Nine years for raping a woman - twice!

Procrastastudy

loggedoff wrote: »

Yea, people who park on double yellows deserve the death penalty.:rolleyes:
You know exactly the type of scum I'm referring to, this faux outrage at what I've said here is quite sad really.

Its a bastardisation and poorly explained reference to Durkheim's society of saints actually.

You seem to think rapists and paedophiles are the worst in society - thats fine kill them all. Murders follow suit soon after as do people convicted on manslaughter and we've already people calling for executions after violent assaults.

Where do you go from there? Shoplifting? J-walking?

DrumSteve

UCDVet wrote: »

I'd draw the line at adult, *repeat*, *violent* offenders.

The repeat part removes the one-off example of someone getting drunk and going home with a girl who later claims rape and it may or may not just have been a drunken misunderstanding or a girl who regretted it. But if he does that with four more girls....he's the problem.

A 16 year old who shags his 15 year old girlfriend, while potentially criminal, wouldn't meet my definition of a violent crime. But even if it did, I wouldn't consider him an adult, and he wouldn't be a repeat offender.

Burglary, parking on yellow lines are not violent, so no death sentence there.

Id argue we should give the death penalty to people who park on double yellows.... While were at it people who park in two parking spaces and people who talk in the cinema should get it too.

UCDVet

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Would you be willing to exit the ECHR to achieve this? The ECHR has been a major driving force in getting Ireland out of the 19th century on a number of issues and continues to push us in the right direction. I take it you'd be fine with homosexuality still being illegal so long as we can kill violent offenders?

That's quite a jump.....

I haven't expressed any opinion on homosexuality.

Even if homosexuality were a crime, I don't see how it could be considered a violent crime if two (or more) consenting adults decide to have sex.

But if a homosexual was a serial rapist, convicted in five repeater cases - absolutely, I think he or she should be killed.

Finally, I believe ideas should be evaluated on their own merits; so the stance some governing body like the ECHR takes on it is irrelevant. That's a logical fallacy called 'Appeal to Authority'. Some of what the ECHR says can be good, and some can be bad. If you want to talk about homosexuals, the ECHR still says gays can't marry and define marriage as involving a man and a women.

I don't see any value in allowing repeat, violent offenders to continue to victimize innocent people and death is the only permanent and cost effective solution I can fathom.

UCDVet

DrumSteve wrote: »

Id argue we should give the death penalty to people who park on double yellows.... While were at it people who park in two parking spaces and people who talk in the cinema should get it too.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,…, X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either.

Procrastastudy

UCDVet wrote: »

That's quite a jump.....

I haven't expressed any opinion on homosexuality.

Even if homosexuality were a crime, I don't see how it could be considered a violent crime if two (or more) consenting adults decide to have sex.

But if a homosexual was a serial rapist, convicted in five repeater cases - absolutely, I think he or she should be killed.

Finally, I believe ideas should be evaluated on their own merits; so the stance some governing body like the ECHR takes on it is irrelevant. That's a logical fallacy called 'Appeal to Authority'. Some of what the ECHR says can be good, and some can be bad. If you want to talk about homosexuals, the ECHR still says gays can't marry and define marriage as involving a man and a women.

I don't see any value in allowing repeat, violent offenders to continue to victimize innocent people and death is the only permanent and cost effective solution I can fathom.

I think you need to re-read what I said. Re-introducing the death penalty would require that Ireland exits the ECHR. I take it you're willing to see that happen?

loggedoff

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Its a bastardisation and poorly explained reference to Durkheim's society of saints actually.

You seem to think rapists and paedophiles are the worst in society - thats fine kill them all. Murders follow suit soon after as do people convicted on manslaughter and we've already people calling for executions after violent assaults.

Where do you go from there? Shoplifting? J-walking?

Yea, shoplifters. Especially if they've parked on a double yellow!:eek:
I've shown you my position, you have yours.

Procrastastudy

loggedoff wrote: »

Yea, shoplifters. Especially if they've parked on a double yellow!:eek:
I've shown you my position, you have yours.

I disagree with yours.

DrumSteve

UCDVet wrote: »

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

Im presuming your sarcasm detector is not working?

Miss Lockhart

What is it with AH and sh!t poll options?

UCDVet

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I think you need to re-read what I said. Re-introducing the death penalty would require that Ireland exits the ECHR. I take it you're willing to see that happen?

And I said the ECHR's opinion on something has nothing to do with whether or not it is morally right or wrong.

So yes, absolutely, I have no problem exiting the ECHR.

Although, I'd argue that, under the ECHR, we have a duty to kill repeat violent offenders.

in certain circumstances, a positive duty to prevent foreseeable loss of life'

Releasing these people from jail, time and time again, ultimately results in innocent lives being lost. The only reasonably means of preventing this to permanently remove repeat violent offenders from the general population. The only economical and safe way of doing this is to put them down.

But yeah - by all means - exit the ECHR. Anyone who supports gay marriage takes objection to the ECHR's stance on marriage.

Procrastastudy

DrumSteve wrote: »

Im presuming your sarcasm detector is not working?

To be fair people who talk in cinemas is one of my two exceptions to the prohibition on the death penalty.

loggedoff

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I disagree with yours.

That's allowed.:cool:

Procrastastudy

UCDVet wrote: »

The only reasonably means of preventing this to permanently remove repeat violent offenders from the general population. The only economical and safe way of doing this is to put them down.

A state simply does not have the right to take someone's life. You seem to have no concept of human rights. If you want to establish 1950's Ireland somewhere I wish you the best of luck. Don't expect the majority of us to want to live there.

Procrastastudy

loggedoff wrote: »

That's allowed.:cool:

What? No execution?

UCDVet

Procrastastudy wrote: »

A state simply does not have the right to take someone's life. You seem to have no concept of human rights. If you want to establish 1950's Ireland somewhere I wish you the best of luck. Don't expect the majority of us to want to live there.

Neither does a criminal.

The difference is, with my system, the state kills violent criminals.
Under your system, violent criminals kill good citizens.

It's not a perfect world. There are only so many ways you can have it. If you have a better solution that better protects innocent people, sleeping in their beds at 1am from rapists - I'd love to hear it.

Grayson

Judgement Day wrote: »

Would you feel the same if it was a relation or friend of yours that had been raped? How do come to think that any particular sentence is adequate for something so awful as the crime of rape?

Why is that question always asked? Would you feel it was ok if it was someone you knew?
It's a dumb question.What do you think this is, A Time to Kill? Now imagine she was white!! Shock Horror.

I'd like to speak on behalf of everyone who thinks rationally about these things and doesn't say KILL EM ALL!!!

When we think about a crime and more specifically the victim of the crime, we are thinking about it happening to someone horrible. They are genetically closer to monkeys than apes. They may actually be a rapist/child molestor/stalin themselves. And normally we're quite happy to see the victim get assaulted/raped/murdered. And that's why we're happy about the sentance.

I'd like to make clear that in no way do we actually ever actually think that the crime is horrific. And never do we empathise with the victim. Until you ask if "What if they were white/related/a puppy?" then that question suddenly makes us rethink our opinion and we suddenly become in favour of the death penality. At that point we actually think it's ok to execute the mentally deficent and children. You can call us Texas.


maybe I over did the sarcasm?

Grayson

UCDVet wrote: »

Neither does a criminal.

The difference is, with my system, the state kills violent criminals.
Under your system, violent criminals kill good citizens.

It's not a perfect world. There are only so many ways you can have it. If you have a better solution that better protects innocent people, sleeping in their beds at 1am from rapists - I'd love to hear it.

Birmingham 6 were convicted of the murder of innocent people. Should they have gotten the death penality. 6 blokes who were just sitting at home and then found themselves the vioctims of a corrupt police force. If you had your way, they'd be dead. But I guess it's ok to kill a few innocent people.

Merch

davet82 wrote: »

WTF?

I know, I was shocked, heard it on the radio in the car, and I was really just flumoxed,
"3 years suspended if he went and got his leaving cert" wtf indeed.
Hang on, If I rape someone, I can either pay my way out of it or get further education!??
I'm not against reforming criminal behaviour and from what I've heard I think its a bit of an illusion to think prisoners are being reformed in prison, but ANY serial offender or even a first time dangerous act should be treated and dealt with seriously.
Dangerous people need to be put away from society to protect society, let them reform inside, so when (if) they get out they aren't going to do the same or worse.
I know it is going to cost money, but some people are too dangerous to be out.
Even serial burglarers, put them away for time.
If you have a string of offenses, you are not likely to change, what good do they do in society???

And none of this out for Xmas, birthdays, christenings or good behaviour, serious time and on a minimal and basic diet, education classes (reading writing maths etc), routine, reveille, head counts, parades, and chores.
No heavy weights equipment, and not sufficient protein to be doing that kind of thing.

UCDVet wrote: »

I really wish we'd just kill people after their fifth violent offense.

Fifth conviction? Dead within 48 hours.

Sure, people make mistakes. But after five violent offences, that's enough. Kill them.

It might not deter *other* criminals, but it would significantly reduce the amount of crime caused by that particular offender.

I'd bet anyone here 10,000 euro that this man will commit another violent crime after being released.

I cant condone the death penalty, but definitely after repeat violent offenses it should be a serious time penalty, why wait till 5?
a progressively harsher penalty depending on the circumstances and have some kind of system to determine what that is, nothing off the top of a judges head.
9 years is a long time really (for a decent person I mean), not enough for some, but I think the full 12 should be served for this guy, none of this suspended shyte.
Also I think he could do with being put in an institution and in Ireland I'm more inclined to think that is a punishment.

Procrastastudy

UCDVet wrote: »

Neither does a criminal.

The difference is, with my system, the state kills violent criminals.
Under your system, violent criminals kill good citizens.

It's not a perfect world. There are only so many ways you can have it. If you have a better solution that better protects innocent people, sleeping in their beds at 1am from rapists - I'd love to hear it.

That's dead easy; build a society that's fair and just and believes in equality. Jail offenders in institutions that rehabilitate them and if needed incapacitate repeat offenders. Of course that requires people pay more tax so will never, ever happen.

UCDVet

Grayson wrote: »

Birmingham 6 were convicted of the murder of innocent people. Should they have gotten the death penality. 6 blokes who were just sitting at home and then found themselves the vioctims of a corrupt police force. If you had your way, they'd be dead. But I guess it's ok to kill a few innocent people.

Why on Earth would you think that?

I said *repeat* violent offenders who have a minimum of five convictions.

So no, if I had my way, they would not be dead.

I've never heard of anyone being wrongfully convicted of five different violent crimes.

Greenmachine

Other have got much lighter sentences for violent rapes. Horrible horrible thing to do by anyones standards.

AckwelFoley

He raped her twice brutally.

Then hugged her and asked her for her number so he could ask her out some time.

What an odd little man.

Where To

Judgement Day wrote: »

Would you feel the same if it was a relation or friend of yours that had been raped? How do come to think that any particular sentence is adequate for something so awful as the crime of rape?

Last I checked 'adequate' meant sufficient, not satisfactory.

It's a lot better than some of the slap on the wrist type sentences we've seen recently, therefore 'adequate'.
On the other hand, locking up and throwing away the key doesn't sit comfortably with me either. Sometimes people change.

dotsman

Judgement Day wrote: »

If every second person raped was a man perhaps stiffer sentences would be handed down but I doubt it. :mad:

We have no idea how many men are the victims of rape. We know there are a lot. But we don't care. In fact, in some cases - it's perfectly legal. Society has deemed men being raped to be humorous.

The lenient sentences handed down for horrific crimes in this country has nothing to do with gender.

dotsman

dotsman wrote: »

In fact, in some cases - it's perfectly legal. Society has deemed men being raped to be humorous.

There is nothing 'perfectly legal' about men being raped. While in Irish law its considered sexual assault and not rape, it is still a crime whether its by another man or by a woman. This is an injustice of course, but it's completely off the wall to say that a man being violated is perfectly legal.

As for it being humorous, of course its not. The section of 'society' that seems to find humour in it is apparently made up of teenaged boys who think its funny to ask if the attacker was hot. They aren't the majority, thankfully.

mickydoomsux

The guy had twenty odd prior convictions and was on probation at the time. Funny, all these despicable stories sound the same. Obviously our justice system is doing a great job of rehabilitating people.

Build more prisons, make them basic as all **** and lock animals like this guy up for the rest of his life. That or bring him around the back of the courthouse and put on in the back of his head and do society a huge favour.

Rodin

This dog should be put down.

Judgement Day

Grayson wrote: »

Why is that question always asked? Would you feel it was ok if it was someone you knew?
It's a dumb question.What do you think this is, A Time to Kill? Now imagine she was white!! Shock Horror.

I'd like to speak on behalf of everyone who thinks rationally about these things and doesn't say KILL EM ALL!!!

When we think about a crime and more specifically the victim of the crime, we are thinking about it happening to someone horrible. They are genetically closer to monkeys than apes. They may actually be a rapist/child molestor/stalin themselves. And normally we're quite happy to see the victim get assaulted/raped/murdered. And that's why we're happy about the sentance.

I'd like to make clear that in no way do we actually ever actually think that the crime is horrific. And never do we empathise with the victim. Until you ask if "What if they were white/related/a puppy?" then that question suddenly makes us rethink our opinion and we suddenly become in favour of the death penality. At that point we actually think it's ok to execute the mentally deficent and children. You can call us Texas.


maybe I over did the sarcasm?

Sorry, I'm afraid that you're obviously my intellectual superior and I didn't understand any of that ramble. The benefits of a third level education or perhaps too many late nights spent watching "The Green Mile" type movies? :rolleyes:

Grayson

Judgement Day wrote: »

Sorry, I'm afraid that you're obviously my intellectual superior and I didn't understand any of that ramble. The benefits of a third level education or perhaps too many late nights spent watching "The Green Mile" type movies? :rolleyes:

A rolly eyed smiley. You've beaten me there. Great come back. Especially after you acussed people of not giving a crap about the victim of a crime. Implying that maybe we would if they were related to us.

If the only argument you have is to pull out a "You'd feel different if it were your sister/mother/friend" or a :rolleyes: along with some personal insults, then don't bother trying.

The_Kew_Tour

Candie wrote: »

I hate when people make these statements.

That woman has a rough time ahead rebuilding her life, and its made a million times harder if the people around her assume her life is destroyed.

Victims need encouragement and support to get their lives on track again, they don't need the pervading sentiment to be that its not worth trying because they're ruined for life.

No one should tell her she is destroyed, or any victim, male or female destroyed by any crime against them.

FFS that's what I was not applying. But that woman maybe will be affected even in some degree in all this. I hope she will live a happy life. Its happened to very close friend of mine. I can assure you she getting no negative advice from me.:rolleyes:

Jesus stop making something out of nothing.