Rapist of 12 year old goes free

Elmo

From the Irish Times

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2006/0530/breaking7.htm


"four Bacardi Breezer drinks and two vodkas"


He ****ing drugged her.

What the hell is going on in this country?

Hobbes

Ok I can understand the other guy who claimed he didn't know the age of the girl, but this guy knew full well what he was doing when he raped the girl.

Can't read the link, do you have a text or alternate version?

Zulu

Link doesn't work.

constitutionus

cant say im surprised, in fact this will be the first of at least 6 . when the law was struck out it not only rendered the law illeagal but means it never existed at all because it violates a constitutional right, which is the supreme law of the land, and as such ALL convicted under it WILL be freed. no matter how sick the offence
the **** boys and girls is seriously about to hit the fan :mad: my question now is, where the **** is the government. they eneacted law in single day to protect the banks and the beef industry and these feckers are going on holiday now

scrattletrap

I am so ashamed of our government. How long did it take them to ban "magic mushrooms" after a Joe Duffy show, but this that effects the lives of thousands of people and their families is allowed to go unchecked.
I for one feel a protest coming on, whose with me!!

Schuhart

The judgement in the original case is here:

http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/877f6b6773b3dcee80257177003c6586?OpenDocument

They seem to say that, while it is constitutional to have some law making consent irrelevant in the case of an underage girl, the details of such a law would need to be set out in an Act, and not just made up by the Court looking into its own heart. Presumably this means there is no valid law in existence.

This law was identified years ago as being potentially unconstitutional for the reason found. But, presumably, no Minister up to this would have been rushing to make the required change to say that a person having biblical knowledge of a young wan with her consent might claim a defence that he thought she was old enough. Hardly a point that's easy to explain in a charged agenda.

ISAW

scrattletrap wrote:

I am so ashamed of our government. How long did it take them to ban "magic mushrooms" after a Joe Duffy show, but this that effects the lives of thousands of people and their families is allowed to go unchecked.
I for one feel a protest coming on, whose with me!!

The decision is not a week old and government cabinet meet on Tuesdays. Legislation will arrive. It took more than a week to ban magic mushrooms. they were been sold for over a year in fact in Cork.

It isnt going unchecked. One can not make a retroactive penal law. It isnt the governments fault. courts struck down the law which existed before the Irish constitution was written. It was a government in the 1920s I think that brought it in.

Solair

It shows that there is an urgent need to proactively test our criminal legislation for constitutionality. There are plenty of laws that are fundemental to the criminal justice system that predate the constitution.

It seems to me that the Department of Justice, Equality and *LAW REFORM* isn't doing its job very well.

Nevyn

The law was placed on the books in 1935.

these links show what happened from last thurday to today.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0523/sex.html
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0524/sexoffences.html
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0530/rape.html

There are several cases pending that have been but on hold as well until this is sorted out.

the_syco

Seemingly they're trying to also add in to law a bit that says "if the person is within 2 years" of age of the other person (if one is underaged, and its consensual), its OK, but other than that, it'd be illegal. This would mean that the 38yo man would be able to be rearrested and sentenced under the new law. If they held him, couldn't the state could be sued for false imprisonment, as the law that originally bound him no longer existed?

The "2 year" law would enable a 18 year old to shag a 16 year old. It also "equalizes" the law that says that girls can't have sex @ a certain age (I think its 16) whilst boys legally could.

Finally, the law also said that if a woman had sex with an underaged boy, she'd face the same criminal charges that a man would have taken against him if he had sex with an underaged girl.

metrovelvet

At what age is it considered child rape?

dahamsta

ISAW wrote:

The decision is not a week old and government cabinet meet on Tuesdays.

The cabinet doesn't meet in emergencies? We can schedule the coup d'etat for a Wednesday.

ISAW

Hobbes wrote:

Ok I can understand the other guy who claimed he didn't know the age of the girl, but this guy knew full well what he was doing when he raped the girl.

Can't read the link, do you have a text or alternate version?

As I see it he cant be charged or convicted under the old law i.e. the State can not automatically assume rape and he is entitled to a defence. Sa they could in theory still charge him with rape.

He is entitled to a defence. Assuming a person of about 40 did ply a twelve year old with drink and took her from a pub for the purpose of sex then I think it would be difficult for that person to convince a jury that it was consentual sex.

ISAW

Ken Shabby wrote:

The cabinet doesn't meet in emergencies? We can schedule the coup d'etat for a Wednesday.

emergency legislation such as the Emergency powers Act is not in force. If an attempted coup did indeed happen Emergency powers might then well apply.

Time Magazine

the_syco wrote:

This would mean that the 38yo man would be able to be rearrested and sentenced under the new law. If they held him, couldn't the state could be sued for false imprisonment, as the law that originally bound him no longer existed?

No. If a law in brought in tomorrow that says posting on boards is illegal none of us will face conviction unless we do it from tomorrow on. That is to say, as ISAW said, law is not retrospective. It only takes force from the moment of enactment (or stated day).

So, yes, basically that means you you can go and do things to young children today and not face prosecution.

Time Magazine

Ken Shabby wrote:

The cabinet doesn't meet in emergencies? We can schedule the coup d'etat for a Wednesday.

This isn't that much of an emergency like a coup. At the very least, the govt needs a few days to calm down to think about how exactly they want the law.

Would you rather rushed legislation with a loophole in it on a Monday or an Act that had no loopholes on a Wednesday?

zuma

the_syco wrote:

Seemingly they're trying to also add in to law a bit that says "if the person is within 2 years" of age of the other person (if one is underaged, and its consensual), its OK, but other than that, it'd be illegal. This would mean that the 38yo man would be able to be rearrested and sentenced under the new law.

Cant be tried for the same crime twice.....that film Double Jeopardy taught me that!

The new law will make a 99yo shagging a 16 year old legal.....as well as allowing a 2 year gap between legal...ie 14 yo with a 16yo would be fine.

DublinWriter

constitutionus wrote:

cant say im surprised, in fact this will be the first of at least 6 .

...and more if you consider those that have already served prison terms who will now sue the State for past wrongful imprisonment

They will probably receive 100's of thousands of Euro in compensation.

It will make the Army Deafness claims look like small change.

And to add insult to injury, as it's a bank holiday next week, the Dail is taking *the whole week* off.

We must be the laughing stock of Europe after the whole Curtain affair and now this.

It is just me or can't we make leglislation in this country? Consider how the very well off manage to wriggle out of most drink driving cases through very well paid and high profile Barristers.

constitutionus

not to mention all these sickos will be able to get off the sex offenders list seeing as their crimes didnt "exist" :rolleyes: hell if they lost a job over being on the list theres another court compo case in the making

metrovelvet

Does this mean a lot of the clergy will also be released and get compensation.

I would not like to be a parent in Ireland, knowing these people will walk the streets to do it all over again.

I hope Europeans and Americans will have the sense to boycott travel to Ireland until they fix this.

dahamsta

Ahern's and McDowell's attempts to downplay this issue are just that little bit creepy.

Schuhart

Just to reduce the panic factor a little, legislation is being drafted. That’s not to say the fact we’re in this situation gives great confidence in our maturity as a nation. But such remedial action as can be taken is being taken.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0530/sex.html
Government to draw up new sex legislation
May 30, 2006 19:44
The Taoiseach has said the Government will aim to draw up legislation by the weekend to plug the loophole created by last week's Supreme Court ruling.

metrovelvet wrote:

Does this mean a lot of the clergy will also be released and get compensation.

Rape is still an offence. However, sex with a girl of any age who consents is no longer automatically deemed to be rape. I don’t think any of the cases you have in mind involved consensual sex.

From what is reported in the media there seems to be about half a dozen people currently in prison who probably will be released because this law has been struck out. So, other than those specific cases, anyone jailed for abusing children will serve their time.

DublinWriter

metrovelvet wrote:

I hope Europeans and Americans will have the sense to boycott travel to Ireland until they fix this.

You're right, in a roundabout way.

I've been monitoring the European media over this, and there hasn't been a squeak so far, not even in tabloid-driven UK.

There's huge potential international embarrasment for the Irish Government, especially with Bertie attending a UN conference over the next couple of days.

Having said that, this issue was flagged 16 years ago by the Legal Reform Committee, just as was the whole Nursing Home charges fiasco.

It astounds me now that when the Supreme Court first overturned the 1937 act, McDowell got on the Pat Kenny show last week and spewed on about there being no loopholes, and Bertie went on the 6-1 news and stated that prisoners would have to take 'individual cases'.

Well Bertie, they are taking 'individual cases'.

The bewigged-wonders better start burning the midnight oil fast on this, including closing any legal mechanisms whereby ex-prisioners can start claiming compensation.

If the current FF/PD Junta think that Irish taxpayers will be happy having their tax Euros spent on compensating child-rapists, then they're in for a *very* rude awakening.

ronbyrne2005

what were the details of the case? why was a 12 year left alone with a 40 year old man and alcohol? how did it come to court? did girl complain of rape or did parents find out? if she comlained of assualt/rape why didnt prosecution go for a normal rape charge(as she was drunk and not in position to consent or did she consent while drunk?) rather than illegal carnal knowledge/statutory rape

constitutionus

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

what were the details of the case? why was a 12 year left alone with a 40 year old man and alcohol? how did it come to court? did girl complain of rape or did parents find out? if she comlained of assualt/rape why didnt prosecution go for a normal rape charge(as she was drunk and not in position to consent or did she consent while drunk?) rather than illegal carnal knowledge/statutory rape

dont know the details on how he got left with the girl but he the DPP is the one who decides what act the guy gets charged with and seeing as the statutory rape charge means they dont have to put the kid in the dock its the one most used in these cases. in fact macdowel was forced to admit that the DPP was still using this act to prosecute people even up to a couple of weeks ago so potentially all those people could get off the hook depending on how far their cases are

trippy30

Way I see it, since 1990 this issue hasnt been dealt with.

Its not good enough, and every party has failed.

Hopefully it will be resolved soon.

The only exception is SF, as they have not been in power.

flogen

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

what were the details of the case? why was a 12 year left alone with a 40 year old man and alcohol? how did it come to court? did girl complain of rape or did parents find out? if she comlained of assualt/rape why didnt prosecution go for a normal rape charge(as she was drunk and not in position to consent or did she consent while drunk?) rather than illegal carnal knowledge/statutory rape

Perhaps (and the DPP never explains itself) they went for statutory rape rather than just rape because they had a better chance of conviction; when alcohol comes into the mix it becomes messy in regards to consent, if you're drunk and you consent, does it count? What if you can't remember if you consented or not?
Basically there was no denying (and the man admitted to) the fact that he had sex with someone under the age of consent, and so it was an easier conviction.

Of course now he can't be re-tried, regardless of any new law, the legislation that does come through runs the risk of being taped together (as emergency legislation often is), and at least one self-confessed rapist (and I suppose paedophile) is on our streets again.
The LRC recommended change in 1990, from what I can see the successive Justice Ministers didn't even make any movements towards change, they say it's a complex law and a delicate issue but it doesn't seem to me that they even tried to tackle it at all.

When was it first warned that the law could be unconstitutional? The LRC in 1990 never used that term, was there any official comment to that effect before the Supreme Court judgement?

ferdi

The Law is an Ass.

flogen

trippy30 wrote:

Way I see it, since 1990 this issue hasnt been dealt with.

Its not good enough, and every party has failed.

Hopefully it will be resolved soon.

The only exception is SF, as they have not been in power.

Fianna Fail have been in power for all but three of the sixteen years since the recommendations; the PD's on the other hand spent just 5 years in opposition since 1990. That's not to say that FG, Labour or the Greens have clean hands in this incident, but IMO the parties in power today had the most consistent chance to make changes, and were in power when the problems were first highlighted.
Also, while it is the job of the government to make legislation, the opposition should act as a monitor of sorts; no party brought the issue up in recent years; McDowell claims he and the Attorney General didn't even know about the Supreme Court case, I would have expected an opposition TD to raise the point over the past few months (to the effect of "the LRC say changes need to be made, are the government reviewing the situation and are you prepared to alter the legislation should it be deemed unconstitutional?")
I think this is a failure for the Oireachtas as a whole and an issue that raises even more doubt on McDowell's abilities

Victor

flogen wrote:

Perhaps (and the DPP never explains itself) they went for statutory rape rather than just rape because they had a better chance of conviction; when alcohol comes into the mix it becomes messy in regards to consent, if you're drunk and you consent, does it count? What if you can't remember if you consented or not?

Come on

12 year old + drink = no consent

trippy30

flogen wrote:

I think this is a failure for the Oireachtas as a whole

I agree with that completely, ultimately I think what matters here is child protection. To me it seems govt and opposition are really not ontop of this as an issue.

Im both shocked and saddened its becoming politicised in a way.
Its too serious an issue for what seems to me to be point scoring.

I hope when the legislation is passed its robust - so in some ways the ugency some stress for it might be a little short sighted.

As for the DPP - its a disgrace they dont have to explain themsleves