I've often wondered that myself and it is a valid thing to discuss but not on this particular thread because it refers to one specific clear cut case.
Dozens sympathise with sex offender
- Thread starter wavejumper
- Start date
- Status
I've often wondered that myself and it is a valid thing to discuss but not on this particular thread because it refers to one specific clear cut case.
Sad sad story - it's almost so bizarre that I can't help thinking there is something else to this story. But I can only go on the facts given and it is chilling to read them.
The discussion seems to have drifted a bit into where the line for personal responsibility lies. I think we would all agree that a victim has to share blame where, for example, they walk down O Connell Street late at night with cash hanging out of their back pocket and get robbed. Of course it is a crime they were robbed, but they surely share some of the blame for that. But, I think we all (except Yorky??) agree that in no circumstances whatsoever is a victim to share blame where a sexual assault takes place. It is deeply repugnant to suggest otherwise.
The discussion seems to have drifted a bit into where the line for personal responsibility lies. I think we would all agree that a victim has to share blame where, for example, they walk down O Connell Street late at night with cash hanging out of their back pocket and get robbed. Of course it is a crime they were robbed, but they surely share some of the blame for that. But, I think we all (except Yorky??) agree that in no circumstances whatsoever is a victim to share blame where a sexual assault takes place. It is deeply repugnant to suggest otherwise.
Originally Posted by Yorky
3) Why are decent law-abiding men with no history of sexual misbehaviour - from groups of sportsmen to armies - capable of indulging in gang rape given the opportunity?
WE are all CAPBALE of many things including rape,muder etc,but most of us are normal decent law abiding people..
just because we are capable of doing something doesnt mean we should do so given the opportunity.
Decent law abiding men with no history of sexual misbehaviour would NOT be capable of indulging in gang rape given the opportunity.
3) Why are decent law-abiding men with no history of sexual misbehaviour - from groups of sportsmen to armies - capable of indulging in gang rape given the opportunity?
WE are all CAPBALE of many things including rape,muder etc,but most of us are normal decent law abiding people..
just because we are capable of doing something doesnt mean we should do so given the opportunity.
Decent law abiding men with no history of sexual misbehaviour would NOT be capable of indulging in gang rape given the opportunity.
There is no such thing as a defendants dock in jury courts in Ireland - having a defendant secured in a dock is a feature of the British justice system. At most, there may be some seating reserved for the defendant on one side of the courtroom, but there is little in the way of physical separation from the public etc. In some circumstances, particularly where the defendant is on bail (and so not in custody), they can sit among the public. If the defendant is in custody, they'll sit in the defendant's reserved seating and Prison Officers will sit nearby to ensure they dont do a runner. Handcuffs or any other restraining devices are not permitted.
The reason being is that in Ireland, all defendants in court are persumed innocent unless they are found guilty at the conclusion of the case. If the defendant is in a secure dock, handcuffs etc. it may influence the jury into to thinking the defendant is guilty as it gives the impression that the person is a criminal - remembering that they are not a criminal until they are convicted and have the right to be persumed innocent unless proven otherwise.
Now, its different in certain non-jury Courts. As there is no jury in a non-jury court, there are no concerns re: influencing the jury. In non-jury custody District Courts, you will some times see an enclosed defendants area physically separated from the public etc. by a large toughen glass screen. You'll also see this in the non-jury higher courts (where you have 3 Judges rather than a jury) that handle terrorism and serious crime such as the Special Criminal Court and Court of Criminal Appeal.
Your post was not misinterpreted. You were trying (unsuccessfully) to backtrack.
I would like to nominate this for AAM idiotic post of the year.
Yorky, it is horrific that you cannot tell the difference between intimacy and rape.
Good!
But my understanding is that he was already conviced of the offence and the court hearing was to do with sentencing. Therefore is has already been found guilty and was in police custody. I find it amazing that member of the general public (or 50 of them in this case) can walk to to a conviceted person. What if someone passed him something? What is someone who supported the victim attacked him (he would be suing the state more than likely).
He was coinviced of sexual assult, not rape......but you point still stand, there is a huge difference between a druken intimacy and being left almost unconcious, covered in cuts and bruises & naked from the the waist down
You may be right. Was this a pure sentencing hearing, or was the verdict given the same day? The other issue is that very few courthouses outside the main cities have high security facilities & rural politicians dont like the cases to be moved to one of the cities.
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
Sentencing only, he had been convicted 2 weeks previously:
Roland - I don't want to get off the point, but you say I think we would all agree that a victim has to share blame where, for example, they walk down O Connell Street late at night with cash hanging out of their back pocket and get robbed. Of course it is a crime they were robbed, but they surely share some of the blame for that.
This is the same argument Yorky is using that the victim must take some of the blame. Am I not allowed walk down O'Connell St at night with money in my pocket?
This is the same argument Yorky is using that the victim must take some of the blame. Am I not allowed walk down O'Connell St at night with money in my pocket?
I love all the people on the phone-ins yesterday getting really angry about this story. I may be making a generalisation here, but you could just tell some of the people who phoned in would be the 'altar rail kissers' and who can't see no wrong in the Church and all its recent sins.
And talking generally about sexual crimes, why is it that tens of thousands are prepared to take to the streets to protest about losing a few % off their wages yet when hundreds and possibly thousands of adult priests rape and abuse children there isn't a single march anywhere in this country?
Sorry for going off tangent.
And talking generally about sexual crimes, why is it that tens of thousands are prepared to take to the streets to protest about losing a few % off their wages yet when hundreds and possibly thousands of adult priests rape and abuse children there isn't a single march anywhere in this country?
Sorry for going off tangent.
But you can't compare the 2 - what if the person had €100 hanging out of his pocket and someone came, took the money & proceeded to beat up the victim.
You might say they were naive, silly etc for having the money hanging out of their pocket - but would you say they have to accept some the blame for being assulted? Absolutely not !
Good point.
Ron Burgundy
Registered User
- Messages
- 752
The priest in question has withdrawn duites in his parish after meeting with the bishop this morning.
A good start, 1 down 49 to go.
A good start, 1 down 49 to go.
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
Theres no comparison here - you may be silly enough to have your money robbed, but if you were then assaulted, would you feel you had attracted the assault?
Personal injury, whether it be a pure physical assault, or a sexual attack - can never be justified by apportioning blame to the victim.
I hate this attitude. this is what indoctrines into women that they are the weaker sex and always should play the victim. We should be striving for a society where no woman should be afraid to walk anywhere she wants, whenever she wants. It really annoys me that men are never forced to think about things like this and as long as that is the case it will never be an equal society. Women should be absolutely outraged that society deems it acceptable that they would not be safe walking down a street alone at night. Also I believe that women need to be taught about their own strengths and made to believe in them..there are many women out there who could beat the living daylights out of some of the scumbags who try to attack them.
Of course you are allowed to walk down O'Connell St at night with money hanging out of your pocket, but I think you share some blame if you are then robbed. Similarly if you leave your house with all the doors and windows open, then you share some blame if it is robbed. Your insurance company will agree with this point of view.
I drew a clear distinction between this and sexual assault.
Caveat why you putting me in the same sentence as yorky!! What I do to deserve that??
I have in no way agreed with anything at all which was posted by yorky...
- Status