Tom Humphries: Guilty of child abuse

blanch152

For those genuinely interested in some of the issues around sentencing, here is a good website (ironic abbreviation):

http://irishsentencing.ie/isis/isis.nsf


And some other information:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_trial/sentence.html

http://www.pierse.ie/sentencing-in-irish-courts/


http://www.iprt.ie/sentencing

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/cpSentencing.htm

The pitchfork brigade and the excuse-makers can get back to doing what they do.

lawred2

blanch152 wrote: »

For those genuinely interested in some of the issues around sentencing, here is a good website (ironic abbreviation):

http://irishsentencing.ie/isis/isis.nsf

unfortunate acronym

Donald Trump

BoatMad wrote: »

No , since I don't intend to shoot my self

A significant factor in the development of the crinimal legal system was to remove "passions " from the application of punishment , the unfortunate tendency for the " community " to burn witches and hang so called " black rapists " , while funnily enough turning a blind eye to all sorts of other transgressions.

The Less we involve the community the better in my view , it's track record is fairly appalling

I may be misunderstand or misintrepreting but you see an attitude from ignorant American rednecks. "All I need is mah gun and a six-pack and I ain't need no government to protect me".

That's grand when you are living in a nice quiet location within a stable system which is the product of that same government.

I always wonder how those fellas would fare if they were parachuted into some rough gang-infested area in LA or Chicago and see how long they lasted.

Would you really like to live in a society where the only punishment or deterrent is what could be dished out by individuals?

Shurimgreat

CeilingFly wrote: »

Possibly/probably - hence his headline sentence of 4 years out of a maximum sentence of 5 and remitted to 2.5 due to guilty plea. Probably would have been less if he pleaded guilty at an earlier stage.

On the sexual exploitation - that only took place when she was 16, so no where near the level of those who abuse young children.

What i'm saying is the sentencing was right, but the sensationalist indo and too many suckers who believe the sh1te that the indo writes, think the sentence was too lenient.

I say the judge called it right.

He sent picture of his penis when she was 14 or 15 in 2009. She told him to stop it and he apologised. He resumed it again later. This guy showed no remorse along the way and but for the fluke uncovering of him would have continued his vile actions.

There was a charge of grooming and sexual abuse. Two serious crimes. His "sentence" was a token one and he will be out in 14 months.

retro:electro

BoatMad wrote: »

Yes and it's a crime , he pleaded guilty and he has received a punishment handed out in a court of law. The court of public opinion ( aka mob rule ) is not relevant

Why isn't it relevant? Why isn't it relevant to say that he received a joke of a sentence in which he'll likely serve half of and be out again in no time to go for pints with his character approving friends- while his victim will likely feel the burden of his actions for the rest of her life.
He is a pig. 5-8 years would have been fitting, but not even enough for a self confessed paedophile who groomed a 14 year old.

Shurimgreat

jay1988 wrote: »

This creep starts grooming a girl at 14, turns it sexual at 16 and some people here are saying its not heinous etc.

It's f*cking disgusting and so is the sentence he received.

I wonder how some of you who think this sentence is acceptable would feel had this girl been your daughter, niece, sister etc. and this fat hairy old man came along and ruined her life?

He turned it sexual at 14 with the pictures he sent.

retro:electro

Shurimgreat wrote: »

He turned it sexual at 14 with the pictures he sent.

Aye. Pictures which she rebuffed and he chanced his arm with a year later when he likely knew he had her trust. This cannot be repeated enough.
Tells me more of his character than any reference from his mates ever could.

Shurimgreat

CeilingFly wrote: »

you watch too much csi / beive too much wriiten by hsterical rags - as I said in another thread that you refuse to accept facts and prefer to believe the utter crap from sensationalist rags.

try not believing all the rubbish in hysterical rags - you'll think with a much clearer train of thought.

Again with the csi horsemanure? Now I remember why I put you on ignore!

Clueless about the law and cases such as Humphries and when you are caught out you label everyone as watching too much CSI.

lawred2

CeilingFly wrote: »

Possibly/probably - hence his headline sentence of 4 years out of a maximum sentence of 5 and remitted to 2.5 due to guilty plea. Probably would have been less if he pleaded guilty at an earlier stage.

On the sexual exploitation - that only took place when she was 16, so no where near the level of those who abuse young children.

What i'm saying is the sentencing was right, but the sensationalist indo and too many suckers who believe the sh1te that the indo writes, think the sentence was too lenient.

I say the judge called it right.

14/15/16 is the definition of a young child. Your equivocation is creepy.

BoatMad

lawred2 wrote: »

14/15/16 is the definition of a young child. Your equivocation is creepy.

All crimes have levels of severity , don't overlay that with so called moral outrage

Moral outrage should be no factor in the application of punishment or even the desire to prosecute in the first place , the Ian bailey case being a case in point and a travesty of the process larely as a result of " community " pressure

lawred2

BoatMad wrote: »

All crimes have levels of severity , don't overlay that with so called moral outrage

Moral outrage should be no factor in the application of punishment or even the desire to prosecute in the first place , the Ian bailey case being a case in point and a travesty of the process larely as a result of " community " pressure

Whatever lad... seriously... I'm really not remotely interested in your posturing to be brutally honest..

BoatMad

anna080 wrote: »

Why isn't it relevant? Why isn't it relevant to say that he received a joke of a sentence in which he'll likely serve half of and be out again in no time to go for pints with his character approving friends- while his victim will likely feel the burden of his actions for the rest of her life.
He is a pig. 5-8 years would have been fitting, but not even enough for a self confessed paedophile who groomed a 14 year old.

Sure sure let's hang him on that tree that fell down in Dublin

It's not for " moral outrage " to decide on individual cases. If you want change then vote for a party that suggests tougher sanctions etc , or run yourself on that ticket.

The whole point is judegements cannot be swayed by torch holders baying at the door

Nor was it not long ago when those self same torch bearers were blindly ignoring pedophila elsewhere

Shurimgreat

A couple of posters with similar posting styles defending Humphries. I wonder is there a connection to each other?

lawred2

BoatMad wrote: »

Sure sure let's hang him on that tree that fell down in Dublin

She said 5 -8 years.

She made no mention of hanging. That was you.

Why are you so disingenuous?

BoatMad

anna080 wrote: »

Why isn't it relevant? Why isn't it relevant to say that he received a joke of a sentence in which he'll likely serve half of and be out again in no time to go for pints with his character approving friends- while his victim will likely feel the burden of his actions for the rest of her life.
He is a pig. 5-8 years would have been fitting, but not even enough for a self confessed paedophile who groomed a 14 year old.

lawred2 wrote: »

Whatever lad... seriously... I'm really not remotely interested in your posturing to be brutally honest..

Nor i your caveman views, but such is the nature of social meeedia

BoatMad

lawred2 wrote: »

She said 5 -8 years.

She made no mention of hanging. That was you.

Why are you so disingenuous?

Because I am parodying her view , why not 15 years or castration or deportment to Botany Bay.

The fact is we have a judiciary to decide on such things and a legislature to make and change laws.

What we don't have thankfully is trial and punishment by boards.ie views

lawred2

BoatMad wrote: »

Nor i your caveman views, but such is the nature of social meeedia

caveman views?

Could you list all the views that I've shared on this thread with which you consider to be caveman like please?

retro:electro

BoatMad wrote: »

Sure sure let's hang him on that tree that fell down in Dublin

It's not for " moral outrage " to decide on individual cases. If you want change then vote for a party that suggests tougher sanctions etc , or run yourself on that ticket.

The whole point is judegements cannot be swayed by torch holders baying at the door

Nor was it not long ago when those self same torch bearers were blindly ignoring pedophila elsewhere

What are you even going on about? I don't remember the judge or jury asking my opinion on this case or taking into account the "morally outraged" people of Boards in their decision. We are discussing his piss poor sentencing after the fact. Your posts are beyond barmy.

Shurimgreat

Some people would only give a slap on the wrist to people like Humphries and even then think it too harsh.

The sentence he received was little more than a slap on the wrist. He will be out in no time.

There deterrence element amounted to zero and the punishment in no way matched the crime.

Our justice system stinks sometimes.

retro:electro

BoatMad wrote: »

Nor i your caveman views, but such is the nature of social meeedia

You're the one with the archaic and primitive views here. Your posts are very telling.

lawred2

BoatMad wrote: »

Because I am parodying her view , why not 15 years or castration or deportment to Botany Bay.

The fact is we have a judiciary to decide on such things and a legislature to make and change laws.

What we don't have thankfully is trial and punishment by boards.ie views

Parodying?

No you weren't - you were creating a fallacy upon which to provide some sort of foundation for your own self serving tripe...

BoatMad

Shurimgreat wrote: »

A couple of posters with similar posting styles defending Humphries. I wonder is there a connection to each other?

I don't see a single post defending humphries

I do see many posts defending the judicial system.

But hey I'm related to the second shooter in Las Vegas if you must know

Ps stop slinging dirt , it's very obvious

Creol1

According to the Irish Independent, the judge "said she was taking into account that Humphries had lost his livelihood and his reputation."

How could anyone convicted of child sex abuse not lose both reputation and livelihood?

Loss of any reputation is surely inevitable and surely any employer will remove someone guilty of child abuse -- if anything, the IT seems to have been very lenient. He wasn't officially dismissed until this year, long after the case came to their attention.

BoatMad

lawred2 wrote: »

Parodying?

No you weren't - you were creating a fallacy upon which to provide some sort of foundation for your own self serving tripe...

I fail to see how defending the judicial system , a cornerstone of our democracy , from mob rule is tripe

As I've said , previously , I've no idea what the appropriate sentence is , I am however comfortable that a professional judiciary generally does. I suspect some people here are just taking a number and doubling it.

lawred2

Creol1 wrote: »

According to the Irish Independent, the judge "said she was taking into account that Humphries had lost his livelihood and his reputation."

How could anyone convicted of child sex abuse not lose both reputation and livelihood?

Loss of any reputation is surely inevitable and surely any employer will remove someone guilty of child abuse -- if anything, the IT seems to have been very lenient. He wasn't officially dismissed until this year, long after the case came to their attention.

so if ol' Tom was unemployed and relied on the dole the judge wouldn't have taken loss of livelihood and his reputation into account and he might have got the 5 years?

super_furry

He spent far more time grooming and sexually assaulting his victim than he will in jail.

That's morally repulsive.

retro:electro

Creol1 wrote: »

According to the Irish Independent, the judge "said she was taking into account that Humphries had lost his livelihood and his reputation."

How could anyone convicted of child sex abuse not lose both reputation and livelihood?

Loss of any reputation is surely inevitable and surely any employer will remove someone guilty of child abuse -- if anything, the IT seems to have been very lenient. He wasn't officially dismissed until this year, long after the case came to their attention.

Imagine that. Taking his loss of reputation as a mitigating factor. Surely that's a justified consequence of being a paedo?

BoatMad

Creol1 wrote: »

According to the Irish Independent, the judge "said she was taking into account that Humphries had lost his livelihood and his reputation."

How could anyone convicted of child sex abuse not lose both reputation and livelihood?

Loss of any reputation is surely inevitable and surely any employer will remove someone guilty of child abuse -- if anything, the IT seems to have been very lenient. He wasn't officially dismissed until this year, long after the case came to their attention.

You, I and humphries are entitled to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. It would have been wrong to terminate him until he pleaded guilty , which I gather is when the IT terminated his employment.

lawred2

BoatMad wrote: »

I fail to see how defending the judicial system , a cornerstone of our democracy , from mob rule is tripe

As I've said , previously , I've no idea what the appropriate sentence is , I am however comfortable that a professional judiciary generally does. I suspect some people here are just taking a number and doubling it.

fair enough

I'll be hoping to see you defending the judiciary on all sentencing related threads going forward..

I'd hope that you don't reserve your energies just for the convicted groomers and predators like Tom Humphries..

Red_Wake

yourdeadwright wrote: »

If heard a lot on this but haven't read it myself,
Its it true this started when he was a GAA mentor to the victim but that has never been mentioned in the papers , again I haven't read it but someone was saying the GAA are trying to keep that it happened on there watch (although hardly there fault )  out of the media ,
 Not sure if that's true or not ?

The fact he used his relationship as her GAA coach to groom her has not received any scrutiny. Bear in mind that she believes he got her number via the GAA.

Their relationship as player-coach is at most a footnote in any article. 

This has not been discussed at all in the media, and I would be very wary of how easily the GAA has been allowed to distance itself from this predator. As an organisation which has access to thousands of impressionable children, it is only right that it's role in this be scrutinised[bear in mind Humphries himself wrote about the problem of paedophiles in the GAA], as it was with the RCC and Swim Ireland.