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

Esoteric_

Odysseus wrote: »

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.

I find it truly admirable that you are more concerned with support networks and therapy for both victim and perpetrator, I genuinely am.

But I find it shocking that you don't think about sentencing much, choosing to focus on the victim's access to support to help them reclaim their life. I'd have thought that as a therapist of victims of sexual violence, you'd understand the importance in the sentencing, as for so many victims, it gives an immense amount of closure, recognition that something very, very bad was done to them and that the person is being punished accordingly.

Grayson

Kimia wrote: »

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.

The word trivialising is a bad word to use. I'm not trivialising. That makes it sound like I'm comparing it to a stubbed toe or tripping in public.

What I'm saying is that there are far worse crimes. It doesn't mean this is bad. I mean there are far worse crimes.

Remember that gang rape in Limerick? A group of youths locked a guy away whilst they gang raped his girlfriend? I'm disgusted that they're out of prison. They might have only been 16 at the time, but they should have been kept away for a long time.

There are assaults where the victims are brutally beaten. Where people are hospitalised.

I'm not trivialising what happened in this case. I'm putting it into context.

WileyCoyote wrote: »

You guess wrong

Do you have a link to the guidlines or any proof at all? Or are you doing a Mitt Romney impression?

Odysseus

LyndaMcL wrote: »

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.

I couldn't agree with that, there are cases when other interventions are much more helpful than jail, and apart from that jail is really the most severe sentense we can use.

That is you opinion and I respect that, but people often think that all victims would want all offenders to be locked up, that is not my experience; in the same way as people experience the effects of that violence differently.

I am generally happy to leave that decision to the judge on the day, noting is perfect, but I think it is better that mandatory jail terms.

Esoteric_

Odysseus wrote: »

I could agree with that, there are cases when other interventions are much more helpful than jail, and apart from that jail is really the most severe sentense we can use.

That is you opinion and I respect that, but people often think that all victims would want all offenders to be locked up, that is not my experience; in the same way as people experience the effects of that violence differently.

I am generally happy to leave that decision to the judge on the day, noting is perfect, but I think it is better that mandatory jail terms.

I respect your opinion quite a lot. I like that you explain it instead of just stating it and disappearing like some posters do when faced with opposition.

I don't think that all victims want jail sentences. I know for plenty, support is much more important than the perpetrator getting jail time.

But, in this specific case, I believe it's completely wrong to have the man pay money in return for getting a suspended sentence. This implies that the judge probably did feel that the attack warranted jail-time, but allowed him to essentially buy his way out. I definitely think that sentencing should be done on a case by case basis, as opposed to '7 years for rape, 2 for assault without penetration, etc' but to be allowed pay off a victim is sickening in my opinion.

I think a lot of people here are focusing too much on the punishment element, as opposed to the fact that this dangerous man is not incarcerated and is free to attack someone else today, if he so chooses.

Odysseus

LyndaMcL wrote: »

I find it truly admirable that you are more concerned with support networks and therapy for both victim and perpetrator, I genuinely am.

But I find it shocking that you don't think about sentencing much, choosing to focus on the victim's access to support to help them reclaim their life. I'd have thought that as a therapist of victims of sexual violence, you'd understand the importance in the sentencing, as for so many victims, it gives an immense amount of closure, recognition that something very, very bad was done to them and that the person is being punished accordingly.

That is outside of therapy, yes it can provide closure for some and do nothing for others. Maybe because on occassion I work with offenders I see both sides. To do my job I have to be unbiased, however, the focus has to be just on the person I'm working with.

Sentencing is the job of those working in the courts, I have a big enough job with my clients and need to keep that in mind all the time. Spread yourself too thin and you achieve nothing, if I can help the person reclaim their life after an attack that is more than enough. I leave the justice side to those who work in the courts.

jmayo

Odysseus wrote: »

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.

You still came nowhere close to even answering my initial question.
And I find it very hard to believe you know nothing about the larry murphy case, or at least not enough to even form an opinion on the man.

Yes you state he did not engage in any therapy and yet how come he got time off for good behaviour ?
To most of us he did not really serve his full sentence and in fact the minister of justice wrote to his victim to confirm his early release from his 14 year jail term.

He was in fact given 22 years in all, but unlike garlic smugglers he gets to serve his sentences concurrently.
He was to serve his sentence over 14 years, but he got 1/4 remission for good behaviour.

Would you claim refusal to engage in any form of therapy or refusal to atone for one's crimes as good behaviour ?

As for therapy and being court mandated, I think it should only be mandatory for offenders who are going to be released someday.

In the case of scum like larry murphy, he didn't deserve anything bar being shoved in a dark hole for the rest of his life.

I don't care if it offends your believes or anyone elses, but some people should never be freed to walk amongst us.

Some people deserve to die behind bars and I can think of a few such as larry murphy,
gerard barry (Manuela Reido killer),
brian willoughby (killed 21 Brian Mulvaney, stabbed another in eye),
ronnie dunbar (strangled 14 year old carrying his child in Sligo),
michael murphy (raped & killed two women in Louth, one a German visitor), simon mcginley (raped a 13 year old and a 86 year old),
thomas murray (killed elderly neighbour and killed retired teacher while on day release from prison in Roscommon).

Of course I guess you would be all for rehabilation and second chances.
But please answer me this, where is the second chance for their victims and their families ?

The justice system in this country seems to be equally concerned with both victims and offenders.
To my mind once someone committs these heinous crimes they lose their rights and entitlements.

Esoteric_

jmayo wrote: »

Of course I guess you would be all for rehabilation and second chances.
But please answer me this, where is the second chance for their victims and their families ?

The justice system in this country seems to be equally concerned with both victims and offenders.
To my mind once someone committs these heinous crimes they lose their rights and entitlements.

I'm a survivor/victim of pretty much the most serious sexually violent attack out there (I don't like saying the word, sorry), and I actually think that the justice system SHOULD focus both on the victim and the offender.

The reason they focus on offenders too is because they generally hope to rehabilitate them and ensure that it doesn't happen again.

I agree that they should lose their entitlements and such, but only until they're fully rehabilitated and really understand what they've done. At the end of the day, I'd rather my attacker be rehabilitated and actually feel some remorse for what he did to me, rather than have him jailed.

Odysseus

LyndaMcL wrote: »

I'm a survivor/victim of pretty much the most serious sexually violent attack out there (I don't like saying the word, sorry), and I actually think that the justice system SHOULD focus both on the victim and the offender.

The reason they focus on offenders too is because they generally hope to rehabilitate them and ensure that it doesn't happen again.

I agree that they should lose their entitlements and such, but only until they're fully rehabilitated and really understand what they've done. At the end of the day, I'd rather my attacker be rehabilitated and actually feel some remorse for what he did to me, rather than have him jailed.

Very well said Lynda, said much better that I could have. Sexual violence is a complex area that most people don't consider. What do we do with the offender who was a victim of sexual violence? It is common enough, then what do we do with people who have moved on, when public opinion is so strong about offenders, what hope do we have in them re-engaging with society?

It is such an emotive topic it seems anyone who supports rehab is labled as some type of "do-gooder" or whatever other names are used within this thread.

If people want to do something it would be better IMO to highlight the need for treatment for both sides, rather than questioning judges decisions.

davet82

Odysseus wrote: »

Very well said Lynda, said much better that I could have. Sexual violence is a complex area that most people don't consider. What do we do with the offender who was a victim of sexual violence? It is common enough, then what do we do with people who have moved on, when public opinion is so strong about offenders, what hope do we have in them re-engaging with society?

It is such an emotive topic it seems anyone who supports rehab is labled as some type of "do-gooder" or whatever other names are used within this thread.

If people want to do something it would be better IMO to highlight the need for treatment for both sides, rather than questioning judges decisions.

I have no problem with treatment or rehabilitation but they need to be segregated from society until they are fit to return (in an ideal world)

imo all sexual related crimes should carry a custodial (non suspended sentence) i know its of little deterrent but i do feel at least it will give the victim some sense of justice and encourage other victims to come forward, after all the victim is the most important in these cases.

btw the judge is an idiot i'm sure you can concede that?

Odysseus

jmayo wrote: »

Yes you state he did not engage in any therapy and yet how come he got time off for good behaviour ?
To most of us he did not really serve his full sentence and in fact the minister of justice wrote to his victim to confirm his early release from his 14 year jail term.

He was in fact given 22 years in all, but unlike garlic smugglers he gets to serve his sentences concurrently.
He was to serve his sentence over 14 years, but he got 1/4 remission for good behaviour.

Would you claim refusal to engage in any form of therapy or refusal to atone for one's crimes as good behaviour ?

As for therapy and being court mandated, I think it should only be mandatory for offenders who are going to be released someday.

In the case of scum like larry murphy, he didn't deserve anything bar being shoved in a dark hole for the rest of his life.

I don't care if it offends your believes or anyone elses, but some people should never be freed to walk amongst us.



Of course I guess you would be all for rehabilation and second chances.
But please answer me this, where is the second chance for their victims and their families ?

The justice system in this country seems to be equally concerned with both victims and offenders.
To my mind once someone committs these heinous crimes they lose their rights and entitlements.

I only get a professional visit in the prisons so I have a limited understanding of the rules and guidelines. Good behaviour is not causing problems within the jail, as far I know [could be wrong] engaging in therapy would not be part of that.

If therapy is not mandatory then not engaging cannot be bad behaviour, well that is what I understand. In that case I seen him as doing his sentence, and when he was released it was up to the authorities to keep an eye on him.

Thankfully we do not lock up people for the rest of their lives here, and I doubt we ever will. Most people who are engaged in this type of work would be against mandatory therapy, how can you gain trust when a person if forced to talk to you? I can with imagine you saying so what, who cares if they trust you, I will get no where therapy wise if they don't.

I had to have a long look at myself and my values before I started working more with victims and offenders. Though the offenders I see would be at the lower end of the scale, however, it still took a lot of talking within clinical supervision and talking with people who where more senior at than time.

Any person who I see is entitled to the same level of human rights as I am, if I thought otherwise I would be unable to work with those who offend. However, it is important to note that believing in the right to rehabilitation does not mean you are putting those who have experienced sexual violence as second, far from it.

TBH I don't think I could work in a system like you describe where offenders are locked up for ever, where people lose their human rights. When someone assaults another person they take away the human rights [and much more], however, I'm not sure if the punishment should take the offenders rights away. We have to be different.

It works you have either helped a person come to terms with a terrible experience or helped someone address their pathology and prevent them from assaulting anyone else.

As I said above Lynda answered the last part better than I could. However, the second chance for the victim is good support and access to therapy. The most important thing for me is to offer the best quality therapy I can offer to anyone who walks through my front door. I leave justice to the court services.


Anyway I think our opinions are too far apart for us to see this topic from the same position

cofy

Judge Martin Nolan imposed a four-year sentence -- which he suspended in full on conditions including that Griffiths pay €15,000 to his victim within one year "to bring home the seriousness of what he has done".

The victim goes to court, the attacker is found guilty, so closure for the victim may start in 1 years time, IF he pays, if not then it just goes on and on. Looks like the victim got a worse sentance than the attacker.

Odysseus

davet82 wrote: »

I have no problem with treatment or rehabilitation but they need to be segregated from society until they are fit to return (in an ideal world)

imo all sexual related crimes should carry a custodial (non suspended sentence) i know its of little deterrent but i do feel at least it will give the victim some sense of justice and encourage other victims to come forward, after all the victim is the most important in these cases.

btw the judge is an idiot i'm sure you can concede that?

I'm not going to get into name calling, but I certainly don't think the money was a good idea. With saying that I hope the girl takes it and uses it to help her move on, but it was the best idea; even with saying that I don't see it as sending a message that an person who has experienced sexual violence can be paid off.

B0jangles

WileyCoyote wrote: »

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

And again!

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/man-who-beat-neighbour-unconscious-to-avoid-jail-if-he-pays-victim-3000-3265350.html

3,000 grand fine and a suspended sentence for an unprovoked attack on a neighbour in which the accused beat her unconscious and then threw in a few kicks while she was on the ground

Death and Taxes

B0jangles wrote: »

And again!

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/man-who-beat-neighbour-unconscious-to-avoid-jail-if-he-pays-victim-3000-3265350.html

3,000 grand fine and a suspended sentence for an unprovoked attack on a neighbour in which the accused beat her unconscious and then threw in a few kicks while she was on the ground

That so called Judge is little more than a sick joke!

Spook_ie

Only read the 1st OP and immediate reaction is why does Ireland still have this antiquated "blood money" justice, where if you're rich enough you can get off pretty well scot-free

Death and Taxes

Spook_ie wrote: »

Only read the 1st OP and immediate reaction is why does Ireland still have this antiquated "blood money" justice, where if you're rich enough you can get off pretty well scot-free

A system that turns victims of sex attacks into little more than prostitutes, after all they got paid in the end!
It is a national disgrace.:mad:

Kimia

Irish judges imposing blood money on a victim is comparable to sharia law.