The Crime Thread

corkery wrote: drog addict wrote: Bob Hoskins wrote: Downpatrick there's a surprise. I've a pal who was violently and sexually assaulted up there Same here. My friend went out one night in DPK as he calls it and had the same experience. Two lads made a mess of him. Dont know why he never got the cops or rape crisis centre involved. In the South, it's a legal obligation in many jobs to report it if someone has told you as the person might do it again.

Denis Irwin wrote: drog addict wrote: Bob Hoskins wrote: Downpatrick there's a surprise. I've a pal who was violently and sexually assaulted up there Same here. My friend went out one night in DPK as he calls it and had the same experience. Two lads made a mess of him. Dont know why he never got the cops or rape crisis centre involved. What the f**k  Must remember never to go to Downpatrick

I have heard some horrific stories from DPK

Newryrep wrote: DonkeyOatey wrote: I have heard some horrific stories from DPK   who the hell calls it DPK   I am with Baggio on this

DonkeyOatey wrote: I have heard some horrific stories from DPK

What may have been a factor was that he was between 14 and 18 at the time himself. I'm not saying any of that excuses anything that happened but it was clearly a factor the judge had to take into account in sentencing. I can't find much about what was said at his sentencing hearing so I don't know for sure. It doesn't make it any better but the age of an offender is always a factor in sentencing.

Then the priest who gets off with an 18 month suspended sentence cos he's old and immobile.

he had 40 plus offences of rape,buggary etc....I can't see why he can be sentenced for each offence!!!! 40 offences then a year for each one....how somebody can rape 3 different girls probably 100's of times and get sentenced for it as one crime is bizarre 

JUICEBOMB wrote: he had 40 plus offences of rape,buggary etc....I can't see why he can be sentenced for each offence!!!! 40 offences then a year for each one....how somebody can rape 3 different girls probably 100's of times and get sentenced for it as one crime is bizarre

I agree and I don't agree. You are sentencing the offender, not the offence, remember. There is a principle of totality, as well.

If you are a burglar and get caught, you get sentenced, say a year. If you do it again when you are released, you get caught and get sentenced again, for a longer period, say two years... because it takes into account the fact that you have reoffended having previously been sentenced, punished and given an opportunity at rehabilitation. But if you are sentenced for both offences at the same time, having been caught after committing both, you have to take account of the fact that person hasn't been caught, punished and given the warning to stop and the chance to rehabilitate. In that case, you are likely to get more than a year, but less than two. Would you disagree with a burglar in that case getting a one year sentence for the first offence, with a second year suspended for the second offence? I say that, assuming there is a base level of one year for a burglary. I'm not asking if you disagree with the length of sentence, I'm asking if you disagree with the principle in that case. The moral culpability of a person committing an offence again, after having been caught previously, is higher than the moral culpability of a person who hasn't been caught at all.

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the sentence in this case, or that the issue of totality was correctly applied, but it does have to be taken into account.

Here's another example: if you drive without insurance once, you will lose your licence and get fined. If you drive without insurance a second time, you will, probably, get a much longer ban and a higher fine, maybe a suspended sentence. If you do it a third time, you will almost certainly go to jail. Now, imagine a situation where the Gardai have you on CCTV driving without insurance three days in a row and charge you with an offence for each day: do you deserve to be sentenced three times? I'm not comparing it to rape, I'm simply giving it as an example of repeat offending. Should the sentence be triple? If there is CCTV evidence of you doing it for a month, or for the sake of argument 40 times, should you be fined 40 times? Or locked up for years? Where do you draw the line? Say it was someone who already had three or four previous convictions for driving without insurance and drink driving, would you give four months for each one? Or the maximum of six months? Would you lock him up for 240 months (40 x 6 months, or 20 years) for repeatedly driving without insurance? Or would you look at the overall level of offending, the circumstances of the offender in front of you, the impact on victims, the need for punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation, and sentence him to a few months or a year? I think the answer is obvious, on that example. There is no reason for a different principle to apply to different cases. You have to take into account the totality of the suffering of the victims of crime as well, obviously. Neither is a simple matter of deciding a sentence and multiplying it by the number of offences.

There is a good reason there is a principle of totality and a principle that you sentence the offender, not the offence. If you start sentencing for each offence, rather than taking into account the offender appearing in court, you end up with people being given 200 year sentences for drug offences, if they have been caught a few times. That leads to mass incarceration of defined groups of society (whether it be African Americans in the US, or whatever) and doesn't help anyone.

Maybe this lad should have got a 20 year sentence, maybe not. But I cannot agree that if one charge of rape equals six years that, somehow, 40 charges of rape therefor automatically equals 240 years, or that it should.


Edited by SuperDave84 - 26 Apr 2018 at 1:33am