Admit to raping your underage nieces, and you can walk free from court

pablo128 · 26-07-2016 4:58pm

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no rape here. There is no suggestion in the article that he was charged with rape at any stage, or that the offences amounted to rape. Rape is indeed often preceded by another charge, assault, sexual assault, even trespass, but that is not to say that trespass and rape are comparable.

There s no suggestion of his name either(even if I made a mistake earlier) but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a name. He wasn't found guilty of rape so it wasn't mentioned in the article. Do you know the specific charges that were given to him?

pablo128 · 26-07-2016 4:59pm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I don't think the other poster is saying that at all. While it may be correct to say a person who commits rape may have committed sexual assault the opposite can never be true that a sexual assault is a rape.

Just because one offence has the ingredients of an other does not make it the same.

But would you agree it is possible he was originally charged with rape, irrespective of what he was convicted of?

the_syco · 26-07-2016 5:02pm

Tombi! wrote: »

Well, the man is near 80. Has a low chance of reoffending apparently and had a near heart attack recently.

The judge has given him a license to molest. At least put him under a curfew so he's only allowed out of the house for two hours a day.

26-07-2016 5:04pm

pablo128 wrote: »

There s no suggestion of his name either(even if I made a mistake earlier) but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a name. He wasn't found guilty of rape so it wasn't mentioned in the article. Do you know the specific charges that were given to him?

That certainly doesn't mean it's open season to speculate.

He was not convicted of rape. That much we know. We don't know the facts, we don't know the detail, the Judge commented that they were not at the serious end of the sexual assault spectrum.

Pro Hoc Vice · 26-07-2016 5:11pm

pablo128 wrote: »

But would you agree it is possible he was originally charged with rape, irrespective of what he was convicted of?

No not possible, Well we know he pleaded guilty to sexual assault, if he had been charged with rape then there would have been a trial for the rape charge.

Pro Hoc Vice · 26-07-2016 5:13pm

pablo128 wrote: »

There s no suggestion of his name either(even if I made a mistake earlier) but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a name. He wasn't found guilty of rape so it wasn't mentioned in the article. Do you know the specific charges that were given to him?

The reason for the no name is to protect the victims as they are related and ages are given to know the accused is to know the victim.

Pro Hoc Vice · 26-07-2016 5:15pm

pablo128 wrote: »

I get you, thanks. In my opinion the other poster is trying his damndest to completely separate the 2 charges, which doesn't really apply here.

Of course it applies if he was charged with rape then 2 options plead guilty or a trial. If a trial and he not sentenced for rape then he would have to have been found not guilty of rape.

HensVassal · 26-07-2016 6:34pm

old_aussie wrote: »

And they say justice is blind. And people who take that attitude are no better themselves!

I bet you'd sing a different tune if it was one of your daughters.

I can just see you at the court saying, "ah, no it will be fine, just let him go"

The scumbag should be given the same sentence what any other person would be given
Let the scumbag have the same protection in jail that he showed to his nieces, NONE!

And I bet you would be begging for the cops to help if your son was accused of rape, guilty or not, and the mouth frothing mob was outside the house ready to castrate him.

Save personal hysteria for things that are a little more base.

pablo128 · 26-07-2016 6:35pm

HensVassal wrote: »

And I bet you would be begging for the cops to help if your son was accused of rape, guilty or not, and the mouth frothing mob was outside the house ready to castrate him.

Save personal hysteria for things that are a little more base.

In this case the man has pleaded guilty.

HensVassal · 26-07-2016 6:41pm

pablo128 wrote: »

Many apologies so. I got it wrong, it appears I jumped the gun on this one. I have deleted the offending posts.

Other posts of mine will be edited to reflect my mistake.

It would help if you used the brain before the pitchfork as well. The IRA kneecapped an old man in Belfast because local kids used to call him "Lester the molester" purely because he was an old bachelor with a cat.

pablo128 · 26-07-2016 6:51pm

HensVassal wrote: »

It would help if you used the brain before the pitchfork as well. The IRA kneecapped an old man in Belfast because local kids used to call him "Lester the molester" purely because he was an old bachelor with a cat.

It's disgraceful that some posters can't accept a genuine and prompt apology in good faith, without seeing an opportunity to stick the boot in. My stance hasn't changed even with my mistake.

Throw up a link to your story there like a good chap.

HensVassal · 26-07-2016 7:10pm

hairyslug wrote: »

But surely, "inappropriate fondling or touching" of a 6 year old is worthy of a prison sentence

I'm not an expert in the administering of punishment, nor do I have an insight into what would constitute appropriate punishment. You ask a strawman regarding "should this old guy serve time". I can't really answer that. Will it make society safer if this guy is imprisoned until he croaks? Because some of the people on here who are baying for blood can't get past the notion that sometimes your lust for revenge doesn't get sated.

It's pointless. The man was convicted but there are people who would clamour to put him on life support just to keep him alive to be punished.

hairyslug · 26-07-2016 7:33pm

HensVassal wrote: »

I'm not an expert in the administering of punishment, nor do I have an insight into what would constitute appropriate punishment. You ask a strawman regarding "should this old guy serve time". I can't really answer that. Will it make society safer if this guy is imprisoned until he croaks? Because some of the people on here who are baying for blood can't get past the notion that sometimes your lust for revenge doesn't get sated.

It's pointless. The man was convicted but there are people who would clamour to put him on life support just to keep him alive to be punished.

But where do we draw the line on age and illness, yes prison is used for rehab but there has to be a deterrent too, granted we can only go on a basic newspaper piece in the op that gives little info, but the crime qualified as SA, against a very young child, I have to ask myself what is the difference between this and any number of other cases (Google a random elderly age and SA and you will get hits) where sentences where handed down.

Maybe if SA was not so wide ranging it maybe easier to understand the leniency of some cases compared to others.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-07-2016 7:50pm

hairyslug wrote:

But where do we draw the line on age and illness, yes prison is used for rehab but there has to be a deterrent too, granted we can only go on a basic newspaper piece in the op that gives little info, but the crime qualified as SA, against a very young child, I have to ask myself what is the difference between this and any number of other cases (Google a random elderly age and SA and you will get hits) where sentences where handed down.

Prison is part of the deterrent but it isn't the whole thing. Thefactshave come to light and the guy has been found guilty. The punishment of prison is to deprive the guilty party of freedom. The guy is ill and his freedom will mostly be taken by his illness.

Guilty people are sent to prison AS punishment, not FOR punishment. The guys illness means that there is little to gain from imprisoning him. It doesn't lessen the crime.

26-07-2016 8:07pm

I find it remarkable that some of the same people who defend the use of feminist jazz-hands because clapping is "triggering", are the same crowd defending a suspended sentence for sexual assault.

If it weren't so serious a story it would be laughable.

maudgonner · 26-07-2016 8:08pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Prison is part of the deterrent but it isn't the whole thing. Thefactshave come to light and the guy has been found guilty. The punishment of prison is to deprive the guilty party of freedom. The guy is ill and his freedom will mostly be taken by his illness.

Guilty people are sent to prison AS punishment, not FOR punishment. The guys illness means that there is little to gain from imprisoning him. It doesn't lessen the crime.

Prison is used to punish the guilty by depriving them of their freedom, yes. But it is also used as restorative justice - a way for the victims of the crime to see justice done.

That's what is so wrong with this suspended sentence, IMO. Those girls will watch this man go home with his wife and daughter as if nothing has happened. As long as he keeps his nose clean for the next two years he will basically pay no price for what he has done. That's disgraceful.

Pro Hoc Vice · 26-07-2016 8:24pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I find it remarkable that some of the same people who defend the use of feminist jazz-hands because clapping is "triggering", are the same crowd defending a suspended sentence for sexual assault.

If it weren't so serious a story it would be laughable.

Lol what's the relation between the two.

Samaris · 26-07-2016 9:30pm

There is an issue with whether this is the judge's -fault- though. It has been pointed out that he is well able (and has) sentenced more harshly for sexual assaults in the past (bear in mind though that circumstances may have been different, but the point is he's not known for being unreasonably lenient within the narrow scope he has for -deciding- a suitable punishment whilst keeping in the bounds of the current law on dealing with such crimes.

Basically, there's several things to be considered here, and none of them are implying that anyone -approves- of a suspended sentence for the betrayal and assault of two children, his own relatives at that.

- Given all the factors (and it doesn't matter if we -agree- with them, the factors influence what he can be tried under, and what he's tried under in some way proscribe his punishment. That's just how the law works. A judge can't unilaterally sentence someone who's committed a sexual assault to ten years any more than he can sentence him to death if the law doesn't allow it. The punishment -does not reflect- what the judge thinks is fair. It reflects what the judge thinks is fair within a proscribed set of parameters for such cases. If rape cannot be proved (and I must admit, when I first read that pregnant comment, I thought he'd admitted it! But given he was not tried/convicted of it, he could not be punished for it. The judge could no more pass judgement on him for rape if rape is unproven than he could pass the judgement set out for burglary.

- Then again, the judge -may- have had the option to put something much more onerous on him and simply chose not to. I would need some indication that that was the case though, but I do suspect it's the law at fault rather than the individual that answers to it. Given he has sentenced people harder for sexual assault in the past and it has been overturned on appeal, it does not seem to be a lack of willingness to punish sexual attacks.

In short, without proof that the judge willingly sentenced him to less than he could have gotten under law (taking into account any possible mitigating factors in the eyes of the law), blaming the judge for the legal system having weak penalties for sexual assault is hardly reasonable.

And yes, I think it was far too light a sentence for what he did. But given there's a pattern of these, it may be a much better use of all our time to demand a strengthening in the law and more stringent penalties.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-07-2016 9:43pm

maudgonner wrote:

Prison is used to punish the guilty by depriving them of their freedom, yes. But it is also used as restorative justice - a way for the victims of the crime to see justice done.

Again, it's part of it. The victims had their story verified and he was found guilty and it's a matter of public record. That's part if the restorative justice. I think imprisoning the perpetrator is important but it's not nearly as important the court acknowledging the fact that the abuse occurred.

Punishing the perpetrator might give some vengeance to the victim but I have my doubts that it is satisfying.

Ultimately the court is there to establish the facts and punish the guilty. It's not really about the victim. Asking the court to fix it for the victim is asking it to do something it's not really designed for - beyond the comfort that comes from acknowledging their abuse

maudgonner wrote:

That's what is so wrong with this suspended sentence, IMO. Those girls will watch this man go home with his wife and daughter as if nothing has happened. As long as he keeps his nose clean for the next two years he will basically pay no price for what he has done. That's disgraceful.

He was found guilty. That's not 'no price'. Unless you don't value your reputation as a non paedophile. If he is as sick as is alleged then it's not like he'll be enjoying the rest of his life in peace and comfort.

26-07-2016 9:48pm

Samaris wrote: »

Then again, the judge -may- have had the option to put something much more onerous on him and simply chose not to. I would need some indication that that was the case though, but I do suspect it's the law at fault rather than the individual that answers to it.

I think you make a very fair point, and it's difficult to come down on one side without being in full possession of the facts.

Nevertheless, I suggest people read the comments of Judge Keys and his implicit criticism of the Court of Appeal in its previous ruling which was critical of his sentencing (DPP v P. B, see my earlier link)

In that case, the Court of Appeal was critical of the Judge's comments and his lack of explanation as opposed to the sentence he imposed per se.

In the current case, Judge Keys is perhaps interpreting the Court of Appeal's decision with a degree of truculence, and binding himself in a way that I personally, (and altgough not a lawyer, am literate) cannot accept is justified, based on the Court of Appeal judgment.

Judges don't like to be overruled, no more than any professional does. It's a natural human reaction to ve annoyed, and I just hope this Judge isn't throwing his toys out of the pram in attempting to provoke the Court of Appeal.

maudgonner · 26-07-2016 10:04pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Again, it's part of it. The victims had their story verified and he was found guilty and it's a matter of public record. That's part if the restorative justice. I think imprisoning the perpetrator is important but it's not nearly as important the court acknowledging the fact that the abuse occurred.

Punishing the perpetrator might give some vengeance to the victim but I have my doubts that it is satisfying.

Ultimately the court is there to establish the facts and punish the guilty. It's not really about the victim. Asking the court to fix it for the victim is asking it to do something it's not really designed for - beyond the comfort that comes from acknowledging their abuse

Rubbish. Of course one of the functions of the criminal justice system is to provide justice to the victims of crime. The verdict alone is not justice, it requires an appropriate sentence as well. And a suspended sentence for a crime of this nature is not appropriate, in my opinion.

He was found guilty. That's not 'no price'. Unless you don't value your reputation as a non paedophile. If he is as sick as is alleged then it's not like he'll be enjoying the rest of his life in peace and comfort.

Well his illness is unrelated to the court case, not a consequence of the sentence. He would be suffering the same if he had never committed a crime, so I fail to see how that can be considered any kind of punishment, it's irrelevant.

His wife and daughter are standing by him, it appears, so what is the real consequence of losing his reputation? Shame, a loss of standing in the community? Is that really proportional to the crimes he has been convicted of? I hardly think so.

26-07-2016 10:13pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ultimately the court is there to establish the facts and punish the guilty. It's not really about the victim. Asking the court to fix it for the victim is asking it to do something it's not really designed for

This is repeated so often it's become something of a meme on bulletin boards.

It's true that a prosecution ought not be the legal representative of the Victim, and that the Victim only enjoys the status of a witness during the trial phase.

BUT That is not to suggest that a court has no special obligation to the witness. I believe that as a matter of public policy, and in the interests of preserving public confidence in the courts, the courts can and do afford special status to the Victim and, where appropriate, take into account his or her interests.

People often hear it said that the Prosecution is not there to defend the Victim. But sentencing is another matter entirely and judges are quite entitled, if not obligated, to consider the effect of a crime on victims as a salient factor when imposing sentence.

Icemancometh · 26-07-2016 11:19pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He was found guilty. That's not 'no price'. Unless you don't value your reputation as a non paedophile. If he is as sick as is alleged then it's not like he'll be enjoying the rest of his life in peace and comfort.

It just doesn't seem right. The man was found guilty of abusing children, and the court's response seems to be to shrug their shoulders, and tell him to go on his way. It's hard to have faith in out justice system when someone can commit crimes of this nature and suffer no penalty.

Summer wind · 27-07-2016 1:01am

This man admitted he was guilty of sexual assault of a little girl of six years old. He did the crime he should also do the time. The victims of this evil twisted man must feel so let down by our justice system. The outcome of this case really beggars belief.

HensVassal · 27-07-2016 1:09am

Yellow pack crisps wrote: »

Bizarre rational!

Why is it bizarre?

Tell me...all of us.

HensVassal · 27-07-2016 1:14am

pablo128 wrote: »

Semantics, and you know it.

Just so you know, this isn't the law library, it's the real world.

This isn't the "real world", it's a discussion forum. Contributors range from those who wish to kill (although probably not by their own hand) the defendant to those who have a somewhat higher IQ and can control their emotions to the point of actually examining fact and not surrendering to speculation ("he probably raped the niece(s)).

pablo128 · 27-07-2016 1:17am

HensVassal wrote: »

This isn't the "real world", it's a discussion forum. Contributors range from those who wish to kill (although probably not by their own hand) the defendant to those who have a somewhat higher IQ and can control their emotions to the point of actually examining fact and not surrendering to speculation ("he probably raped the niece(s)).

I'm still waiting on the link to your IRA story.

Steve · 27-07-2016 1:28am

Unfortunate reality is this country does not have a punitive legal system.

If someone can not be 'rehabilitated' then they get off. This is why we see stories of scroats with '100 previous'. It's sickening.

HensVassal · 27-07-2016 2:26am

hairyslug wrote: »

consensual kissing of a 6 year old?
It was deamed by the judge as sexual assualt, no matter how grevious, it deserves a term.

With all of the expereince that a judge has, it still does not make him infallible.

And when did anyone say that consensual kissing between an adult and a child was acceptable ? Certainly not I but it falls under the category of sexual abuse. Stop trying to scream "apologist" at everone who tries to state that the girls weren't raped, ok?

El_Duderino 09 · 27-07-2016 5:53am

maudgonner wrote:

Rubbish. Of course one of the functions of the criminal justice system is to provide justice to the victims of crime. The verdict alone is not justice, it requires an appropriate sentence as well. And a suspended sentence for a crime of this nature is not appropriate, in my opinion.

You say 'rubbish', then go on to rephrase what I said.

maudgonner wrote:

Well his illness is unrelated to the court case, not a consequence of the sentence. He would be suffering the same if he had never committed a crime, so I fail to see how that can be considered any kind of punishment, it's irrelevant.

Sure you're right. But the court found him guilty and also found that there was no point in imposing a custodial sentence because of his illness. If he is as I'll as he says he is, then his freedom is gone anyway so the court can't take his freedom away.

maudgonner wrote:

His wife and daughter are standing by him, it appears, so what is the real consequence of losing his reputation? Shame, a loss of standing in the community? Is that really proportional to the crimes he has been convicted of? I hardly think so.

No its not proportional to the crime. The reason is that his illness was taken into account. That's the subject of the discussion.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

This is repeated so often it's become something of a meme on bulletin boards.

BUT That is not to suggest that a court has no special obligation to the witness. I believe that as a matter of public policy, and in the interests of preserving public confidence in the courts, the courts can and do afford special status to the Victim and, where appropriate, take into account his or her interests.

The victim might well take comfort in knowing that the perpetrator has been found guilty and will be punished. That's almost a side effect of the justice system. It's not fit for the purpose of making things better for the victim. It's about ruling on whether or not they found a perpetrator of a crime and dealing with that perpetrator. At its core, there's very little comfort for victims in that setup.

Healing the victim is a completely different system.

AudreyHepburn · 27-07-2016 7:15am

Tombi! wrote: »

Well, the man is near 80. Has a low chance of reoffending apparently and had a near heart attack recently.

So I don't really see why you'd lock him up to waste more money

Because he's a monster and I don't care what you believe about his chances of re offending, people like him don't change. They don't stop.

Ill health and age should not come into it for serious crimes.

I think you need to re-evaluate your stance a bit to be honest.

vicwatson · 27-07-2016 7:31am

These judges that give out ****e sentences for crimes against women and children should be impeached.

They seem untouchable and answerable to no one. This should not exist in a "democracy"

Pro Hoc Vice · 27-07-2016 7:34am

vicwatson wrote: »

These judges that give out ****e sentences for crimes against women and children should be impeached.

They seem untouchable and answerable to no one. This should not exist in a "democracy"

So there is never in your mind a case where such a crime deserves a non custodial sentence.

HensVassal · 27-07-2016 8:16am

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The guy should be serving whatever time he has left behind bars.. simple.

All the whaterboutery (but.. but.. he's low risk, it wasn't actual rape, he'd cost us money) is irrelevant - and frankly astonishing. His victims have had their ordeal trivialised by the verdict, and the efforts of the Gardai to bring him to justice pissed away at the same time.

These were innocent children who were abused by someone they should have been able to trust, and this outcome shows yet again how broken our justice system really is.

WTF is "whataboutery"? Is it now some slag to shut down a discussion or to ignore answering a question?

Pecker31 · 27-07-2016 8:21am

Tombi! wrote: »

Well, the man is near 80. Has a low chance of reoffending apparently and had a near heart attack recently.

So I don't really see why you'd lock him up to waste more money

or... you could chop his balls off and feed them to the pigs.... just a suggestion

27-07-2016 8:23am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The victim might well take comfort in knowing that the perpetrator has been found guilty and will be punished. That's almost a side effect of the justice system. It's not fit for the purpose of making things better for the victim. It's about ruling on whether or not they found a perpetrator of a crime and dealing with that perpetrator. At its core, there's very little comfort for victims in that setup.

Healing the victim is a completely different system.

Now you're shifting the goalposts. I did not say that healing the victim was a primary aim of the courts.I rejected your claim that "it's not really about the victim. Asking the court to fix it for the victim is asking it to do something it's not really designed for

There is a legal obligation on judges to have regard to the effects on the victim, and to sentence accordingly. It is one of the main considerations that judges must take into account at sentencing.

You are getting confused between trial and sentencing. The victim has no special status at trial, but is elevated to a higher status once criminal allegations have been proved.

Furthermore, one of the functions of sentencing is retribution.

27-07-2016 8:24am

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

I would lock him up for the maximum period allowed, to send out the message that there are consequences to sexually assaulting children. It doesn't matter if he's now physically no longer able to rape an underage kid.

I don't disagree.

However, from a practical perspective, who would provide his care in prison? There aren't nurses or caregivers at prisoner's bedsides.

If a person needs assistance with dressing, toileting, feeding etc., prison as it currently stands, is not where they ought to be.

Perhaps a prison specifically for ill prisoners is what is required.

I have seen it with my own eyes: what happens in these sorts of cases is that other prisoners end up being the caregivers, as it is very distressing to watch an elderly person be unable to manage their incontinence etc. in prison. And most prisoners are normal human beings with empathy for their fellow man.

Life is complex, not black and white.

Pecker31 · 27-07-2016 8:26am

Mystery Egg wrote: »

I don't disagree.

However, from a practical perspective, who would provide his care in prison? There aren't nurses or caregivers at prisoner's bedsides.

If a person needs assistance with dressing, toileting, feeding etc., prison as it currently stands, is not where they ought to be.

Perhaps a prison specifically for ill prisoners is what is required.

I have seen it with my own eyes: what happens in these sorts of cases is that other prisoners end up being the caregivers, as it is very distressing to watch an elderly person be unable to manage their incontinence etc. in prison. And most prisoners are normal human beings with empathy for their fellow man.

Life is complex, not black and white.

What a load of c**k... sorry now

HensVassal · 27-07-2016 8:28am

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

If you do enough to a six year old child that you're charged with sexual assault and your defense isn't that you didn't do it but that she was bold and deserved it you should get a sentence somewhat harsher than absolutely nothing.

And 'consensual kissing' of a six year old? "Oh, it could have just been a bit of fondling or masturbation". What the fuck?

What do you mean "what the fuck?"

And who the hell do you think you are by misquoting me trying to make it look like I said "Oh, it could have been just a bit of fondling or masturbation"

Go back to post #106 and read what I wrote.

I'm just pointing out what the assault could have comprised. Uncomfortable shit, that's for certain. Don't get it into your head that I'm excusing any of this.
Why I even have to qualify myself to people like you is beyond me.

27-07-2016 8:29am

Pecker31 wrote: »

What a load of c**k... sorry now

You're wrong. I already know you've never spent time in a prison or worked in one from this response.

27-07-2016 8:31am

Mystery Egg wrote: »

However, from a practical perspective, who would provide his care in prison? There aren't nurses or caregivers at prisoner's bedsides.

If a person needs assistance with dressing, toileting, feeding etc., prison as it currently stands, is not where they ought to be.

Nurses? Assistance with feeding?

The man had a heart attack in the past. There's absolutely no reason to believe he's debilitated. It's a statistical fact that those who have suffered a heart attack are likely to suffer a repeat attack. Nobody said anything about nursing care being required.

There are plenty of people walking the dog or weeding the garden this morning who have experienced heart attacks, and will likely suffer a repeat.

27-07-2016 8:33am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Nurses? Assistance with feeding?

The man had a heart attack in the past. There's absolutely no reason to believe he's debilitated. It's a statistical fact that those who have suffered a heart attack are likely to suffer a repeat attack. Nobody said anything about nursing care being required.

There are plenty of people walking the dog or weeding the garden this morning who have experienced heart attacks, and will likely suffer a repeat.

If he's fit for prison then I would agree that's where he should be.

lawred2 · 27-07-2016 8:35am

Tombi! wrote: »

Well, the man is near 80. Has a low chance of reoffending apparently and had a near heart attack recently.

So I don't really see why you'd lock him up to waste more money

I suppose because sexual abuse deserves a prison sentence.

Captain Flaps · 27-07-2016 8:36am

Why are threads like this full of apologists and people arguing semantics? Jesus Christ.

Pecker31 · 27-07-2016 8:36am

Mystery Egg wrote: »

You're wrong. I already know you've never spent time in a prison or worked in one from this response.

I don't need to have spent time in Prison or have worked in one to know that these vile pedophiles don't deserve the health care that hard working people on the outside do, our tax money is being used to care for these animals... sugar coat it as you will. The girls innocence was taken from her and she has a sentence for the rest of her lift so forgive me if I don't feel empathy for him.

27-07-2016 8:40am

Pecker31 wrote: »

I don't need to have spent time in Prison or have worked in one to know that these vile pedophiles don't deserve the health care that hard working people on the outside do, our tax money is being used to care for these animals... sugar coat it as you will. The girls innocence was taken from her and she has a sentence for the rest of her lift so forgive me if I don't feel empathy for him.

You don't need to feel empathy for him. I'm just pointing out the practicalities. We don't eliminate this kind of behaviour by treating prisoners like animals. In fact, you amplify it.

I agree he deserves, and ought to receive, punishment.

27-07-2016 8:58am

Captain Flaps wrote: »

Why are threads like this full of apologists and people arguing semantics? Jesus Christ.

Because rape, as referred to in the title which the OP has not changed, is not some "semantic".

And pointing out that the accused in this instance was not convicted of rape is not some minor detail.

He wasn't. It's simply stating a fact.

27-07-2016 8:59am

Pecker31 wrote: »

or... you could chop his balls off and feed them to the pigs.... just a suggestion

But a ludicrous one, all the same.

You might as well have said transport him to Pluto.

Renegade Mechanic · 27-07-2016 9:01am

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

So there is never in your mind a case where such a crime deserves a non custodial sentence.

To me anyway, no.
He made a choice.
He chose to lead a six year old to his home and molest her.
But let's say that didn't happen.

Let's just focus on the later parts. Teenagers "came on to him" and put him in a "difficult situation"... Really? Difficult? Really???
Is it really that difficult to tell someone to **** off? Or go further and warn their parents about what they've done in case they try it with anyone else?

Oh yeah, real difficult.. He made those choices.
Now, even if it's possible they - as teenagers - threatened to tell everyone what he did unless he "served" them - that could have been the "difficult situation" - it's still one he could have avoided by not leading a bloody six year old to his house to begin with...

He made those choices. When he easily could have not done so.
Of course it warrants a custodial sentence. And that's to people who aren't baying for the kind of suffering he would never receive in hes protected wing of the prison anyway...

27-07-2016 9:05am

Deleted User wrote: »

Because rape, as referred to in the title which the OP has not changed, is not some "semantic".

And pointing out that the accused in this instance was not convicted of rape is not some minor detail.

He wasn't. It's simply stating a fact.

OK, we get it. How much mileage are you guys going to get out of repeating this? People aren't predicating their legitimate anger over whether or not vaginal penetration was proved, ffs.

They're angry because of a sexual assault , described as "serious" by the judge, not resulting in even a cursory committal to a prison. Even fine-evaders are exposed to that brief expression of public opprobrium.

Admit to raping your underage nieces, and you can walk free from court

Comments