Rapist of 12 year old goes free

flogen

Victor wrote:

Come on

12 year old + drink = no consent

I'm not making justifications or excuses here, I'm trying to figure why the DPP chose to pursue it under statutory rape rather than rape; I would assume that his admitance to statutory rape was one factor but the consent issue was another.
In that respect the girls age doesn't factor, regardless of age drink muddies the water in rape cases because it raises questions about the victim; did they consent, or can they even remember?
The guy gave a twelve year old drink and then had sex with her, he's scum alright, but I'd venture a guess that the DPP took an easier route to secure a conviction, it wouldn't be the first time. Think of this exact same case if the girl was 20; guy gets a girl drunk and has sex with her, how hard would it be to get a rape conviction out of that?

SeanW

I've heard about the possibility of these scumbags could now take action for compensation for 'unlawful' detention.

I believe there should now be a law mandating that anyone making such a claim on this basis must stand for it in public court with no option to conceal their identities> Mr. A, would then have to identify himself.

Our man in Havana

He is known as Mr. A only to protect the identity of the young person concerned.

SeanW

oh ... dear. The case must be a right mess.

walshb

flogen wrote:

I'm not making justifications or excuses here, I'm trying to figure why the DPP chose to pursue it under statutory rape rather than rape; I would assume that his admitance to statutory rape was one factor but the consent issue was another.
In that respect the girls age doesn't factor, regardless of age drink muddies the water in rape cases because it raises questions about the victim; did they consent, or can they even remember?
The guy gave a twelve year old drink and then had sex with her, he's scum alright, but I'd venture a guess that the DPP took an easier route to secure a conviction, it wouldn't be the first time. Think of this exact same case if the girl was 20; guy gets a girl drunk and has sex with her, how hard would it be to get a rape conviction out of that?

Very good point. The DPP should have the guy charged with rape, though I would agree that maybe it was too tall an order to secure and as well maybe the 12 yr old would have had to be brought forward as the witness. The governments have apparently been dithering on this issue since 1990? Absolute disgraceful, so now the guy can claim compensation. The governments are despicable. The Irish laws seem to protect the criminal everytime. Let these people have a defense, but then just tear it to shreds and jail the perverts.

hallelujajordan

ferdi wrote:

The Law is an Ass.

Michael Mc'Dowell is an ass . . Isn't it about time that he started to focus on his day job as justice minister and stopped running around having pointless arguments in an effort to position himself for the next election.

Isn't it also about time that we put the PD's onto the opposition benches where they deserve to be. We have Harney and Mc'Dowell in two of the most important positions in the country, with a tiny fraction of national electoral support and both the health service and the justice system are being run into the ground.

On the issue of the 41 year old I really cannot understand why a 41 yr old who slept with a 12 yr old to whom he had plied alcohol would only be charged and convicted of 'statutory' rape . . Surely that is negligent on the part of the DPP . .

Also, in the Dail yesterdary Enda Kenny was talking about a Mr B who had been convicted of the 'statutory' rape of a 6 yr old . . surely this is just Kenny whooping up the crowd and not a real case.

yop

I don't knw much about Politics but just to vent my anger, shock and sorrow at this situation.
This poor girl has been raped by a bas*tard and her life ruined. She has been let down by our ministers, government and Oireachtas.

Personally I think that McDowell has to go but going by past similar situations Bertie will try and brush it under the carpet.

If anyone is getting an email petition going let us know as I think we need to show how much this is an issue with us and even though I have never voted I will be in the next election to dump out these fukn muppets who are ruining our country

mikep

flogen wrote:

I'm not making justifications or excuses here, I'm trying to figure why the DPP chose to pursue it under statutory rape rather than rape; I would assume that his admitance to statutory rape was one factor but the consent issue was another.


Apparently (according to media sources) the accused are being offered the option of pleading guilty to unlawful carnal knowledge as they are refusing to plead guilty to rape etc...
Rape carries a far longer sentence than U.C.K. therefore the accused take the option of pleading gulity..

Sparks

Schuhart wrote:

Just to reduce the panic factor a little, legislation is being drafted.

And it will not apply to the men now being held solely on the grounds of an unlawful carnal knowlege charge. Who will be free to walk free, literally from yesterday onwards. And who include one lovely gent, described by the courts as being the worst case they'd ever seen, who raped a six-year-old, an eight-year-old and a ten-year old. Why the DPP accepted a plea of unlawful carnal knowlege while knowing that that law was unsound is beyond me. And how there haven't been resignations from the Minister, the AG and the head of the DPP escapes me as well.

Sparks

hallelujajordan wrote:

Also, in the Dail yesterdary Enda Kenny was talking about a Mr B who had been convicted of the 'statutory' rape of a 6 yr old . . surely this is just Kenny whooping up the crowd and not a real case.

It's a real case. B raped a 6-year-old, an 8-year-old and a 10-year-old and pled guilty to statutory rape and not guilty to rape. The DPP prosecuted him on the statutory rape case and he got four life sentences, all of which are now struck out and he can't be retried for rape as they accepted his not-guilty plea on that so he's already been tried.

flogen

Sparks wrote:

And it will not apply to the men now being held solely on the grounds of an unlawful carnal knowlege charge. Who will be free to walk free, literally from yesterday onwards. And who include one lovely gent, described by the courts as being the worst case they'd ever seen, who raped a six-year-old, an eight-year-old and a ten-year old. Why the DPP accepted a plea of unlawful carnal knowlege while knowing that that law was unsound is beyond me. And how there haven't been resignations from the Minister, the AG and the head of the DPP escapes me as well.

that's just it; in that case you mention it's worrying that the DPP sit back and take the easy road, I can't see (and I don't know the full facts of that case, but still) any possibility that a jury would not convict the man of rape.
I also agree that a call for resignations has been surprisingly limited so far; while I understand that this is not a time for political points scoring, it's also a time that highlights the incompetence of our Government and justice system
@mikep, hopefully if/when the DPP decide to explain their decisions it might start doing its job to the full extent of the law

bk

flogen wrote:

that's just it; in that case you mention it's worrying that the DPP sit back and take the easy road, I can't see (and I don't know the full facts of that case, but still) any possibility that a jury would not convict the man of rape.

I think the reason is that they would have to go to trial and therefore the children would need to appear in court. They wanted to avoid that for obviuos reasons.

flogen wrote:

I also agree that a call for resignations has been surprisingly limited so far; while I understand that this is not a time for political points scoring, it's also a time that highlights the incompetence of our Government and justice system

Probably because this problem has existed for many years and every party (except SF) has been in government during that time and therefore are equally guilty of inaction.

flogen

bk wrote:

I think the reason is that they would have to go to trial and therefore the children would need to appear in court. They wanted to avoid that for obviuos reasons.

That's understandable.

Probably because this problem has existed for many years and every party (except SF) has been in government during that time and therefore are equally guilty of inaction.

I don't think any party is without sin on this one, in Government or not, but to think that the Minister for Justice and the Attorney General were both ignorant to a case which challenged a piece of legislation is baffling; they should be watching these kinds of cases even when it's clear the supreme court will uphold the law, instead they claim they didn't know about it until the judgement was made?!! That is where questions of competency really come in.

gandalf

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.

While I hear what you are saying about other parties the current Government have been in power long enough to sort this issue out. Mary Harney admitted this morning that the Dept of Justice were warned about this in 2002 and no action occured because of "information deficit". If that is the case then the head of that Department McDowell should be held responsible for this mess and resign or be fired from his position.

You could guarantee if this was a piece of legislation about rezoning that benefits their cronies this government would have sorted it years ago.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0531/sex.html

Gandalf has hit the nail on the head there imho.

I mean McDowell is the head of the dept of justice,he is also a barrister iirc.If he's not keeping a competent eye on the likes of this he shouldnt be in the job.
He hasnt been.
He is not on top of his job and should go.
If this was happening in the UK, he'd be fired.

My question now is are this incompetent shower going to sit back and relax after they've sorted this one out?
Or are they going to do what we pay them for and check with a fine tooth comb that there isnt any other potential disasterous judgement going to come to make a mockery of the spirit of the law.
Once is enough.

gandalf

And don't forget he was Attorney General for 3 years before he was the Minister for Justice so he should have been aware of this issue from there as well. If he wasn't then he shouldn't have been in that position either.

If I made an error of a fraction of the magnitude of this debacle in my job I would be unemployed quite rapidally at the very minimum. It begs the question what does a minister have to do in this government to get fired ?

Schuhart

Three years ago, in the absence of any concrete case, if a Minister for Justice introduced a Bill amending the 1935 Act to acknowledge that a potentially valid defence was ignorance that a partner was underage, what would have been the likely public reaction?

In the present situation, no-one will complain about such a solution being put on the statute book. But, ultimately, the reason this flawed law was kept on the books and seven offenders will now go free is because many people cannot get beyond an emotional reaction to this issue. It’s a bit like the Rossport Five issue and many others – politicians go where the electorate lead them, and to hell with the consequences.

trippy30

yop wrote:

I don't knw much about Politics but just to vent my anger, shock and sorrow at this situation.
This poor girl has been raped by a bas*tard and her life ruined. She has been let down by our ministers, government and Oireachtas.

Personally I think that McDowell has to go but going by past similar situations Bertie will try and brush it under the carpet.

If anyone is getting an email petition going let us know as I think we need to show how much this is an issue with us and even though I have never voted I will be in the next election to dump out these fukn muppets who are ruining our country

I think if you were really concerned about this issue you would vote SF. All parties are pretty much to blame. Labour and FG do not have clean hands on this.

I think politicising it will and should backfire on them to be honest.

There is a lot of sound bites used by all politcal parties on this issue as far as Im concerned.

Maybe it is a good thing O'Gorman is standing. maybe if he does get elected something will actually happen on this issue.

flogen

Schuhart wrote:

Three years ago, in the absence of any concrete case, if a Minister for Justice introduced a Bill amending the 1935 Act to acknowledge that a potentially valid defence was ignorance that a partner was underage, what would have been the likely public reaction?

The majority reaction, if the issue was properly explained would have been a fair one, of course you cannot ignore the vocal minority who would make a song and dance about it, but you cannot legislate for idiots.

In the present situation, no-one will complain about such a solution being put on the statute book. But, ultimately, the reason this flawed law was kept on the books and seven offenders will now go free is because many people cannot get beyond an emotional reaction to this issue. It’s a bit like the Rossport Five issue and many others – politicians go where the electorate lead them, and to hell with the consequences.

I know you're not excusing them, but if an issue is made of the fact that the government(s) chose to ignore this because they were worried about votes and image rather than the job at hand, maybe it won't happen again. Politicians sometimes need to make unpopular or controversial decisions, if they don't, the Supreme Court will do it for them; when the Justice Minister is told that a law may be unconstitutional or at the very least is unsound it his/her job to act, even if they must walk on eggshells to do so.

trippy30 wrote:

I think if you were really concerned about this issue you would vote SF. All parties are pretty much to blame. Labour and FG do not have clean hands on this.

Are opposition parties not able to raise issues in the Dail anymore? I see your point in that Lab/FG had the direct chance to make a difference, but their coalition lasted just 3 of the 16 years, it wasn't in power when the recommendations were first made in 1990 and it wasn't in power in 2002 when it was again brought to the attention of the Justice Department. For the most part Sinn Fein have had at least one elected representative in the Dail since 1997 and never (to the best of my knowledge) made a point in regards to this issue; they are not innocent in this either, the job of the opposition is to raise issues on which the Government are failing and hold them to account.

I think politicising it will and should backfire on them to be honest.

Indeed, but they don't need to politicise it, they're giving the Government their support in any new legislation but they want to know why they f*cked up so much until now, and that's not a political question, that's something everyone should be asking their Government.

ronbyrne2005

Serious questions have to be asked of the DPP/AG and McDowell etc,plus why is bertie off in new york when this is happening?

zuma

Some conference about AIDs....and of course to hide from the questions!!!!

I wonder if any RTE reporter is over in NY now ready to ask a couple of questions?
AFAIK hes coming back tomorrow!

eoinmadden

bk wrote:

Probably because this problem has existed for many years and every party (except SF) has been in government during that time and therefore are equally guilty of inaction.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Green Party were in government during that time.

constitutionus

Schuhart wrote:

Three years ago, in the absence of any concrete case, if a Minister for Justice introduced a Bill amending the 1935 Act to acknowledge that a potentially valid defence was ignorance that a partner was underage, what would have been the likely public reaction? .

which brings us down to the crux of this issue, political cowardice. they knew about this in 1990! the LRC dont have the authority to state somethings unconstitutional , only the supreme court can do that. but they did point out as strongly as they could that this needed to be sorted out and every mainstream party that got into power ignored it because they were more interested in votes than doing what was best for the interests of the country. now everyones running around throwing up smokescreens to try to cover their own arse (it now turns out the DPP hasnt been prosecuting people under this law sincse last summer because of concerns over its safety, so macdowel is either lying or completly uniformed about whats going on in his department)

AND WHERES BERTIE ON ALL OF THIS. the bastard doesnt have to turn up for a full week in the dail as it is because of the sweetheart deal he did with labour, but to be in the states talking about aids when this ****storm has descended upon the nation is a ****ing disgrace. your the taoiseach bertie, it means leader SO ****ING LEAD:mad: :mad:

fact is the government arrogance is to blame here, they actually thought they couldnt lose the court case and as such made no provision for it. considering how long it take to get a case to the supreme court this is unforgiveable. they could have drafted something on the sly just in case but their own hubris stopped them

flogen

eoinmadden wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Green Party were in government during that time.

No, you're right, it was FF, FG, Labour and the Democratic Left.

constitutionus wrote:

(it now turns out the DPP hasnt been prosecuting people under this law sincse last summer because of concerns over its safety, so macdowel is either lying or completly uniformed about whats going on in his department)

Where is this revelation from? I can't see it in any news sites, but would love to find it.

constitutionus

flogen wrote:

No, you're right, it was FF, FG, Labour and the Democratic Left.



Where is this revelation from? I can't see it in any news sites, but would love to find it.

enda kenny pointed it out in the dail, really flustered macdowel as well

flogen

constitutionus wrote:

enda kenny pointed it out in the dail, really flustered macdowel as well

Thanks, will have a look through the transcript to find it.

Munya

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. 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.

Why coulnt they have this law ready before they threw out the other one?

Also if he piled the girl with drinks and took advantage of her isnt that rape not statuatory rape?

Munya

Solair wrote:

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.

Aww your too nice, the whole government isn't doing its job, period.

flogen

Munya wrote:

Why coulnt they have this law ready before they threw out the other one?

That's the question no-one within the government seems to have a reasonable answer for; the line is that the AG and Minister for Justice didn't know the law was under scrutiny and didn't expect it to be struck down.

Also if he piled the girl with drinks and took advantage of her isnt that rape not statuatory rape?

That's been covered already, it's likely because a rape case would demand the alleged victim take the witness box, something that would be difficult for a child to have to do; in some cases it may have been because the DPP could secure a conviction on statutory rape while rape itself was more difficult to convict on... in this case the man admitted guilt to statutory rape and so a conviction was guarenteed.

Victor

bk wrote:

Probably because this problem has existed for many years and every party (except SF) has been in government during that time and therefore are equally guilty of inaction.

Greens? Socialists?

flogen wrote:

No, you're right, it was FF, FG, Labour and the Democratic Left.

And, um the PDophiles.