Judge lets rapist walk free, again.

johnnyskeleton

Seanies32 wrote:

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

It was suggested that there might be a sinster element to the phrase "out of character" so I commented to rebuke that.

Seanies32 wrote:

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.

But it's more likely, in my opinion, that he applied the reasoning in the NY case rather than used this as an opportunity to rebuke the CCA. I don't think that suspending a sentence sends the message that sentences should not be suspended. If he is against suspended sentences (in cases like this), I think the way he might try to get his message to the CCA would be to refuse to suspend any sentences (thus showing the CCA that he doesn't approve of them).

Mr.Nice Guy

Voipjunkie wrote:

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

Eh? How do you know what he meant to do?

Voipjunkie wrote:

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.

Did he not believe he raped the woman? What, someone took over his body and did it in order to frame him?

Voipjunkie wrote:

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

Wrong, it's very straightforward. He raped a woman in horrific circumstances and he walked away with a slap on the wrist.

The people defending this man need to ask themselves how they would feel if it was their mother/sister/aunt etc. that had suffered the attack. I highly doubt people like you would then be defending that joke of a sentence.

Voipjunkie

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Eh? How do you know what he meant to do?

Based on the transcripts of the evidence presented there is no evidence that he set out or intended to rape anyone

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Did he not believe he raped the woman? What, someone took over his body and did it in order to frame him?

I suggest you read the transcripts

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Wrong, it's very straightforward. He raped a woman in horrific circumstances and he walked away with a slap on the wrist.

What horrific circumstances

was violence used
was the threat of violence used
did he attempt to continue once the woman objected
was he easily pushed away by the woman

Read the evidence is there a highly likely possibility that the defendant thought he was in his girlfriends house having sex with his girlfriend just as the woman thought she was having sex with her boyfriend

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

The people defending this man need to ask themselves how they would feel if it was their mother/sister/aunt etc. that had suffered the attack. I highly doubt people like you would then be defending that joke of a sentence.

I suggest that you look at the actual transcripts and evidence and not just the hysterical headlines before arriving at a decision on this case.
My opinion was the exact same as yours until I looked a little deeper into why Judge Carney would give a suspended sentence and when i looked into it I was shocked because the impression that I had formed of the case based on media reports bore no resemblance to the evidence presented in the case.

This is a case of media manipulation of the general public and of certain politicians jumping on the bandwagon for political gain the story they have told bears no relation to the actual events. Thank god we have judges that are free to examine each case on its merits I do not envy then their job.

Voipjunkie

johnnyskeleton wrote:

But it's more likely, in my opinion, that he applied the reasoning in the NY case rather than used this as an opportunity to rebuke the CCA. I don't think that suspending a sentence sends the message that sentences should not be suspended. If he is against suspended sentences (in cases like this), I think the way he might try to get his message to the CCA would be to refuse to suspend any sentences (thus showing the CCA that he doesn't approve of them).

Also if anything the NY case had deliberate intent and full knowledge that the act was rape If that was deserving of a suspended sentence then it is very hard to see how Judge Carney could have given a custodial sentence when evidence of knowledge or intent were missing from this case.

SeanW

I accept that the commentary I read was a little sensationalist, possibly bordering on propoganda, but if what she wrote about the number of rapes that are reported, go to court, and result in convictions are true, then it seems there's something of a problem.

And with rapists getting away with their crimes (and let's face it, a suspended sentence where the guilty walk out of court free is basically getting away with it) sends out the wrong message completely to rape victims in particular and society as a whole.

The fact that the guilty man was off his head on drink at the time, and therefore might MAY not have INTENDED to rape the woman, should not, in my view, have been taken as a mitigating factor.

But if Justice Carney's hands were tied by an overly lenient CCA, then I can't fault him for that.

However the case in 2004 where a young man raped a 50 year old man and got off with a suspended sentence since was in a stable gay relationship at the time of prosecution was also presided over by Justice Carney.

The question arises if the excessively lenient CCA guidelines were in place then.

Voipjunkie

SeanW wrote:

I accept that the commentary I read was a little sensationalist, possibly bordering on propoganda, but if what she wrote about the number of rapes that are reported, go to court, and result in convictions are true, then it seems there's something of a problem.



And with rapists getting away with their crimes (and let's face it, a suspended sentence where the guilty walk out of court free is basically getting away with it) sends out the wrong message completely to rape victims in particular and society as a whole.




The fact that the guilty man was off his head on drink at the time, and therefore might MAY not have INTENDED to rape the woman, should not, in my view, have been taken as a mitigating factor.

I agree there is a problem but surely the solution is not to just impose harsh sentences irrespective of the details of the case that is not justice either.


I think you are missing the point here on the alcohol the alcohol is only a mitigating factor in that it explains how the mistake of entering the wrong house could be made.
If the man was stone cold sober it would be very difficult to believe that he could have entered the wrong house by mistake.

The man was at fault for being in the house the sexual intercourse between them would appear to be a case of mistaken identity on both parts however the man should not have been there. The issue then is did the man intend to enter the house if he was sober then it would be very hard to believe that he did not.

SeanW wrote:

But if Justice Carney's hands were tied by an overly lenient CCA, then I can't fault him for that.

However the case in 2004 where a young man raped a 50 year old man and got off with a suspended sentence since was in a stable gay relationship at the time of prosecution was also presided over by Justice Carney.

The question arises if the excessively lenient CCA guidelines were in place then.

I have no knowledge of that case can you provide further details

johnnyskeleton

SeanW wrote:

if what she wrote about the number of rapes that are reported, go to court, and result in convictions are true, then it seems there's something of a problem.

It's a well documented problem, but in my opinion the problem is with society in general, and not the legal profession, the gardai, the DPP, the government, or any other easy target.

If what she says is true, then only the most clear cut rape cases would make it through to court. Again, while I'm not in a good position to comment as I can only read the newspapers etc, I don't think that the cases that go through are that clear cut at all. Many are reported as his word against hers (I know that this is not how it is presented by the court, but it is how the newspapers, and people, often see it). If anything, I would say that there is so much pressure on the DPP and the Gardai at the moment that any case that has a reasonable chance of success will go to court.

If you look at the statistics in England (home office see page 9), there seems to be a trend that the amount of recorded rapes has increased significantly, the amount that have been proceeded against has risen slightly, and the amount that are convicted are more or less the same. Ultimately it is the jury system which convicts or acquits, and the general tenor of rape law reform in England seems to me to be about dispelling the myths that people have built up about rape.

Although this case made headlines because of the sentence, I think that the article in the Independent and the rest of the media perpertuate the myths about rape, and thus are a problem in themselves.

However, I would be very wary of jumping to conclusions about the statistics. I have read some articles which suggest that because the ratio of of reported rapes to convictions is growing, less people are being convicted of rape. The same amount of people are being convicted, and I really can't accept that the police (other than in a few unfortunate cases) don't prosecute because they simply don't believe or don't like the complainant. More likely, there is not enough evidence to convict.

SeanW wrote:

The question arises if the excessively lenient CCA guidelines were in place then.

I think it is more a situation that rape covers a broader spectrum of different situations than any other offence.

lostexpectation

is it the case the dpp could have brought something like sexual assault instead of rape, and he would got different sentence or does it work like that here?

johnnyskeleton

lostexpectation wrote:

is it the case the dpp could have brought something like sexual assault instead of rape, and he would got different sentence or does it work like that here?

He could have brought it instead, or in addition to the charge. However, because sexual assault is a lesser offence with a lesser maximum penalty, it wouldn't have made much of a difference.

There is, I think, a really old offence called "burglary with intent to rape" which, if he was convicted, might have carried a minimum sentence. I can't find the exact provision because its pre-1922, and I woudn't be sure that it hasn't been repealed, but in any case it is a bit of a crazy charge to bring.

SeanW

Finally, Adam Keane's been sent to jail by the original judge.

Story here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0511/keanea.html

Well, so much for Keane being a good little boy who just had a little too much to drink. Glad to see this piece of human filth has finally been thrown in jail.

Seth Brundle

Hope the scumbag rots in hell!

cast_iron

Interesting - the judge claimed he went "out on a limb" when handing down the suspended sentence.
He should have gone out on a limb for the victim, as opposed to the perpetrator.

GuanYin

I think if you read the Judge's statement with this new event, he was quite clear and consistant with the reason's why the sentence was suspended (even if I personally don't agree with the reasons).

I do think that justice has finally been served. Shouldn't he get additional time for breaking his bond?

Liam Byrne

Interesting......a judge reduces your responsibility for a crime that you committed because you were under the influence of alcohol, and you don't get any punishment or sentence.

I've had a few drinks, so I'm off out to my car to drive down the road at speed.......I can use that judge's opinion as the precedence to my defence. Hey, it might even work if I mow down some innocent individual and cripple them, leaving them to remember my actions and live with the memory for life...

"Sorry, your honour, I did something lousy, irresponsible and illegal, but I was drunk at the time, so you'll have to let me off" :rolleyes:

Does anyone here believe that that line would work in that scenario ? So why does it work when some poor unfortunate girl has had her life ruined by a scum ?

Moral of the story: rape away, but don't you dare flick a cigarette at anyone, mind...... :rolleyes: :mad:

/Andy\

SeanW wrote:

Finally, Adam Keane's been sent to jail by the original judge.

Story here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0511/keanea.html

Well, so much for Keane being a good little boy who just had a little too much to drink. Glad to see this piece of human filth has finally been thrown in jail.

Could you explain how the fact that he flicked a cigarette at the woman changes the FACTS of the transcripts (i.e what actually happened as related by Voipjunkie)?

Nevyn

It doesn't but the terms of the sentence being suspended are clear about what he can not do or self he has to complete the sentence in jail.

IF it was the case it was a very screwed up series of events and he was completely recteint then he would never see inside prison but I guess he tought
he was scott free and his behaviour and manner changed when he was not in frount of the judge.

Wertz

Everyone including the family is welcoming this action by the judge and seem satisfied....but am I the only one who thinks that the 3 yrs is still too little? Especially since in real terms it'll be more like 2 or less.
If I were the victim here I'd still be pissed...

Judt

In the Irish legal system, you take what you can get. 2 years would still be twice as much as what he was getting previously. (Of course, you can't really multiply zero...)

Gobán Saor

Wertz wrote:

Everyone including the family is welcoming this action by the judge and seem satisfied....but am I the only one who thinks that the 3 yrs is still too little? Especially since in real terms it'll be more like 2 or less.
If I were the victim here I'd still be pissed...

No - you're far from the only one. Three years for rape is utterly ridiculous and out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. However all is not lost - the DPP has appealed against the leniency of the sentence and this is due to be heard in a few weeks.

Capt'n Midnight

Thaedydal wrote:

It could well be a political move by the judge to have the laws in reguards to sentencing tightned and tidied up.

I don't buy that. Not from a judicary that fails to impose mandatory sentences for things like drug offences.

Judges can't take the law into their own hands.
If politicians make new laws then the judge have to apply them, not ignore them or the spirit of them. If they don't like the laws then they should appeal rather than subvert them. There is far too much inconsistancy in sentencing reported in the media. ( one year for drunk driving in the Sheedy case vs. 8 years for handbag snatching by the same judge )

I feel that drugs taken by a person including alcohol should never be used as an excuse for diminished responsibility.

Then again Politicians should also supply more prisons / jailers if they want people to stay in jail longer and support the judicary in such maner.

How have recent cases like this affected the numbers of rape cases reported to the rape crisis centres compared to those reported to the Guards ?

InFront

/Andy\ wrote:

Could you explain how the fact that he flicked a cigarette at the woman changes the FACTS of the transcripts?

This is what annoys me about this too. Breaking into her home and raping her in the dead of the night was one thing; but flicking a cigarette disrespectfully, that's crossing the line?

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/environment/environmental-protection/litter_law

You will be charged an on-the-spot fine of €125 for leaving or throwing litter in a public place. There is a maximum fine of €3,000 if you are convicted of a litter offence in the District Court.
...
You can report incidences of illegal dumping to a 24 hour lo-call number 1850 365 121. Complaints are notified to a co-ordinator who will pass on details to the local authority, an Garda Síochána or the Environmental Protection Agency.

SeanW

It wasn't the cigarette, but rather the totality of the thing.

The rapist (Adam Keane) seemingly made a defence of diminished capacity due to alcahol intake along with some potential explanations for why he did what he did when he was locked out of his head on alcohol, and gave the impression which the judge seems to have taken, that he really was a nice man that didn't intend to do anything wrong.

The sentence was suspended, it would appear on condition that he act much more conservatively and sensibly, and that he avoid contact with the victim.

But they left court that day and he took the same train home as the victim and when they got off the train at Ennis, he made eye contact with the victim and flicked a cigarette at her, generally behaving in a triumphalist manner.

In a few hours he:
1) Broke the terms of his suspension (like avoiding contact).
2) Smoked on board a train (it looks like he did anyway).
3) Littered.

The good-for-nothing twat should have been put away for a lot more than 3 years and the sentence should not have been suspended in the firstplace.

johnnyskeleton

Wertz wrote:

Everyone including the family is welcoming this action by the judge and seem satisfied....but am I the only one who thinks that the 3 yrs is still too little? Especially since in real terms it'll be more like 2 or less.
If I were the victim here I'd still be pissed...

What difference would it really make to the victim whether the sentence is 2 years or 10?

Cap'n Midnight wrote:

I don't buy that. Not from a judicary that fails to impose mandatory sentences for things like drug offences.

The only mandatory sentence in Irish law is life for murder. There is no mandatory sentence for "things like drug offences"

Cap'n Midnight wrote:

Judges can't take the law into their own hands.

That's their job. They are appointed to administer the law and to do so in a reasonable and accountable manner.

Cap'n Midnight wrote:

If politicians make new laws then the judge have to apply them, not ignore them or the spirit of them.

I would, with all due respect, suggest that you are merely repeating the invective used by the Minister for Justice when he doesn't get his way.

Cap'n Midnight wrote:

There is far too much inconsistancy in sentencing reported in the media. ( one year for drunk driving in the Sheedy case vs. 8 years for handbag snatching by the same judge )

You are not comparing like for like. Drink driving and theft/robbery are different offences. But if there is far too much inconsistancy in sentencing reported in the media, I would suggest that you read a better newspaper.

InFront wrote:

This is what annoys me about this too. Breaking into her home and raping her in the dead of the night was one thing; but flicking a cigarette disrespectfully, that's crossing the line?

It shows that he was not repentant and that his version of events that it was a drunken mistake was not to be believed. More importantly however, when a suspended sentence is imposed a judge is saying "be good or go to jail". If you breach the terms of the suspended sentence, then it activates.

Cap'n Midnight wrote:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/ca...ion/litter_law

Flicking a cigarrette at someone is an assault.

Sand

In a few hours he:
1) Broke the terms of his suspension (like avoiding contact).
2) Smoked on board a train (it looks like he did anyway).
3) Littered.

You know, the first thing I thought when I heard about this was WTF? Suspended sentence for rape, 3 years for littering?
Judges have been complaining about mandatory sentencing claiming they need flexiability to ensure the punishment fits the crime, but tbh they appear to take the complete piss with the way they employ that flexiability. Mandatory sentencing appears to be the only way for appropriate sentences to be handed down - this judge in particular seems incapable of it.

Wertz

johnnyskeleton wrote:

What difference would it really make to the victim whether the sentence is 2 years or 10?

lol are you for real? Ever been the victim of a crime? Ever seen someone who did something against you or your family get off with a slap on the wrist, even though they were dealt with to the full effect of the law?

Your point seems to be that no matter how long the guy serves, the victim was still raped and nothing can take that back and that's essentially true, but IMO for healing to take place that victim should at least see their attacker go through some hardship in return...a sense of justice. Not to mention the peace of mind of knowing the guy isn't wandering the streets in a few years waiting to do this again to them or someone else.

Longer sentences alone aren't the answer either...at least for sex offences. Offenders need to receive attention while they serve their time, at least try to make sure that some of them don't re-offend. We don't seem to even do that with paedophiles here let alone rapists, or at least not to the extent that we should...

Gobán Saor

Wertz wrote:

Longer sentences alone aren't the answer either...at least for sex offences. Offenders need to receive attention while they serve their time, at least try to make sure that some of them don't re-offend. We don't seem to even do that with paedophiles here let alone rapists, or at least not to the extent that we should...

It is almost beyond belief that a convicted paedophile or other sex offender who refuses without any reason whatsoever to participate in any form of therapy while in prison will still automatically qualify for 25% remission for "good behaviour." I mean, WTF do you have to do to be deemed not eligible for remission. Answer: remission is an automatic "right" unless you are proven to do something that will lose it for you. You don't have to demonstrate any particular "good behaviour" to qualify for it - it is granted automatically.

johnnyskeleton

Sand wrote:

You know, the first thing I thought when I heard about this was WTF? Suspended sentence for rape, 3 years for littering?

Littering has nothing to do with the activation of the sentence. That is taking a skewed and incorrect view of the judge's decision. It is something that the Herald plays up to though, not because it is true but because it sells papers who want to be outraged about anything a judge does.

Sand wrote:

Judges have been complaining about mandatory sentencing claiming they need flexiability to ensure the punishment fits the crime, but tbh they appear to take the complete piss with the way they employ that flexiability. Mandatory sentencing appears to be the only way for appropriate sentences to be handed down - this judge in particular seems incapable of it.

You are assuming that because this may be true in one case that the whole system is faulty and judges should be put in their place. I don't think you should base an entire argument on sentencing based on the media's view of this one case. Besides, the matter is on appeal to the CCA.

Wertz wrote:

Your point seems to be that no matter how long the guy serves, the victim was still raped and nothing can take that back and that's essentially true, but IMO for healing to take place that victim should at least see their attacker go through some hardship in return...a sense of justice.

I didn't make the point that it doesn't matter whether it is a suspended sentence, I noted that the length of the actual sentence served usually doesn't make much of a difference to a victim of crime. In this particular case, the victim reported that she was relieved that the sentence of 3 years was imposed, and I don't think it would make much difference whether it is 3 years or 10. The hardship is the conviction and being sent to prison. After a certain point, the length of a sentence becomes irrelevant and the offender becomes used to prison life.

Wertz wrote:

Not to mention the peace of mind of knowing the guy isn't wandering the streets in a few years waiting to do this again to them or someone else.

This is a different consideration altogether; it is society's interest to protect itself from further attacks.

My general view is the media can portray a 3 year sentence as a slap on the wrist, but they can say the same about the death penalty and some people will believe them.

Firetrap

Hoist with his own petard.

After the controversy over him getting off in the first place, I've a feeling the judge was only too happy to send him to prison rather than admit he'd made a mistake

DublinWriter

allie_e17 wrote:

After the controversy over him getting off in the first place, I've a feeling the judge was only too happy to send him to prison rather than admit he'd made a mistake

I think the judge was playing a 'long-game' and was initially trying to make a point and push for mandatory sentencing as previous Irish case-law has been all over the shop when it comes to imposing penal sentances on those sucessfully convicted of rape when cases goes to appeal.

I'd like to say all's well that ends well, but yer-man will be back on the streets in 18 months and there won't be any major judicial review or overhaul of sentancing in such cases.