Hustveit Case.

Tombi! · 15-07-2015 12:51PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

According to the article the relationship continued after that happened and the scale of it only became known via his confession. Indeed the judge said the entire case was based on said confession

Good thing he was stupid enough to confess; terrible thing that without his confession, it wouldn't have been sent to court.

Gatling · 15-07-2015 12:53PM

What I don't get in this beside the sentence was the victim when she relised it happened the first time. they talked about what happened and carried on the relationship.
That's what was reported by the media

* just seen the above posts*

Samaris · 15-07-2015 01:02PM

Gatling wrote: »

What I don't get in this beside the sentence was the victim when she relised it happened the first time. they talked about what happened and carried on the relationship.
That's what was reported by the media

* just seen the above posts*

Yeah, they talked about it and she told him it was Not On. Presumably he reassured her that he wouldn't do it again.

Then he did.

SEPT 23 1989 · 15-07-2015 01:06PM

Samaris wrote: »

Yeah, they talked about it and she told him it was Not On. Presumably he reassured her that he wouldn't do it again.

Then he did.

She said on the Ray Darcy Show yesterday that they had a pet rabbit and she was afraid to leave in case he did something to it

TheLastMohican · 15-07-2015 01:07PM

Now, if you just reverse the situation ............

"Woman plays with man while he's asleep"

Shock, horror and manufactured indignation? I don't think so.

Tombi! · 15-07-2015 01:13PM

TheLastMohican wrote: »

Now, if you just reverse the situation ............

"Woman plays with man while he's asleep"

Shock, horror and manufactured indignation? I don't think so.

Banned.

Shouldn't have to say this but do not make light of rape

Ush1 · 15-07-2015 01:21PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I listened to part of a radio interview with the victim yesterday, how she realised it was happening at all was because she woke one morning with no pyjama bottoms on and covered in semen.

She didn't just find out because he told her.

Didn't the relationship continue after? Even after she woke up with him next to her, masturbating watching porn on a laptop?

Menas · 15-07-2015 01:28PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Didn't the relationship continue after? Even after she woke up with him next to her, masturbating watching porn on a laptop?

Yes, it did. She said that she had been worried about his excessive use of porn.
It was only after they broke up that he sent her the email confessing what he had done.
Fcks sake, imagine getting that email. Poor woman.

Neyite · 15-07-2015 01:33PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Didn't the relationship continue after? Even after she woke up with him next to her, masturbating watching porn on a laptop?

It can take years for a rape victim to get their head round it and call it rape. Sometimes decades.

Menas · 15-07-2015 01:34PM

Neyite wrote: »

It can take years for a rape victim to get their head round it and call it rape. Sometimes decades.

In this case it took Seven decades
http://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/loretta-young#.oiB3gLg0AZ

GLaDOS · 15-07-2015 01:35PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Didn't the relationship continue after? Even after she woke up with him next to her, masturbating watching porn on a laptop?

She said it took her awhile to come to terms with the fact she was in an abusive relationship. Not a unusual occurrence.

Neyite · 15-07-2015 01:38PM

Menas wrote: »

In this case it took Seven decades
http://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/loretta-young#.oiB3gLg0AZ

That's who I was thinking of after I wrote it. Some of Cosby's victims too took years to put a name on what had happened to them.

15-07-2015 01:40PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Didn't the relationship continue after? Even after she woke up with him next to her, masturbating watching porn on a laptop?

It did, according to her interview yesterday, she spoke to him about it and told him that he couldn't have sex with her while she slept. He agreed not to do it again. She said that she didn't want to believe that it was rape, and kept trying to put that thought out of her head, as she didn't want to think of herself as a rape victim.

She stated that she was also quite fearful of Hustveit, and was not a happy relationship at all.

It's not always easy for people to walk away from abusive relationships, if it was, they wouldn't exist.

Stheno · 15-07-2015 01:42PM

Was the sentence so lenient due to his confession?

Sunnyisland · 15-07-2015 01:49PM

Stheno wrote: »

Was the sentence so lenient due to his confession?

The facts of the case emerged only when Hustveit wrote to his former partner stating he had been using her "body for my gratification" for nearly a year.He continued: "I didn't want to hurt you, I just wanted to come. I used the fact I wasn't allowed watch porn or masturbate as an excuse. Now I've written this, you can have me prosecuted. I hope you won't."
Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy said the most significant features of the case were the deceit, the repetition of the offences, and the effect on the victim.
Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy said it was a very exceptional case. He said he had to consider the fact that there would be no rational case but for the confessions of the accused.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 15-07-2015 01:52PM

Samaris wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/rape-victim-niamhs-shock-as-ex-walks-free-im-left-reeling-and-my-parents-are-too-and-all-my-friends-who-were-there-to-support-me-31375084.html

I've thought a bit on how to phrase this. I can't make any rules, but I am asking if we can all keep it civil, and refrain from debate over whether she was raped. The courts have agreed that she was, and he has admitted it himself. Let's leave it at that, please.

So the line of debate I'm aiming to open is whether the sentence was lenient to the point of implying that what happened to her didn't matter, whether it is any deterrent to rapes, and what this means for people reporting rape in this country.

He admitted it, and without his confession, the case would not have gotten anywhere. Did he deserve such a reduced sentence based on that, particularly given that it was a repeated offence? It seems rather like throwing this woman under the bus to encourage other rapists to plead guilty in the future. Or is there an element of because she wasn't aware of it while it was happening, it was considered less serious?

It seems fairly appalling to me that he is being so publically supported by his company, and I reckon I wouldn't be too comfortable working for such a company. It smacks rather of the shaking-the-rapist's-hand disgusting business in Lisdowel a few years back.

Edit: I did ask for and get permission to reopen this topic, in case anyone's wondering

On that point, there was a lot more in that case than was reported by the media. And, tbh, I'm not even going to comment on what that was.

It really opened my eyes to an agenda driven reporting that seems prevalent in Irish media these days.

tritium · 15-07-2015 02:13PM

Tombi! wrote: »

Good thing he was stupid enough to confess; terrible thing that without his confession, it wouldn't have been sent to court.

Kind of understandable though. In the absence of the confession, and looking at the rest of the dynamic, it would seem pretty hard to get over the reasonable doubt hurdle.

That's not to say the sentence isn't perplexing

DoniBrowne · 15-07-2015 02:26PM

Any non consensual sex is considered as rape. So because she was asleep she didn't give her consent. Therefore it's rape and of course is a serious crime.

seamus · 15-07-2015 02:31PM

So, I've been trying to reconcile this one a bit by taking the emotion out of it.

Working back; at the end of the day, what is the purpose of punishment? To rehabilitate. To punish someone for a crime they have committed is to deny them of liberty in the hope that they will understand the impact of their crime and come out of their punishment reformed and not likely to commit another crime.

The purpose of sentencing is not to make the criminal suffer. It is not to "make them pay". It is not to make a victim feel that justice has been done. It is not to serve as a deterrent to other would-be criminals.

This is why guilty pleas get shorter sentences. The person got away with their crime until they were discovered. But then they put their hands up and said, "OK, fair cop, take me away". Incarceration in that case is to attempt to help the person realise that their mistake was not in getting caught, it was in committing the crime in the first place.

This case goes one step further. The convicted man realised that what he did was wrong, and as the judge remarks, he extraordinarily came forward with his admission and his apology. He offered up the entire case because he already knew everything that he had done was wrong.

With that in mind, what purpose would a jail term serve? The rehabilitation is "done" to a certain extent, it's clear from his actions that he understands the wrongness of what he's done.

So as abhorrent as it "feels" that someone can rape another person multiple times and not be jailed, I can see the logic behind the judge imposing a completely suspended sentence. There's nothing to be accomplished by incarceration except to satisfy some concept of revenge or the outdated notion that penance should be paid for sinning.

Samaris · 15-07-2015 02:42PM

I have difficulty in fully agreeing with the outcome, particularly for the sake of the woman who waived her anonymity to deal with this and who will be dealing with this whole horrible situation for a long time, but I can't really fault your logic.

There is a question of if he knew it was wrong, why the hell didn't he stop when she confronted him? If he could agree he was wrong then and then -continued-, then he proved himself a danger because he couldn't control himself. Getting away with it again? I don't know, it doesn't seem like it can have much of an affect on him.

Buzz Meeks · 15-07-2015 02:51PM

seamus wrote: »

The purpose of sentencing is not to make the criminal suffer. It is not to "make them pay".

Yeah, it is.

brevity · 15-07-2015 03:17PM

seamus wrote: »

So, I've been trying to reconcile this one a bit by taking the emotion out of it.

Working back; at the end of the day, what is the purpose of punishment? To rehabilitate. To punish someone for a crime they have committed is to deny them of liberty in the hope that they will understand the impact of their crime and come out of their punishment reformed and not likely to commit another crime.

The purpose of sentencing is not to make the criminal suffer. It is not to "make them pay". It is not to make a victim feel that justice has been done. It is not to serve as a deterrent to other would-be criminals.

This is why guilty pleas get shorter sentences. The person got away with their crime until they were discovered. But then they put their hands up and said, "OK, fair cop, take me away". Incarceration in that case is to attempt to help the person realise that their mistake was not in getting caught, it was in committing the crime in the first place.

This case goes one step further. The convicted man realised that what he did was wrong, and as the judge remarks, he extraordinarily came forward with his admission and his apology. He offered up the entire case because he already knew everything that he had done was wrong.

With that in mind, what purpose would a jail term serve? The rehabilitation is "done" to a certain extent, it's clear from his actions that he understands the wrongness of what he's done.

So as abhorrent as it "feels" that someone can rape another person multiple times and not be jailed, I can see the logic behind the judge imposing a completely suspended sentence. There's nothing to be accomplished by incarceration except to satisfy some concept of revenge or the outdated notion that penance should be paid for sinning.

What about the victim then? How are they supposed to cope with the fact that the person who has committed a crime against them walks because the judge feels they are honest in their apology?

That's sort of ****ed up IMO.

wp_rathead · 15-07-2015 03:43PM

Seamus I'm sorry I don't buy that
He repeatedly raped her..
Are we meant to go "Ah fair play, atleast you admitted to it, off you go, good lad"
If he knows NOW what he did was wrong then he knew after the first time he did it- and he REPEATEDLY raped her..
There is no excuse for fully suspended sentence, more I read about this case more mind boggling / fury inducing the sentence gets

VisibleGorilla · 15-07-2015 03:46PM

Buzz Meeks wrote: »

Yeah, it is.

No it isn't.

And it works out worse for society if it was.

Great post there Seamus.

VisibleGorilla · 15-07-2015 03:47PM

brevity wrote: »

What about the victim then? How are they supposed to cope with the fact that the person who has committed a crime against them walks because the judge feels they are honest in their apology?

That's sort of ****ed up IMO.

The victim doesn't come into it.

The law should work on logic, not emotion. If that was the case you'd have people being murdered on the streets, e.g mob rule... do you want to live in a society similar to that? Go look at some videos of lynchings in Africa or India then get back to me.

Samaris · 15-07-2015 03:50PM

wp_rathead wrote: »

Seamus I'm sorry I don't buy that
He repeatedly raped her..
Are we meant to go "Ah fair play, atleast you admitted to it, off you go, good lad"
If he knows NOW what he did was wrong then he knew after the first time he did it- and he REPEATEDLY raped her..
There is no excuse for fully suspended sentence, more I read about this case more mind boggling / fury inducing the sentence gets

I think he might be correct in his logic though. I don't like or really buy the sentence either, and she -did- confront him before he repeated the act a number more times, so he ought to have known it was wrong then. A reduced sentence based on his confession and apparently sincere regret is appropriate, but completely suspended? I can see the logic that Seamus has talked about there, but it just feels like a kick in the teeth for a multiple rape victim and brave woman.

Edit: Yes, the victim DOES come into it. Else why are there "victim impact statements" taken into account in sentencing?

Saipanne · 15-07-2015 03:50PM

brevity wrote: »

What about the victim then? How are they supposed to cope with the fact that the person who has committed a crime against them walks because the judge feels they are honest in their apology?

That's sort of ****ed up IMO.

It is messed up. Some people...

brevity · 15-07-2015 03:54PM

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

The victim doesn't come into it.

The law should work on logic, not emotion. If that was the case you'd have people being murdered on the streets, e.g mob rule... do you want to live in a society similar to that? Go look at some videos of lynchings in Africa or India then get back to me.

There is no logic to me in what Seamus posted. It doesn't make sense to me that if someone says sorry (no matter how sorry they are) then they should walk.

I'm sure there are plenty of sorry people in jail right now for a lot less than rape.

eviltwin · 15-07-2015 03:59PM

I heard he moved back home, I wonder how much this played in the judge's decision. He's no longer resident here therefore not our problem.

seamus · 15-07-2015 04:06PM

brevity wrote: »

What about the victim then? How are they supposed to cope with the fact that the person who has committed a crime against them walks because the judge feels they are honest in their apology?

Sentencing is not about retribution and making victims feel better. If it was, we'd be executing people for stealing handbags.

Ultimately sentencing has to reflect the best outcome for society. There's no point in imposing a sentence which will result in detriment for society.

Imposing a custodial sentence typically is seen as beneficial to society because it serves to take a potential re-offender out of the public circulation, and ideologically at the end will release someone back into public who will not reoffend because they understand why their crime was wrong.

In this particular case, what would society gain by sending him to jail? At the end of it you'd have a man who would probably be sorry that he came forward rather than sorry about his crime, he would be jobless and potentially homeless and stigmatised from getting another job in future.

Rather than benefit society you have in fact damaged it.

I'm really struggling to think of a reason here why this guy should get a prison sentence, when there would be no purpose to it. As sh1tty as that sounds.

Hustveit Case.

Comments