Where's the justice ,child molestor gets a suspended sentance

giles lynchwood

www.nationmultimedia.com/national/woman-gets-jail-for-procuring-minors-for-expat-30176932.html
At least some people think of the children.May their sentence pass slowly.

dod2214

realies wrote: »

Would anyone here let Paul Roche (52), Wellmount Avenue, Finglas, babysit for them now ? .Seems that it was so long ago ?

Thismonster ruined the life of a very good person. He is also responsible for all of the consequential damage that has flowed from the abuse ge perpetrated.He pleaded guilty to 4 charges but the evidence before the judge was far more reaching.He continued this abuse until he was 21 years of age and his sister was 12 . He gets to carry on with his life whilst his sister and the rest of her family are left in tatters. His wife was with him in the day in court and she smirkrd at both his sisters as if to say we're off now !!! This is a travesty of justice the time factor makes no difference . Would all of the posters on this board who think it's to far in the past have a similar opinion he he had murdered a little girl 35 years ago and got a suspended sentence. I think not . Wake up to the reality here people one knows if he has carried on this behaviour since ,except the bastard himself.
Great little country this isn't it , as a society we should all hang our heads in shame .

arybvtcw0eolkf

dod2214 wrote: »

Great little country this isn't it , as a society we should all hang our heads in shame .

Why because some idiot from Finglas molested his sister 35 years ago, then gets a lenient sentence?.

This isn't the USA, we don't elect our judges.

Fvck that I'm hanging my head in shame for no one.

cocalolaman

dod2214 wrote: »

as a society we should all hang our heads in shame .

Because of what someone else did?

No.

saintsaltynuts

I'd chop his bastarding ghoulies off but hey that's just me.

lividduck

dod2214 wrote: »

Thismonster ruined the life of a very good person. He is also responsible for all of the consequential damage that has flowed from the abuse ge perpetrated.He pleaded guilty to 4 charges but the evidence before the judge was far more reaching.He continued this abuse until he was 21 years of age and his sister was 12 . He gets to carry on with his life whilst his sister and the rest of her family are left in tatters. His wife was with him in the day in court and she smirkrd at both his sisters as if to say we're off now !!! This is a travesty of justice the time factor makes no difference . Would all of the posters on this board who think it's to far in the past have a similar opinion he he had murdered a little girl 35 years ago and got a suspended sentence. I think not . Wake up to the reality here people one knows if he has carried on this behaviour since ,except the bastard himself.
Great little country this isn't it , as a society we should all hang our heads in shame .

He didnt murder anyone!
And whats this "as if to say" crap, you want him punished because his wife didnt actually say anything!

cloud493

Oh you'd be surprised. When it all came out, so to speak, they said 'oh we can't prosecute your dad for stuff that happened that long ago' I mean, it wasn't even that long he got done in the end mind, but still.

RachaelVO

lividduck wrote: »

He didnt murder anyone!
And whats this "as if to say" crap, you want him punished because his wife didnt actually say anything!

Wife??????

At 16 he molested his 8 year old sister...

He should have gotten a far longer unsuspended sentence

Kalimah

dod2214 wrote: »

realies wrote: »

Would anyone here let Paul Roche (52), Wellmount Avenue, Finglas, babysit for them now ? .Seems that it was so long ago ?

Thismonster ruined the life of a very good person. He is also responsible for all of the consequential damage that has flowed from the abuse ge perpetrated.He pleaded guilty to 4 charges but the evidence before the judge was far more reaching.He continued this abuse until he was 21 years of age and his sister was 12 . He gets to carry on with his life whilst his sister and the rest of her family are left in tatters. His wife was with him in the day in court and she smirkrd at both his sisters as if to say we're off now !!! This is a travesty of justice the time factor makes no difference . Would all of the posters on this board who think it's to far in the past have a similar opinion he he had murdered a little girl 35 years ago and got a suspended sentence. I think not . Wake up to the reality here people one knows if he has carried on this behaviour since ,except the bastard himself.
Great little country this isn't it , as a society we should all hang our heads in shame .

So you'd like his wife punished too? What did she do? Or is it all her fault too?

lividduck

Kalimah wrote: »

So you'd like his wife punished too? What did she do? Or is it all her fault too?

You are dealing with someone who has two posts , both on this subject to their name, obviously either has an agenda or is re-reg

Dudess

Very difficult one seeing as he was a minor at the time. He could have gone on to abuse, that would make sense, but there is no evidence that he did. Who's to say he isn't a changed man now?

Btw, news to me that we're getting desensitised to child abuse - the exact opposite I'd have thought. Look at that gutter rag name and shame thing a few years ago. The sentences are lenient because the law needs a rehaul.

steddyeddy

lividduck wrote: »

You are dealing with someone who has two posts , both on this subject to their name, obviously either has an agenda or is re-reg

An agenda consiting of having a problem with a child abuser is pretty normal I would say.

full_irish

This is such a difficult case to rule on because of the lag in the crime occurring and prosecution plus it seems like he hasn't repeat offended at all...
... but what he did is inexcusably wrong and he seems to accept this himself.

At the end of the day, we're not the judge and don't have all the facts of the case. I feel like he/she may have a bit of a better clue as to what they're doing than the fine upstanding members of A.H!!

minidazzler

What he did was deplorable, and disgusting, but prison is supposed to be more about reform than punishment. And to be honest, if he hasn't done a thing to anyone else in those 35 years then jail is merely a waste of time for him and money for the state.

Guy who molested child would probably be more appropriate for the thread title simply because child molester gives an image of someone who goes out looking for someone to molest. This guy took advantage of an opportunity a long time ago, and while he should have some punishment, prison isn't the right place for him.

lividduck

minidazzler wrote: »

What he did was deplorable, and disgusting, but prison is supposed to be more about reform than punishment. And to be honest, if he hasn't done a thing to anyone else in those 35 years then jail is merely a waste of time for him and money for the state.

Guy who molested child would probably be more appropriate for the thread title simply because child molester gives an image of someone who goes out looking for someone to molest. This guy took advantage of an opportunity a long time ago, and while he should have some punishment, prison isn't the right place for him.

wellsaid, and that is what the judge was probably thinking too

GombeanMan

The statute of limitations does not apply to indictable offences such as rape. Seriously, it's not hard to understand why this chap was convicted. What part of "no statutory limitations" in the case of indictable cases do you not understand? It could have been 100 years later, would make no diiference in the outcome.

cartell_best

I think castration should be made legal! But probably in all cases its probably too lenient of a punishment.

Dostoevsky

jujibee wrote: »

Are you suggesting that if someone commits a crime, and avoids prosecution for years they should not be punished? Do you think this for all crimes, or just molesting family members?

1) Nobody is suggesting this so fewer histrionics please.

2) I think the very fact that thousands of people who know Paul Roche (52) of Wellmount Avenue, Finglas now know that he sexually abused his 8-year-old sister when he was 16 is a fairly substantial punishment in this tiny society where reputation matters so much. Given that his name is now tarnished for something he did over 35 years ago when he was a teenager it's arguable that it's unfair, particularly if he has been a good and honourable person since who has shown genuine remorse for the abuse.


Either way, it's a tough situation to judge.

GombeanMan

Dostoevsky wrote: »

Either way, it's a tough situation to judge.

No, it's not. Rape carries no statute of limitations, therefore even if a bench warrant isn't issued, the case remains open for investigation. I would argue he should recieve a pardon for the offence if he is truly rehabilitated, but the offence can still be tried under common law. 35 years isn't a long time in the case of indictable offences such as rape. This is the law working correctly. Edit - DON'T POST HIS NAME ON A PUBLIC FORUM. PLEASE, FFS!

Spacedog

charlemont wrote: »

Ever wonder why they get such useless sentences ?? Because I do and I have my own theory which would probably be deleted here but think about how all of this was covered up for years and it should become clear.

Yeah tell me about it, I have a 5 page long list of infractions on the site for calling out child sexual abusers and their apologists.

GombeanMan

Spacedog wrote: »

Yeah tell me about it, I have a 5 page long list of infractions on the site for calling out child sexual abusers and their apologists.

Not saying you are wrong, but until the law has dealt with this matter beyond a reasonable doubt, there remains the possibility of naming the wrong person. Court Fines are worse than infractions. I would leave this up to the Courts and not mob justice.

Dostoevsky

GombeanMan wrote: »

No, it's not.

Yes, it is.

GombeanMan wrote: »

Rape carries no statute of limitations

You've already stated this, as irrelevant as it is to the point I was making as there are no mandatory sentences for such crimes. The case still needs to be judged. Have you just started studying law or something?

GombeanMan wrote: »

Edit - DON'T POST HIS NAME ON A PUBLIC FORUM. PLEASE, FFS!

Have you bothered to read the OP?

LenaClaire

Dostoevsky wrote: »

1) Nobody is suggesting this so fewer histrionics please.

2) I think the very fact that thousands of people who know Paul Roche (52) of Wellmount Avenue, Finglas now know that he sexually abused his 8-year-old sister when he was 16 is a fairly substantial punishment in this tiny society where reputation matters so much. Given that his name is now tarnished for something he did over 35 years ago when he was a teenager it's arguable that it's unfair, particularly if he has been a good and honourable person since who has shown genuine remorse for the abuse.


Either way, it's a tough situation to judge.

1. The person I was responding to has said that since it had been years since the crime was committed the offender should not be jailed. It seems funny to me that this sort of response seems to be regarded as acceptable when the crime is abuse with in the family but not other crimes.

If the crime had been a robbery that took place long ago there would be no question that the offender would be in jail.

2. Your point about honour, reputation and remorse is interesting. I agree that in a tiny country like Ireland damage to your reputation can be great. However, according to the article, he did not express remorse. He plead guilty, but that is all.

I am sure that there is a lot of information that was not discussed in the article, but I would think that some sort of therapy would be required after a crime such as this rather than just a suspended sentence in order to help guarantee that he does nothing like this again. I would also think that it would be reasonable to require him to pay for therapy for his sister as she still seems to be very traumatised by his actions.

3. I do not think it is "unfair" that he should be known for what he did, if I lived near him I would not want him near my children. What is "unfair" is that he made the choice to molest his little sister. Yes, he was a teen at the time but can you tell me that a 16 year old does not know that it is not acceptable to digitally molest your siblings?

Kalimah

jujibee wrote: »

Dostoevsky wrote: »

1) Nobody is suggesting this so fewer histrionics please.

2) I think the very fact that thousands of people who know Paul Roche (52) of Wellmount Avenue, Finglas now know that he sexually abused his 8-year-old sister when he was 16 is a fairly substantial punishment in this tiny society where reputation matters so much. Given that his name is now tarnished for something he did over 35 years ago when he was a teenager it's arguable that it's unfair, particularly if he has been a good and honourable person since who has shown genuine remorse for the abuse.


Either way, it's a tough situation to judge.

1. The person I was responding to has said that since it had been years since the crime was committed the offender should not be jailed. It seems funny to me that this sort of response seems to be regarded as acceptable when the crime is abuse with in the family but not other crimes.

If the crime had been a robbery that took place long ago there would be no question that the offender would be in jail.

2. Your point about honour, reputation and remorse is interesting. I agree that in a tiny country like Ireland damage to your reputation can be great. However, according to the article, he did not express remorse. He plead guilty, but that is all.

I am sure that there is a lot of information that was not discussed in the article, but I would think that some sort of therapy would be required after a crime such as this rather than just a suspended sentence in order to help guarantee that he does nothing like this again. I would also think that it would be reasonable to require him to pay for therapy for his sister as she still seems to be very traumatised by his actions.

3. I do not think it is "unfair" that he should be known for what he did, if I lived near him I would not want him near my children. What is "unfair" is that he made the choice to molest his little sister. Yes, he was a teen at the time but can you tell me that a 16 year old does not know that it is not acceptable to digitally molest your siblings?

From all accounts he haa been a model citizen since. He made a mistake. We're all entitled to make mistakes when we're young. Don't anyone tell me you're the same person at 50 than you are at 16. We all did stuff when we we're young that we wouldn't care to be reminded of now. I say good luck to the man.

LenaClaire

Kalimah wrote: »

From all accounts he haa been a model citizen since. He made a mistake. We're all entitled to make mistakes when we're young. Don't anyone tell me you're the same person at 50 than you are at 16. We all did stuff when we we're young that we wouldn't care to be reminded of now. I say good luck to the man.

Ok, what sort of things can you do when you are 16 that you are allowed to get away with? What is the list of things that we can just write off as a mistake?

Shop Lifting?
Assault?
Joy Riding?
Rape?
Robbery?
Murder?

I agree that people mature, and grow as they age but I also think that people should be accountable for their actions.

lividduck

jujibee wrote: »

Ok, what sort of things can you do when you are 16 that you are allowed to get away with? What is the list of things that we can just write off as a mistake?

Shop Lifting?
Assault?
Joy Riding?
Rape?
Robbery?
Murder?

I agree that people mature, and grow as they age but I also think that people should be accountable for their actions.

He has been held accountible, he has been arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced. Whats left?

dod2214

Spacedog wrote: »

charlemont wrote: »

Ever wonder why they get such useless sentences ?? Because I do and I have my own theory which would probably be deleted here but think about how all of this was covered up for years and it should become clear.

Yeah tell me about it, I have a 5 page long list of infractions on the site for calling out child sexual abusers and their apologists.

Reporting restrictions where lifted by the court at the request of his sister the victim I see no issue worn naming Paul Roche of Eellmount Ave Finglas on this or any other site as his name is out there as a matter of public record

LenaClaire

lividduck wrote: »

He has been held accountible, he has been arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced. Whats left?

Honestly, I think he should be required to pay for therapy for his sister, but I am not even arguing about his sentence in that post.

What I am trying to draw attention to is the belief that has been posted on this thread that some crimes seem to be forgivable, if you are young when you commit them, as per the posts below.

Calling molesting a family member, multiple times, a "mistake" is just obscene.

Kalimah wrote: »

From all accounts he haa been a model citizen since. He made a mistake. We're all entitled to make mistakes when we're young. Don't anyone tell me you're the same person at 50 than you are at 16. We all did stuff when we we're young that we wouldn't care to be reminded of now. I say good luck to the man.

Kalimah wrote: »

Have to say I think the sentence was fair. He was 16 and probably curious. The Ireland of the time had damn all sex ed and sex was seen in a very negative way. Even the human body was viewed as something to be ashamed of. The guy's name has been all over the paper so his life is ruined. Personally I don't think cases like that should be brought if they are that far in the past. The woman concerned.should have brought it up 20 years of she had an issue

lividduck

dod2214 wrote: »

Reporting restrictions where lifted by the court at the request of his sister the victim I see no issue worn naming Paul Roche of Eellmount Ave Finglas on this or any other site as his name is out there as a matter of public record

Fine, so you joined boards just to name someone who has already been named and shamed in the press. The guy was arrested, charged, convicted, sentenced and is now on the sex offenders register.
What is obvious is that you have a personal adgenda with guy in particular and are trying to use boards to pursue it.

livinsane

I definitely think a jail sentence would be pointless in this case, as other posters have pointed out. It would probably serve as a more symbolic punishment had he been jailed, as the need for rehabilitation had been proven unnecessary.

His actions certainly pointed to a manipulative and controlling individual who preyed on this girl and used to his advantage her age and her relationship to him. 16 is well old enough, and there was too much of an age gap to put it down to curiosity.

Naming and shaming will be a hard punishment for him. Just going about your everyday life in your community or at work, it will be torture knowing that people are talking about you.

Abuse within families is rife and still on going. Unfortunately hormones are urges are so strong that it is largely a biological issue, with obvious social issues that can enraging it. The best you can hope for is a supportive family. Certainly improvements in sex education will help children learn that it doesn't have to be an embarrassing secret and in the same way if your sibling punched you in the face, you'd run straight to your parents. I'd hope that if someone behaved inappropriately with a child, and they were reprimanded immediately, it would prevent it from happening again. Like all bad behaviour, if you can get away with it, why would you stop?

Fair play to the girl for coming forward for justice. Must have been torture all these years. Hopefully, she will be respected and supported within her family and they don't fall into the trap of pitying the brother.

minidazzler

jujibee wrote: »

Honestly, I think he should be required to pay for therapy for his sister, but I am not even arguing about his sentence in that post.

What I am trying to draw attention to is the belief that has been posted on this thread that some crimes seem to be forgivable, if you are young when you commit them, as per the posts below.

Calling molesting a family member, multiple times, a "mistake" is just obscene.

I don't think anyone really said they are forgivable, but prison was completely pointless in this case. He isn't a child molester, he is a man who molested a child 35 years ago. He made an extremely huge error, he was vile and disgusting. But if 35 years on her has done nothing more of the sort and has lived a quiet life keeping to himself and doing nothing out of the way, then prison just isn't the right place for him.

Prison is ostensibly about rehabilitation, this man doesn't need prison, maybe some court mandated psychological assessment to see where his head is at, and then go from there, but Prison isn't the right way to go about it.

I'm 22 now and a completely different person to when I was 16, how much can a man change in 35 years? I know it doesn't change what he did, and I know it won't change how his sister feels but sending him on a custodial sentence just to get some punishment in, is completely ridiculous.

I agree he should have to pay for any therapy that his sister went through and is going through.

Oh, and if RE: If the crime had been a robbery he'd be in jail?

No, he wouldn't, not if it was that long ago.

No one is saying his crimes should be forgiven, but they also shouldn't be punished with prison this far on.

Kalimah

Just wondering dod2214 what you think a fitting sentence would be?

dod2214

Kalimah wrote: »

Just wondering dod2214 what you think a fitting sentence would be?

The maximum sentence that could have been imposed for the 4 charges of indecently assaulting a minor is 2 years in prison. Even that sentence is a joke but should have been imposed. By the way at no stage during the trial did Paul Roche Wellmount Ave Finglas apologise for what he did.

Ellis Dee

dod2214 wrote: »

The maximum sentence that could have been imposed for the 4 charges of indecently assaulting a minor is 2 years in prison. Even that sentence is a joke but should have been imposed. By the way at no stage during the trial did Paul Roche Wellmount Ave Finglas apologise for what he did.

Even if he had received the maximum two-year sentence, would you have been satisfied? I suspect the answer is "no". And what would you want to do to him after he had served his sentence?

As for your "at no stage during the trial did Paul Roche --- apologise", it says this in the Irish Times report: "Paul Carroll, defending, said Roche told gardaí 'if she said it then I accept it happened', and apologised for the wrongdoing."

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0229/1224312523004.html


Please stop twisting facts to suit your own agenda.:rolleyes:

AeoNGriM

Meh - fcuk this

dod2214

Ellis Dee wrote: »

dod2214 wrote: »

The maximum sentence that could have been imposed for the 4 charges of indecently assaulting a minor is 2 years in prison. Even that sentence is a joke but should have been imposed. By the way at no stage during the trial did Paul Roche Wellmount Ave Finglas apologise for what he did.

Even if he had received the maximum two-year sentence, would you have been satisfied? I suspect the answer is "no". And what would you want to do to him after he had served his sentence?

As for your "at no stage during the trial did Paul Roche --- apologise", it says this in the Irish Times report: "Paul Carroll, defending, said Roche told gardaí 'if she said it then I accept it happened', and apologised for the wrongdoing."

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0229/1224312523004.html


Please stop twisting facts to suit your own agenda.


I personally don't want to do anything to him. He has ruined the life of his sister who he molested over a period of four years but his actions have impacted severely on his family members also. As with all cases of abuse the consequential damage ripples out for many many years. Families are torn apart as result. As for my comment Paul Roche never made any attempt to apologise in person the empty words spoken by his legal representative mean nothing ,after all hisbarrisrer us bound to do his best for his client and I have no issue with that. It was only after the police were involved did Paul Roche attend his doctor and begin taking medication for depression. Also as noted in the trial he tried to explain away his behaviour by stating that his relationship with his mother somehow shaped his behaviour .What a load of crap . His barrister also stated that psychological tests carried out after he was charged indicate that he is an individual of low intelligence. Another attempt to excuse his behaviour. There's also the matter of his previous marriage which was annulled also mentioned in the court. We only get a snippet in the newspaper reports the actual tells a more comprehensive story.

lividduck

dod2214 wrote: »

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Even if he had received the maximum two-year sentence, would you have been satisfied? I suspect the answer is "no". And what would you want to do to him after he had served his sentence?

As for your "at no stage during the trial did Paul Roche --- apologise", it says this in the Irish Times report: "Paul Carroll, defending, said Roche told gardaí 'if she said it then I accept it happened', and apologised for the wrongdoing."

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0229/1224312523004.html


Please stop twisting facts to suit your own agenda.


I personally don't want to do anything to him. He has ruined the life of his sister who he molested over a period of four years but his actions have impacted severely on his family members also. As with all cases of abuse the consequential damage ripples out for many many years. Families are torn apart as result. As for my comment Paul Roche never made any attempt to apologise in person the empty words spoken by his legal representative mean nothing ,after all hisbarrisrer us bound to do his best for his client and I have no issue with that. It was only after the police were involved did Paul Roche attend his doctor and begin taking medication for depression. Also as noted in the trial he tried to explain away his behaviour by stating that his relationship with his mother somehow shaped his behaviour .What a load of crap . His barrister also stated that psychological tests carried out after he was charged indicate that he is an individual of low intelligence. Another attempt to excuse his behaviour. There's also the matter of his previous marriage which was annulled also mentioned in the court. We only get a snippet in the newspaper reports the actual tells a more comprehensive story.

It is obvious you only joined Boards.ie just to repeatedly say the same things about this guy over and over ad nauseum.
Why don't you just get honest and disclose whatever personal agenda you have with him.

Kalimah

It just goes to show you that what you read in the papers is only half the story. Funnily enough I have heard that the first thing people who are accused of such crimes are told to do is contact a psychologist for evaluation. Seemingly it goes down well in court.

Spacedog

GombeanMan wrote: »

Not saying you are wrong, but until the law has dealt with this matter beyond a reasonable doubt, there remains the possibility of naming the wrong person. Court Fines are worse than infractions. I would leave this up to the Courts and not mob justice.

Cloyne Report is evidence enough for me.