Tom Humphries: Guilty of child abuse

Kirby

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

This basically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7SpXGz-XOc

holyhead

Their is merit to say that the length of sentence is immaterial. His life will technically go on but is over in terms of society wanting anything to do with him.
However on the other hand a sentence should reflect the severity of the crime and in this instance it does not. Equally it most likely does not reflect the public outrage at what he did.
As far as I know Adam Johnson simply had sex with an underage girl which was legally unlawful. Humphries on the other hand groomed his victim and to my mind that closer matches the definition of a paedophile

hatrickpatrick

I wish I could say that I find this sentence shocking, but this is Ireland we're talking about. Tom Humphries joins a long list of serious criminals who will be free to walk the streets again far, far sooner than they should be. I wonder what consolation it'll be to his next victim, when the Gardaí catch the perpetrator and have to come back and say "Ah yeah, him. We got him before, it's just that the f*cking judge let him go. Sorry about that."

This country's judiciary are an absolute joke.

Kirby

holyhead wrote: »

Equally it most likely does not reflect the public outrage at what he did.

Firstly, public outrage has no bearing in a court of law. Nor should it.

Secondly, how exactly do you measure it? By how many people call into Joe Duffy? And if there is zero outrage, does that mean the courts should let him walk?

I don't see how it's relevant to punishment handed out by a court. It seems a terrible argument.

Outlaw Pete

holyhead wrote: »

However on the other hand a sentence should reflect the severity of the crime and in this instance it does not.

With regards to consistency in sentencing in Irish courts..... it does reflect the severity of the crime.

Equally it most likely does not reflect the public outrage at what he did.

Short of hanging, what would?

As far as I know Adam Johnson simply had sex with an underage girl which was legally unlawful. Humphries on the other hand groomed his victim and to my mind that closer matches the definition of a paedophile

You'd think..... but no, Adam Johnson did not have sex with an underage girl.

His only physical contact with the girl (was charged with grooming also) was in a parked car when he leaned over, kissed her and felt her up (dropped the hand as it were) and similar to this case I asked for those saying the sentence was apt to provide another case of a man with no previous, being sentenced to six years for what Adam was found guilty of and all I got were crickets. Johnson was guilty of being an arse alright. He had it all. Mid 20's, playing football for a living, beautiful g/f, kid on the way and the dickhead still wanted more. Fcuk him in that sense. But when it comes to consistency in UK sentencing, it sentence was a joke and still is a joke.

holyhead

Kirby wrote: »

holyhead wrote: »

Equally it most likely does not reflect the public outrage at what he did.

Firstly, public outrage has no bearing in a court of law. Nor should it.

Secondly, how exactly do you measure it? By how many people call into Joe Duffy? And if there is zero outrage, does that mean the courts should let him walk?

I don't see how it's relevant to punishment handed out by a court. It seems a terrible argument.

Courts make laws by which society ie the public lives in order to uphold a civil and obedient society. Paedophiles are held in similar disdain to murderers. In some instances maybe worse. Paedophilia is never acceptable or understandable even if it’s explainable. Murder can have mitigating circumstances.

Kirby

holyhead wrote: »

Courts make laws by which society ie the public lives in order to uphold a civil and obedient society. Paedophiles are held in similar disdain to murderers. In some instances maybe worse. Paedophilia is never acceptable or understandable even if it’s explainable. Murder can have mitigating circumstances.

Five sentences....none of which actually address the point made that "public outcry" has a bearing on sentencing. It doesn't and It shouldn't.

You were quite vociferous yourself in accusing a poster of obfuscation and avoidance earlier in the thread. Don't fall victim to the same thing yourself.

DeanAustin

Just heard Newstalk’s hourly bulletin say that “Eamon Dunphy faces a backlash for expressing sympathy for Tom Humphries.”

That’s a disgraceful headline given that Dunphy made the comments after 11pm last night and there hasn’t been much reaction to his comments yet. It’s almost like they are encouraging Dunphy to be pilloried.

I’m no big fan of Dunphy. His public utterances are often entertaining but frequently nonsense. However, for a major news organization to say he’s facing a backlash for expressing a valid opinion is disgraceful. His opinion was that the judge got it “just about right”. You can agree or disagree with that but it should be debated rather than pre-empting /encouraging public outrage.

For the record, Dunphy did also say that his primary sympathy was with the victim, her family, Humphries’ family and lastly with Humphries himself.

Thankfully, whatever you say about Dunphy, he is strong enough to hold firm on his opinions.

Wheeliebin30

DeanAustin wrote: »

Just heard Newstalk’s hourly bulletin say that “Eamon Dunphy faces a backlash for expressing sympathy for Tom Humphries.”

That’s a disgraceful headline given that Dunphy made the comments after 11pm last night and there hasn’t been much reaction to his comments yet. It’s almost like they are encouraging Dunphy to be pilloried.

I’m no big fan of Dunphy. His public utterances are often entertaining but frequently nonsense. However, for a major news organization to say he’s facing a backlash for expressing a valid opinion is disgraceful. His opinion was that the judge got it “just about right”. You can agree or disagree with that but it should be debated rather than pre-empting /encouraging public outrage.

For the record, Dunphy did also say that his primary sympathy was with the victim, her family, Humphries’ family and lastly with Humphries himself.

Thankfully, whatever you say about Dunphy, he is strong enough to hold firm on his opinions.

Its on every radio stations news this morning and all over the internet.

DeanAustin

holyhead wrote: »

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.

I could be wrong here but hadn’t Humphries already split from his wife by the time that she discovered the messages and reported him? If that’s true it potentially puts a different complexion on that aspect of it but I’m venturing into the area of judging someone else’s marital situation and motivation which, really, is irrelevant in the scheme of things and none of my business.

DeanAustin

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Its on every radio stations news this morning and all over the internet.

I see Newstalk and Today FM reporting it as controversial. I see no sign of it on the RTE website and a Google News search doesn’t return many results and the leading one is about how he said he was misled about the case.

The two aforementioned are trying to whip up a storm in my view.

The man is entitled to an opinion and what he said was not controversial. It might be wrong but if that’s your opinion, it deserves to be debated and not dismissed.

holyhead

Kirby wrote: »

holyhead wrote: »

Courts make laws by which society ie the public lives in order to uphold a civil and obedient society. Paedophiles are held in similar disdain to murderers. In some instances maybe worse. Paedophilia is never acceptable or understandable even if it’s explainable. Murder can have mitigating circumstances.

Five sentences....none of which actually address the point made that "public outcry" has a bearing on sentencing. It doesn't and It shouldn't.

You were quite vociferous yourself in accusing a poster of obfuscation and avoidance earlier in the thread. Don't fall victim to the same thing yourself.

Can you find me a quote/swhich backs up your last paragraph please

Minderbinder

A dangerous topic to be playing devil’s advocate. Did Dunphy expand on why he felt sympathy for the guy?

Outlaw Pete

DeanAustin wrote: »

I could be wrong here but hadn’t Humphries already split from his wife by the time that she discovered the messages and reported him?

Yes, you're right, he was living alone at the time. He gave a mobile to his daughter to recycle and the messages were found on it.

Wheeliebin30

DeanAustin wrote: »

I see Newstalk and Today FM reporting it as controversial. I see no sign of it on the RTE website and a Google News search doesn’t return many results and the leading one is about how he said he was misled about the case.

The two aforementioned are trying to whip up a storm in my view.

The man is entitled to an opinion and what he said was not controversial. It might be wrong but if that’s your opinion, it deserves to be debated and not dismissed.

Simply Google eamon dumphy and it is all there.

DeanAustin

Minderbinder wrote: »

A dangerous topic to be playing devil’s advocate. Did Dunphy expand on why he felt sympathy for the guy?

He was very clear that his sympathy lay with the victim, victim’s family and Humphries’ family. He also said the mess was of Humphries’ making only. Furthermore he said that Humphries misled David Walsh about the case initially.

However, he said as a human, he couldn’t help but feel sympathy for a man who had destroyed his life and reputation and who won’t work again (certainly as a journalist). He said he also believed in compassion towards people and that justice shouldn’t be administered based on public opinion.

Outlaw Pete

Here's Dunphy's comments which some seem to have taken issue with. He also went to see Humphries in hospital after his suicide attempt it seems:

The story that I heard, through David Walsh in particular, was much more benign than the story that emerged and the evidence that was given. It was not about grooming. It was more of a question, I was told, of underage sex which is, of course, serious but he had been a colleague of mine and I went to see him and brought him a book.

I spent an hour with him because I felt he hadn’t at this stage been charged with anything but I knew this was pending. But I didn’t know the nature of it; I didn't know anything about grooming, for example. I didn't know anything about the length of time.

I thought he would be charged with having sex with an underage girl. I did know there was a connection with the Gaelic club and I did know he was in a position of authority. But the gravity of it I didn’t know.

In these tragic circumstances, I think Judge Karen O’Connor was, I think, gave just about the right sentence, it's not for me to judge. I don't believe in trial by media.

I feel dreadfully sorry for the victim first of all and for all victims.

And I feel that Tom Humphries’ life is effectively over and has been for many years. He has to live with the shame. His own family he has hurt. He has hurt this girl.

I believe that mitigation is part of a criminal justice system and I also believe that redemption is important.

holyhead

It’s ironic how technology helped nab Humphries as it did Gary Glitter. In Glitters case he left a PC in to be fixed as far as I know.
Regarding Eamonn Dunphy he is entitled to have sympathy for Hunphries and to express as much. I would hate to live in a society where free speech was trampled on. I would curious though as to what grounds he has.
My only sympathy would be that Humphries clearly had a great talent for writing and he potentially had a cracking legacy to leave behind. Now that is destroyed through his monstrous failing in terms of perverse sexual urges which he unfortunately acted on. He, and he alone destroyed his own life but even more tragically cause utter devastation to that young girl.

elefant

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

I think this is a good post on it. There is a lot of anger about this case, and quite some pontificating on this thread too about how some of the 'baying mob' plebs don't quite understand how the justice system works. I think most people understand and appreciate that, for obvious reasons, a judge can't just dish out whatever sentence they feel is appropriate in each individual case.

I can't speak for everyone that is disgusted by this case, but for me (and, from what I feel, for many others) the crux of the matter is:
- how a judge's personal sympathy for a paedophile's plight,
- how character statements written by media personalities about a good community and GAA man (who abused his position as a mentor to groom a child in his care),
- and how far the accused had to fall from grace,
seem to have been considered as mitigating circumstances and pause for thought.

Someone pleading guilty and getting a reduced sentence is, as you say, expected and not what is causing the furore as far as I can tell. It's all the subtle little hints from powerful establishments of downplaying his crime that hits home for a lot of people in this country, where downplaying incidences like this can be, and has been, all too common.

Tom Humphries' career is over. But fck Tom Humphries; imagine any other individual in his place, and apply the three bullet points above.
This victim and all the other victims of this sort of depravity had to hear a judge and renowned Irish figures talking about their sympathy for men or women like that. That infuriates a lot of people, and I think it's very hard to blame them.

DeanAustin

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Simply Google eamon dumphy and it is all there.

The comments are being reported but the results on the front page are that Dunphy felt misled and that the judge got the sentence just about right.

That’s fine as they are a decent representation of what he said and aren’t encouraging a particular type of reaction. Newstalk are encouraging an outcry based on a comment that is taken out of all context.

valoren

jay1988 wrote: »

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.

I think once his family confronted him about the exchanges found on the phone that he immediately threatened that he was going to kill himself. It struck me as a manipulation tactic from a knowing abuser i.e. shut up about this or I'll top myself. Shows the respect he had for his family to manipulate them with such a serious threat. He was a manipulator even after exposure. They took his threat seriously and committed him to a psychiatric ward. Not sure if he made any attempts though.

I am sure that if his family buried the evidence then Humphries would in no way be suicidal whatsoever and would be content to continue on as was. He got caught out, showed them his true colours and once again fair play to his family for doing so.

Ashbourne hoop

BoatMad wrote: »

I merely pointed out that such crimes are not viewed universally the same. All these issues have mitigating circumstances. , it's why we have a justice system and not a worn tree at the crossroads.

I fail to see the mitigating circumstances in this case. He used his position as a coach to groom and sexually abuse a child, knowing her age. Also another case was dropped when he pleaded guilty to this case. He is a vile man who is a danger to young girls.

Ursus Horribilis

I think the sentence was too lenient but apparently it wasn't out of the park when compared to what non famous nonces are given. Which opens up the bigger question about the custodial sentences paedophiles are given.

Even though Humphries was given such a short sentence, his troubles are really going to start once he gets out of prison. His reputation is ruined and he's the most famous paedophile in Ireland. He's never going to work again, his face is familiar to everyone and his mug will no doubt continue to appear on the front of red top tabloids. In some ways he'll be swapping one form of prison for another.

Ashbourne hoop

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 GAA and the club he was involved with (not sure if I'm allow name them here so I wont) have not issued a statement, to the best of my knowledge. Their silence has been deafening to be honest. Now when a retired player has a testimonial dinner, there's no shutting them up....priorities...

PurvesGrundy

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

I think the sentence was too lenient but apparently it wasn't out of the park when compared to what non famous nonces are given. Which opens up the bigger question about the custodial sentences paedophiles are given.

In 2012, Aidan Farrington received only a suspended sentence and his name published in the media for abuse of his nieces over a six year period.

I know his victims were young adults rather than children at the time, but this sentence doesn't seem too insignificant when viewed in context of such cases.

Wheeliebin30

Inport some garlic and you get 6 years.

Bonkers.

ThisRegard

DeanAustin wrote: »

That’s a disgraceful headline given that Dunphy made the comments after 11pm last night and there hasn’t been much reaction to his comments yet. It’s almost like they are encouraging Dunphy to be pilloried.

Eh, yes there has. You think everyone goes to bed at 10:30 and there's no response to anything until the newspapers hit the shop floors the next day?

There's been a **** load of reaction from the moment he said them. But nope, for people like you it's poor Eamon.

DeanAustin wrote: »

He was very clear that his sympathy lay with the victim, victim’s family and Humphries’ family. He also said the mess was of Humphries’ making only. Furthermore he said that Humphries misled David Walsh about the case initially.

However, he said as a human, he couldn’t help but feel sympathy for a man who had destroyed his life and reputation and who won’t work again (certainly as a journalist). He said he also believed in compassion towards people and that justice shouldn’t be administered based on public opinion.

He also insinuated that he didn't think it was as bad as it was because at the time he was aware he was only in trouble for underage sex.

I thought he would be charged with having sex with an underage girl.......But the gravity of it I didn’t know.

What a ****ing moron to think that, or to defend him for saying it.

DeanAustin

ThisRegard wrote: »

Eh, yes there has. You think everyone goes to bed at 10:30 and there's no response to anything until the newspapers hit the shop floors the next day?

There's been a **** load of reaction from the moment he said them. But nope, for people like you it's poor Eamon.



He also insinuated that he didn't think it was as bad as it was because at the time he was aware he was only in trouble for underage sex.


What a ****ing moron to think that, or to defend him for saying it.

His comments were after 11pm and a Google search at 9 this morning showed Today FM and Newstalk were the only media outlets pursuing the “Backlash for Eamon” line. An agenda maybe given the history between Dunphy and Communicorp?

His comments were taken in isolation and therefore out of context completely. In my view, it was either an attempt to try and get at Dunphy or, worse again, an attempt to silence what is a valid (if debatable) opinion.

On the underage sex comment, for all we know, Dunphy could have been told that Humphries was in a pub, a girl approached him and he had sex with her only to later discover she was underage. In that context, his comments aren’t moronic at all. The fact is that we don’t know the complete background to that element of the story as he wasn’t really asked. All we know is that he said David Walsh and he were misled by Humphries. David Walsh has said something similar as an interview with Matt Cooper by him in 2011 hinted that there was strong mitigating circumstances (which later turned out to be non existent).

ThisRegard

DeanAustin wrote: »

His comments were after 11pm and a Google search at 9 this morning showed Today FM and Newstalk were the only media outlets

So your basing you opinion, an incorrect one at that, on the basis that anger or outrage over his comments are only driven by media outlets?! Do you think people need a newspaper or radio station to tell them about what they should be angry about?

As for your Newscorp conspiracy, laughable.

Omackeral

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Inport some garlic and you get 6 years.

Bonkers.

This line is forever trotted out in any case of lenient sentencing.

Here's the facts;

1. The man wasn't jailed for simply importing garlic, he was jailed for knowingly and fraudulently claiming it as a different commodity at a lower tax rate for 4 years to the tune of 1.6 million euro.

2. His sentenced was reduced to two years on appeal.

3. He was released early under a community release scheme.