Rallying around a rapist

Samaris

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How many people "knew" priests, coaches , friend etc well enough to stand up for them in such cases only to be proven wrong?

The fact of the matter is, unless you're with someone all day every day, you dont know what they get up to behind closed doors. On the normal side of things, every one of us is going around not knowing some of the more "intimate" things our friends and their partners like to do with and to each other when alone in a bedroom. To decide you know someone isnt capable of child abuse because they are a close friend is naive tbh. People from all walks of life have been convicted of these things at this stage.

People lie to those closest to them all the time.

Giving a character reference in the situation that the conversation has turned to now is not an evil thing.

I've just been sitting here thinking "what if". Maybe everyone in this thread should do it too.

What if your current partner (if you have one) or your father or best mate was accused of rape or child abuse? Can you think of that person and think to yourself "yes, I'd believe it straight off, because I couldn't defend someone accused of such a crime".

Maybe it makes me a bad person, but I truly do not think I could believe it of him. I don't know what sort of proof I'd need to be able to so radically reconsider everything I know about him.

I don't know that it's all so black and white, whether or not I agree (and I don't) with the actions of the people in the article.

FactCheck

Criminal trials are not interested in character references before verdicts. Why would they be? They care about evidence. "I think he's a nice guy" is not evidence.

References, letters to judges - those are gathered before sentencing. Not before conviction! Sentencing and conviction are different things.

ahnowbrowncow

This thread shows the need for anonymity for people accused of crimes until proven guilty.

It also proves there are a lot of idiots out there.

FactCheck

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

This thread shows the need for anonymity for people accused of crimes until proven guilty.

How so? Every person in Ireland accused of a sexual crime already has anonymity until proven guilty. And this guy, like 70% of convicted rapists in Ireland, is still anonymous even after being proven guilty.

What exactly do you think needs to change?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Wibbs wrote: »

And this folks is why we really don't need uninformed mob rule in a society. Feelz matter more than thought. Ironically it's as bad as those supporting him. If not worse actually as it seems the support came before the guilt was established. That's a natural human response to an accusation of someone that's well regarded within a group. I'll bet the farm that the majority if not all would retract their support now he's been found to be a child molesting scumbag. Yet some like above think they agree that child rape is OK. Jesus.

Wibbs continues his crusade against those awful 'feelz' whatever they might be.

conorh91

Wibbs wrote: »

I'll bet the farm that the majority if not all would retract their support now he's been found to be a child molesting scumbag.

I'm afraid you have lost your farm.

FactCheck

To be fair to Wibbs he put his hands up and said he'd been mistaken immediately. It's an understandable human impulse, in face of what appears to be unthinkable stupidity and cruelty, to try to see the best in other people and to try to make sense of something that's happened.

It's a bit less defensible to keep insisting that the courts work in a way that is demonstrably untrue, and to "debate" a practice that simply doesn't exist.

The irony is that this reluctance to back down and reconsider is a very mild version of the same impulse that's lead these dozens of people to double-down and defend a child rapist. There are people here who won't say "hey, clearly I was wrong" anonymously on the internet regarding something that in no way impacts their real life. No wonder there are so many people who'll stand by a friend no matter what independent evidence proves they've done.

Likewise, it's a comfortable solution to blame the courts system. That's an easy thing to diagnose and fix. It's much harder to take a look at the nastier side of "community spirit".

Wibbs

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Wibbs continues his crusade against those awful 'feelz' whatever they might be.

That was in response to someone who thinks - and I use the word reservedly - that these idiots who supported a convicted child rapist are the same/as guilty as the child rapist. That is an opinion based on a kneejerk emotional response to the crime, not anything approaching objective thought. Id est "feelz". You consider this a good thing? Mkay.

seamus

FactCheck wrote: »

Right but seamus this isn't how it actually works. Character references aren't gathered ahead of time. Everyone who gave this guy a reference knew his defence and they knew he'd been found guilty.

Fair enough. I was under the impression that character references were presented by the defence before the verdict. Though my post was in response to the idea that someone would hold judgement on a mate until after a court case was finished. Which I find quite incredible.

I'd be interested to know if these endorsements of the man were gathered before the verdict or the details were known and given to the defence solicitor. Or maybe those who signed it weren't privy to the full details of the case. You'd be surprised what a couple of quiet busybodies can do.

Though given the infamous scenes that happened in the Kerry case, nothing would surprise me really.

zeffabelli

MrWalsh wrote: »

Your views on pedophilia are disturbing.

The majority of people who sexually abuse children are not pedophiles? Words fail me.

He's right.

They are sex offenders but not necessarily focused on children. The pedophiles label is a distraction.

Some don't get enough sex from their spouse and turn to the kids for gratification. They are heterosexual but have needs and so they take what they can get.

It's usually Hetero or homosexuals who are taking an opportunity.

https://stopabusecampaign.com/most-sex-abusers-are-heterosexual/

end of the road

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Disgusting....those people are just as guilty and dangerous as him tbh.

If they support him like this then they must not see any wrong in what he did and that to my mind makes them dangerous to children too.

what rubbish. unless they raped children themselves they are guilty of nothing. they cannot therefore be as guilty as the child rapist as they aren't guilty of anything. i don't see myself why they would rally around him but lets not come out with hysterics

noway12345

This thread is seriously disturbing. People are saying it's ok to support child rapists because they are friends with them. They really don't see peadophilia as that bad of a crime?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Wibbs wrote: »

That was in response to someone who thinks - and I use the word reservedly - that these idiots who supported a convicted child rapist are the same/as guilty as the child rapist. That is an opinion based on a kneejerk emotional response to the crime, not anything approaching objective thought. Id est "feelz". You consider this a good thing? Mkay.

No I don't. I just don't see why you don't say 'feelings' or 'emotion' or any actual word, as you did in your reply to me.

zeffabelli

seamus wrote: »

Fair enough. I was under the impression that character references were presented by the defence before the verdict. Though my post was in response to the idea that someone would hold judgement on a mate until after a court case was finished. Which I find quite incredible.

I'd be interested to know if these endorsements of the man were gathered before the verdict or the details were known and given to the defence solicitor. Or maybe those who signed it weren't privy to the full details of the case. You'd be surprised what a couple of quiet busybodies can do.

Though given the infamous scenes that happened in the Kerry case, nothing would surprise me really.

And you don't know what picture was painted of the family pointing the fingers.

FactCheck

zeffabelli wrote: »

And you don't know what picture was painted of the family pointing the fingers.

The article says that the victim impact statement included the fact that one of the victims became a drug addict (incredibly common for abuse survivors of course).

It doesn't have to be as extreme as that though - in the Danny Foley Listowel case the parish priest explained that he didn't trust the victim because she was a single mother.

(That's the case from a couple of years ago. Foley's account was contradicted by CCTV evidence and the two Gardai who caught him in the act. But at least 50 locals didn't care about that.)

zeffabelli

FactCheck wrote: »

The article says that the victim impact statement included the fact that one of the victims became a drug addict (incredibly common for abuse survivors of course).

Very typical of abuse survivors but also plays straight into discrediting the witness.

FactCheck wrote: »

It doesn't have to be as extreme as that though - in the Danny Foley Listowel case the parish priest explained that he didn't trust the victim because she was a single mother.

Subtext of single mother is irresponsible gold digging slut.

El_Duderino 09

AudreyHepburn wrote:

I'm not worried by it, I just think it's wrong and I don't understand why anyone would stand by such a man.

You don't understand... Fair enough. It happens though. And your lack of understanding doesn't change that and it doesn't make those other people as bad as him.

AudreyHepburn wrote:

Does his being a hard worker and team player somehow lessen what he did?

I went to pains to point out that it doesn't.

zeffabelli

zeffabelli wrote: »

Some don't get enough sex from their spouse and turn to the kids for gratification. They are heterosexual but have needs and so they take what they can get.

Unless the lack of availability of sex robs abusers of their ability to know right from wrong I don't see what this has to do with it.

Lots of single celibate people somehow manage not to abuse or rape kids, even if the opportunity presents itself.

Lots of people who have sex infrequently manage to get through the day without raping anyone or sexually abusing children.

I wonder if it's ever used as a defence - my spouse provides inadequate sex, so I took the opportunity to rape someone, your honour. It's partially their fault, for not keeping me satisfied.

I haven't had sex recently, and look at me, sitting here, not raping anybody, still knowing right from wrong.

Flippyfloppy

zeffabelli wrote: »

He's right.

They are sex offenders but not necessarily focused on children. The pedophiles label is a distraction.

Some don't get enough sex from their spouse and turn to the kids for gratification. They are heterosexual but have needs and so they take what they can get.

It's usually Hetero or homosexuals who are taking an opportunity.

https://stopabusecampaign.com/most-sex-abusers-are-heterosexual/

When they say most sex abusers are heterosexuals they mean as opposed to homesexual. Not as opposed to being a paedophile. Anyone who abuses a child is a paedophile.

One eyed Jack

,

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

When they say most sex abusers are heterosexuals they mean as opposed to homesexual. Not as opposed to being a paedophile. Anyone who abuses a child is a paedophile.

From my understanding of it, paedophilia is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, essentially viewing children as sexual objects, like any other paraphilia. A person may be a paedophile without ever having sexually abused a child, and by that same token, a person who abuses children may not necessarily be sexually attracted to children, - there's no question they're obviously a child molester, but an explanation for their behaviour is far more complex than simply suggesting they're sexually attracted to children.

That's why child molesters during a trial sometimes claim they were sexually abused as children, because it's offered as "understandable" mitigating circumstances for their behaviour. It's an easy plea for leniency in sentencing. It shouldn't be allowed to be used as a justification for their behaviour IMO, but it is.

Also, children sexually abuse other children, and they aren't labelled as paedophiles.

The paedophile label is a distraction, and an "easy explanation" IMO, when often a person's reasons for sexually abusing children can be any number of reasons which would have yet to be determined.

Cold War Kid

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No but I would see it as you agreeing with what he did. And to me that makes you just as bad ....but that's my own personal opinion.

I can understand your disgust but the above isn't looking at things logically. A person would only be as bad as him if they also sexually abused a child. It wouldn't be ideal to equate thinking with doing. There's also no evidence that his supporters agree with what he did. It's more likely they don't fully believe he was capable of such a thing, and they're in denial. It's very easy for vile people to dupe people into thinking they're absolutely fantastic people; manipulation comes easily to them.
Of course it's still horrible that he's getting this support, but I wouldn't put it down to plain and simple agreeing with what he did/seeing nothing wrong with it.

foggy_lad wrote: »

If I was asked to defend or speak up for someone even accused of such crimes I would no longer consider them my friend!

As soon as I found out they were suspected of such a crime the friendship would end!

Doubt you would, I would think you're just trying to be controversial.

One eyed Jack

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Doubt you would, I would think you're just trying to be controversial.

Is it not a common consequence though that people accused of a crime involving a sexual element, are abandoned and ostracised by their community and even friends and family?

I don't think that's actually as controversial as other posters suggesting the whole "some friend you are" nonsense. It may not be logical, but when was human nature ever logical?

Does it make any logical sense that people signed a petition as character references for a person who was found guilty of the crimes he was accused of? It doesn't, and in the same way it doesn't make any logical sense for people to abandon a person they considered a friend, based upon an accusation, but it happens, often.

It's often pointed out as a consequence of a person making a false claim against another person, that person's reputation is tarnished in their community by the no smoke without fire mentality.

I'd find it hard not to think the same way too depending upon the circumstances tbh.

Cold War Kid

Cutting ties with a friend just because of a mere allegation, instead of giving them the benefit of the "innocent until proven guilty" doubt (as a friend would do) is horrible.
Obviously cutting ties with them on receipt of proof of such a heinous act is perfectly reasonable. But there's massive difference between allegation and proof.

Sometimes there *is* smoke without fire.

Jayop

Samaris wrote: »

Christ, your friends better hope that they are never falsely accused of anything. They obviously couldn't rely on any faith in them from you.

If one of my friends was accused of raping children repeatedly and the best excuse he could muster up was that he woke up SEVERAL time to find the child having sex with him then you better believe that I'd be first in the line with the rest of the mob.

Te benefit of the doubt only goes so far.

One eyed Jack

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Cutting ties with a friend just because of a mere allegation, instead of giving them the benefit of the "innocent until proven guilty" doubt (as a friend would do) is horrible.

Obviously cutting ties with them on receipt of proof of such a heinous act is perfectly reasonable. But there's massive difference between allegation and proof.

Sometimes there *is* smoke without fire.

I stayed friends once with a guy who was accused of raping a girl, I thought there was no way he could have done it because he was staying in my gaff that night. I held that view for months because I thought as much of a scumbag as he is, there's no way he'd actually rape anyone. I was never made aware of the timeline by Gardai, but it transpired that he'd raped the girl earlier that evening before he turned up at my gaff to use me as an alibi, and there was me telling the Gardai that he was with me all night. I felt like an awful clown tbh.

When a false accusation was made against me, people I thought were friends suddenly treated me as a leper, to the point where I was viciously beaten on my way home one night. I understood why they did it, because I'd no defence only " I didn't do it". Thankfully she never made a complaint to Gardaí, but the rumour was enough to see me ostracised from my community and friends who had known me years.

It's a horrible thing to do, but the alternative is a hell of a lot worse to live with, in my experience at least.

zeffabelli

Candie wrote: »

Unless the lack of availability of sex robs abusers of their ability to know right from wrong I don't see what this has to do with it.

Lots of single celibate people somehow manage not to abuse or rape kids, even if the opportunity presents itself.

Lots of people who have sex infrequently manage to get through the day without raping anyone or sexually abusing children.

I wonder if it's ever used as a defence - my spouse provides inadequate sex, so I took the opportunity to rape someone, your honour. It's partially their fault, for not keeping me satisfied.

I haven't had sex recently, and look at me, sitting here, not raping anybody, still knowing right from wrong.

Yes I know lots of people do, but sex offenders don't, that's why they are sex offenders.

People know right from wrong, doesn't stop them doing wrong.

Can someone explain why signatures can be gathered for a trial? Who cares what the community thinks.. It's so weird.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Can someone explain why signatures can be gathered for a trial? Who cares what the community thinks.. It's so weird.

I guess the idea is to paint a picture of the convicted person and their overall demeanour.

Let's remove the crime that was committed for a second and replace it with something less emotional - he broke into someone's house and robbed it.

He presents at court with a sob story about being on hard times, and a list of recommendations from people who think he's a great guy and is always pitching in with the local community.

The judge therefore looks favourably on his case, reckons he's unlikely to make the same mistake again and gives him a more lenient sentence because it would harm the community to remove him.

It's weird in this case because it's rape. Not only rape, but child rape.

It's one of those crimes where there are no mitigating circumstances - you can't claim sexual frustration, or being drunk or on drugs. There is no excusing or explaining it.
But in a just system, all crimes follow the same due process, including character references.

conorh91

Deleted User wrote: »

Who cares what the community thinks.

Clearly not the judge in this case! (thankfully)

Anyway despite what people often think,a defence solicitor or counsel will be very reluctant to bore a judge at sentencing by regaling protracted sob stories or exaggerating the esteem in which a person is held.

At sentencing, the Court will have already be appraised of the convicted person's offending behaviour. The last thing anyone wants to hear is a drawn out sob story. It's better to stick to practical issues (health, family circumstances, can he pay compensation?) and leave the tiniest violin at home.

I really don't think anyone cares much about personal references from parish priests and the like. Those people probably think they're being more helpful than they are.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

That "I was abused as a child" defence disgusts me. Just because it's happened to them does not equate to mitigating circumstances for harming and taking another child's innocence. If anything, you'd think they - of all people would understand how awful that is and how much it can destroy a person. Why would you ever want to make someone else feel like that?