Judge lets rapist walk free, again.

Voipjunkie

TMcC wrote:

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



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.

No it does not lessen the impact of the trauma the women endured but in regards to protecting the public there is a huge difference
IF and the judges seems to have accepted that the guy unintentionally ended up the wrong house and bed then as the judge said the likely hood of a reoffence is very unlikely.
As such the sentence for someone who deliberately planned and in all likely hood would repeat if free is completely different than this case.

TMcC wrote:

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.

Absolutely not the relevance is that it is the background to the events the woman quite rightly presumed the man in her bed was her boyfriend it explains why the sex to the guy may have appeared to be consensual.
I never suggested that the woman had done anything wrong

TMcC wrote:

“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.

Of course he did but again you can not ignore the issue of intent



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.[/QUOTE]



It was a reenactment of the sentencing as per VB style

TMcC wrote:

“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.

Again you are jumping to conclusions and reading things in

The woman went to the home of the mans girlfriend but got no reply she then went to another woman and eventually 2 gardai that were at a party in the area were contacted
I presume that with it being a rural area gardai are hard to find in the middle of the night.
I am not suggesting that the woman did anything wrong she sought help straight away the after a while and eventually is just the delay in garda response in that the man had time to leave and was found in his girlfriends house.

TMcC wrote:

“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!

No the man is still responsible for his actions the fact that he was inebriated does not excuse what he did but it is important in explaining how he did what he did.
For example if the man had no drink taken then it would be very hard to believe that he could have entered the wrong house by mistake the fact that he had a large ammount of drink taken does offer some explanation as to how he entered the wrong house.
It does not in anyway mean that he is not responsible for his actions

TMcC wrote:

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?

I absolutely believe her 100% the woman was raped in her own home that is a fact the issue for the judge in sentencing is the facts surrounding the case
and the issues of likelyhood of a reoffence and the protection of the public not just the punishment for the crime that has already been committed.

The tabloid spin gives the impression of a guy staking out a house breaking in and attacking the woman in a deliberate premeditated rape the evidence given to the court was quite different.

TMcC wrote:

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.



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.



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



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.

I believe the woman 100%
My suggestion is that the man is on a suspended sentence I hope the woman has made a complaint because those are a breach of his bond and he has 3 years waiting for him.
I am not trying to defend him but it is obvious that there is a huge difference between a premeditated rape and and the evidence presented in this case.
Judge Carney said that he wanted to impose a 3 year prison term but that given the precedent set by the court of criminal appeal that he felt he was obliged to follow the guidelines in sentencing set down by the CCA.
It is not a matter of a Judge deciding rape is not important for what it is worth I think Carney was wrong and he should have sent him to prison. However in light of the evidence I heard on the VB show I would tend to agree with Carney that the guy is unlikely to reoffend and that he does not pose a danger to the public that rapists normally do.


On your belief that he knew exactly what he was doing why did he not continue the attack after the woman jumped from the bed

Why in the delay of the gardai responding did he not destroy his clothes

How did he know the womans boyfriend was not home

Why did he return to the garda station and sign consent forms that the gardai had forgot to ask him to sign.

gbh

Rape is rape whether the guy or girl is/was drunk or not tbh.

If you go with the argument of diminished responsibiliy due to the taking of alcohol then where do you draw the line? Should somone who shoots another person when they are drunk get a suspended sentence, or a drunken driver be let off after they knock someone down. I dont want to contribute to any prejudicing of any appeal in this case but a person has to take responsibilty for their actions whether they are steamed or not.

I also think there is too much attention in the courts paid to mitigating circumstances and that the balance is more and more in favour of the criminal and not the victim.

aidan24326

What puzzles me a little is the 'out of character' remarks. Now I've been drunk a few times myself, but don't recall ever wandering into somebody else's house and raping a woman in her bed. Reports of him subsequently verbally abusing the girl don't read well either, especially given the turmoil he had already put her through. I'd wonder just how 'out of character' it was?

I say this as I had to go to court one time myself (a minor thing) and I had to laugh to myself at some of the pleas for leniency by the solicitors in cases that were on before me. All kinds of concocted speeches about how Anto is a fine young lad really, despite his 8 previous convictions.

Now that was mainly for relatively minor offences. But this is rape. Whatever the circumstances a custodial sentence of some duration was warranted. That he was very drunk, that it was (supposedly) out of character, that he's not high-risk as a reoffender, these things do need to be taken into account but shouldn't mean that the guy walks out of court a free man.

Zombrex

aidan24326 wrote:

What puzzles me a little is the 'out of character' remarks. Now I've been drunk a few times myself, but don't recall ever wandering into somebody else's house and raping a woman in her bed. Reports of him subsequently verbally abusing the girl don't read well either, especially given the turmoil he had already put her through. I'd wonder just how 'out of character' it was?

I was a bit drunk last week and I remember thinking exactly the same thing. I didn't feel any strong urge to wander into a persons house and rape someone.

I can possibly understand (but not in anyway condone) if this guy raped a girl who feel asleep in the same bed as him at a party or something, though again that has happened to me a number of times and I never wanted to rape them

But the idea that the drink made him brake into someones house and rape them is a bit far fetched tbh. There was something wrong with this guy before he got drunk. The drink might have brought it out but I very much doubt it caused it.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if this guy raped again at some point in his life.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Have to say the final few posts here about the actual details of the trial have put a different spin on things.

I really pity the woman & at first I thought the judge must have believed him innocent as I didn't imagine it possible you could get a suspended sentence for rape.

The thing is, from what the details of the case are suggesting, it does just seem like he thought was going home to his girlfriend. I acknowledge that I don't know much about the case & I'm not by any means 100% sure.

Now lets say his story was true, I really don't know where I stand on drunkeness standing up as an excuse. I mean I've done things & blamed them on alcohol(not criminal offences ) but you can't say "well I wouldn't have driven over the limit if I wasn't drunk"

Hogmeister B

Seems to me more a case of unfortunate mistake rather than rape, then. Seems unnecessary to even go to court at all.

Voipjunkie

Wicknight wrote:

I was a bit drunk last week and I remember thinking exactly the same thing. I didn't feel any strong urge to wander into a persons house and rape someone.

I can possibly understand (but not in anyway condone) if this guy raped a girl who feel asleep in the same bed as him at a party or something, though again that has happened to me a number of times and I never wanted to rape them

But the idea that the drink made him brake into someones house and rape them is a bit far fetched tbh. There was something wrong with this guy before he got drunk. The drink might have brought it out but I very much doubt it caused it.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if this guy raped again at some point in his life.

I suggest that you read my post again

The guy did not "break" into the house in the sense that most people would associate with that term ( The backdoor was open he did not force his way in)


The evidence suggests that in his drunken stupor he went to the wrong house

The woman believed she was having sex with her boyfriend and apparently he may have believed that he was having sex with his girlfriend.

You are suggesting that their was malice and intent in his actions and that he set out to rape someone the judge has accepted that was not the case hence the sentence.

Voipjunkie

gbh wrote:

Rape is rape whether the guy or girl is/was drunk or not tbh.

If you go with the argument of diminished responsibiliy due to the taking of alcohol then where do you draw the line? Should somone who shoots another person when they are drunk get a suspended sentence, or a drunken driver be let off after they knock someone down. I dont want to contribute to any prejudicing of any appeal in this case but a person has to take responsibilty for their actions whether they are steamed or not.

I also think there is too much attention in the courts paid to mitigating circumstances and that the balance is more and more in favour of the criminal and not the victim.

No it is not this is a case of non consensual sex

There was no violence or threat of violence

The woman was consenting to have sex with her boyfriend and had sex with this man under the misapprehension that this man was her boyfriend and as such the sex with this man was non consensual.
Non consensual sex is rape but this is a completely different scenario to someone forcing their way into someones home and using violence or the threat of violence to force someone to have sex with them.
Both are rape but to suggest that this man is as dangerous as a violent predatory rapist and that his sentence should be the same is nonsense.

Much the same way that killing someone is not always murder the law recognises that cases are different and have to be judged on the entire facts not just the end result

K-9

From reading the papers at the weekend legal professionals do not seem to understand why the Judge quoted the precedent case. There doesn't seem to be many similarities.

In The original case the man left a note saying it was his fault, though he wasn't sure what happened. In the morning he went to the Guards. He pleaded guilty and thus there was no trial. I think Judge Carney though I'm not 100% sure, gave 3 years, 1 suspended. The Court of Criminal Appeal said a suspended sentence should have been considered and suspended the sentence.

Legal Professionals cannot see the similarities in the cases, not just me. There seems to be a history of conflict between the Judge and the Appeal Court. I hope, though going from legal opinion there seems to be very little legal basis for the verdict, this was not legal politics because of the personal history between the Judge and the Appeal Court.

Fron my untrained eye, I just don't see any similarities. I think where one judge oversees 60/70% of rape cases, that is ideal. Why is one judge overseeing that many rape cases ?

In fairness to Judge Carney, the media have latched on to the victim travelling home on the train with the accused.

lostexpectation

there is transcripts of the case here
http://www.village.ie/ireland/society_%26_justice/exclusive%3a_justice_carney%27s_rationale_for_suspending_rape_sentence/

I still don't get it, what you do whether you on or off drugs/drink is your responsibilty the fact he was on drugs makes it worse, was there detail of what he was on spoken about during the trial?

it so strange the judge interjects here with out of character line

JUDGE: My recollection from the trial is that his attitude was that he would accept responsibility if there was evidence that he had but he just thought it out of character.

did he have any special *wink wink* character witnesses?

Voipjunkie

lostexpectation wrote:

there is transcripts of the case here
http://www.village.ie/ireland/society_%26_justice/exclusive%3a_justice_carney%27s_rationale_for_suspending_rape_sentence/

I still don't get it, what you do whether you on or off drugs/drink is your responsibilty the fact he was on drugs makes it worse, was there detail of what he was on spoken about during the trial?

it so strange the judge interjects here with out of character line

JUDGE: My recollection from the trial is that his attitude was that he would accept responsibility if there was evidence that he had but he just thought it out of character.

did he have any special *wink wink* character witnesses?

Of course people are responsible for their actions drunk or sober the issue is intent.
The issue is not whether he raped the woman it is did he intend to rape her just as in a murder or manslaughter the issue is intent the victim is dead in both cases but the intent to kill the issue.
So as someone mentioned earlier if you shoot someone when you are drunk the issue is not whether you were drunk but whether you intended to kill that person.

BTW the drug he believes he took was MDMA (E)

lostexpectation

Voipjunkie wrote:

Of course people are responsible for their actions drunk or sober the issue is intent.
The issue is not whether he raped the woman it is did he intend to rape her just as in a murder or manslaughter the issue is intent the victim is dead in both cases but the intent to kill the issue.
So as someone mentioned earlier if you shoot someone when you are drunk the issue is not whether you were drunk but whether you intended to kill that person.

BTW the drug he believes he took was MDMA (E)

but you'd probably still get a jail sentence right

Zombrex

Voipjunkie wrote:

Of course people are responsible for their actions drunk or sober the issue is intent.
The issue is not whether he raped the woman it is did he intend to rape her just as in a murder or manslaughter the issue is intent the victim is dead in both cases but the intent to kill the issue.
So as someone mentioned earlier if you shoot someone when you are drunk the issue is not whether you were drunk but whether you intended to kill that person.

BTW the drug he believes he took was MDMA (E)

What is the evidence that he didn't intend to rape this woman?

gbh

The drunk driver doesn't intend to run someone down but its still a crime. Fact was he was in the wrong house, in the wrong bed. Ok, maybe he wasn't a stereotypical rapist and maybe he mightn't do it again. But it wasn't a victimless crime I think, and for the woman, maybe she cant be too impartial on the issue. Its a tough one to call though, seems not as a straightforward as is presented in the soundbites and headlines.

oscarBravo

The DPP has appealed the sentence. The appeal court's decision will be interesting.

SeanW

I think that was inevitable.

Voipjunkie

lostexpectation wrote:

but you'd probably still get a jail sentence right

Yes you probably would depending on the case

Does anyone remember the case of the guy shooting his sister over christmas the sister is dead but the brother did not intend to shoot or kill anyone. As such you would expect a completely different outcome from that case than from a gangland shooting despite the fact that the victim is dead in both cases.

Voipjunkie

Wicknight wrote:

What is the evidence that he didn't intend to rape this woman?

Our justice system works on a reasonable doubt

given the fact that the house was close to his girlfriends both back doors were open

His drunken state could explain how a mistake could happen

No violence or threat of violence

He did not know that the womans boyfriend was not in the house

The womans own evidence is that he was easily pushed away

he made no effort to continue the assault once the woman objected

he made no effort to destroy any evidence




In my mind at the very least suggest a reasonable doubt as to the intent of the man to rape anyone.

Voipjunkie

gbh wrote:

Its a tough one to call though, seems not as a straightforward as is presented in the soundbites and headlines.

That is my exact point

When I read the headlines and then listened to the soundbites I was of the opinion that Judge Carny had lost his mind as I think most people in the country were. But as usual the detail of the case are extremely different from the impression given by the headlines and soundbites.

IMO it adds a lot of merit to the argument that we should not try and second guess our judges based on headlines and opposition soundbites nor should we tie the hands of our judiciary with mandatory sentences
It would be a travesty of justice if this man had gone to jail for the same amount of time as predatory violent rapist because of a mandatory sentence.

SeanW

Voipjunkie wrote:

Our justice system works on a reasonable doubt

given the fact that the house was close to his girlfriends both back doors were open

His drunken state could explain how a mistake could happen

No violence or threat of violence

He did not know that the womans boyfriend was not in the house

The womans own evidence is that he was easily pushed away

he made no effort to continue the assault once the woman objected

he made no effort to destroy any evidence




In my mind at the very least suggest a reasonable doubt as to the intent of the man to rape anyone.

All of which may be true, but it still didn't justify a non-sentence. All this doesn't change the wrong he did.

Voipjunkie

SeanW wrote:

All of which may be true, but it still didn't justify a non-sentence. All this doesn't change the wrong he did.

In fairness it was not a non sentence he has a 3 year sentence which is suspended for 5 years on condition of good behaviour

also he is on the sex offenders register

and he is a convicted rapist which will follow him around for the rest of his life and the issue of intent would not come into someone doing a background check for employment or emigration for example.

K-9

Voipjunkie wrote:

That is my exact point

When I read the headlines and then listened to the soundbites I was of the opinion that Judge Carny had lost his mind as I think most people in the country were. But as usual the detail of the case are extremely different from the impression given by the headlines and soundbites.

IMO it adds a lot of merit to the argument that we should not try and second guess our judges based on headlines and opposition soundbites nor should we tie the hands of our judiciary with mandatory sentences
It would be a travesty of justice if this man had gone to jail for the same amount of time as predatory violent rapist because of a mandatory sentence.

A lot of solicitors do not see the relevance of the case that the judge cited as precedent. He was not citing the predatory violent rapist case, he was citing a case where the man admitted sex took place, went to the Guards the next day, pleaded guilty and there was no trial.

The jury decided it was rape in this case.

SeanW

Voipjunkie wrote:

In fairness it was not a non sentence he has a 3 year sentence which is suspended for 5 years on condition of good behaviour

also he is on the sex offenders register

and he is a convicted rapist which will follow him around for the rest of his life and the issue of intent would not come into someone doing a background check for employment or emigration for example.

Oh, the poor dear! He walked away a free man! That's about as close to a non-sentence as "sentences" get.

In any civilised society, a crime is a crime and the legal system draws a red line under such heinous crimes such as rape.

It's not Ok because he didn't mean to do it, or because he couldn't take his drink or whatever pathetic excuse was used. He did a very, very bad thing. He also put his victim through a trial, instead of owning up, which should have been an aggravating factor, adding to an actual sentence. Adam Keane's apologists make me sick.

I just had a read over this commentary http://www.unison.ie/columnists/medb-ruane/stories.php3?ca=445&si=1797032 from Unison/Independent and I broadly agree with the view.

Voipjunkie

Seanies32 wrote:

A lot of solicitors do not see the relevance of the case that the judge cited as precedent. He was not citing the predatory violent rapist case, he was citing a case where the man admitted sex took place, went to the Guards the next day, pleaded guilty and there was no trial.

The jury decided it was rape in this case.

The revelance I presume is that the CCA decided that in extraordinary circumstances that a prison term was not required in rape and that the NY case in their opinion was extraordinary.
Whilst the circumstances are very different in both cases I presume that Judge Carney took the view that the circumstances in this case were extraordinary and that if NY who intentionally raped a woman was not suitable for a jail term according to the CCA then in a case where the rape was unintentional it would not make sense sending the man to prison and he was bound by the precedent set by the CCA where the circumstances are "extraordinary"

Voipjunkie

SeanW wrote:

Oh, the poor dear! He walked away a free man! That's about as close to a non-sentence as "sentences" get.

In any civilised society, a crime is a crime and the legal system draws a red line under such heinous crimes such as rape.

It's not Ok because he didn't mean to do it, or because he couldn't take his drink or whatever pathetic excuse was used. He did a very, very bad thing. He also put his victim through a trial, instead of owning up, which should have been an aggravating factor, adding to an actual sentence. Adam Keane's apologists make me sick.

I just had a read over this commentary http://www.unison.ie/columnists/medb-ruane/stories.php3?ca=445&si=1797032 from Unison/Independent and I broadly agree with the view.

I never said it was OK because he did not mean it but it does not deserve the same sentence as someone who did.

In fairness he co operated with the Gardai during the whole thing but if he honestly did not believe he raped the woman then it would be ridicolous to suggest that he should have pleaded guilty.


The simple fact is that this is not a simple straight forward rape case the circumstances are different.

And in any civilised society the intent of the accused is taken into account in either the actual offence that someone is convicted of ie murder or manslaughter or in the sentence they recieve.


And I have no intention of signing up to read INM papers so if you want to share what you agree with then copy and paste the article

johnnyskeleton

Madb Ruane, Sunday Independent wrote:

If Adam Keane had pleaded guilty to rape, Mary Shannon could suffer in private. No one would know she was the citizen attacked at home (while her three young children were asleep nearby), raped and then obliged to endure the forensic scrutiny it takes to turn a human being into a piece of evidence capable of getting a court conviction.

The case everyone is talking about wouldn't have needed a jury. Mary Shannon wouldn't have had to travel to Dublin on the same train as her attacker, nor be interrogated as if she had done something wrong, because she wouldn't have had to give evidence. She could try to get on with her life as a woman and mother.

Instead, Mary is the first voice to speak an awful truth about contemporary Ireland. Effectively, rape has been decriminalised. Internationally, it is treated as a war crime. Here, it is not legal but it might as well be.

Mr Justice Paul Carney changed the course of Mary and her children's lives when he gave Keane a three-year suspended sentence after a jury found him guilty. Of course, the judge couldn't have known that Keane would travel home on the same train Mary took back to her family.

But he might have considered the consequences of a decision that, inadvertently, implies young women are more or less fair game, especially when attacked by an otherwise 'respectable' young man.

The decision implies that a woman is not allowed say 'no', even to a stranger, unless she is very old indeed, past the age when stereotypes consider her attractive. Another perpetrator received 15 years custodial sentence for raping a 75-year-old woman. Why?

Since the late 1990s, the status of rape and sexual assault offences has been eroded, to society's disadvantage. Across the range, from child abuse to assaults on adults, the seriousness of such offences has been downgraded by a series of subtle but complicated forces born from ignorance, denial and outright incompetence.

Let's do the numbers. An estimated one in 10 rapes is reported. Less than 5% of that 'one' get to court. If convicted, just over eight out of 10, of the less than 5% of the one in 10 rapes reported, receive custodial sentences.

So while it's important to rationalise sentencing policy, the more talk there is, the less attention is given to the de facto decriminalisation happening overall. Perversely, the legal system's failure will encourage some people to take the law into their own hands, which is the situation laws are set up to avoid.

There's obviously a will to make laws effective, measured in terms of outrage. But the more outrage, the more frozen the reporting and prosecuting processes seem to become. The result is a lack of faith in Irish law, not a greater tolerance for such offences. But the consequence is that the offences are tolerated, because they go untried, unproven and unpunished.

Expert advice isn't lacking. Reports such as SAVI (Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland), along with many submissions by people who work with victims and with perpetrators, mean the knowledge exists.

Most offenders are known to victims, but prosecutions are more likely where strangers are involved. Men find reporting sexual assault against them especially difficult.

Every victim finds the forensic process gruelling - staying in your soiled clothes, not washing until intrusive swabs are taken. The difficulty bleeds through to providing sexual assault facilities at reasonably accessible places around the country. It isn't done.

Rape crisis experts have urged people working in the legal profession to avail of training about the social and psychic webs involved in sexual abuse and rape. Yet the bigger the knowledge bank, the smaller the number of people coming forward to report crime and the fewer the number of convictions overall.

Everything to do with rape and sexual abuse is riddled with procedural and human difficulty, but that still doesn't excuse Ireland's passive decision to effectively decriminalise rather than try to figure things out. The only cases taken to court are those so clear cut or horrific that a prosecution is worth spending public money on, in the opinion of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Think back to Britain, 1998, where a local paper in Grimsby printed a headline, 'Man Faces Rape Charges', after a teenage girl was dragged down an alley and assaulted. Prosecutors decided there wasn't enough evidence to go to court and let the man walk. His name was Ian Huntley.

Rape and sexual assault acts are not sexy, or erotic, or explainable because of someone's high libido. They are acts of terrorism designed to humiliate and degrade an innocent human being, which is why they are considered as war crimes internationally.

Mary Shannon refused to be victimised when she went public so as to name and shame Adam Keane because he was not given the protection of a custodial sentence. She did not accept the rapist's script.

But the state has accepted it. The force of law has been degraded and humiliated by it.

Britain revised its processes after Huntley was convicted for murdering Holly and Jessica. Who has to die before Ireland takes back the reins?

This is the article cited by SeanW. The big problem I have with it is that, although the writer is probably motivated from a sense of injustice, I feel articles like this (and the media frenzy in general) do more damage than harm. She is taking a very skewed view of the facts and using them to suggest that there is a new rapist's charter whereby any young girl is fair game to a predatory, but otherwise respectable man. This is not the case in reality, although if I were a sexual predator or a young victim of sexual assault/rape, after reading this article I might be inclined to believe it is true (to my, and society's extreme detriment). I think in an effort to express their anger or to possibly sell more newspapers we get articles like this.

No newspaper worth it's salt would want a story about what appears to be a very tragic incident where one person's life was destroyed and another's radically changed, because no one wants to read stories that make them sad on a sunday afternoon. People want to be outraged. I think in a way, the newspapers want Adam Keane to be this vicious, predatory sexual burglar, who deliberately and maliciously violated this woman, and then was let away with it by an incompetent, misogynistic judiciary. However, none of that is the case here, and the attacks against the judiciary, the legal system, and Judge Carney in particular, are unfounded. It is hard for people to accept that being a judge in a criminal case is difficult, there are rarely easy answers, and that it is not always a clear cut case of an evil criminal wantonly attacking people.

I also have some other criticims of the way the article is written:

The assertion at paragraph 3, that rape has been effectively decriminalised is nonsense. Quite apart from the fact that there was a conviction in this case, people still receive large sentences for rape, most of them handed down by Judge Carney.

Paragraphs 5 & 6 are, in my opinion, ridiculous, and I find it very difficult to believe that the journalist in question actually thinks this is true. The decision did not imply this; the journalist in question inferred this, in my opinion, without any solid basis.

At paragraph 7 she asserts, without backing up or explaining, that since the late 1990s we have eroded the status of sexual offences. I'm not sure that I would agree with this, but since she has not explained why it has been eroded, I can't see the point she's making.

I also noticed that she did not mention in paragraph 8 what the level of convictions was for those cases which went to court. But then at paragraph 15 she asserts that the only cases that are prosecuted are those that are so clear cut and horrific that they are worth spending public money on. This, in my opinion, is not true at all, and if she published the rate of convictions/acquitalls, I think we would see a large number (although probably the minority) that were acquitted.

I'm not sure at all what her point is after that. She seems to be suggesting that outrage and media coverage make the DPP less willing to prosecute, and victims less likely to come foward. If this is her point, then why write the article?

johnnyskeleton

SeanW wrote:

Adam Keane's apologists make me sick.

I think you are being unfair to people who have a view contrary to yours. Just because people don't condem him as strongly as you, or because they try to look at the whole picture, does not mean that they are making excuses on his behalf.

lostexpectation wrote:

did he have any special *wink wink* character witnesses?

No, he said in the garda interview that he didn't think he was capable of raping someone. Also, out of character usually means that the person has no previous convictions, or at least none for serious or related offences.

seanies32 wrote:

I hope, though going from legal opinion there seems to be very little legal basis for the verdict, this was not legal politics because of the personal history between the Judge and the Appeal Court.

There is legal basis: 1) a judge has a discretion in sentencing of anything up to life imprisonment, 2) in reaching his decision a judge must balance the seriousness of the offence with the mitigating factors, 3) the NY decision is relevant insofar as the CCA noted that a suspended sentence should not be ruled out in rape cases.

The allegation that Judge Carney decided this case out of spite towards the CCA from their history is too far fetched for me to believe. Apart from the fact that Central Criminal Court Judges are legally bound by the decisions of the CCA, and if judges don't like the CCA's decisions they will try their best to get around it (i.e. this case is different to the other case because...). If it were true that this was Judge Carney sending a message to the CCA, he would have given an extra large, completely out of proportion sentence. So the idea that he suspended this sentence to cock a snook at the CCA is absurd and it is not even an internally consistent allegation (suspending a sentence to prove to the CCA that suspending a sentence is too lenient does not make much sense).

K-9

johnnyskeleton wrote:

No, he said in the garda interview that he didn't think he was capable of raping someone. Also, out of character usually means that the person has no previous convictions, or at least none for serious or related offences.


There is legal basis: 1) a judge has a discretion in sentencing of anything up to life imprisonment, 2) in reaching his decision a judge must balance the seriousness of the offence with the mitigating factors, 3) the NY decision is relevant insofar as the CCA noted that a suspended sentence should not be ruled out in rape cases.

The allegation that Judge Carney decided this case out of spite towards the CCA from their history is too far fetched for me to believe. Apart from the fact that Central Criminal Court Judges are legally bound by the decisions of the CCA, and if judges don't like the CCA's decisions they will try their best to get around it (i.e. this case is different to the other case because...). If it were true that this was Judge Carney sending a message to the CCA, he would have given an extra large, completely out of proportion sentence. So the idea that he suspended this sentence to cock a snook at the CCA is absurd and it is not even an internally consistent allegation (suspending a sentence to prove to the CCA that suspending a sentence is too lenient does not make much sense).

It may have been out of character for him to rape somebody, but he did, he was convicted of it.

You could look at the sentence another way. In the NY case Judge Carney gave a 3 year sentence, I think 1 suspended, despite all the extenuating circumstances that didn't exist in this case. He obviously thought that the sentence was fair. The CCA then suspended the case. The Judge has been on record as criticising the CCA for decisions they have made and going against his judgments.

This case comes up and he delivers this sentence and he did refer to the CCA in this judgment and the chance that this would be appealed. Maybe to reverse the logic, maybe the suspended sentence here, was a rebuke to the CCA for using it in the NY case. He didn't consider a suspended sentence before this for rape so maybe this could be construed as he doesn't condone suspended sentences.

He knew there was a good chance this would be appealed and there would be a public reaction against suspended sentences being considered in rape cases.

Voipjunkie

johnnyskeleton wrote:

This is the article cited by SeanW. The big problem I have with it is that, although the writer is probably motivated from a sense of injustice, I feel articles like this (and the media frenzy in general) do more damage than harm. She is taking a very skewed view of the facts and using them to suggest that there is a new rapist's charter whereby any young girl is fair game to a predatory, but otherwise respectable man. This is not the case in reality, although if I were a sexual predator or a young victim of sexual assault/rape, after reading this article I might be inclined to believe it is true (to my, and society's extreme detriment). I think in an effort to express their anger or to possibly sell more newspapers we get articles like this.

No newspaper worth it's salt would want a story about what appears to be a very tragic incident where one person's life was destroyed and another's radically changed, because no one wants to read stories that make them sad on a sunday afternoon. People want to be outraged. I think in a way, the newspapers want Adam Keane to be this vicious, predatory sexual burglar, who deliberately and maliciously violated this woman, and then was let away with it by an incompetent, misogynistic judiciary. However, none of that is the case here, and the attacks against the judiciary, the legal system, and Judge Carney in particular, are unfounded. It is hard for people to accept that being a judge in a criminal case is difficult, there are rarely easy answers, and that it is not always a clear cut case of an evil criminal wantonly attacking people.

I also have some other criticims of the way the article is written:

The assertion at paragraph 3, that rape has been effectively decriminalised is nonsense. Quite apart from the fact that there was a conviction in this case, people still receive large sentences for rape, most of them handed down by Judge Carney.

Paragraphs 5 & 6 are, in my opinion, ridiculous, and I find it very difficult to believe that the journalist in question actually thinks this is true. The decision did not imply this; the journalist in question inferred this, in my opinion, without any solid basis.

At paragraph 7 she asserts, without backing up or explaining, that since the late 1990s we have eroded the status of sexual offences. I'm not sure that I would agree with this, but since she has not explained why it has been eroded, I can't see the point she's making.

I also noticed that she did not mention in paragraph 8 what the level of convictions was for those cases which went to court. But then at paragraph 15 she asserts that the only cases that are prosecuted are those that are so clear cut and horrific that they are worth spending public money on. This, in my opinion, is not true at all, and if she published the rate of convictions/acquitalls, I think we would see a large number (although probably the minority) that were acquitted.

I'm not sure at all what her point is after that. She seems to be suggesting that outrage and media coverage make the DPP less willing to prosecute, and victims less likely to come foward. If this is her point, then why write the article?

I completely agree

I would also add that Mary Shannon was no interrogated as if she had done something wrong
The defence was based on intent not on any suggestion that Ms Shannon was in any way in the wrong.


The case of the 75 year old woman and the 15 year sentence is a completely different set of circumstances
The man broke into the home with the intention of committing a crime
When confronted he left and then returned and violently raped the woman

The sentence was based on the facts of the case not on the sexual attractiveness of the victim.

Lastly it is appealing to base emotions in trying to make some kind of tenous link between Ian Huntley and this case. If Ms Ruane actually went through the details of the case and the evidence presented and argued with the outcome based on those rather than making sensationalised comments about rape now being decriminalised and other such nonsense.
It is of course completely in keeping with INM brand and the attempt to sensationalise crime and frighten people.

Voipjunkie

Seanies32 wrote:

It may have been out of character for him to rape somebody, but he did, he was convicted of it.

You could look at the sentence another way. In the NY case Judge Carney gave a 3 year sentence, I think 1 suspended, despite all the extenuating circumstances that didn't exist in this case. He obviously thought that the sentence was fair. The CCA then suspended the case. The Judge has been on record as criticising the CCA for decisions they have made and going against his judgments.

This case comes up and he delivers this sentence and he did refer to the CCA in this judgment and the chance that this would be appealed. Maybe to reverse the logic, maybe the suspended sentence here, was a rebuke to the CCA for using it in the NY case. He didn't consider a suspended sentence before this for rape so maybe this could be construed as he doesn't condone suspended sentences.

He knew there was a good chance this would be appealed and there would be a public reaction against suspended sentences being considered in rape cases.

Of course the far more likely scenario is that he felt obliged to bring his sentencing into line with decision of a superior court
If the DPP is successful and my guess is that it will be given that the courts appear to be able to stand law on its head in this country depending on how many calls something gets on Joe duffys show or how many hysterical headlines it has in the INM stable then Judge Carney would have to take that into account in the future.