Rapist wins lottery

AngelofFire

make him pay half to the victim and rape crisis support groups.

Hobbes

Just goes to show that God does have a sense of humour.

ferdi

RAPIST'S LOTTERY JACKPOT

BY DAVID BRUCE

A LEEDS rapist responsible for a string of vicious sex attacks over a 15-year period has won £7m on the Lotto.
Iorworth Hoare, now 52, won the money while on weekend leave in a North-East bail hostel.


His win has sparked outrage – but also raised the question of whether his victims could now sue him for compensation.
Hoare, once described by his lawyer as a man with a personality disorder that could not be treated, committed a catalogue of sex crimes that prompted a judge to tell him: "Every moment you are at liberty, some woman is at risk."
He was jailed for life in May 1989 for attempting to rape a 59-year-old retired schoolteacher in Roundhay Park, Leeds.
But Hoare had a string of earlier convictions for offences against women:
He was jailed for three years at Leeds in 1973 for attempted rape.
In November 1975, he was caged for four years at Exeter for attempted rape.
In September 1978, at Leeds, he was imprisoned for four years for indecent assault and assault.
In June 1983, at Leeds Crown Court, he was sentenced to seven years for rape and indecent assault – and was released in November 1987.
Less than two years later he was back inside after attacking the terrified retired teacher in Roundhay Park, Leeds. He denied the charge.
Bizarrely, Hoare, formerly of Seacroft Gate, Leeds, was trapped by a photograph he sent to a television station in a effort to be chosen for the Winner Takes All quiz show.
He had gone on the run after attacking the teacher and was living in the Channel Islands when he sent his name, address and phone number to the show's producers. He also included a passport photograph – which a researcher from the programme recognised.
Under Home Office guidelines, prisoners in open conditions – on a day release or community project – are allowed to take part in the National Lottery and claim prizes. They can also play the football pools and buy Premium Bonds.
Swooped
Before the win Hoare was a category D prisoner at Leyhill open prison and was spending weekend leave at Middlesbrough.
But, once news of his Lotto win spread, police swooped on the bail hostel in Middlesbrough and returned Hoare to prison.
Officials were concerned the millionaire sex fiend might use his wealth to flee the country.
Dave Hines, a trustee of the national campaign Victims' Voice and a member of the Home Office victims advisory panel said: "It is quite galling that a man like this can keep so much money when victims and victims' groups groups are desperate for cash."
A Prison Service spokeswoman said that Hoare would be allowed to claim his £7m prize but would be prevented from spending any of the cash outside the strict prison limits - usually about £2 a day.

and the man of the moment....

ixoy

Interesting case. As the law stands, I don't think they can, or should, take it off him. His punishment is his prison sentence. It didn't specify, in this case, any personal wealth that he may acrue.
What also, of course, should be done is for him to give a sizeable portion away by way of restitution to the victim. Firstly, if he's sly, it will show to any potential appeals board, that he's sorry for his crimes and wants to make good on them. Secondly, it's the bloody right thing to do. Although money can't heal scars, it can help them move on a bit elsewhere in their lives. I'm not sure how civil cases work in the U.K. (can only recall the O.J. civil case) but it's certainly something to consider if the guy doesn't want to give away the money (not like he can make much use of it being on a life sentence).

lee_baby_simms

imagine how many cans of mace you could get for that...

Phil_321

They should give him the money in full and unconditionally and then insert a clause in the competition guidelines to ensure that, in future, people with serious criminal records(ie. served time in jail) are disqualified from entering.

seamus

Phil_321 wrote:

They should give him the money in full and unconditionally and then insert a clause in the competition guidelines to ensure that, in future, people with serious criminal records(ie. served time in jail) are disqualified from entering.

Why?
Once they are no longer in jail, have they not "repaid their debt to society", in the eyes of the law? Why should they not be afforded the right to participate in a game?

ecksor

I think that's the main point to debate here. Apparently people don't actually think that serving the jail sentence that's awarded by the court and subsequently imposed by the justice system is actually suitable punishment for any given crime. It's a fairly typical attitude in my opinion, but also a wrong one. If people feel so strongly about convicts rights, then why not try to get the justice system altered so that punishments are stronger. I think McDowell is trying to help out there already anyway. (I know that case is in the UK, but it could just as easily occur here, no?).

Phil_321

seamus wrote:

Why?
Once they are no longer in jail, have they not "repaid their debt to society", in the eyes of the law? Why should they not be afforded the right to participate in a game?

Maybe in the eyes of the law they've repaid their debt to society but in the eyes of the general public, murders, paedophiles, etc.... can never really fully repay their debt. And it's the general public's money that they're receiving. Why should they benefit from society when they commit serious crimes against it?
This guy should get the money because there is no rule at present saying people with "serious" criminal records can't enter.
But in future I'd like to see such a rule, like the one that restricts people with criminal records from travelling to the U.S.

seamus

But the justice system is society, and if it says he's paid his debt, then society says that he has paid his debt.

If society thinks otherwise, then it should change the justice system to something it prefers instead of marginalising people.

Phil_321

The justice system might say they've repaid their debt but that doesn't mean automatic forgiveness from the general public. Your average citizen is not going to want to associate with them in future, and they are going to have a hard time getting jobs, etc.... That's just the way it is.

ecksor

Just because they haven't been forgiven doesn't justify not paying the money after introducing your rule. It undermines any aspirations towards rehabilitating criminals.

AngryBadger

Lemming wrote:

He's been given time. He was released by the government who either deemed him to not be a threat, or had served the full sentence handed him. At this point the lottery organisers are behaving like vigilantes, deciding what "additional" punishment he should receive.

He hasn't been released, he's been moved to a higher security prison, or section of the prison.

Shouldn't have had the ability to do the Lotto in the first palce, the whole point of prison is to punish people by removing their civil liberties, shouldn't receive the money, distribute it to his victims, or at least give it back to charity. End of story.

SkepticOne

I haven't seen anything in the online news about the UK lottery thinking about not paying out. The nearest think I can find is the suggestion that victims may now be able to s for damages. Prior to the win, he would not have been worth suing.

BrianD3

From what I can see, the case is cut and dried. There are no grounds for Camelot to refuse to pay out. Camelot themselves have stated this. As always, it's the British gutter media (eg tabloids and Sky News) that are whipping this whole thing up into a frenzy.

As regards the rapist's victims sueing him by bringing a civil case - according to a legal expert on The Last Word (Today fm) this will be very difficult if not impossible due to the period of time since the crimes were committed. Apparently, In UK law, you must bring a civil action within 6 years of any criminal conviction for a crime of sexual assault. For other crimes, it's 3 years.

Another point I'd like to make is: I can't help thinking that if the lottery winner had been guilty of a different, but still extremely serious crime (eg if he murdered someone or beat them so badly that they'll be in a wheel chair and needing constant care for the rest of their life) there would not be nearly as much moral outrage over this. Anything related to sexual assault or paedophilia seems to bring out extreme (and hysterical IMO) reactions in people. Of course rape is a terrible crime but isn't murder equally bad if not worse.

If anyone wants an example of these extreme viewpoints check out the "should rapists be castrated" thread on the humanities board and read what punishments people think should be handed out to convicted rapists. Everything from execution to torture to genital mutilation to rape itself.

Other rape related hysteria includes numerous claims of date rapes involving druggings with Rohypnol (no evidence to back up these claims according to the Toxicology experts in the Irish State Laboratory) and dubious rape statistics (eg the infamous 1 in 4 women have been raped stat that came from the US)

I know this is polictically incorrect viewpoint - anyone agree with it?

BrianD3

Thordon

anyone agree with it

I do.

Of course rape is a terrible crime but isn't murder equally bad if not worse

Far worse, theyre not even comparable, but they are treated similarly by society.

Not to make rape sound acceptable in any way, but the stigma of rape is far worse than it should be comparably.

swiss

You know, theres a reason why they call it a "lottery".

I recall an advertisement Camelot ran a few years ago. An etheral hand wandered around the Country, pointing at various people while a booming voice intoned "it's you!". The person in question was then ecstatic about his/her lottery win. This time the person is a convicted rapist, pure scum, vile, etc and so on and so forth. Not exactly sterling promotional material, but is just as valid a winner as the cancer victim whose life may have been saved her lottery win.

If this person shouldn't get the money, where do we draw the line when we decide who gets a lottery win and who does not? Should he have been allowed to play in the first place? I mean, no matter how bad he is, it would be pretty silly to suggest that he should be allowed spend £2 every so often on his quick pick, without any hope of ever seeing any return in the form of a win.

He won. Everyone else lost. It seems horribly unfair and unjust. But you either apply a set of rules fairly or not at all.

beer enigma

Thordon wrote:

I do.


Far worse, theyre not even comparable, but they are treated similarly by society.

Not to make rape sound acceptable in any way, but the stigma of rape is far worse than it should be comparably.

I don't believe you even said that - rape victims live with it for life - check out the suicide rate of rape victims & then comment.

The statute time for suing the rapist has passed, so the victims family cant sue - in truth they don't want to anyway - no amount of monay can compensate.

My main concern would be that while this guy is in prison, he should have his civil liberties removed until he has completed his sentence. The act of purchasing a ticket implies a freedom to which this guy is not yet entitled. What was he doing on day release anyway !

Phil_321

ecksor wrote:

Just because they haven't been forgiven doesn't justify not paying the money after introducing your rule. It undermines any aspirations towards rehabilitating criminals.

I think this guy should get the money cos there is no current clause to this effect.

In the future though, if someone commits a crime that ruins the lives of other members of society, however well they may be rehabilitated during their sentence, they should not have the opportunity to become millionaires in a public lottery.
It's a real sickener for the victims and the general public to see this prick get £7 million when his whole life he has contributed nothing and only caused pain. It shouldn't be allowed to happen again.

seamus

Phil_321 wrote:

I think this guy should get the money cos there is no current clause to this effect.

In the future though, if someone commits a crime that ruins the lives of other members of society, however well they may be rehabilitated during their sentence, they should not have the opportunity to become millionaires in a public lottery.
It's a real sickener for the victims and the general public to see this prick get £7 million when his whole life he has contributed nothing and only caused pain. It shouldn't be allowed to happen again.

Yeah, but it's a lottery. The whole point is that one can be lucky enough to win a lot of money, whether it be the lowest piece of scum on earth or a shining pillar of society.

Why start culling people who you don't think deserve it. It might suck for the family of the victim, but hey that's life. **** happens. If the same person went on to become a multi-millionaire through hard work, it would also be a kick in the family's teeth - would you prevent former criminals from earning above a certain wage?

ecksor

Phil_321 wrote:

I think this guy should get the money cos there is no current clause to this effect.

Aye, I saw you say that, that's why I included "after introducing your rule".

Phil_321 wrote:

In the future though, if someone commits a crime that ruins the lives of other members of society, however well they may be rehabilitated during their sentence, they should not have the opportunity to become millionaires in a public lottery.

What about local church raffles or by betting at the local bookies? What principle do you use to figure out who to apply your line of thinking to and how to restrict it? What about the fortunate cases who win money that was paid into lottery coffers by convicts, is that also wrong? Is it wrong that convicted criminal's money might find its way into the sorts of projects that lottery money funds?

LegacyUser

the lottery is a tax on the stupid, so whoever wins it, regardless of circumstances, is a stupid person taking millions of other stupid peoples money, thats my worthless 2 cents

BaZmO*

bananayoghurt wrote:

thats my worthless 2 cents

You said it!!!