I tried to discuss it and it ididnt go down too well. I have no idea what the Ivana Bacik stuff was about.

An adult who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. This young woman is at least close to fulfilling the criteria.

This woman sexually assaulted/raped a young boy. But looking at it I'm inclined to think given it started when she was 16, she stopped it, has no record of doing it on any other occasion, she's not likely to be an actual paedophile. Which is a person primarily sexually attracted to children. Not just anyone attracted to or guilty of sexually assaulting children.

py2006

Artful_Badger wrote: »

This woman sexually assaulted/raped a young boy. But looking at it I'm inclined to think given it started when she was 16, she stopped it, has no record of doing it on any other occasion, she's not likely to be an actual paedophile. Which is a person primarily sexually attracted to children. Not just anyone attracted to or guilty of sexually assaulting children.

Thats quite an assumption. We are not talking about a 16 yr old having sex with a 15 yr old. He was 8 for god sake.

You would have to have serious concerns about some body sexually aroused by an 8 yr old

Artful_Badger

tritium wrote: »

now lets not be economical with the truth here - what I called you on was the following principally

so, just since you don't seem to understand what the word means:
Downplay:
to make (something) seem smaller or less important

Synonyms
de-emphasize, soft–pedal, play down

- tell me how the above quote isn't downplaying it so? - 4 separate points to minimise it!!

That was around the point where you got all outraged with me and decided you didn't want to address any of the other points......

I'm not being economical with the truth at all. You're the one misrepresenting peoples posts and implying some pretty disgusting things.

My point was in relation to the risk of re-offence. At no point did I downplay her crime, I just stated the details of the case and then said it leads me to believe the risk of re-offending was low. I even stated it was utterly wrong and reprehensible and she was rightly jailed for her crime.

The issue I have with you is posting the following rubbish.

Strange that you think that being used for sex by an adult while you're still a child wouldnt have a traumatic effect in later life

Yes you are trying to play it down. The child was 'bragging' - so what, was he asking for it so?

someone whose opening post is a mealy mouted pile of waffle that tries to somehow defend a rapist

Completely misrepresenting my arguments in a quite pathetic attempt to make me out to be defending child abuse. And implying I was saying he was "asking for it" you were pretty close to accusing me of saying he deserved to be raped.

Now I really am done entertaining you. Go bother someone else.

Artful_Badger

py2006 wrote: »

Thats quite an assumption. We are not talking about a 16 yr old having sex with a 15 yr old. He was 8 for god sake.

You would have to have serious concerns about some body sexually aroused by an 8 yr old

Sure I'd have concerns as did the judge. She's banned from contact with children under 16 unless supervised and on the sex offenders register.

But I dont think its clear she's a paedophile and that there is much risk she'll abuse another child in the near future.

py2006

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Sure I'd have concerns as did the judge. She's banned from contact with children under 16 unless supervised and on the sex offenders register.

But I dont think its clear she's a paedophile and that there is much risk she'll abuse another child in the near future.

Do you know her? Do you apply same logic to all offenders. She may not offend again but not sure that is worth the risk

tritium

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'm not being economical with the truth at all. You're the one misrepresenting peoples posts and implying some pretty disgusting things.

My point was in relation to the risk of re-offence. At no point did I downplay her crime, I just stated the details of the case and then said it leads me to believe the risk of re-offending was low. I even stated it was utterly wrong and reprehensible and she was rightly jailed for her crime.

The issue I have with you is posting the following rubbish.

Completely misrepresenting my arguments in a quite pathetic attempt to make me out to be defending child abuse. And implying I was saying he was "asking for it" you were pretty close to accusing me of saying he deserved to be raped.

Now I really am done entertaining you. Go bother someone else.

Again, you did downplay it - you don't seem to have a basic understanding of what that word means. I've pointed out the exact part of your post where you did so! If you didn't intend that meaning then I suggest you retract that part of the statement and choose your words more carefully in the future.

Lets look a bit further at my responses since you bring them up!

Strange that you think that being used for sex by an adult while you're still a child wouldn't have a traumatic effect in later life

this was in response to

And offences involving males (in relation to kids a similar age to the victim here) would more often than not involve force, threats, violence and a have a more traumatic effect on victims.

So, since you feel you can put a quantum on these things, and in the interest of understanding the point you were trying to make -educate me why a man sexually assaulting a child would be more traumatic than a woman doing so? You might also give me some stats as to the incidence of threats and violence as coercive factors in child abuse.

Yes you are trying to play it down. The child was 'bragging' - so what, was he asking for it so?

I think its pretty obvious the part of your post I was responding to here. The question still stands. You said you didn't want to downplay the offence and then give 4 statements that can be fairly construed as arguments for mitigation. So either respond to the question - so what? - or retract

[Deleted User]

There is something wrong when a man has sex with a woman without consent it is considered rape, yet when a woman has sex with a man without consent it is considered "sexual assault" and seems to carry a much lesser sentence, but that's completely different point.

With regards to this - learning difficulties or not, if a man (or boy, in this case) had sex with a child as many times as that, then they would have a much longer sentence. 1 year is not enough.