Judge lets rapist walk free, again.

Jonny Arson

No wonder crime is rising significantly in this country when you can be convicted of one of the most henious crimes there is and walk straight out the court door

No one can say they can be surprised about this latest judicial disgrace when there is long line of murderers who walk free after 4 or 5 years

The problem is greater than the lenience of Justice Carney, the bottom line is our ''justice'' system is rotten to the core and is failing to protect every citizen of this nation

Computer Nerd

Hi,

The problem with voting for Judges is that they will start making decisions just to be popular. Although this is not what Carney does, he makes decisions to be unpopular, (more room on the Sunday newspaper opinion spot for unpopular!).

But I think that Judges, Doctors, Teachers, Nurses etc. should all have to reagularly upskill, & maybe have to take a simply psychological test (just to make sure that faculities are up to it), we can all lose touch with our trade/profession, we can all lose the plot, & if someone doesn't help we can't help ourselves, 'cause no one recognises their own symptoms.

Kind Regards

Computer Nerd

P.S. I am a member of one of these professions myself.

Regards

Computer Nerd

Hi

This is my 2nd time to post this, but it is not coming up for some reason(?).

Voting in judges is not a good idea, in my opinion, as they would try to do the popular thing, & that would not serve justice. Carney does the unpopular thing & that does not serve justice either.

They should have to upskill regularly, so should most professions.

Regards

johnnyskeleton

Voting for judges is a bad idea because:
1) (as computernerd says) they will be more concerned with what is popular than what is fair or legal
2) they might spend more time electioneering than they do sitting as judges (similar to politicians spending more time making press statements than actually running the country)
3) if they are political party memebers, they might be overtly sympathetic to their party. also, if they were a elected as a member of a political party that is in government, they should not sit on cases involving the state (i.e. criminal law, extradition, civil claims, etc) and this will reduce their availabilty for trials.
4) I'm not sure that people take anything more than a passing interest in judge's careers. it is only when there is an unpopular decision like this that people take any sort of interest, and so the voting could result in an arbitrary selection of judges

there are other reasons, but you get the idea.

Jonny Arson wrote:

there is long line of murderers who walk free after 4 or 5 years

Can you name some? If you mean convicted murderers then it would be highly exeptional if they got out after 9 years. If you mean people who you think are murderes, but weren't convicted of murder, what can any judge do about that when it is the juries' job to convict or acquit?

Beelzebub

Computer Nerd wrote:

Hi

This is my 2nd time to post this, but it is not coming up for some reason(?).

Voting in judges is not a good idea, in my opinion, as they would try to do the popular thing, & that would not serve justice. Carney does the unpopular thing & that does not serve justice either.

They should have to upskill regularly, so should most professions.

Regards

Many of them seem to need upskilling in commonsense and it's not only Irish judges.

Computer Nerd

Hi all,

I do believe that up skilling is the thing for all professions, we have a local doctor who will say to people (not jus us, loads of people,) "I'll call you back", & you never hear anything again. Sorry, going off the point. Carney & others like him actually thumb their nose at the law, i.e. it doesn't apply to them.

The reason he doesn't like the Gardai is 'cause he was caught completely drunk banging on & kicking the walls of the bar in the Burlington to get in & he was arrested!

I know what you mean about the Gardi, they have this climate of lying to look after each other, but all I met were very helpful Detectives, who would totally disapprove of that behaviour.

Regards

InFront

I do believe that up skilling is the thing for all professions, we have a local doctor who will say to people (not jus us, loads of people,) "I'll call you back", & you never hear anything again. Sorry, going off the point. Carney & others like him actually thumb their nose at the law, i.e. it doesn't apply to them.

What do you mean by upskilling, continued professional development? Because there are already schemes for that in place, and I'm not sure how it would ensure that your Doctor phones you back any more than it would change the outcome of this case. I doubt that anybody is actually saying the judge isn't familiar with legislation or that he needs to go back to college.

Being frustrated at the idea of rapists walking free from court is one thing, amateur human resource management of the judiciary from someone like you or I is very different. There is a lot to be said for an independent judicial system that protects itself from hiring and firing by public outcry.

Nermal

Is it the case all over the world that juries determine guilt, and the judge determines sentencing? Has anyone ever seriously suggested that the juries might determine both?

Computer Nerd

Hi there,

By God there are a whole pile of pompous asses on this thread, there is not a judge or a GP int his country who upskills. It just doesn't happen. Q are you the fella who passed me over the speed limit in your SVU yseterday?? i.e. you are a type. Get back in your box.

Regards

johnnyskeleton

Nermal wrote:

Is it the case all over the world that juries determine guilt, and the judge determines sentencing? Has anyone ever seriously suggested that the juries might determine both?

I think in some states of America (e.g. Texas, California), when someone is convicted of murder, terrorism etc, I think the jury is then asked if the death sentence is appropriate.

Also, in Irish summary crimes (e.g. minor offences) and crimes in the special criminal court (e.g. IRA & firearms offences) people are convicted without a jury.

As for the rest of the world, each country is different so I guess it's possible.

I don't think it is desireable though. Juries have no basis of comparison for sentencing. So if Irish juries were in charge of sentencing, you could have big sentences for relatively minor offences, and lenient offences for serious ones.

Plus, it is easy for us non-judges to want to send every offender to jail. However, if this was done our prisons would be seriously overcrowed, it would cost the state a fortune, it would be unjust in many cases and it would afford no opportunity for rehabilitation.

Computer Nerd

Computer Nerd wrote:

Hi there,

By God there are a whole pile of pompous asses on this thread, there is not a judge or a GP int his country who upskills. It just doesn't happen. Q are you the fella who passed me over the speed limit in your SVU yseterday?? i.e. you are a type. Get back in your box.

Regards

please read the guidelines for posting here-thank you.

Computer Nerd

Why don't you read them?

Computer Nerd

Hey, Johney Skelton,

That's why a justice should be completely reserved & out of the picture, but Carney isn't. He uses law to get the changes that he wants (legistation wise), that's not law or justice.

Regards.

Blowfish

Computer Nerd wrote:

Why don't you read them?

o.0 He is one of the mods of this forum, its his job to make sure we comply with the guidelines, so it might be an idea to take him up on his suggestion.

Nermal wrote:

Is it the case all over the world that juries determine guilt, and the judge determines sentencing? Has anyone ever seriously suggested that the juries might determine both?

The jury wouldn't be able to determine sentencing as for a start they wouldn't be aware of the precedences. If one set of jury gave someone 10 years for something, and another gave 20 for the same crime, then there would be obvious problems.

Computer Nerd

Computer Nerd wrote:

Why don't you read them?

banned

Anyone read about that Doctor in Cork?

Ivory towers, out of touch etc. etc. Get rid of doctors, let community activists who understand pain and suffering decide on illnesses.

This sweeping generalisation stuff is catching.

Nermal

Blowfish wrote:

The jury wouldn't be able to determine sentencing as for a start they wouldn't be aware of the precedences. If one set of jury gave someone 10 years for something, and another gave 20 for the same crime, then there would be obvious problems.

Certainly no more problems than exist at present, as is made obvious by this thread. The jury could be given guidance by the judge, reports of similar cases made available etc., but the final decision should be theirs.

One of the reasons we have jury trials is that the people are the source of justice, not judges. It seems entirely bizzare on reflection that they are allowed to make the arguably much more difficult decision of guilt, but not decide the punishment.

Time Magazine

Computer Nerd wrote:

Why don't you read them?

I lolled.

Blowfish

Nermal wrote:

Certainly no more problems than exist at present, as is made obvious by this thread.

This thread is focusing on one Judge and one Judge only. It does not represent all of them.

mike65

Interesting side bar to this controversy regarding the on-going clash between
Justice Carney and the Appeals board. Its been said Carney deliberatly set a 'joke' sentence so it would be overturned by the board, a board which has reduced the severity of a number of Carneys judgments in recent times.

Mike.

johnnyskeleton

Computer Nerd wrote:

That's why a justice should be completely reserved & out of the picture, but Carney isn't. He uses law to get the changes that he wants (legistation wise), that's not law or justice.

Justice should be done in public, and consequently judges should be in the public eye. I also have to say that I have heard nothing on this board or elsewhere to suggest that "He uses law to get the changes that he wants". I would refute this because I believe that, if anything, Judge Carney wants tougher sentences. He made reference to a case (DPP v. NY I think) where a suspended sentence was suggested as an option in rape cases, and he exercised his judicial discretion to suspend the sentence here. I haven't heard his reasons why, and untill I do I would suggest that the sentence appears too lenient, but I think you are jumping to conclusions about his motivations, and I think that is incorrect and unfair.

Nermal wrote:

One of the reasons we have jury trials is that the people are the source of justice, not judges. It seems entirely bizzare on reflection that they are allowed to make the arguably much more difficult decision of guilt, but not decide the punishment.

This is not entirely true. The Constitution is the source of justice, and that is what gives judges discretion in sentencing matters (although the legislature have a significant role too). The reason we have jury trials is because twelve almost randomly selected citizens are in a much better position to decide on issues of fact than a judge sitting alone is. By contrast, a judge decides sentences because a) he/she understands the legal parameters of sentencing, b) he/she is highly experienced at sentencing, and gives a more uniform and proportional sentence than jurors would c) there is a lot more to sentencing policy than just "lock him up for 10 years" etc d) 12 people find it very difficult to decide unanimously on a yes or no question, so asking them to chose a sentence from the myriad of sentencing options would take an eternity (that is assuming that they could even reach agreement) e) one poster here suggested that a 15 year sentence was lenient - with respect, this suggests to me that a jury could impose unfeasably large sentences without a full understanding of what it entails.

To give an example of this, in a recent civil defamation case, the first jury gave an award of (i think) 250 grand. On appeal, the supreme court overturned this because it was too high in all the circumstances (i.e. a quadroplegic would get about the same in a personal injuries case). When the case was returned to the high court, a second jury awarded something like 750 grand.

gbh

I think there is a major problem with inconsistant sentencing in this country, and i wonder if people would agree with this. It seems that the politicians create the laws but when it comes to enforcing them judges can resist enforcing these laws. While an ineffective doctor can be struck off, a bad politician voted out, or a factory manager sacked, you can be the worst judge in the world and its nigh impossible to remove you from the bench. I think impeachment is the way its done but that is a very long process.

Where is the logic in locking up someone for stealing something small, yet letting off others who committ more serious crimes.

The judges should impose the wishes of the people, not their own or their friends wishes, and that is why i think they should be accountable directly to an electorate. As for Michael McDowal choosing judges, his mandate comes from less than 1% of the Irish population who are right wing and upper middle class. Hardly reflective of a cross section of the community.

In this particular case, the judge had the right to send the convicted offender, and he was convicted, to jail but chose not to. It shows that judges do in fact have a lot of power and surely in this case that power was used badly.

johnnyskeleton

gbh wrote:

I think there is a major problem with inconsistant sentencing in this country, and i wonder if people would agree with this.

A sentence for any given crime will vary significantly depending on the circumstances. Take for example a crime with a statutory maximum of ten years imprisonment, and two different offenders:

For one it was the first offence where he was the stooge in the crime rather than the instigator; he co-operated with the gardai, made a full admission, pleaded guilty as soon as he got into court and made no attempt to hide or justify his crime; he is from a broken home, suffers from a drug dependancy but is trying to quit, is full of remorse, and he hasn't been in trouble since.

For the other it was just another in a long line of criminal offences which he organised as part of gangland activity; he refused to co-operate with the gardai, fought the trial and was convicted (thus dragging the victim through the horrors of a trial), he makes money off of the drug addicitons of others and has a huge house from his criminal enterprises, shows no sign of remorse or changing his ways and he has committed several crimes since.

Would it be inconsistent, in these extreme hypothetical circumstances, for the first guy to get a one year suspended sentence, and the second to get the maximum ten years? I don't think so.

In England they have guideline judgments, and while these provide more consistency in sentences, they do not do justice to the particular circumstances of each offence.

gbh wrote:

It seems that the politicians create the laws but when it comes to enforcing them judges can resist enforcing these laws.

What do you mean? There is no mandatory minimum sentence for rape in Ireland.

gbh wrote:

While an ineffective doctor can be struck off, a bad politician voted out, or a factory manager sacked, you can be the worst judge in the world and its nigh impossible to remove you from the bench. I think impeachment is the way its done but that is a very long process.

This is to stop politicians from removing a judge who disagrees with them and replacing them with a stooge. Judges are independent. Also, it is probably a shorter process to impeach a judge than it is to vote out a bad politician.

gbh wrote:

Where is the logic in locking up someone for stealing something small, yet letting off others who committ more serious crimes.

It depends on the circumstances (see above)

gbh wrote:

The judges should impose the wishes of the people, not their own or their friends wishes, and that is why i think they should be accountable directly to an electorate.

No, judges should impose the law, which is the democratically aggreed and accepted will of the people. They should not impose calls for blood made by some parts of the people, which is seldom if never based on the facts as it is on mere assertions. Sometimes judges do, in my opinion, pander to the popular will when they should have more regard for constitutional rights, and this has created serious injustices for the people concerned.

Why do you think that elected judges won't, from time to time, make decisions which you don't like? Has every politican you have voted for kept his word and do you agree with every single decision they have made? But more importantly, Judges should not do something that is unfair just because it is popular. That is the government's job.

gbh wrote:

As for Michael McDowal choosing judges, his mandate comes from less than 1% of the Irish population who are right wing and upper middle class. Hardly reflective of a cross section of the community.

I don't think anyone here or elsewhere has suggested that the Minister for Justice chooses judges. The President appoints judges, and no one else. She will often appoint them on the advice of the government, but if you are unhappy with the president or government's choice, you can vote them out and replace them with others who will appoint judges more to your liking. In any case, you might recall a decision of a judge last year which was quite contrary to the Minister's mandate.

gbh wrote:

In this particular case, the judge had the right to send the convicted offender, and he was convicted, to jail but chose not to. It shows that judges do in fact have a lot of power and surely in this case that power was used badly.

This is very similar to my line of thinking. However, without knowing what happened in the court, or without knowing the judge's reasons, I will not assume that it was a bad decision. Instead, it appears to have been unduly lenient.

redspider

My thoughts on crime, sentences and punishments are (briefly) as follows.

For one thing, Prison sentences should be a detterent to commiting a crime. If they are not a deterrent, they are not fit for purpose. As such therefore, prison sentences should be set in law to have a minimum sentence, no matter what the mitigating circumstances. Judges can show discretion, but it should be limited. Judges also need to err on the side of caution. Sentencs could be reduced fr good behaviour but only minimally. But the maximum and minimum length of a sentnce must befit the crime and act as a deterrent for those that would ever think about carrying it out.

Secondly, the Prison system needs to be radically overhauled. It should be a place where nobody wants to go. The problems of prisons should be eliminated. Prisoners should not share cells. They should not be crime 'universities'. Prisoners should have zero contact with other prisoners. They should have access to education (use technology, DVD's, etc), controlled access to information, news - eg: the Daily Mountyjoy! They should only be allowed to communicate with a limited set of family and friends, behind glass. No physical interaction, no conjugal rights (they lost that right when they committed the crime). There should be no drugs. Drug testing should be mandatory with massive deterrents, etc. No mobile phones. The Prison's should be expanded to provide as much capacity as is needed, no room in Prisos is a broken system. The prisons should be ran as economically and as frugal as possible. But there should be a full support service for those that want it. Mental, psychological, those that do want to change their lives get lots of support from trained people. Education, mental, and physical (portable gyms, running treadmills, etc). A Prison should be an environment where people can do well, IF they want to, and a horrible place to go for the professional criminal.

Some of the laws need to be changed and the levels of minimal sentencing need to be debated, etc. This country is too soft on crime. Whilst I am not advocating a police state, there is a lot that can and should be done.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Would it be inconsistent, in these extreme hypothetical circumstances, for the first guy to get a one year suspended sentence, and the second to get the maximum ten years? I don't think so.

I think a one-year suspended sentence is not a sentence at all. Different people will have different views on minimal sentences, but these should be passed in legislation as far as I'm concerned, and no crime should have zero time! None, in my opinion.

For the hypothetical cases you outlined above, I cant set the minimum sentence as I would need to know what the crime was. If he was a 'watcher' in a post office van robbery, then I'd find out how much money he was likely to make from it potentially. If it was 10k, then that would be a 3 month sentence. No matter what remorse he is showing now, he did partake in the crime wilfully.

Redspider

johnnyskeleton

redspider wrote:

For one thing, Prison sentences should be a detterent to commiting a crime. If they are not a deterrent, they are not fit for purpose. As such therefore, prison sentences should be set in law to have a minimum sentence, no matter what the mitigating circumstances. Judges can show discretion, but it should be limited. Judges also need to err on the side of caution. Sentencs could be reduced fr good behaviour but only minimally. But the maximum and minimum length of a sentnce must befit the crime and act as a deterrent for those that would ever think about carrying it out.

Prison sentences generally are not a deterrent in Ireland. The big time criminals don't get their hands dirty, the small time crooks are usually addicted to drugs, in dire financial straights and/or made one stupid mistake. As for crimes such as rape, homocide and serious assaults, these are very often crimes of passion (i.e. either not premeditated or very badly planned) and so the idea of a prison sentence is not even in their mind. Plus, I think most people who commit crimes either don't really think about the consequences or they think it so unlikely that they will get caught/convicted that the sentence is the least of their worries. So minimum prison sentences are not a deterrent.

As for good behaviour, this is necessary to give prisoners hope and it keeps them passive. Otherwise prisons would not function properly.

redspider wrote:

Secondly, the Prison system needs to be radically overhauled. It should be a place where nobody wants to go. The problems of prisons should be eliminated. Prisoners should not share cells. They should not be crime 'universities'. Prisoners should have zero contact with other prisoners. They should have access to education (use technology, DVD's, etc), controlled access to information, news - eg: the Daily Mountyjoy! They should only be allowed to communicate with a limited set of family and friends, behind glass. No physical interaction, no conjugal rights (they lost that right when they committed the crime). There should be no drugs. Drug testing should be mandatory with massive deterrents, etc. No mobile phones. The Prison's should be expanded to provide as much capacity as is needed, no room in Prisos is a broken system. The prisons should be ran as economically and as frugal as possible. But there should be a full support service for those that want it. Mental, psychological, those that do want to change their lives get lots of support from trained people. Education, mental, and physical (portable gyms, running treadmills, etc). A Prison should be an environment where people can do well, IF they want to, and a horrible place to go for the professional criminal.

I do think that prisons should be reformed, but within the scope of international human rights obligations. It could be considered torture, inhuman or degrading treatment to deprive prisoners of human contact - and Mountjoy Jail has been severely criticised for several human rights abuses. More reform is a good idea, which is why suspended senteces are passed. If a person has a bed in a drug rehab centre, a judge is much more likely to give them a suspended sentence to attend it. The judge will often impose conditions that if the person slips up on the treatment the sentence will be activated. Treatment centres are not exactly 4 star hotels either. Furthermore, it is precicely because prisons are like crime universities that judges try to keep people out if possible. Compared to the massive cost of housing a prisoner/detainee (read today's Irish Times) it makes sense to only send someone to jail as a last resort.

redspider wrote:

Some of the laws need to be changed and the levels of minimal sentencing need to be debated, etc. This country is too soft on crime. Whilst I am not advocating a police state, there is a lot that can and should be done.

At present there are only a few statutes with minimum sentences - most are remnants from the 19th century, the others are IMO a facetious gesture to give the government a semblance of being tough on gangland crime while ignoring the fact that gangland crime has increased during their administration.

redspider wrote:

I think a one-year suspended sentence is not a sentence at all. Different people will have different views on minimal sentences, but these should be passed in legislation as far as I'm concerned, and no crime should have zero time! None, in my opinion.

For the hypothetical cases you outlined above, I cant set the minimum sentence as I would need to know what the crime was. If he was a 'watcher' in a post office van robbery, then I'd find out how much money he was likely to make from it potentially. If it was 10k, then that would be a 3 month sentence. No matter what remorse he is showing now, he did partake in the crime wilfully.

If you are brought before a court, shamed in front of your friends and family, given a suspended sentence which will activate if you step out of line again, possibly have to do community service/drug rehab/pay compensation and possibly live with the guilt of one stupid mistake for the rest of your life (no going to America, getting a decent job etc) then I think that is a sentence and it would be devastating to anyone trying to lead a decent life.

Should everyone who is brought up on any minor offence suffer the same fate? If this were true, half of dublin would be put into mountjoy every friday night.

If someone participates in a crime because they are addicted to drugs and are threatened into it, then can you really say they did it wilfully?

Voipjunkie

SeanW wrote:

I just saw on the 6 one news (but it's not on RTEs website) that a judge has just let a convicted rapist walk free with a 3 year suspended sentence, and the victim has waived the right to anonymity to publicly ask the DPP to appeal the leniency of the 'sentence.'

The facts of the case as I understand it are like this:
Man breaks into a mother of 3's home in the early morning hours and proceeds to rape her while she sleeps.
Is brought to trial.
Pleads 'not guilty' because he'd blacked out that night from a cocktail of drink and drugs.
Found Guilty by a jury.
Let walk by the judge.

It seems there's not a half-year goes by but that someone commits and is found guilty of rape, or some similarly major crime, only to be set free by the judge.

What the hell is wrong with judges in this country? The dingbat responsible for this travesty of justice should be *@#%ing fired, if that's possible.

Anybody listen to VB on RTE tonight

I have to say that I was as shocked as most people when I heard that this guy had recieved a suspended sentence but as with most things the detail of the case are not as straightforward as the tabloid media would portray.

Anyway for anyone who missed it.

The woman in question had a fight with her boyfriend

The guy in question pissed out of his head lets himself in through the back door of the house which was unlocked (apparently his girlfriend lives on the same street and used to leave the backdoor open for him)
He goes into the bedroom and gets into bed with the victim

She presumes that it is her boyfriend who has returned and after a bit of cuddling proceeds to have sex with the guy.

At some stage she realises that it is not the boyfriend leaps out of the bed turns on the light recognises the guy as her neighbours boyfriend and leaves the house to inform his girlfriend and the gardai what has happened.

After a while she eventually gets the gardai who find the guy passed out in his girlfriends house.

He never denied the incident but had no recollection of it he co operated with Gardai but denied rape as he was of the opinion that although he could not remember being in the house he felt he was not capable of rape.


The judge was following a precedent set down by a previous court that over turned a jail sentence he had imposed on a rapist in similar case.



Now without taking from the trauma that this women has obviously suffered the true story is actually a lot different from the tabloid hysteria.

It was not a guy who was roaming around breaking into houses looking for a woman to rape as the headlines would suggest.

Whether he deserves to go to prison is another matter entirely just wanted to point out that it was apparently not a simple man breaks into house and rapes woman as she slept story.

TMcC

Voipjunkie, I'm not jumping down your throat because you're just reporting what you heard on Vincent Browne, but a couple of points:

Voipjunkie wrote:

as with most things the detail of the case are not as straightforward as the tabloid media would portray

The crucial details WERE completely straightforward, as reported by the tabloids AND broadsheets: a woman sleeping in her own bed was raped by an intruder in her home – they’re the only facts that SHOULD matter. Everything else is just an attempt to find excuses for this man.

How or why he ended up in this woman’s home (booze, drugs, confusion, whatever) is wholly irrelevant, his excuses certainly do not lessen the impact of the crime on her, nor do they alter the fact that he raped a woman.

Voipjunkie wrote:

The woman in question had a fight with her boyfriend

How on earth is this relevant?

Is the implication that she would have shagged anything that night, even an intruder in her own home, in either an attempt to spite her boyfriend, or because she was sexually ‘deprived’ and wasn’t fussy?

This is the stuff of the Dark Ages!

Let’s remind ourselves: SHE wasn't on trial, she was the victim of a crime, so what was going on in her private life should have absolutely NO bearing on the outcome of the case or the sentencing.

None WHATSOEVER.

Voipjunkie wrote:

The guy in question pissed out of his head lets himself in through the back door of the house which was unlocked (apparently his girlfriend lives on the same street and used to leave the backdoor open for him)

“Pissed out of his head” – no excuse, at all.

“Lets” himself in the back door??

Correction: he illegally entered another person’s home, he was an intruder. Whether or not the back door was locked is utterly irrelevant. If I pass a stranger’s house where the back door is unlocked I’m hardly allowed conclude they were asking to be burgled.

Voipjunkie wrote:

He goes into the bedroom and gets into bed with the victim. She presumes that it is her boyfriend who has returned and after a bit of cuddling proceeds to have sex with the guy. At some stage she realises that it is not the boyfriend leaps out of the bed turns on the light recognises the guy as her neighbours boyfriend and leaves the house to inform his girlfriend and the gardai what has happened.

Who exactly gave this account on the VB programme?

This is the evidence, as presented in the trial:

When she woke up the room was dark and a man was on top of her having sex. She kissed him back because she thought it was her partner but when light from a street lamp came into the room she noticed that he had tattoos on his arms……she said she then pushed him off her and found that her underwear had been removed. She went to the bedroom door but it was closed and she banged her head. She opened it and switched on the bathroom light and turned to see Keane, whom she had known for a few months, sitting on her bed. The woman said she asked him what he was doing. He said nothing but she described him as having a "couldn't-care-less attitude". He did not appear to be drunk or "on anything".

Repeat: When she woke up the room was dark and a man was on top of her having sex.

Voipjunkie wrote:

After a while she eventually gets the gardai who find the
guy passed out in his girlfriends house.

“After a while”??

She “eventually”??

Honestly, this is nasty, pathetic stuff, an attempt to make the victim look ‘free and easy’.

The evidence from the trial: She turned on her bedside light, picked up her tracksuit bottoms off the floor, got her phone, left the house and called the Gardai.

Where’s the “after a while” and “eventually” in all of that?

Again, the implication is that she really must have quite enjoyed it, so she was in no rush to call the Gardai.

Perhaps there wasn’t the haste his supporters would have expected because she was utterly terrified, having, in her half sleep, assumed it was her boyfriend who had snuggled up beside her, but then realised this creep, who had illegally entered her home, was raping her.

“He never denied the incident but had no recollection of it”?

Well, isn’t drunkenness always the best defence? ‘I remember nothing, your honour, and I’m not that kind of boy’.

Spare me.

According to his own defence he blacks out after a boozing session. So, in advance of starting a boozing session, when he is sober, he knows what condition he will be in once inebriated. Just like drunken drivers when they head for the pub in their car. And when they mow down an innocent on the way home they expect compassion from the rest of us. The rapist in this case knows he won’t be responsible for his own actions when drunk, yet he boozes any way. He could rape someone. He could murder someone. But we are asked by his apologists to excuse him of his actions, or at least be understanding when he receives a pitiful sentence, simply because the boy can’t hold his drink?

Don’t even start me!

Voipjunkie wrote:

the true story is actually a lot different from the tabloid
hysteria.

What do you mean by the “true story”?

Do you believe the victim’s account of what happened isn’t the truth?

If you don’t believe her, WHY don’t you believe her?

Do you generally not believe the word of rape victims? Even victims raped in their own homes by intruders?

If not, why not?

Did you think, when she spoke to RTE after the case, that she was telling lies?

Did you doubt her when she said her attacker verbally abused her when they got off the train they shared going home? If you DID believe her account of this incident, as backed up by witnesses, does it tally with the impression that he was a harmless, drunken rogue? If that’s what he was, why would he not either keep away from her, or apologise to her for illegally entering her home, even if he still denied the rape? Instead he chose, when presumably he was sober, to be aggressive and abusive. Does that not tell you something of his character?

D’you know what I think? He knew exactly what he was doing that night – and his aggression and lack of remorse towards the victim after the trial proves it to me: he broke in to her home and he raped her. End of story.

Voipjunkie wrote:

It was not a guy who was roaming around breaking into houses looking for a woman to rape as the headlines would suggest.

The undisputed facts:

He broke in to a home that night.

He raped a woman.

How much more evidence do you need?

She didn’t ask for it.

She didn’t invite him in to her home.

She didn’t ask to be raped.

Voipjunkie wrote:

Whether he deserves to go to prison is another matter
entirely………

I despair. If this was your mother, sister, wife, girlfriend or daughter would you feel the same?

Voipjunkie wrote:

….just wanted to point out that it was apparently not a simple man breaks into house and rapes woman as she slept story.

It was precisely that.

Please, please, please stop looking for excuses to defend this man, just do the right thing and support the victim in this case. Repeat: She was raped by an intruder in her own home. No excuses, please, Carney, to his shame, has tried to find enough for all of us.

SeanW

Voipjunkie wrote:

The woman in question had a fight with her boyfriend

Which has to do with the case ... what exactly?

The guy in question pissed out of his head lets himself in through the back door of the house which was unlocked (apparently his girlfriend lives on the same street and used to leave the backdoor open for him)

And how does this excuse it?

She presumes that it is her boyfriend.

Not unreasonable considering she was in her own home.

The judge was following a precedent set down by a previous court that over turned a jail sentence he had imposed on a rapist in similar case.

If the judges hands genuinely are are tied by excessively lenient higher courts then fair enough, but Justice Carney's record indicates it may not be that simple.

It was not a guy who was roaming around breaking into houses looking for a woman to rape as the headlines would suggest.

So?

Whether he deserves to go to prison is another matter entirely just wanted to point out that it was apparently not a simple man breaks into house and rapes woman as she slept story.

Ummm ... actually it more or less is.

Voipjunkie

SeanW wrote:

Which has to do with the case ... what exactly?

It explains why she woke up and started to have sex with the man in her bed she says in her own testimony that she presumed the man was her boyfriend.

SeanW wrote:

And how does this excuse it?

I never said it did

SeanW wrote:

Not unreasonable considering she was in her own home.

Absolutely

SeanW wrote:

If the judges hands genuinely are are tied by excessively lenient higher courts then fair enough, but Justice Carney's record indicates it may not be that simple.

So?

Because there is a huge difference between a predatory rapist and a 19 year old gob****e who drunkenly enters the wrong house in regards of the need to protect the public.

SeanW wrote:

Ummm ... actually it more or less is.

For the woman yes but there is the matter of intent did the guy deliberately enter the womans home with the intention of committing rape or did he think he was with his girlfriend who was consenting to sex.
Whilst the end result is the same in regards to the fact that the intercourse was rape the issue of the likely hood of a reoffence and the need to protect society are completely different.