Viscious thug sexually assaults 17 year old, and walks free!

B0jangles

Grayson wrote: »

Does that charge exist? Cos if we start charging people with made up srtuff we're going down a slippery slope.

What "made-up stuff"? he pinned her down on the ground, ripped her clothes off and said himself that he wanted to "make her feel inferior".

I somehow doubt he wanted to beat her in a game of strip scrabble.

NoQuarter

It seems like a lenient sentence alright but by god there is some amount of sh1te talk in this thread.

Ellis Dee

Slunk wrote: »

Haven't read the whole thread but this judge seems to come up a lot when very leinient sentences are handed out.

Indeed, it seems Judge Martin Nolan has a bit of form. In fact, I started a thread about one of his decisions and accompanying comments last week.:)

In that case, it was a scumbag (sorry, less than totally admirable person, so that I don't get another ticking off from a certain mod who clearly has a big thing about the word "scumbag") with 89 (yes, eighty-nine!) previous convictions, who drove up beside a woman's car as she was loading her shopping into it and grabbed her handbag. She hung on to it, but he drove off, dragging her along and then punched her in the face, while his girlfriend bit the victim's hand.;)

The judge gave him three years, which seems ridiculously little for someone who is clearly a serious recidivist and commented that the whole thing had started "innocently". So, we can conclude, just a bit of handbag-snatching is an innocent pursuit, as long as it doesn't turn into assault and life-threatening behaviour.:rolleyes:

If the victim had been his wife or mother or the attempted rape victim his daughter, no doubt his attitude would have been different. However, I respect the freedom of the judiciary (my daughter is one of them), but feel the DPP should intervene more often and appeal when sentences are so manifestly ridiculous that they only undermine public confidence in the administration of justice in Ireland.:rolleyes:

Death and Taxes

Grayson wrote: »

Yes. the same way someone who doesn't kill someone isn't charged with murder. I know it's a hard concept to get.

Either an even happens or it doesn't. Unless you're a special cat, you can't be both dead and not dead at the same time.

The same goes for other crimes. We don't charge people with a crime unless they actually commit it.

And you seem to be revelling in the fact that a violent criminal, who commited a violent sexual assault, who has a history of vilent assaults didn't get an appropriate sentence for the "trivial(your sentiments) assault" that he did commit.
Obviously you belong to the "she probably deserved it" camp!

NoQuarter

B0jangles wrote: »

What "made-up stuff"? he pinned her down on the ground, ripped her clothes off and said himself that he wanted to "make her feel inferior".

I somehow doubt he wanted to beat her in a game of strip scrabble.

So if you let the tax on your car run out should you be done for tax fraud?

I know the point youre trying to make, but it is very obvious that you havent put any thought into the consequences. That isnt a dig I'm taking at you, its just a true observation.

NoQuarter

Ellis Dee wrote: »

The judge gave him three years, which seems ridiculously little for someone who is clearly a serious recidivist and commented that the whole thing had started "innocently".

Whatver good points you and other people make about the need for sentences to be changed, which I agree with, your points are lost when you say statements like the above which is just a legal term he said, twisted into something sensationalist for the papers to write about.

If people really want to change stuff, they need to make factual, coherant arguments and not "mob mentality" arguments and arguments that twist words as your point I've quoted does.

B0jangles

NoQuarter wrote: »

So if you let the tax on your car run out should you be done for tax fraud?

I know the point youre trying to make, but it is very obvious that you havent put any thought into the consequences. That isnt a dig I'm taking at you, its just a true observation.

Really? No thought? The man has a history of violent attacks, he then attacked a 17 year old girl, pinned her to the ground, ripped her clothes off. She only avoided being violently raped because a friend was there to drag this shít off her.

He got NO jail sentence and a paltry fine.

And you compare that to an argument about expired car tax.

I know playing devil's advocate can be fun sometimes, but are there no limits? Are violent attempted rapists not just a scrap beyond the pale?

NoQuarter

B0jangles wrote: »

Really? No thought? The man has a history of violent attacks, he then attacked a 17 year old girl, pinned her to the ground, ripped her clothes off. She only avoided being violently raped because a friend was there to drag this shít off her.

He got NO jail sentence and a paltry fine.

And you compare that to an argument about expired car tax.

I know playing devil's advocate can be fun sometimes, but are there no limits? Are violent attempted rapists not just a scrap beyond the pale?

He ripped her clothes in an effort to get them off, not ripped them off. If we are going to do this, lets get the facts spot on.

I'm obviously not comparing the offences, I was using an every day example of how one offence actually committed cant be looked past to see what could have happened. Because the line is too hard to be drawn then.

What about the girl in oz who was raped and then killed. Are we to say that in this case, her friend pulled him off the 17 year old and stopped the rape, but after the rape he might have killed her as happened in oz, so should we charge with murder too?

We cant do that, it opens up too many uncertainties. If we charge with stuff that was "obviously going to happen" then that mentality will trickle all the way throughout the law and you will have situations like the tax situation I described above and lots of others that make no sense. As was said earlier, sexual assault is the correct charge, it carries 5 years which is enough for what happened in my opinion. Again, I reiterate that I think the sentence was very lenient.

Grayson

WileyCoyote wrote: »

And you seem to be revelling in the fact that a violent criminal, who commited a violent sexual assault, who has a history of vilent assaults didn't get an appropriate sentence for the "trivial(your sentiments) assault" that he did commit.
Obviously you belong to the "she probably deserved it" camp!

I never said she deserved it. I never said that it was trivial. I said that there's a spectrum of sexual assaults. From Groping (Yes, I consider it to be a type of assault) to violent rape. And that this wasn't violent rape. As assaults go, many worse happen all the time and this was actually on the lower ond of the scale for a violent crime. As someone who's been the victim of an assault (And I'm not making that up. I've mentioned it before on boards) that was lengthier and has left me with permanant scaring, I feel justified in talking about this. My attackers didn't even get a suspended prison sentance and were fined €1000 between them.

I said he couldn't be charged with rape because it never happened. In fact it's not even mentioned in the article.
And I asked does the charge of attempted rape even exist?

Stop making up stuff and reading more into my posts than what is actually there. If you can't make an assessment based on the evidence then you have no right criticising a judge. And you definitely have no right to start insulting me.

Judgement Day

NoQuarter wrote: »

He ripped her clothes in an effort to get them off, not ripped them off. If we are going to do this, lets get the facts spot on.

I'm obviously not comparing the offences, I was using an every day example of how one offence actually committed cant be looked past to see what could have happened. Because the line is too hard to be drawn then.

What about the girl in oz who was raped and then killed. Are we to say that in this case, her friend pulled him off the 17 year old and stopped the rape, but after the rape he might have killed her as happened in oz, so should we charge with murder too?

We cant do that, it opens up too many uncertainties. If we charge with stuff that was "obviously going to happen" then that mentality will trickle all the way throughout the law and you will have situations like the tax situation I described above and lots of others that make no sense. As was said earlier, sexual assault is the correct charge, it carries 5 years which is enough for what happened in my opinion. Again, I reiterate that I think the sentence was very lenient.

Are you for real?

Death and Taxes

Grayson wrote: »

I never said she deserved it. I never said that it was trivial. I said that there's a spectrum of sexual assaults. From Groping (Yes, I consider it to be a type of assault) to violent rape. And that this wasn't violent rape. As assaults go, many worse happen all the time and this was actually on the lower ond of the scale for a violent crime. As someone who's been the victim of an assault (And I'm not making that up. I've mentioned it before on boards) that was lengthier and has left me with permanant scaring, I feel justified in talking about this. My attackers didn't even get a suspended prison sentance and were fined €1000 between them.

I said he couldn't be charged with rape because it never happened. In fact it's not even mentioned in the article.
And I asked does the charge of attempted rape even exist?

Stop making up stuff and reading more into my posts than what is actually there. If you can't make an assessment based on the evidence then you have no right criticising a judge. And you definitely have no right to start insulting me.

It most certainly was NOT on the lower end of the scale of sexual assault, as a large degree of violence was used, you have continuosly sought to trivialise it, as in the above post, get over yourself!

NoQuarter

Judgement Day wrote: »

Are you for real?

Is that not exactly what the article says? So are you for real?

Its the difference between someone being naked on the ground and someone having a torn shirt. Who's description is more accurate?

Judgement Day

NoQuarter wrote: »

Is that not exactly what the article says? So are you for real?

Its the difference between someone being naked on the ground and someone having a torn shirt. Who's description is more accurate?

Oh, so he took her clothes off without damaging them and that makes it more acceptable?

NoQuarter

Judgement Day wrote: »

Oh, so he took her clothes off without damaging them and that makes it more acceptable?

Make what more acceptable?

Death and Taxes

NoQuarter wrote: »

Make what more acceptable?

The vicious violent sexual attack carried out by a serial violent criminal for which on this, his fifth conviction for violent crime, he was allowed to walk free.

NoQuarter

WileyCoyote wrote: »

The vicious violent sexual attack carried out by a serial violent criminal for which on this, his fifth conviction for violent crime, he was allowed to walk free.

I dont think its acceptable at all. Do you?

A Primal Nut

How come we never see these suspended sentences become active? This lad must have 4 or 5 of them by now.

ahnowbrowncow

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually I disagree. We had several decisions in the last few years that let off rapists, sex offenders, peadophiles and those who owned child porn. We had a rapist in some backwater location in Ireland who had his hand shook by people in the court after he was found guilty of sexual assault.

We had gaurds ignore those looking for help to stop abuse they were enduring and the gaurds "lost" files (deliberately). These arent some issues that happened decades ago. They happend recently. An episode of newsnight last year highlighted the case were a victim of Brendan Smyth told the gaurds he was being abused by smyth. The chaps mother went back to the gaurds (I really dont like calling them that in this case it implies they confer protection) a few weeks later. The gaurd in charge of case said he had "lost" the file (happened again a few time as mentioned in the cloyne report). The victim commit suicide within the week. Newsnight finished the story saying the "gaurds" involved declined to comment and the gaurd who told the women he lost the file was now second in charge of the gardai.

So in summary we have judges letting off people who assault and rape women and those who own child porn. Second in charge of our state police force is a man responsible for the sexual abuse of more of smyths vicitms (as are other gaurds responsible for ignoring the abuse in cloyne) and the death of one of his vicitms. I really dont see how this state can claim to be any better than place with very backward attitudes towards women and children.

I'm not doubting any of that, what I'm saying is that you seem to think that women and children are the only ones that don't get justice, there are plenty of cases of assaults and other crimes against men where the attacker gets no prison time, I was assaulted last year and the attacker got off scott free.

The justice system is quite inadequate at times, but for both genders. Comparing Ireland to Saudi Arabia is sensationalist.

STI V5

I know of a girl who got assaulted a number of years ago (pre-boom). It wasn't sexual, it was her BF of the time hitting her. The cops were called, he was brought to court. When the judge sentanced him he said it was a first offence, and an assault of short duration. He then turned to the victim and said although a custodial sentance wasn't warrented he was going to give a suspended sentance to make sure he stayed out of trouble. He was also going to fine the guy 6 grand because he thought she needed a good holiday.

this guy has 4 previous convictions for assault (the article doesn't say if they were sexual). I would have done exactly like the judge except maybe give him either a short term sentance or a suspended sentance.

As bad as this is, it's not as bad as it could have been. I classify sexual assault as everything from unwelcome gropeing up to rape and battery. And there has to be a spectrum of sentances. We can't jail people for life for every sexual assault .
YOU NEED TO GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ARSE !! YOU EITHER HAVE TO BE A JUDGE OR A MATE OF THIS SICKO TO HAVE THAT TYPE OF AN OUTLOOK.. WOULD U HAVE SUCH A BLACK & WHITE OUTLOOK IF HE DONE IT TO SOMEONE U CARED ABOUT ?? I DOUBT IT VERY MUCH ... SO SCARING THE LIFE OUT OF SOMEBODY AND PROBABLY TRAUMATISING THEM FOR MANY YEARS TO COME IS OK , EVEN THOUGH HES ASSAULTED 4 TIMES BEFORE SO BASICALLY YOUR SAYING REWARD THE FU#KER WITH A LENIENT SENTENCE BECAUSE HE WAS STOPPED HALF WAY THROUGH TRYING TO RAPE THE GIRL ..:mad:

Grayson

WileyCoyote wrote: »

It most certainly was NOT on the lower end of the scale of sexual assault, as a large degree of violence was used, you have continuosly sought to trivialise it, as in the above post, get over yourself!

I said it was on the lower end of violent assault. If what happened was a serious assault, Imagine a scenario where someone is beaten so badly they suffer broken limbs and permanent scarring. Where they end up being hospitalised for weeks if not months. What would you call that? A really, really, really serious assault?

All assault is serious, I never said it wasn't, but this girl had her hair pulled, was pushed to the ground and had her clothes ripped. I'm not trivialising. I'm stating facts.

The guy committed a serious crime (As I said all assault is serious), was convicted and was sentenced to a large fine and a suspended custodial sentence.

Grayson

STI V5 wrote: »

I know of a girl who got assaulted a number of years ago (pre-boom). It wasn't sexual, it was her BF of the time hitting her. The cops were called, he was brought to court. When the judge sentanced him he said it was a first offence, and an assault of short duration. He then turned to the victim and said although a custodial sentance wasn't warrented he was going to give a suspended sentance to make sure he stayed out of trouble. He was also going to fine the guy 6 grand because he thought she needed a good holiday.

this guy has 4 previous convictions for assault (the article doesn't say if they were sexual). I would have done exactly like the judge except maybe give him either a short term sentance or a suspended sentance.

As bad as this is, it's not as bad as it could have been. I classify sexual assault as everything from unwelcome gropeing up to rape and battery. And there has to be a spectrum of sentances. We can't jail people for life for every sexual assault .
YOU NEED TO GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ARSE !! YOU EITHER HAVE TO BE A JUDGE OR A MATE OF THIS SICKO TO HAVE THAT TYPE OF AN OUTLOOK.. WOULD U HAVE SUCH A BLACK & WHITE OUTLOOK IF HE DONE IT TO SOMEONE U CARED ABOUT ?? I DOUBT IT VERY MUCH ... SO SCARING THE LIFE OUT OF SOMEBODY AND PROBABLY TRAUMATISING THEM FOR MANY YEARS TO COME IS OK , EVEN THOUGH HES ASSAULTED 4 TIMES BEFORE SO BASICALLY YOUR SAYING REWARD THE FU#KER WITH A LENIENT SENTENCE BECAUSE HE WAS STOPPED HALF WAY THROUGH TRYING TO RAPE THE GIRL ..:mad:

Firstly, Caps lock, really?

I never said he was rewarded. I said we can't charge someone with a crime they didn't commit? Do you think he should be? Should we make stuff up? do you really want to live in a country where you can be charged with a crime you didn't commit but people thought you intended to? Every single fight or angry word would result in a charge of attempted murder. Actually in your world it would be a charge of actual murder.

And really, stop making judgements on other people. I'm being rational here. You're insulting me and can't even be bothered to use decent grammar.

And as I said, I was the victim of an assault that was more violent. I know what it feels like to feel utterly helpless whilst a group of people kick the **** out of you. Even though I managed to walk around, act normal and still pass the place where it happened every day, for years afterwards, every so often I keep thinking I saw the guys who did it. I have nothing but sympathy for that girl. And nothing but disgust for the guy who did it. He's fcked up in the head.
But you can't charge him with something he didn't do.

B0jangles

Grayson wrote: »

. As someone who's been the victim of an assault (And I'm not making that up. I've mentioned it before on boards) that was lengthier and has left me with permanant scaring, I feel justified in talking about this. My attackers didn't even get a suspended prison sentance and were fined €1000 between them.

I may well be wrong, but I can't help getting the impression that because the thugs who attacked you got a totally inadequate punishment, your perception of what happened to this girl and the inadequacy of her attacker's sentence is a bit skewed. As in, "the justice system failed me much more severely than it did her"

Grayson

B0jangles wrote: »

I may well be wrong, but I can't help getting the impression that because the thugs who attacked you got a totally inadequate punishment, your perception of what happened to this girl and the inadequacy of her attacker's sentence is a bit skewed. As in, "the justice system failed me much more severely than it did her"

Actually, I was happy with the outcome. It was their first offence and they were from "good families". I knew that nothing much would happen. I was just grateful that they had a mark on their record.

And the money came in handy. I wasn't expecting it so when it was given to me I felt a bit better. I felt like something bad had happened, but at least something good has happened to me to try balance it out.
I have no idea if she'd feel that way. It's not like anyone would go through a violent assault to get money, but money at the end of it did feel better.
I hope she takes the money and gets away from everything for a while and just sits on a beach and chills.

Death and Taxes

Grayson wrote: »

Firstly, Caps lock, really?

I never said he was rewarded. I said we can't charge someone with a crime they didn't commit? Do you think he should be? Should we make stuff up? do you really want to live in a country where you can be charged with a crime you didn't commit but people thought you intended to? Every single fight or angry word would result in a charge of attempted murder. Actually in your world it would be a charge of actual murder.

And really, stop making judgements on other people. I'm being rational here. You're insulting me and can't even be bothered to use decent grammar.

And as I said, I was the victim of an assault that was more violent. I know what it feels like to feel utterly helpless whilst a group of people kick the **** out of you. Even though I managed to walk around, act normal and still pass the place where it happened every day, for years afterwards, every so often I keep thinking I saw the guys who did it. I have nothing but sympathy for that girl. And nothing but disgust for the guy who did it. He's fcked up in the head.
But you can't charge him with something he didn't do.

You clearly have no sympathy with anyone but youself, wrapped as you are in the cloth of self pity.
maybe someday you will be lucky enough to have a daughter who is beaten and sexually assaulted then perhaps you learn some empathy!

omahaid

It is a shame that this judge can continue with these bizarre decisions but to be fair to him there is a fair amount of vested interests willing to protect the judiciary at any cost and to resist any change, that's the Irish way. Was similar with the church too.

woodoo

Terrible decision by the judge

Grayson

WileyCoyote wrote: »

You clearly have no sympathy with anyone but youself, wrapped as you are in the cloth of self pity.
maybe someday you will be lucky enough to have a daughter who is beaten and sexually assaulted then perhaps you learn some empathy!

Now that is sick. Really, you'd wish that someone was sexually assaulted to make a point? And you're telling me to get over myself.

That is incredibly disturbed. Can you actually see how fcked up that is? Wishing that an innocent person should suffer harm so your point is made?
That's the sickest thing in this thread.

Esoteric_

I know that victims can write impact statements and such, and give evidence.

However, I wish that before sentencing for sexual assault or rape, a judge could be sat down with a therapist and the victim and be made to see exactly how the act has impacted on the victim's life. Rape and sexual assault destroy lives. Even if you 'heal' mentally and physically, it's not something you will ever, EVER forget or stop thinking about.

The judges that allow scumbag rapists to just 'pay off' their victims as if the victims were prostitutes are no better than the rapists because they're bloody enabling the behaviour, as long as you have some cash to back it up.

B0jangles

Grayson wrote: »

Actually, I was happy with the outcome. It was their first offence and they were from "good families". I knew that nothing much would happen. I was just grateful that they had a mark on their record.

And the money came in handy. I wasn't expecting it so when it was given to me I felt a bit better. I felt like something bad had happened, but at least something good has happened to me to try balance it out.
I have no idea if she'd feel that way. It's not like anyone would go through a violent assault to get money, but money at the end of it did feel better.
I hope she takes the money and gets away from everything for a while and just sits on a beach and chills.

100% not underestimating the long-term damage a physical assualt can have on someone, but I think you may have missed one of the consequences which is specific to sexual assault.

No-one expects to be beaten as part of their normal life; there is no version of a punch or a kick that is used with affection and love *.

Sexual assault is a ferocious mockery of normal human intimacy - it takes something that should be an expression of love and trust and turns into fear, pain and shame. It can permanently damage the victim's ability to associate sexual intimacy with anything but pain and fear.

Death and Taxes

Grayson wrote: »

Now that is sick. Really, you'd wish that someone was sexually assaulted to make a point? And you're telling me to get over myself.

That is incredibly disturbed. Can you actually see how fcked up that is? Wishing that an innocent person should suffer harm so your point is made?
That's the sickest thing in this thread.

You are the one with self pity issues, defending a sexual predator

Grayson

WileyCoyote wrote: »

You are the one with self pity issues, defending a sexual predator

Where did I defend him? Did I ever say a single thing good about him? And did I ever say he was anything less than disgusting? You are reading what you want to see. You are both wishing harm on others and reading stuff into posts that isn't there. Seriously, walk away and take a deep breath.

Odysseus

Grayson wrote: »

Now that is sick. Really, you'd wish that someone was sexually assaulted to make a point? And you're telling me to get over myself.

That is incredibly disturbed. Can you actually see how fcked up that is? Wishing that an innocent person should suffer harm so your point is made?
That's the sickest thing in this thread.

That what happens when you go against the mob, you get "you sick because you don't want to lock every sex offender away for ever, but even though I have just wished a close relative of yours experiences sex violence I'm still right"

TBF you sound like you have given this case a balanced consideration; however, with certain people you will always be wrong.

Grayson

B0jangles wrote: »

100% not underestimating the long-term damage a physical assualt can have on someone, but I think you may have missed one of the consequences which is specific to sexual assault.

No-one expects to be beaten as part of their normal life; there is no version of a punch or a kick that is used with affection and love *.

Sexual assault is a ferocious mockery of normal human intimacy - it takes something that should be an expression of love and trust and turns into fear, pain and shame. It can permanently damage the victim's ability to associate sexual intimacy with anything but pain and fear.

But at the same time, I don't think that the fact that a crime is sexual in nature means that it should automatically warrant long prison time. I'm not saying that's what you're advocating, I'm just stating it.

The horrible thing about any serious crime is that there is a sliding scale. There are crimes at the lower end and crimes at the upper end. It doesn't mean that they aren't all horrible, it means that there are varying degrees of seriousness. And sentencing needs to be proportional. I don't know the guidelines that judges have (and I doubt many people here do) but I bet this was probably with in them.

Judgement Day

Odysseus wrote: »

That what happens when you go against the mob, you get "you sick because you don't want to lock every sex offender away for ever, but even though I have just wished a close relative of yours experiences sex violence I'm still right"

TBF you sound like you have given this case a balanced consideration; however, with certain people you will always be wrong.

To be fair, I didn't see anyone suggesting that every sex offender be locked away forever but as usual the lefty, politically correct, do-gooder brigade don't want the criminals punished - is it any wonder that society is the way that it is.

Many years ago, when a judge made some appalling decision I remember a government minister stating that some of the judiciary were almost senile but couldn't be got rid of except by natural wastage - well that didn't work out too well, did it.

Death and Taxes

Grayson wrote: »

But at the same time, I don't think that the fact that a crime is sexual in nature means that it should automatically warrant long prison time. I'm not saying that's what you're advocating, I'm just stating it.

The horrible thing about any serious crime is that there is a sliding scale. There are crimes at the lower end and crimes at the upper end. It doesn't mean that they aren't all horrible, it means that there are varying degrees of seriousness. And sentencing needs to be proportional. I don't know the guidelines that judges have (and I doubt many people here do) but I bet this was probably with in them.

You guess wrong

the_syco

WileyCoyote wrote: »

if he pays €15,000 to his victim within a year.

I wonder how many people he'll assault to get that cash together?

They should bring back whipping. If you don't serve minimum sentences, you get 50 lashes.

K-9

I would normally be understanding of a judges decision in an individual case, but given this guys record over several cases, something seems amiss here.

Odysseus

LyndaMcL wrote: »

I know that victims can write impact statements and such, and give evidence.

However, I wish that before sentencing for sexual assault or rape, a judge could be sat down with a therapist and the victim and be made to see exactly how the act has impacted on the victim's life. Rape and sexual assault destroy lives. Even if you 'heal' mentally and physically, it's not something you will ever, EVER forget or stop thinking about.

The judges that allow scumbag rapists to just 'pay off' their victims as if the victims were prostitutes are no better than the rapists because they're bloody enabling the behaviour, as long as you have some cash to back it up.

As a therapist who has worked with a various types of sexual violence I'm not sure I would agree. We often write reports for both sides victim and offender, plus I don't know enough about this case, but I would agree with the other poster that there is a scale of sexual violence and I do not believe every sexual assualt requires a long prison sentense.

Esoteric_

Odysseus wrote: »

As a therapist who has worked with a various types of sexual violence I'm not sure I would agree. We often write reports for both sides victim and offender, plus I don't know enough about this case, but I would agree with the other poster that there is a scale of sexual violence and I do not believe every sexual assualt requires a long prison sentense.

I'm speaking as a victim, so obviously my view will be a little biased, no denying that.

I do agree that there is a scale, and prison sentences should vary, but I believe any sexual assault that goes further than an unwanted kiss or grope through clothing deserves SOME form of prison sentence.

Kimia

Grayson wrote: »

I said it was on the lower end of violent assault. If what happened was a serious assault, Imagine a scenario where someone is beaten so badly they suffer broken limbs and permanent scarring. Where they end up being hospitalised for weeks if not months. What would you call that? A really, really, really serious assault?

All assault is serious, I never said it wasn't, but this girl had her hair pulled, was pushed to the ground and had her clothes ripped. I'm not trivialising. I'm stating facts.

The guy committed a serious crime (As I said all assault is serious), was convicted and was sentenced to a large fine and a suspended custodial sentence.

Grayson, that is awful and should not have happened to you.

However, when you say this:

but this girl had her hair pulled, was pushed to the ground and had her clothes ripped.

you are most certainly trivializing. This minimizes and invalidates what happened to this girl. She was attacked with the intent to literally invade her body. Imagine how it would feel if you were attacked by someone who had the intent to violently force a foreign object inside your body. I can't think of anything more violating.

This is not the same as physical assault.

Kimia

Regarding the judge. Is there any way complaints can be made against judges?

Is there any accountability for them?

jmayo

Grayson wrote: »

Yes. the same way someone who doesn't kill someone isn't charged with murder. I know it's a hard concept to get.

Either an even happens or it doesn't. Unless you're a special cat, you can't be both dead and not dead at the same time.

The same goes for other crimes. We don't charge people with a crime unless they actually commit it.

But he did committ a violent crime.
Can you get that little fact through your head.
It wasn't rape, thankfully he didn't get that far.
But it was an attempt at rape and he was deemed to have sexually assualted the young woman.

Now you can spin your sh**e anyway you want but he still assaulted her and he has a track record.

Odysseus wrote: »

As a therapist who has worked with a various types of sexual violence I'm not sure I would agree. We often write reports for both sides victim and offender, plus I don't know enough about this case, but I would agree with the other poster that there is a scale of sexual violence and I do not believe every sexual assualt requires a long prison sentense.

So with your professional experience, in your opinion what type of sentence would you give to ...
a) gerard barry killer of Manuela Reido
b) larry murphy
c) the defendant in this case

Death and Taxes

Kimia wrote: »

Regarding the judge. Is there any way complaints can be made against judges?

Is there any accountability for them?

Judges are effectively unaccountable, although the DPP can appeal the leiniency of the sentence.

Death and Taxes

A short but Interesting article on the Judge involved
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gardaturnedjudge-is-used-to-controversy-3264748.html

Death and Taxes

Judge Martin Nolan strikes again!
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1019/1224325456748.html

Jesus, just imagine this guy was living in your neighbourhood and you had daughters/sisters/nieces whatever.

Judge Martin Nolan needs to be FIRED.

STI V5

WELL GRAYSON ! SURELY AT THIS POINT IN TIME YOU MIGHT BE HAVING SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT YOUR OUTLOOK ON THIS LAUGHABLE VERDICT HANDED DOWN TO A TOTAL SICKO .. YOU THE JUDGE AND THE SICKO SEEM TO BE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT A 15,OOOE FINE IS A SUITABLE PAY-OFF FOR THIS CRIME ..... HOWEVER I DO THINK ITS GOOD THAT YOUR NOT BITTER ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO U , I SUPPOSE ITS ALL PART OF YOUR COPING MECHANISM , IM NOT SURE IF U HAVE KIDS OR NOT BUT FOR ME WHEN WE HAD OUR 2 CHILDREN SOMETHING JUST CLICKED INTO PLACE !! YOUR NOT JUST A COUPLE ANYMORE ITS NOW A LITTLE FAMILY AND IN MY OPINION U HAVE TO DO ALL U CAN TO PROTECT THEM ! AND I WOULD NEVER WISH ANYBODIES KIDS HARM !! LEFT THE CAPS LOCK ON SPECIALLY FOR U GRAYSON I NO U LOVE IT

DEFTLEFTHAND

Its time to introduce mandatory sentencing for sexual assault. It's a dangerous road to go down when the size of the defendent's bank account influences the implementation of justice.

dr.bollocko

STI V5 wrote: »

WELL GRAYSON ! SURELY AT THIS POINT IN TIME YOU MIGHT BE HAVING SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT YOUR OUTLOOK ON THIS LAUGHABLE VERDICT HANDED DOWN TO A TOTAL SICKO .. YOU THE JUDGE AND THE SICKO SEEM TO BE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT A 15,OOOE FINE IS A SUITABLE PAY-OFF FOR THIS CRIME ..... HOWEVER I DO THINK ITS GOOD THAT YOUR NOT BITTER ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO U , I SUPPOSE ITS ALL PART OF YOUR COPING MECHANISM , IM NOT SURE IF U HAVE KIDS OR NOT BUT FOR ME WHEN WE HAD OUR 2 CHILDREN SOMETHING JUST CLICKED INTO PLACE !! YOUR NOT JUST A COUPLE ANYMORE ITS NOW A LITTLE FAMILY AND IN MY OPINION U HAVE TO DO ALL U CAN TO PROTECT THEM ! AND I WOULD NEVER WISH ANYBODIES KIDS HARM !! LEFT THE CAPS LOCK ON SPECIALLY FOR U GRAYSON I NO U LOVE IT

mod:

Cut out the caps lock and the txt spk and converse like an adult please.

Folks, please report any posts which you feel cross the line relating to this emotive topic.

Odysseus

jmayo wrote: »

So with your professional experience, in your opinion what type of sentence would you give to ...
a) gerard barry killer of Manuela Reido
b) larry murphy
c) the defendant in this case

The only opinion I can give is a personal one, yes it may be based upon my professional experience. However, as a psychotherapist I am interested in the persons therapy, victim or offender. Therapy should be kept away from the courts, I often have to write reports for the courts, if I could I would stop court reports.


As I hear enough about sexual violence in work I avoid following the media when big cases like above are ongoing. So I wouldn't have much info on the likes of Larry Murphy. However, if I remember correctly he served his full sentense, so legally he was entitled to be released. The only other thing I know about that case is he did not engage with therapy whilst he was locked up, on that we can't make someone engage in services, most therapists I know who work with offenders would be against court mandated therapy.

Sexual violence is a terrible experience for a person go through; we need more services for both sides, victim and offender. When I see a case like this in the media, my thoughts are not about the sentense? Once due process has been followed I think no more on it than that; my thoughts are usually on the victim hoping that they have access to good supports which will facilitate them in reclaiming their live.

I cannot agree with the usual mob mentality though and some of the stuff posted here is disturbing tbh.