Rapist of 12 year old goes free

mike65

from iol

Controversial Government legislation on under-age sex today passed through all stages in the Dáil without a vote.

The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2006 secured the majority support of the House except for a number of independent TDs.

The legislation was then sent to the Seanad where Justice Minister Michael McDowell will introduce it to Senators before they debate its provisions.

After over four hours of debate in the Dáil, Leas Ceann Comhairle, Seamus Pattison cited Standing Order 68 and declared that the legislation and its amendments had passed its first four stages.

He adjourned the Dáil until 2.30pm on Wednesday, thus interrupting a planned 10-day June bank holiday recess for TDs.

With a large Government majority in the Seanad, it is likely the Bill will pass its final Oireachtas stages in late afternoon before going to the president for her signature.

Mike.

Tuars

When it comes to threats to the state such as pregnant illegal immigrants and Frank Connolly Michael McDowell wastes no time in driving a coach-and-four through the law and amending the constitution at a whim.

I guess child-rapists don't count as threats to the state in his book. Hence the lack of urgency.

mike65

The supreme court has overturned Mr As' appeal and he can be re-arrested.

Mike.

Our man in Havana

Now, to see if Mr A can be found. I wonder if he has bought a 1 way ticket to Bolivia?

mike65

Mr A arrested. Clearly the fuzz had the jump on him before the news got out.

Mike,

Cork

Mr A is back in jail.

After the media frezy and OTT rantings from our crap opposition - this guy is behind bars.

Must admit Bertie and Michael McDowell were both were right. Waiting for the conclusion of the Supreme Court was correct.

The opposition and media hit the bottle of the barrel.

Crash

Evening Herald headline:

"Mr A flees to seaside resort!!"

then in tiny writing "Child abuser staying in Bray."

bit of a hype up there.

Cork

&#231 wrote: »

Evening Herald headline:

"Mr A flees to seaside resort!!"

then in tiny writing "Child abuser staying in Bray."

bit of a hype up there.

The opposition and media were whiping an ugly frenzy.

Bertie and Michael McDowell gave a reasoned response.

The opposition were mad for votes and the media wanted ratings/sales.

Completely mad.

We must have the worst opposition partys in the EU.

constitutionus

Cork wrote:

The opposition and media were whiping an ugly frenzy.

Bertie and Michael McDowell gave a reasoned response.

The opposition were mad for votes and the media wanted ratings/sales.

Completely mad.

We must have the worst opposition partys in the EU.

as opposed to an incompetant and negligant minister for justice and a coward for a taoiseach. honestly would any other world leader feck off to the states under these circumstances? we know he doesnt like to be accountable in the dail but this is going too far!

oh and as for MR A five words for you. european court of human rights. he's gonna be back out

Ray777

Cork wrote:

We must have the worst opposition partys in the EU.

I agree entirely. That such an appalling government can emerge unscathed from cock-up after cock-up, and get re-elected (probably twice), is largely down to the spineless, benign opposition parties. It's no wonder Fianna Fail have become so arrogant - with such a useless opposition, who would blame them?

lostexpectation

phone poll in the sindo says people think rory brady was most to blame (was there really a poll, who cares)

gilroyb

lostexpectation wrote:

phone poll in the sindo says peopel think rory brady was most to blame (was the really a poll, who cares)

Justice Big Brother style. Impressive.

I think a lot of the commentary on this issue is baseless. After the written Supreme Court judgement is published there should be a much improved grounding for sorting out who was to blame. Until then, I think this issue is best left to cool down.

Schuhart

constitutionus wrote:

oh and as for MR A five words for you. european court of human rights. he's gonna be back out

I think you have a point here. I've seen very little discussion of just how unlikely the Supreme Court's decision was. I know that, to an extent, people might be waiting for sight to the written judgement. But, from my understanding of the case, I have sympathy for the view that "someone is in jail because the Supreme Court gave more credence to what it heard on the Joe Duffy show than any amount of legal argument."

lostexpectation

Schuhart wrote:

I think you have a point here. I've seen very little discussion of just how unlikely the Supreme Court's decision was. I know that, to an extent, people might be waiting for sight to the written judgement. But, from my understanding of the case, I have sympathy for the view that "someone is in jail because the Supreme Court gave more credence to what it heard on the Joe Duffy show than any amount of legal argument."

one of the judges was quite pissed off when someone suggested this on friday and made sure there was rebuked of the rte journo and his accusation of delaying a hearing till his difficulties were sorted by the supreme court doing a U-turn from its 'appalling vista'

dermot_sheehan

Schuhart wrote:

I think you have a point here. I've seen very little discussion of just how unlikely the Supreme Court's decision was. I know that, to an extent, people might be waiting for sight to the written judgement. But, from my understanding of the case, I have sympathy for the view that "someone is in jail because the Supreme Court gave more credence to what it heard on the Joe Duffy show than any amount of legal argument."

It's all speculation until the written judgement comes out, whilst most people expected the state's appeal to fail, there could be several reasons why retrospective relief was denied, we have to await the written judgement.


Also ECHR can not order the release of anyone, they can only award damages against Ireland for violating the convention.

Schuhart

lostexpectation wrote:

one of the judges was quite pissed off when someone suggested this on friday and made sure there was rebuked of the rte journo and his accusation of delaying a hearing till his difficulties were sorted by the supreme court doing a U-turn from its 'appalling vista'

I'm afraid I don't follow what you are saying here. I get some picture that you are saying an RTE jounalist was rebuked by a judge for suggesting something along the lines that they were framing their opinion on the basis of what we might call natural justice (which Joe Duffy would probably call 'common sense') rather than law. Maybe its just me, but I find the detail of what you are saying hard to make out.

gabhain7 wrote:

It's all speculation until the written judgement comes out, whilst most people expected the state's appeal to fail, there could be several reasons why retrospective relief was denied, we have to await the written judgement.

Essentially you are right, but I do think there needs to be more of an air of awaiting the judgement with interest. Most of the coverage I've seen seems to be about how much of the 'blame' (for whatever it is people think 'blame' is due) should be laid at the door of the Attorney General.
I just find myself remembering Laffoy saying she could not envisage even holding A in custody pending the appeal, as there was simply no basis for it. It is hard to see how that certainty - which no-one really questioned - could be so totally turned around.

democrates

gilroyb wrote:

I think a lot of the commentary on this issue is baseless. After the written Supreme Court judgement is published there should be a much improved grounding for sorting out who was to blame. Until then, I think this issue is best left to cool down.

The heat is unavoidable really. The media thrive on controversy, there is huge public interest, and the opposition would be remiss in letting an oppertunity to slam the government slip by.

On the upside, this attention can put resources for child welfare, the treatment of victims in the legal process, and a thorough review of the antiquated 1935 act on the agenda.

coolhandluke

gilroyb wrote:

I think a lot of the commentary on this issue is baseless. After the written Supreme Court judgement is published there should be a much improved grounding for sorting out who was to blame. Until then, I think this issue is best left to cool down.

Eh, political decision anyone. cough cough !.
While i'm happy with the decision because i wouldn't want to see a load of dirtbags getting released on another mickey mouse technicality,don't try and insult my intelligence either.

constitutionus

coolhandluke wrote:

Eh, political decision anyone. cough cough !.
While i'm happy with the decision because i wouldn't want to see a load of dirtbags getting released on another mickey mouse technicality,don't try and insult my intelligence either.

i agree with this, it prettly damn obvious that political preasure was applied here and the subsequent rejailing of MR A has more to do with political correctness and saving macdowels and the governments hide than law. theres a good case here to question weather a devolution of the seperation of powers has occured here. i'll be the first to say im happy to see the scumbag jailed but democratically speaking this is a bad precedent, the supreme court has to be seen to be seperate to the political system (despite the fact you need political backing to get a job as a judge:rolleyes: )

in fact thers been a fair amount of insulting of the publics intelligence on this issue. does Macdowel seriously think that we believe him when he says that in a dept as big and important as justice that no one is keeping an eye on the goings on in the supreme court? for gods sake all political parties have people soley dedicated to whats being said about them in the press! this kinda hubris will come back and hit him in the ass

ISAW

I don't think we need wait on any judgement to discuss this issue. One has to distinguish between rape and child abuse. It is obvious when some pedeophile say collects pictures of children (particularly females) when they are children and when they arent. But is this a different crime? Are children who physically appear different, different to a sixteen year old? Accdording to the statutory rape law they are no different. Maybe we colud distinguish in they way and make rape of a child have higher penalties.

But then we are into the argument that some women have small or no breasts and the child looked like an adult. In which case one could argue that any young girl who makes herself up and gets fake ID drinks alcohol and picks up men in a pub/club and has consentual sex is not being raped.

I am not keen on having a strict law. some girls of ten may be developed enough to have children, some of sixteen may look like an average ten year old. If one argues that the mind is prepared before the body then we are only playing into the hands of those that sexualise children earlier.

I would like to know:

Does anyone have sympathy for a male meeting someone in a night club and having sex and then finding out she is fifteen or sixteen? Should that be a crime? Should it be rape? She was admitted say and had a drink for people over eighteen and certainly looked physically like an adult. Is the guy raping her? According to the law he is. Should he not in this case have some defence.

If a woman of twenty has concentual sex with a sixteen year old boy she commits no crime. If a man of twenty does it with a sixteen year old girl he commits a crime. Is that okay? She could loose her job as a teacher say but she could not be put in prision. A man in similar circumstances is guilty of rape.

If a male aged fourteen has sex with a sixteen year old female he is guilty of rape but her not. Is that acceptable?

axer

ISAW wrote:

I don't think we need wait on any judgement to discuss this issue. One has to distinguish between rape and child abuse. It is obvious when some pedeophile say collects pictures of children (particularly females) when they are children and when they arent. But is this a different crime? Are children who physically appear different, different to a sixteen year old? Accdording to the statutory rape law they are no different. Maybe we colud distinguish in they way and make rape of a child have higher penalties.

But then we are into the argument that some women have small or no breasts and the child looked like an adult. In which case one could argue that any young girl who makes herself up and gets fake ID drinks alcohol and picks up men in a pub/club and has consentual sex is not being raped.

I am not keen on having a strict law. some girls of ten may be developed enough to have children, some of sixteen may look like an average ten year old. If one argues that the mind is prepared before the body then we are only playing into the hands of those that sexualise children earlier.

I would like to know:

Does anyone have sympathy for a male meeting someone in a night club and having sex and then finding out she is fifteen or sixteen? Should that be a crime? Should it be rape? She was admitted say and had a drink for people over eighteen and certainly looked physically like an adult. Is the guy raping her? According to the law he is. Should he not in this case have some defence.

If a woman of twenty has concentual sex with a sixteen year old boy she commits no crime. If a man of twenty does it with a sixteen year old girl he commits a crime. Is that okay? She could loose her job as a teacher say but she could not be put in prision. A man in similar circumstances is guilty of rape.

If a male aged fourteen has sex with a sixteen year old female he is guilty of rape but her not. Is that acceptable?

That is exactly it though. The new bill they brought in is not equal. They cannot criminalise a 14 year old male for having consensual sex with a 16 year old girl or worse still criminalise him for being taken advantage of by a 16 year old girl - these situations are very possible. Where are the 14 year old's rights in these situations? Why is he being discriminated against because of his gender?

The problem I see is that if the law is made equal then those that ARE victims of sexual abuse/rape have to go through the dreadful ordeal of a cross examination in the witness box. At the same time it is not fair law if it criminalises on an unequal basis.

lostexpectation

whens the last time a teenager has been brougth to court for sex, which wasn't aggravated rape.

I know thats not the question but have there been cases?

democrates

ISAW wrote:

I don't think we need wait on any judgement to discuss this issue. One has to distinguish between rape and child abuse. It is obvious when some pedeophile say collects pictures of children (particularly females) when they are children and when they arent. But is this a different crime? Are children who physically appear different, different to a sixteen year old? Accdording to the statutory rape law they are no different. Maybe we colud distinguish in they way and make rape of a child have higher penalties.

But then we are into the argument that some women have small or no breasts and the child looked like an adult. In which case one could argue that any young girl who makes herself up and gets fake ID drinks alcohol and picks up men in a pub/club and has consentual sex is not being raped.

I am not keen on having a strict law. some girls of ten may be developed enough to have children, some of sixteen may look like an average ten year old. If one argues that the mind is prepared before the body then we are only playing into the hands of those that sexualise children earlier.

I would like to know:

Does anyone have sympathy for a male meeting someone in a night club and having sex and then finding out she is fifteen or sixteen? Should that be a crime? Should it be rape? She was admitted say and had a drink for people over eighteen and certainly looked physically like an adult. Is the guy raping her? According to the law he is. Should he not in this case have some defence.

If a woman of twenty has concentual sex with a sixteen year old boy she commits no crime. If a man of twenty does it with a sixteen year old girl he commits a crime. Is that okay? She could loose her job as a teacher say but she could not be put in prision. A man in similar circumstances is guilty of rape.

If a male aged fourteen has sex with a sixteen year old female he is guilty of rape but her not. Is that acceptable?

Interesting points. One size cannot fit all. The law is too simple to cover the array of situations.

And say a girl of 15 passes herself off as 18 in a pub, and a guy of 18 has consensual sex with her, we might tend to be lenient on him, as he has not knowingly committed a crime. But if a guy of 40 has sex with her are we more critical? Should the sanction be different? Also, if the sexes are reversed should the sanction be different?

I think to come to sensible law we need to look at the risk of harm the 15 y.o. is exposed to. Girls have the risk of unwanted pregnancy, while guys have the risk of unwanted fatherhood. There is also the risk of disease. If protection is used in either case the risk is lower.

Also there is the risk of psychological or emotional damage. While a mean 18 y.o. can cause more harm to a 15. y.o. than a kind 40.y.o., in general the greater the age difference, the more damaging the experience can be for the 15.y.o., as it is not the societal norm and the 15 y.o. is open to adult manipulation. A 40 y.o. with the best intentions still causes risk because they can't be sure how the apparent 18 y.o. will be affected by it later. But we should be careful about legislating prejudice against big age differences. There is also the issue of sexual orientation.

Where there is no mistaken age, and a person above the age of consent has sex with someone below it, the ages of both should be taken into account. Where both are under the age of consent we may have no sentence for consensual sex if the ages are similar because we don't want to criminalise two 14 y.o.'s, but retain a sentence for rape and account for additional violence.

It shouldn't be too difficult to legislate a table of minimum and maximum sentences, with the age of one on columns and the age of the other in rows, and each cell having a min and max sentance where consent is given and a min and max where it was not (and was possibly a violent rape). A min and/or max could be zero. Each situation should be carefully considered, but as we can't predict all future circumstances court discretion based on specifics should be there, as a simple formula prescribed in law will lead to injustice.

axer

lostexpectation wrote:

whens the last time a teenager has been brougth to court for sex, which wasn't aggravated rape.

I know thats not the question but have there been cases?

I doubt there have been many if any at all - but the problem is with the rise in the numbers of young teenagers engaging in sexual activity there is bound to be a case soon at which point it is too late for the male involved as he is automatically guilty.

ISAW

lostexpectation wrote:

whens the last time a teenager has been brougth to court for sex, which wasn't aggravated rape.

I know thats not the question but have there been cases?

Assuming SHE was under seventeen it would not have happened since, by being statutory rape, it was rape under the law whether aggravated or not. As regards an eighteen or nineteen year old I am sure several have been in court.

ISAW

democrates wrote:

Interesting points. One size cannot fit all. The law is too simple to cover the array of situations.

But with statutory rape one size DOES fit all!

Here is another one to ponder . An Imbicile of 21 has sex with a sixteen year old.

The criminal law does not state it but most people who know criminal law will accept the concepts of actus reus and mens rea. The first means an act has to have happened. You cant say a crime was committed if I just think about it. an incident has to have occurred. In this case sex with a minor. The second point is about the mind of the perpertrator. We could both walk into a room and shoot someone. I could do it with the intention of killing them knowing beforehand the victim was there and planning to kill them. You might believe I was trying to trick you with an unloaded gun. Or you might walk in not knowing the person was there and act in what you believe was self defence. Or you could be an imbicile insane or not capable of knowing what you are doing.

The act is the same but the mind of the perpretrator makes it different. this is the kernel of last years judgement with respect to statutory rape. It does not allow any perpatrator to be viewed differently under mens rea a central point of criminal law.

constitutionus

lostexpectation wrote:

whens the last time a teenager has been brougth to court for sex, which wasn't aggravated rape.

I know thats not the question but have there been cases?

im pretty sure one of the guys going up to the supreme court soon was a 19yr old guy who had sex with a 16yr old girl and got done for 18months. he's questioning the constitutionality of the second part of the leglislation which got struck out which says theres no defence to having sex with a girl between 15 and 17.
most experts seem to think he's got an ironclad case seeing as he was prevented from pleading geniune mistake. the case was meant to be heard this week but was put back for some reason

now i dont know the specifics of his case but i know for a fact there are 16yr olds that'd pass for 21yr olds and ive seen em in nightclubs let alone pubs and bars

Victor

OK folks, go read the new act. http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2006/2706/b27a06d.pdf Actually is it an act yet or is there a delay of a few days after the president signs it?

A teenage statutory rapist is treated more leniently - if with 24 months in age of the victim he doesn't go on the sex offenders register.

This act is a little bit better than the 1935 act, but I can see it being revised.