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
Harsh sentence
Comments
-
retro:electro wrote: »You’re basing your replies based on speculation and conjecture, not to mention your own bias opinion and outdated myth. What you would or wouldn’t have done in her position, yet alone what you do or don’t do in the bedroom is of absolutely no interest to anyone. Unless you find yourself on the receiving end of an allegation (which judging by your boastful posts about touching women while they sleep, could be sooner rather than later) your sexual habits are neither here nor there, nor interesting.
So, can you tell me what exactly you’ve read in these reported facts that leads you to conclude she didn’t tell him to gtfo?
His whole defence is built around the fact he mistook her identity while she was unresponsive. The fact she was falling asleep and thus couldn’t consent is not up for debate, not even by the convicted sex offender.
If she was awake as you’re at pains to assume, it would make it a lot harder for him to mistake her identity. You’re literally plucking shlt out of the sky to try and defend an argument that wasn’t even presented in court.
Again I'm basing my replies of the reported facts. I've quoted the victim to backup my claim, what have you quoted other than your mate?
She says she as falling asleep, ergo in a world with logic, she was awake.
You think they reported what he said but just for the craic decided to leave it the incredibly relevant fact that she told him to leave? You don't think her lawyers would have maybe brought that up aa salient piece of info to refute good his claim of why he left the room?
Maybe the reporter didn't think that was relevant in this case.
Why would it be harder to mistake someone's identity when they are awake? You keep saying this without explaining why. Do people all morph into the same image when asleep?
A blonde lying in bed facing the other way looks the same whether she is awake, asleep or dead. She looks like a blonde.
Boastful posts? Are you 12 or something? For crying out loud have a proper discussion or go away and let the grown ups talk. Its embarrassing at this stage0 -
Again I'm basing my replies of the reported facts. I've quoted the victim to backup my claim, what have you quoted other than your mate?
She says she as falling asleep, ergo in a world with logic, she was awake.
You think they reported what he said but just for the craic decided to leave it the incredibly relevant fact that she told him to leave? You don't think her lawyers would have maybe brought that up aa salient piece of info to refute good his claim of why he left the room?
Maybe the reporter didn't think that was relevant in this case.
Why would it be harder to mistake someone's identity when they are awake? You keep saying this without explaining why. Do people all morph into the same image when asleep?
A blonde lying in bed facing the other way looks the same whether she is awake, asleep or dead. She looks like a blonde.
Boastful posts? Are you 12 or something? For crying out loud have a proper discussion or go away and let the grown ups talk. Its embarrassing at this stage
You're wasting your time trying to have a sensible discussion about this topic with certain posters here. For simply creating the thread I was accused of probably having committed similar offences myself. And for stating that touching a vagina did not involve digital penetration, I was told that this demonstrated my attitude to sexual abuse.
There is a bit of man-hateyness about some of the posters and it is impossible to have a reasoned debate with people who have brought predetermined prejudices to the discussion. To counter this, I will reframe my opinion but way of a hypothetical. If a gay friend of mine (or any man for that matter), drunkenly got into bed beside me, grabbed my dick and asked to see my helmet and then got up and left, I would think that a two and a half year sentence was very harsh. In fact, I would think any criminal sanction would be harsh.0 -
You're wasting your time trying to have a sensible discussion about this topic with certain posters here. For simply creating the thread I was accused of probably having committed similar offences myself. And for stating that touching a vagina did not involve digital penetration, I was told that this demonstrated my attitude to sexual abuse.
There is a bit of man-hateyness about some of the posters and it is impossible to have a reasoned debate with people who have brought predetermined prejudices to the discussion. To counter this, I will reframe my opinion but way of a hypothetical. If a gay friend of mine (or any man for that matter), drunkenly got into bed beside me, grabbed my dick and asked to see my helmet and then got up and left, I would think that a two and a half year sentence was very harsh. In fact, I would think any criminal sanction would be harsh.
Agreed. And I guess you, as I, would feel very different if that men deliberately took advantage rather than mistaken identity. The act against you is the same but the context is totally different, hence the outcome should be different.0 -
Agreed. And I guess you, as I, would feel very different if that men deliberately took advantage rather than mistaken identity. The act against you is the same but the context is totally different, hence the outcome should be different.
The act against him is not the same, precisely because it’s framed in a completely different context, which means any outcome is of course going to be different - because it’s based upon an entirely different set of circumstances.
In order to equate the circumstances in some way, in Dante’s scenario it would have to be an act which causes him sufficient offence to make a complaint to the authorities, and only then would he be in any position to determine whether or not the offenders sentence was reasonable or not for the act committed upon him.
Dante’s standards for himself though, have no bearing on the standards in law which apply to everyone in society.0 -
Agreed. And I guess you, as I, would feel very different if that men deliberately took advantage rather than mistaken identity. The act against you is the same but the context is totally different, hence the outcome should be different.
I'm even taking into account that it was not an accident in my opinion that the sentence would be harsh. It is touching someone! No violence, no threats, no coercion. It is completely out of sync with sentencing guidelines for other, more serious violent crimes.0 -
Advertisement
-
The physical act as in a hand on your junk is the same.One eyed Jack wrote: »The act against him is not the same, precisely because it’s framed in a completely different context, which means any outcome is of course going to be different - because it’s based upon an entirely different set of circumstances.
In order to equate the circumstances in some way, in Dante’s scenario it would have to be an act which causes him sufficient offence to make a complaint to the authorities, and only then would he be in any position to determine whether or not the offenders sentence was reasonable or not for the act committed upon him.
Dante’s standards for himself though, have no bearing on the standards in law which apply to everyone in society.0 -
I'm even taking into account that it was not an accident in my opinion that the sentence would be harsh. It is touching someone! No violence, no threats, no coercion. It is completely out of sync with sentencing guidelines for other, more serious violent crimes.
I would feel differently based on the intent or lack thereof.
I'd have to think long and hard about what sentence made sense to me.
Comparing to other sentencing would certainly lead me to think there was something wrong somewhere.0 -
I'm even taking into account that it was not an accident in my opinion that the sentence would be harsh. It is touching someone! No violence, no threats, no coercion. It is completely out of sync with sentencing guidelines for other, more serious violent crimes.
It’s not though. A conviction for sexual assault can carry a sentence of up to 10 years, life imprisonment if a person is convicted of aggravated sexual assault. In this particular case as you point out there were no threats, no violence, no coercion, so it was unlikely he could be convicted of aggravated sexual assault. You keep saying it’s “touching someone”, but it’s not just touching someone. That’s why there are specific criminal offences for specific circumstances - because they depend entirely upon context.
Other more serious violent crimes also carry much harsher sentences according to their sentencing guidelines, so a two and a half year sentence with the last 18 months suspended, meaning he will likely spend less than 12 months in jail, is not unreasonable in this particular case.0 -
The physical act as in a hand on your junk is the same.
Sure, and like I already said for myself - wouldn’t bother me to the point where I would feel threatened by it, I’m perfectly capable of defending myself if I need to and have done in the past, not entirely dissimilar to the scenario Dante presents*, and at the same time I can understand why someone who isn’t me would be traumatised by someone touching their private parts without their permission.
*I was drunk at the time, just not drunk enough to let a fella think he could get away with having a lucky dip!0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »It’s not though. A conviction for sexual assault can carry a sentence of up to 10 years, life imprisonment if a person is convicted of aggravated sexual assault. In this particular case as you point out there were no threats, no violence, no coercion, so it was unlikely he could be convicted of aggravated sexual assault. You keep saying it’s “touching someone”, but it’s not just touching someone. That’s why there are specific criminal offences for specific circumstances - because they depend entirely upon context.
Other more serious violent crimes also carry much harsher sentences according to their sentencing guidelines, so a two and a half year sentence with the last 18 months suspended, meaning he will likely spend less than 12 months in jail, is not unreasonable in this particular case.
I welcome your contributions to the discussion as you are perhaps the only poster who has given reasoned and logical facts as to why you feel the sentence was not harsh.
But, as you know, I disagree. Your reasoning seems more led by allowable legal practice as opposed to practical application of the law. It seems like the accused refused to admit he committed a crime and that is what he received the sentence for.0 -
Advertisement
-
It seems like the accused refused to admit he committed a crime and that is what he received the sentence for.
That’s part of it, plus the fact that even after being found guilty after putting everyone through a trial, he still seemed to refuse to acknowledge he’d done anything wrong, leaving the Judge with not much choice in passing the sentence they did.
Now, if that were most other people in similar circumstances where someone objected to their private parts being touched, we’d apologise and that’d likely be the end of it, because we’d know we made a bad call. This fella doesn’t seem to understand what he did was wrong still, and I know it might not bother you if someone had touched your junk and then claimed they didn’t do anything wrong, but surely you can see how it would bother someone else?0 -
I welcome your contributions to the discussion as you are perhaps the only poster who has given reasoned and logical facts as to why you feel the sentence was not harsh.
But, as you know, I disagree. Your reasoning seems more led by allowable legal practice as opposed to practical application of the law. It seems like the accused refused to admit he committed a crime and that is what he received the sentence for.
Question, why do you keep referring to the 2 and a half year sentence? He will face likely less than a year.... Seems pretty fair given his lack of remorse and the impact upon the victim, it may also actually result in him considering the impact upon the victim.0 -
Question, why do you keep referring to the 2 and a half year sentence? He will face likely less than a year.... Seems pretty fair given his lack of remorse and the impact upon the victim, it may also actually result in him considering the impact upon the victim.
probably bee cause that wad the sentence he received?0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »That’s part of it, plus the fact that even after being found guilty after putting everyone through a trial, he still seemed to refuse to acknowledge he’d done anything wrong, leaving the Judge with not much choice in passing the sentence they did.
Now, if that were most other people in similar circumstances where someone objected to their private parts being touched, we’d apologise and that’d likely be the end of it, because we’d know we made a bad call. This fella doesn’t seem to understand what he did was wrong still, and I know it might not bother you if someone had touched your junk and then claimed they didn’t do anything wrong, but surely you can see how it would bother someone else?
It's not fair to say that he refused to admit he did anything wrong. For all we know, he may even have apologized to the victim. Reading between the lines, his issue seems to be his disagreement with him being charged with a crime. I'm assuming that's why it went to the circuit Court and why it wasn't summarily dealt with in the district court with perhaps a caution. Do you think he had poor representation and/or it would be reduced on appeal?0 -
I guessthe problem is we don't know what went on afterwards. I postedit earlier in the thread but perhaps he did apologise and yet the victim was labelling him as a sex pest up and down the town. In that instance i can see why the accused might not be so contrite.One eyed Jack wrote: »That’s part of it, plus the fact that even after being found guilty after putting everyone through a trial, he still seemed to refuse to acknowledge he’d done anything wrong, leaving the Judge with not much choice in passing the sentence they did.
Now, if that were most other people in similar circumstances where someone objected to their private parts being touched, we’d apologise and that’d likely be the end of it, because we’d know we made a bad call. This fella doesn’t seem to understand what he did was wrong still, and I know it might not bother you if someone had touched your junk and then claimed they didn’t do anything wrong, but surely you can see how it would bother someone else?
This is his sister dragging him through the public courts remember.0 -
Question, why do you keep referring to the 2 and a half year sentence? He will face likely less than a year.... Seems pretty fair given his lack of remorse and the impact upon the victim, it may also actually result in him considering the impact upon the victim.
Because his sentence was two and a half years. 18 months were suspended, but the actual sentence is two and a half years and is relevant to the debate about whether it was harsh.0 -
I guessthe problem is we don't know what went on afterwards. I postedit earlier in the thread but perhaps he did apologise and yet the victim was labelling him as a sex pest up and down the town. In that instance i can see why the accused might not be so contrite.
This is his sister dragging him through the public courts remember.
Sister? Wtf?0 -
-
probably bee cause that wad the sentence he received?
The majority of his sentence was suspended. So the time he is actually due to serve would seem far more relevant. The poster has happily pointed out when other sentences were suspended...(within this thread) So it would seem the shock value is what he's aiming for.
The man was found to be guilty, showed no remorse and has significantly impacted the well being of another via a crime. That is what he was sentence for. It would likely have been a shorter sentence if he showed an ounce of remorse.Because his sentence was two and a half years. 18 months were suspended, but the actual sentence is two and a half years and is relevant to the debate about whether it was harsh.
But happy to point out when a sentence is suspended when it suits....I hope you are correct in that the reporting of this case is incomplete. Because, as presented it does seem harsh and would exhibit a disparity among the judiciary in how justice is administered.
Rape a child -two and a half years.
Stab someone - suspended sentence
Break into a house and beat them - Eighteen months
Touch someone's vagina - two and a half years.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
The majority of his sentence was suspended. So the time he is actually due to serve would seem far more relevant. The poster has happily pointed out when other sentences were suspended...(within this thread) So it would seem the shock value is what he's aiming for.
The man was found to be guilty, showed no remorse and has significantly impacted the well being of another via a crime. That is what he was sentence for. It would likely have been a shorter sentence if he showed an ounce of remorse.
Your very first sentence answers your own question. The sentence is the sentence.0 -
I guessthe problem is we don't know what went on afterwards. I postedit earlier in the thread but perhaps he did apologise and yet the victim was labelling him as a sex pest up and down the town. In that instance i can see why the accused might not be so contrite.
This is his sister dragging him through the public courts remember.
I get what you’re saying, and it’s entirely plausible - brazen it out in front of his family and friends, brazen it out in the community, but when shìt gets serious and he tries to brazen it out in front of a Judge after being found guilty? That’s just begging for the book to be thrown at him like.
I get what you mean too about it being his sister dragging him through the courts, but then it goes back to if she regarded him like a brother, naturally she expects that if he makes a mistake, he understands what he did was wrong. He doesn’t appear to think there was anything wrong with what he did, so either he’s not the sharpest pencil in the box, or he’s just so brazen that he genuinely thinks there was nothing wrong with what he did.0 -
Also that sort of brazen means they could knowingly do it and not see fault with it tbh.One eyed Jack wrote: »I get what you’re saying, and it’s entirely plausible - brazen it out in front of his family and friends, brazen it out in the community, but when shìt gets serious and he tries to brazen it out in front of a Judge after being found guilty? That’s just begging for the book to be thrown at him like.
I get what you mean too about it being his sister dragging him through the courts, but then it goes back to if she regarded him like a brother, naturally she expects that if he makes a mistake, he understands what he did was wrong. He doesn’t appear to think there was anything wrong with what he did, so either he’s not the sharpest pencil in the box, or he’s just so brazen that he genuinely thinks there was nothing wrong with what he did.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I get what you’re saying, and it’s entirely plausible - brazen it out in front of his family and friends, brazen it out in the community, but when shìt gets serious and he tries to brazen it out in front of a Judge after being found guilty? That’s just begging for the book to be thrown at him like.
I get what you mean too about it being his sister dragging him through the courts, but then it goes back to if she regarded him like a brother, naturally she expects that if he makes a mistake, he understands what he did was wrong. He doesn’t appear to think there was anything wrong with what he did, so either he’s not the sharpest pencil in the box, or he’s just so brazen that he genuinely thinks there was nothing wrong with what he did.
I think you misunderstood my point completely!
I'm not saying he brazens it out, I'm saying he apologises profusely for his honest mistake but she is telling any one who will listen the he is some pervert who took advantage and abused her, culminating in taking him to court.
In that scenario in going to find it hard to appear contrite.0 -
I think you misunderstood my point completely!
I'm not saying he brazens it out, I'm saying he apologises profusely for his honest mistake but she is telling any one who will listen the he is some pervert who took advantage and abused her, culminating in taking him to court.
In that scenario in going to find it hard to appear contrite.
I get your point, that’s why I said it’s entirely plausible that what you’re suggesting could have happened, but that wouldn’t explain why he would still maintain that he didn’t do anything wrong in three instances - when he’s appearing before the investigating officers, when he’s appearing in court before a jury, and finally of course at the sentencing hearing. He doesn’t have to appear contrite towards someone who is accusing him of all sorts, the problem is that he still maintains after being found guilty that he doesn’t agree he is guilty of committing an offence.
A jury already found him guilty, his innocence is no longer in question, what matters at a sentencing hearing is whether or not he is prepared to acknowledge his guilt, and he wasn’t. The best the judge could come up with as mitigating factors in suspending part of his sentence are his previous good character and employment history. That’s a Judge trying their best to be fair in spite of what appears to be yer mans best efforts to attract a much more severe sentence.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »A jury already found him guilty, his innocence is no longer in question, what matters at a sentencing hearing is whether or not he is prepared to acknowledge his guilt, and he wasn’t. The best the judge could come up with as mitigating factors in suspending part of his sentence are his previous good character and employment history. That’s a Judge trying their best to be fair in spite of what appears to be yer mans best efforts to attract a much more severe sentence.
Maybe what he doesn't want to acknowledge is not whether he is guilty but that his actions warranted being a crime in the first place. That's what is sounds like to me.
Edit: In case I was taken up wrong, what he did was wrong no doubt. I'm just trying guess his point of view.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I get your point, that’s why I said it’s entirely plausible that what you’re suggesting could have happened, but that wouldn’t explain why he would still maintain that he didn’t do anything wrong in three instances - when he’s appearing before the investigating officers, when he’s appearing in court before a jury, and finally of course at the sentencing hearing. He doesn’t have to appear contrite towards someone who is accusing him of all sorts, the problem is that he still maintains after being found guilty that he doesn’t agree he is guilty of committing an offence.
I see a difference between someone denying they sexually assaulted someone but freely admitting to the facts of what happened on the night in question, which from my reading of the report is what happened here.
Put it another way, would you expect a different sentence for someone who denies the event took place at all but has the same "good character"?
The accused could have denied the entire event and then its a "he said-she said" as there were no other witnesses. But he didnt, he described exactly what happened and why and what his response was. For that to get the same sentence as the person who knowingly assaults someone to me is indicative of something wrong with the system.0
Advertisement