Rapist Prick gets his just desserts

Boggles

NotWormBoy wrote: »

So?

So, What?

NotWormBoy

I'm wondering why you quoted me saying that since I don't see why...

Boggles

NotWormBoy wrote: »

I'm wondering why you quoted me saying that since I don't see why...

Oh right, I see what happenend, you qouted someone who asked "Why was in the house?" - I qouted you then, should have qouted him.

HollyB

LadyJ wrote: »

10 years for rape seems decent enough.

Personally, I think that it ought to be the mandatory minimum sentence for rape - remember, quarter of the sentence will never be served thanks to automatic remission.

LadyJ wrote: »

Suspended sentences for things
like that are just unacceptable imo. Good outcome.

Agreed. When it comes to violent crimes, suspended sentences should only be allowed under exceptional circumstances - as in the convicted person is terminally ill with a year to live or something along those lines.

Laslo

Seems to be a lot of speculation on this thread. Does anyone know the facts? Was it proved that the perpetrator broke into the victims house as was suggested by the media? What did the post-coital tests prove, if anything (the intercourse itself was supposedly under consent as the victim thought that the man having sex with her was her boyfriend). Did she or did she not actually have a boyfriend? Was this proved in court/did he testify? It all sounds very suss.

nesf

HollyB wrote: »

Personally, I think that it ought to be the mandatory minimum sentence for rape - remember, quarter of the sentence will never be served thanks to automatic remission.

Mandatory sentences are bad things and should be avoided tbh.

Nothingcompares

Very bizarre case. I don't want to add fuel to the rumour file but I'm certain I heard on the radio last week that she claimed to be asleep while the rape took place. Is it possible to read transcripts from the original trail or anything like that?

daveharnett

Boggles wrote: »

It is indeed a strange case, not as black and white as protrayed, Justice Carney saw it as this too and would be a reason he gave a leniant sentence first time out.

IMO a custodial sentance was still warranted, regardless of the judges opinion of the evidence. I mean, the jury found him guilty of rape on the strength of the evidence presented. If the judge thought the case was too weak, why did he allow this judgement to stand?

Flex

IMO death would be 'just desserts' for a rapist, but God knows we cant do something like that a poor aul scumbag rapist. They need to be rehabilitated or some crap so they can be decent members of society, never mind the victim having a sense of justice or retribution.

What a joke that he nearly got away with a 3 year suspended sentence

HollyB

nesf wrote: »

Mandatory sentences are bad things and should be avoided tbh.

Unfortunately, they may be the only way to avoid against ludicrous sentences like the one in this case, and in the Lavinia Kerwick case, for example. As I understand it, a judge may direct a jury to find a defendent not guilty if there is no merit in the case against them (obviously, it doesn't go the other way) so I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would impose a suspended sentence on a convicted rapist.

I wonder if the sentence would have been reviewed and a more severe penalty imposed if the victim had not broken her silence. How many other cases have there been where convicted rapists have walked free because of suspended sentences, cases that we may never hear about?

AlmightyCushion

Mmmmm dessert.

*drools*

walt0r

There is a lot more to this story than meets the eye...

HollyB

walt0r wrote: »

There is a lot more to this story than meets the eye...

In what way - that the conviction was wrong, or that the sentence review is only a response to public outcry?

Dudess

Read backalong, Holly. There appear to be some inconsistencies in her story.

nesf

HollyB wrote: »

Unfortunately, they may be the only way to avoid against ludicrous sentences like the one in this case, and in the Lavinia Kerwick case, for example.

With the implication that avoiding these is worth tying judges' hands and potentially forcing them to in future give harsher sentences than would be "deserved".

HollyB

Dudess wrote: »

Read backalong, Holly. There appear to be some inconsistencies in her story.

We've only seen a part of the story. The jury heard a heck of a lot more, and found him guilty.

Dudess

Could the media have swayed them though? And it would be naive to think that gender, class, age etc aren't still taken into account by juries.

HollyB

Dudess wrote: »

Could the media have swayed them though? And it would be naive to think that gender, class, age etc aren't still taken into account by juries.

Are jurors not instructed to judge the case solely on the evidence presented in the court? How much media coverage of the case was there prior to the conviction and sentencing?

Dudess

I know - in theory. There was substantial media coverage after the first sentencing.

walt0r

I can't really say. Just that there is two sides to every story. No angels.

HollyB

Dudess wrote: »

I know - in theory. There was substantial media coverage after the first sentencing.

Unless the members of jury that found him guilty were all gifted with precognitive abilities, I don't see that impacting their verdict. What I am interested in is the level of media coverage before the trial, and while the trial was in progress.

HollyB

walt0r wrote: »

I can't really say. Just that there is two sides to every story. No angels.

And it is for the jury to decide, based on the evidence and testimony presented, which side is telling the truth.

kodute

That guy was in my primary school class, little scumbags grow up to be big scumbags... go figure...

Dudess

HollyB wrote: »

An extremely disturbing sentiment, even if it is expressed in jest.

Wow! That post barely lasted any time at all. And the idiot who posted it has been sitebanned already. Now THAT's the kind of mod I hope to be!
If it was in jest it would be funny, but it's just sad. Attention-seeking by a pitiful loser.

galwayrush

kodute wrote: »

That guy was in my primary school class, little scumbags grow up to be big scumbags... go figure...

Yes they do.
One thing that i found strange was where the Judge in the original trial said the attacker was from " a good background":rolleyes:

HollyB

Dudess wrote: »

Wow! That post barely lasted any time at all. And the idiot who posted it has been sitebanned already. Now THAT's the kind of mod I hope to be!
If it was in jest it would be funny, but it's just sad. Attention-seeking by a pitiful loser.

I'm impressed. That's quick work on the mods' part. I'm going to edit my post to get rid of the quote.

Dudess

galwayrush wrote: »

One thing that i found strange was where the Judge in the original trial said the attacker was from " a good background":rolleyes:

Why's that strange?

kodute

Dudess wrote: »

Why's that strange?

Because he wasn't and someone who could do something like that clearly had something wrong in their background...

Dudess

Do you know for definite he was from a bad background? I know he went to your school but did you know his family circumstances?

And I disagree. A person from an excellent background could be capable of what he did.

galwayrush

Dudess wrote: »

Why's that strange?

Because reading articles about him since the trial, he seemingly was always a scumbag, and other members of his family are well known to the Garda.

walt0r

His brother bit a guys ear off in Ennis about a year ago and is doing time for it now as well.
But all that aside...there ain't no angels in this love story

Muff_Daddy

nesf wrote: »

Mandatory sentences are bad things and should be avoided tbh.

Why?

This is a point of view that baffles me. Why should the law place a higher value on the criminal's right than above the victims, or the law abiding public at large? Surely a 10 year mandatory sentence for any rapist is a just sentence (or not harsh enough, depending on your viewpoint), anything less than that seems leaniant to me.

I am talking about convicted rapists here, not those accused of rape.

europhile

It's "just deserts" by the way.

Dudess

Indeed. It's a term that derives from "deserve" - "he got his just deserts" means the same as "he got what he deserved" but because it sounds like "desserts" that's how it's often spelled. Quite confuddling.

europhile

Thank god. I was expecting you all to tell me I was wrong.

HollyB

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

Why?

This is a point of view that baffles me. Why should the law place a higher value on the criminal's right than above the victims, or the law abiding public at large? Surely a 10 year mandatory sentence for any rapist is a just sentence (or not harsh enough, depending on your viewpoint), anything less than that seems leaniant to me.

I am talking about convicted rapists here, not those accused of rape.

I was advocating a mandatory minimum sentence - I would have no objections if a stiffer penalty was to be imposed, especially if we're talking about the rape of a child.

Muff_Daddy

HollyB wrote: »

I was advocating a mandatory minimum sentence - I would have no objections if a stiffer penalty was to be imposed, especially if we're talking about the rape of a child.

I understand. I was just saying 10 years for arguement sake. I would also agree that some forms of rape should have stiffer sentences than others, and longer than 10 years too.

SubjectSean

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

I understand. I was just saying 10 years for arguement sake. I would also agree that some forms of rape should have stiffer sentences than others, and longer than 10 years too.

So say if you go back to a girls place and you're in the middle of having sex, even approaching the finish line, and then she suddenly says 'NO' but you being drunk/ignorant still go ahead and finish off. You deserve 10 years in jail no questions?

Muff_Daddy

SubjectSean wrote: »

So say if you go back to a girls place and you're in the middle of having sex, even approaching the finish line, and then she suddenly says 'NO' but you being drunk/ignorant still go ahead and finish off. You deserve 10 years in jail no questions?

In a word, yes.

SubjectSean

That's plain crazy I think. Where's the justice there?

Muff_Daddy

SubjectSean wrote: »

That's plain crazy I think. Where's the justice there?

If you know a girl is not consenting while you are performing intercourse, you are raping the girl. Intoxication or ignorance are no excuse.

SubjectSean

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

If you know a girl is not consenting while you are performing intercourse, you are raping the girl. Intoxication or ignorance are no excuse.

So if a girl withdraws her consent in the middle of having sex that's just fine with you she can go ahead and do that no bother. Are you in full control of yourself at this point? I don't think so. Intoxication must surely be a mitigating circumstance in this case but not to you. You're very harsh I feel.

phantom_lord

Blisterman wrote: »

So, a man commited a crime, and got a prison sentence for it?

Am I missing the point here?

I was expecting something slightly more interesting.

yeah i was expecting something like he got his balls cut off in a freak accident or something. very disappointed.

walt0r

Ah, c'mon we've all done it...what's the big deal, some of them say 'no' but you know they mean yaehhh!!!
(just kidding)

Nevyn

No we are not all rapist scum., who let themself into a family home and rape a mother in her bed while her 3 kids as sleep in the room beside.

http://www.lacaaw.org/notinvitation.html

Sonnenblumen

SubjectSean wrote: »

That's plain crazy I think. Where's the justice there?

Where's your comprehension?

Laslo

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

If you know a girl is not consenting while you are performing intercourse, you are raping the girl. Intoxication or ignorance are no excuse.

I think what the poster was asking was what if the woman consented and then, when it was almost over, she asked him to stop? In my opinion he should stop and it is rape if he continues... but a 10 year sentence for that, after she has consented to sex? Way too harsh. In fact if a woman testified that she consented to sex and then asked the man to stop just as he was about to 'finish' - there's probably not a jury in the land that would convict him.

HollyB

Laslo wrote: »

I think what the poster was asking was what if the woman consented and then, when it was almost over, she asked him to stop? In my opinion he should stop and it is rape if he continues... but a 10 year sentence for that, after she has consented to sex? Way too harsh. In fact if a woman testified that she consented to sex and then asked the man to stop just as he was about to 'finish' - there's probably not a jury in the land that would convict him.

So the ten-year sentence would not come into play.

Laslo

HollyB wrote: »

So the ten-year sentence would not come into play.

Well, not being familiar with that part of the law, that was really more my opinion than anything else! I don't know if it's considered rape if the woman withdraws consent well after she's given consent.

SubjectSean

HollyB wrote: »

So the ten-year sentence would not come into play.

If it is legally classed as rape, which it is, and there is proof, then the jury have to convict AFAIK. In cases such as these it would be for the judge to decide scentence but you want to take that descision away from the judge and so in this case the mandatory scentence would apply. That is why mandatory scentences are not a good thing.