Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Tom Humphries: Guilty of child abuse
Options
Comments
-
I don't know why I bother but a simplistic history of the criminal system is here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_criminal_justice
You can see for example how in the US the system evolved from community run to more federally run , especially felonies , originally in the US the criminal case had to taken by and funded by the victim.
Your link does not back up your incorrect and stupid statement as I've quoted above. By the way it is comical how you link to beginners explanations of the law when you don't understand the basics yourself.
Making random links and waffling does not deflect from the fact that your quote is wrong and you cannot find a source or reference to back it up.0 -
Referencing Wikipedia though..
Enough said.0 -
Are Am Eye wrote: »Your link does not back up your incorrect and stupid statement as I've quoted above. By the way it is comical how you link to beginners explanations of the law when you don't understand the basics yourself.
Making random links and waffling does not deflect from the fact that your quote is wrong and you cannot find a source or reference to back it up.
I didn't reference a quote , I laid out my opinion based on my own reading of the subject. Can I reference them , well not online easily , nor am I going Tom spend time duplicating my own knowledge simply to provide you with references that you can't be bothered to research independently
You or the other hand have advanced no alternative perspective , merely simplifies shouted " Wrong" at every turn0 -
-
I didn't reference a quote , I laid out my opinion based on my own reading of the subject. Can I reference them , well not online easily , nor am I going Tom spend time duplicating my own knowledge simply to provide you with references that you can't be bothered to research independently
You or the other hand have advanced no alternative perspective , merely simplifies shouted " Wrong" at every turn
I didn't ask you to lay out an opinion. I asked you to provide a source and evidence for your words as follows...judicial system was introduced specifically to remove the influence of the " community " in specific cases
Your strenuous efforts to keep deflecting make it obvious that you know that you were wrong. I am not "shouting wrong" as you put it. I am giving you an opportunity to stand over your own words. Your a good man for wikipedia. Look up the 'scientific method' and the 'philosophy of knowledge'. Learn to think logically and critically before you essay any specific subject. Your arguments must be based on evidence.0 -
Advertisement
-
Are Am Eye wrote: »I didn't ask you to lay out an opinion. I asked you to provide a source and evidence for your words as follows...
Your strenuous efforts to keep deflecting make it obvious that you know that you were wrong. I am not "shouting wrong" as you put it. I am giving you an opportunity to stand over your own words. Your a good man for wikipedia. Look up the 'scientific method' and the 'philosophy of knowledge'. Learn to think logically and critically before you essay any specific subject. Your arguments must be based on evidence.
I mentioned a textbook you might peruse " Governing with judges" by Alec sweet ( oxford )
There are others of course , the path to modern judicial systems is complex and multi faceted , not easily simplified to three sentence social media , and by people who just want to grind an axe.
For example , the transition from community justice models in the early years n the US to a more judicial system is well documented and explored in great detail, ( in many books) initially isolated communities were largely left to their own devices , then gradually structures were put in place to make it more objective and less dependant on specific communities and their Outlook etc.0 -
I mentioned a textbook you might peruse " Governing with judges" by Alec sweet ( oxford )
There are others of course , the path to modern judicial systems is complex and multi faceted , not easily simplified to three sentence social media , and by people who just want to grind an axe.
For example , the transition from community justice models in the early years n the US to a more judicial system is well documented and explored in great detail, ( in many books) initially isolated communities were largely left to their own devices , then gradually structures were put in place to make it more objective and less dependant on specific communities and their Outlook etc.
You're giving study advice on a subject you clearly know nothing about lol.
So you accept your statement is incorrect?
Here it is againjudicial system was introduced specifically to remove the influence of the " community " in specific cases0 -
I mentioned a textbook you might peruse " Governing with judges" by Alec sweet ( oxford )
There are others of course , the path to modern judicial systems is complex and multi faceted , not easily simplified to three sentence social media , and by people who just want to grind an axe.
For example , the transition from community justice models in the early years n the US to a more judicial system is well documented and explored in great detail, ( in many books) initially isolated communities were largely left to their own devices , then gradually structures were put in place to make it more objective and less dependant on specific communities and their Outlook etc.
Is it your posting technique to bore people to death with gobbeldygook in the hope they just cannot be arsed responding?0 -
A lot of predictable nonsense being posted over the last few hours.
I'm around Boards long enough to remember many a thread where a woman has had full sex with (/raped) kids and you never see anything like the kind of reaction that you see when a famous guy has any kind of sexual interaction with an underage girl. There is just something about it that has usually fair minded folk totally lose the run of themselves when it comes to what they feel should be the appropriate sentence handed down.He's a MONSTER!! He GROOMED her. She was 14!!
Nope, not a monster, no more than a woman would be if she did what Humphries did. What he did was however against the law and so he deserved to be charged and sentenced to a term consistent with other sentences handed down for similar crimes in that jurisdiction.......... and he was, so what's the problem?
The problem is that a large chunk of ye built yourselves up into a frenzy talking about the guy as if he was Ted fcuking Bundy and still are to a large extent, calling for the guy to be jailed for laughable lengths of time, how he should never be allowed back into society etc. To such a degree that I just stopped posting on the thread as there was no rational conversation to be had.
Seriously like, I understand that some sentences in this country are a joke, particularly crimes of a violent nature. The man who killed my best mates walks the streets, I get it, this sentence ain't one of them. It really isn't.
In my opinion if this was an ordinary Joe Soap, most of you would be happy enough with the sentence, particularly given that guy has twice tried to take his life in hospital and appears to be at a low level with regards to risk of reoffending. He also had a clean record previously. He's not not a ordinary Joe Soap however, he's a famous 'fat pig' and I feel it is that which is fueling most of the farcical bleating.
Let me ask you folks calling him a monster and suggesting he deserved to be jailed for upwards of ten years plus: do you think the following woman is also a monster who deserved to be treated, and spoken about, in the same manner Humphries is? If not, why not?Woman admits to sexually assaulting 14-year-old girl
A 27-year old Dublin woman has been given a three year suspended sentence after she pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a fourteen-year-old female relative.
The court heard that the accused and the girl both claimed they loved one another at the time.
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, pleaded guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to two counts of sexual assaulting the girl at a house in County Meath on dates between 1st and 31st December 2010.
Judge Desmond Hogan remarked that the case was an 'unusual but serious case' in which the woman had taken advantage of a young person.
He said he was unsure whether the defendant has full knowledge and understanding of the consequences of what she did and has some way to go until she realises the full consequences.
Garda Graham Weeks told Anne Rowland BL, prosecuting, that the victim's father went to gardaí when he found letters written by his daughter.
He said the letters suggested his 14-year-old daughter was having sexual relations with a cousin of his ex-wife's.
The victim told gardaí that her mother's cousin started to text her in June 2010 but that they had known one another all her life and that she knew the accused was a lesbian.
The girl said in October of that year, she went to McDonalds with her mother's cousin and her sister, and that while they were there she got a text from the accused asking to meet in the toilets.
The accused kissed her in the cubicle and the teenage girl said she was “in shock”.
The teenager said she went to stay with her mother in County Meath “before the snow” in December 2010 and was sharing a bed with the defendant.
The victim said she went to bed earlier and that when the accused joined her later she touched her private parts and put her finger into the victim's vagina.
The teenage girl said the same thing happened again later that week and that she felt both “happy and sad” when the accused went back to her own house at the end of the week.
The victim said her mother's cousin sent her “a nice message” and that they then started texting a few times a day and she developed feelings and felt like the accused was her girlfriend.
She said she was upset and sad when her father found out about the relationship.
Gda Weeks said the letters written by the girl, on the suggestion of her counsellor, say she told the accused she was in love with her in the summer of 2010.
The teenager also describes how she and the accused were holding hands and flirting on the bus, and that on another occasion the victim went to the accused's house and they engaged in oral sex.
The court heard that the teenage girl had a fragile disposition, had run away from home and had taken too much medication at one stage.
In a victim impact statement, the girl said she felt “cheated and let down” by the accused and had undergone counselling.
Defence counsel Caroline Biggs SC said the accused has a deep regret and remorse for what she has done to the victim, and that there was no use of threat, force or violence.
“It was consensual, the complainant said she was not frightened, and there were genuine feelings between them...in so far as a 14-year-old can have feelings,” said Ms Biggs.
Ms Biggs said that although her client had breached the child's trust, “in a warped and dysfunctional way, she did love that child” and the child loved her.
A psychologist's report stated the accused had a “chaotic, unstable and traumatic childhood” and had been a victim of sexual abuse herself at a very young age.
The report added that her mother had been incapable of looking after her children and had drank herself to death.
Judge Hogan also ordered that the woman be supervised by the Probation Services for a period of two years.
No grooming charge there (given that the charge hadn't become as fashionable as it is today) but the courts could still sentence bearing such behavior in mind of course. Worth remembering too that the girl here was a full two years younger in this case when sexual activity took place, compared to the girl at the centre of the Humphries' one.
Truth is that not one of you would have been calling this woman the kind of names that you have been calling Humphries, no matter how fat she was and no doubt had anyone called her such, there would have been many moaning about it's irrelevancy (as they should - but that wouldn't have been what fueled their objection) .
Neither would she have been called a monster and if she attempted suicide twice while seeking help, she most certainly wouldn't have been. Some might have suggested she deserved a small custodial sentence perhaps, but going from experience of such threads, mostly people complaining about the light sentence would have been told that they didn't know what they were talking about and that the courts had more information that they did.
I'd also ask you folk saying he deserved those lengthy sentences to provide examples of other men (or women) getting a similar sentence to one you feel is warranted after having been found guilty of the same crimes here in Ireland (where penetrative sex was not a factor) and where they had no previous convictions, did not use force etc, because I don't think I have ever seen such a case. Sentence seems more than apt to me.0 -
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.
This 'Indo' stuff is rubbish. I don't read it. But when a 47 year old man starts sending pictures of his genitalia to a 14 year old girl and bombarded her for 2 years and 3 months with text messages, 66% of which were between 10pm and 1am, he's a perverted paedophile in anybody's language. How could that girl function or even manage to keep up in school? Let alone deal with all the sexual stuff as an adolescent girl. All this grooming with a view to having sex with her. Word is he'll serve 18mts, that's a very light sentence.
He had no guilt or suicidal thoughts until he got caught. This pleading guilty lessening his sentence is crap. He was well and truly caught and guilty.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
It's not for " moral outrage " to decide on individual cases.
Moral outrage is a phrase you keep repeating.
What exactly is so wrong with moral outrage? I'd rather have moral outrage than a totally amoral society who saw nothing wrong with middle aged men abusing their position to abuse school girls.0 -
Moral outrage is a phrase you keep repeating.
What exactly is so wrong with moral outrage? I'd rather have moral outrage than a totally amoral society who saw nothing wrong with middle aged men abusing their position to abuse school girls.
It's a popular phrase with people who want to talk something down; It's a close relative of 'mob rule', 'hysterical overreaction' and the old classic 'witch hunt!'0 -
The fact that the cowardly c*nt tried to kill himself after he he was exposed as a paedo means we should feel pity for him or his sentence shouldn't be as harsh? Jesus wept.
If anything he should have got longer for trying to get out of facing up to his crime.0 -
Too lenient.0
-
Sentence seems consistent with previous cases of sexual abuse:
Judge O’Connor was further constrained by previous sentences. Last year, for example, a 26-year-old Dublin man was jailed for three years for having sex with a 15-year-old girl he met after grooming her using a fake social-media profile.
In 2015 a man who may have been on the autism spectrum received a suspended sentence for the sexual exploitation of a schoolgirl after sending her obscene pictures. Also in 2015 a man was jailed for 18 months for sexual exploitation; he had sent a 13-year-old photographs of his penis and asked her for sex.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/mitigating-factors-why-humphries-s-sentence-was-so-lenient-1.32677160 -
Humphries got himself involved in underage camogie, a position of influence over young girls, and targeted a 14 year old girl whom he knew had suffered an eating disorder, so was very vulnerable. Over a large number of months, he exchanged lurid images and bombarded her with thousands of texts, before seriously sexually assaulting her at the age of 16. He was in his late 40s/early 50s. Is this not very similar to the countless other stories we have heard about paedophiles?
How some people on this thread, and most importantly the judge in this case, can express sympathy for him is beyond me. His abuse of this girl went on longer than his prison sentence will.
Boatmad, you can talk about the magna carta all you want, but earlier you said that Humphreys will feel this worse than the girl, who will 'move on'. Are you really saying that a child abuser that gets caught is harder hit than the girl he sexually abused? Maybe you didn't mean that, but if you did that is a terrible thing to say.0 -
I am aware of the case, as i said I don't diminish his crimes , but to call it " heinous " is to abuse the term. A few years ago grooming wasn't a crime at all.
The judge decided based on the facts and mitigation of this case. For me, that's sufficient , he is going to prison and his life is ruined ( as perhaps is his victim ) she will move on in time , he will carry the consequences to his grave
Bully for her! The single most disgusting thing I've read on this site. Just catching up on the thread and had to stop here to respons. You,sir, are playing a shocker. You're trying to move the goal posts up the road to Newry and play callbacks from a 'a few years ago' in attempt to legitimise/excuse/apologise for his heinous, and it IS heinous, behavior of grooming a 14 year old child. A child.
Shame on Tom Humphries, shame on Judge Karen O Connor and, if you truly believe the stuff you're typing here. shame on you too.0 -
He's finished, and has been since 2011. Finished more than any prison sentence could ever finish him.
People getting upset about the purported leniency of this legal sentence remind me of the details of Oliver Plunkett's death sentence back in 1681: "You shall be drawn through the City of London to Tyburn, there you shall be hanged by the neck but cut down before you are dead, your bowels shall be taken out and burnt before your face, your head shall be cut off and your body be divided into four quarters."
After the first clause in the first sentence, the rest is irrelevant as he'd be well and truly dead before they even got to hang him. Likewise with Humphries. After "found guilty of child abuse", or indeed such is the nature of this crime in the public mind "accused of child abuse", his life is over. 2.5 years or 25 years in prison is irrelevant - and I'd suspect 25 years inside a prison would be easier for such an identifiable man than walking around in public. There is no redemption from this wrong. None. And no hope for this man. There are very, very few things in life about which it can be said there's no redemption or hope. Where there's life there's hope. Not in the case of this crime.
The way some people here are going on, you'd swear this man has got off lightly/has a future. Dead man walking.0 -
Advertisement
-
[Deleted User] wrote: »He's finished, and has been since 2011. Finished more than any prison sentence could ever finish him.
People getting upset about the purported leniency of this legal sentence remind me of the details of Oliver Plunkett's death sentence back in 1681: "You shall be drawn through the City of London to Tyburn, there you shall be hanged by the neck but cut down before you are dead, your bowels shall be taken out and burnt before your face, your head shall be cut off and your body be divided into four quarters."
After the first clause in the first sentence, the rest is irrelevant as he'd be well and truly dead before they even got to hang him. Likewise with Humphries. After "found guilty of child abuse", or indeed such is the nature of this crime in the public mind "accused of child abuse", his life is over. 2.5 years or 25 years in prison is irrelevant - and I'd suspect 25 years inside a prison would be easier for such an identifiable man than walking around in public. There is no redemption from this wrong. None. And no hope for this man. There are very, very few things in life about which it can be said there's no redemption or hope. Where there's life there's hope. Not in the case of this crime.
The way some people here are going on, you'd swear this man has got off lightly/has a future. Dead man walking.
He groomed and abused a vulnerable child! He'll be out in less than 2 years, of course he's got off lightly.
The attitude of some on this thread towards this is both disturbing and disgusting.0 -
So how many years should he be locked away for befire the braying internet warriors are satisified?
If a judge has the right to pass sentence and is constrained by the legislation then why go on endlessly about the sentence given. It's done. He'll serve his time and things will move on. That's the only way.0 -
Rubberchikken wrote: »So how many years should he be locked away for befire the braying internet warriors are satisified?
If a judge has the right to pass sentence and is constrained by the legislation then why go on endlessly about the sentence given. It's done. He'll serve his time and things will move on. That's the only way.
I said shame on Judge Karen O Connor and I mean it. I'm dissatisfied at the severity of the sentence, yes, but I'm absolutely appalled at her ''it's hard not to have sympathy for him'' comment.0 -
Cora Venus Lunny must wish she never made this ad. Hindsight is a great thing..
0 -
Rubberchikken wrote: »So how many years should he be locked away for befire the braying internet warriors are satisified?
If a judge has the right to pass sentence and is constrained by the legislation then why go on endlessly about the sentence given. It's done. He'll serve his time and things will move on. That's the only way.
Condescend all you like. We're citizens of this Rebublic. None of us are braying. Out of 20 or so people i spoke to today everyone thought 22 months was way too lenient.
We have a right to say so. Personally i think he should have got around 8 years. So the justice system doesn't allow for more than 4 years for defilement. Why didn't the judge at least give him a 4 year sentence. Also why do we have this practice of running sentences concurrently.. Has no one got the courage to hand out consecutive sentences? Not alone did Humphries ruin this girl's life but there was another case dropped when he pleaded guilt.
What are you only an internet commentator either, no superior to the majority of posters who felt Humphries got off lightly.
Why are posters like you and Boatmad so keen to praise our judiciary system and the sentence given? Are ye that much in love with with our legal system? Or is it something on a deeper level that ye feel the abuse of a teenage girl of 14-16yrs isn't really that serious? Girls who are approaching the age of consent are in some way fair game for filthy middle aged men? Are ye perhaps engaging in a bit of victim blaming? Or do you believe Humphries to be in some way special, be it as an award winning journalist, his love of GAA and ridicule of rugby and soccer? I see nothing redeeming about the man.
Judge O'Connor is not fit to occupy her position with a statement that the more well known and famous you are the bigger the fall. That has nothing to do with anything. If you're on the dole or a wealthy celebrity the law should not differentiate.0 -
Credit to Bumphrie’s family for bringing Tom to account for his actions. That couldn’t have been an easy thing to do. Morally it was the right thing but I imagine they saw the good in him as well. They deserve a lot of credit.0
-
Why are posters like you and Boatmad so keen to praise our judiciary system and the sentence given? Are ye that much in love with with our legal system? Or is it something on a deeper level that ye feel the abuse of a teenage girl of 14-16yrs isn't really that serious? Girls who are approaching the age of consent are in some way fair game for filthy middle aged men? Are ye perhaps engaging in a bit of victim blaming? Or do you believe Humphries to be in some way special, be it as an award winning journalist, his love of GAA and ridicule of rugby and soccer? I see nothing redeeming about the man.
Judge O'Connor is not fit to occupy her position with a statement that the more well known and famous you are the bigger the fall. That has nothing to do with anything. If you're on the dole or a wealthy celebrity the law should not differentiate.
Your insinuations are outrageous.
The sentence is entirely consistent with sentences for similar crimes in the past. Provide some evidence for your claims that this is not the case.0 -
Outlaw Pete is right to point out the inequality when it comes to the light sentences female offenders get after abuse of male kids, but that's kind of like saying two wrongs make a right ie.the fact that she got a suspended sentence means him getting 2 years makes it okay.
It doesn't.
Both sentences are far too lenient in my humble opinion (see? No outrage).
If the Court feels constrained by past judgements the DPP should appeal and prove why the precedent sentences are too light, should not apply and that this case stands on its own merits.
Incidentally - we are told he tried twice to take his life. Call me coldhearted but there's "trying" and there's trying. In my opinion he showed no remorse and was happy to pull references or anything he could to get a reduced sentence here. Optics were in full effect and it's quite possible they were attempted efforts rather than real ones. I've known 3 people who did this in the past for attention rather than anything else and they admitted as such after the event.0 -
So the justice system doesn't allow for more than 4 years for defilement. Why didn't the judge at least give him a 4 year sentence.
Thought it was 5, but in any event for starters he pleaded guilty.
That has to result in a reduction. And a substantial one. If it didn't, everyone would simply contest every single case and the system would collapse within weeks.
One area where I'm not sure I agree with the Judge is her comment about the fall being greater for people in the public eye.
In the Adam Johnson case it seems that his fame was an aggravating factor, that he used it.0 -
Advertisement
-
everlast75 wrote: »..... that's kind of like saying two wrongs make a right ie.the fact that she got a suspended sentence means him getting 2 years makes it okay.
Well, it would only be a case of my saying 'two wrongs make a right' if I felt Humphries' sentence was 'wrong'.... but I don't.
The reason I highlighted the female offender's case was to make the point that had this been a woman that committed similar offences, there would be no way that users would be as outraged to the degree that they have been. Again: in all my time on Boards I have never seen a woman guilty of such a crime get the kind of vitriol directed at them that Humphries has had directed at him. And I'm talking about women who did worse and to younger girls too.
Not saying that Humphries should be spoken about in a similar fashion, just that we should have a little more balance. I feel we are more inclined to see women as a human being with faults than we are men. If it were ever to occur that a woman was spoken about in the way Humphries has been, then I can assure you I would be calling out the vitriol as being ott then too... but that will never happen, not in my lifetime anyway.
With regards to the female offender's sentence (three years suspended) yes, I absolutely agree that it was too lenient, especially given that the victim was only 14 when the sexual abuse took place. Two years or so I feel would have been an apt sentence and consistent with what is generally handed down for such crimes (when males are found guilty of them at least).
As I said at the end of my post though: for users saying that Humphries deserved a 5-8 year sentence, or whatever, then provide some grounds for why he does. Examples of other men (or women) being handed down that sort of sentence in Ireland would suffice. I mean people have to have to have some solid reasoning for why a much longer sentence was warranted here, besides just repeating what he has been found guilty of over and over. That's not a sufficient argument.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement