Ireland: A haven for paedophiles?

**as_i_say** · 31/05/2006, 10:47 AM

Mr A gets released after admitting to raping 12 year old.

Not only had we one of lowest conviction rates in Europe and ridiculous sentences passed down but now it seems that if you abuse a 12 year old kid and "think" she's older, well heck thats ok by our governement.

First we have the catholic churches pathetic attempts to deal with their own corruption and now this. If the current situation isnt sorted out quick, we'll have every european paeodphile gleefully packing his bags and heading our way.

What can the public even do about this? Nothing it seems. I dont have kids myself but what do parents on this board think?

**John83** · 31/05/2006, 10:57 AM

I don't have kids either, but I'm not into the irrational gibberish on this.

but now it seems that if you abuse a 12 year old kid and "think" she's older, well heck thats ok by our governement.

It's not okay by our government. That's why they're drafting legislation to make it illegal.

The failure lies in whoever was responsible for alerting the Justice department to the court case that ruled the law unconstitiutional (not unreasonably). New legislation should have been ready for that possibility (hell, it should have been passed before the case was decided).

I don't know whose fault that is, but they need a good kick in the nuts.

**dahamsta** · 31/05/2006, 10:57 AM

Were you being ironic with your thread title? There's little doubt in my mind that when the rag press in the UK gets hold of this - the fact that they haven't already demonstrates their utter incompetence at the art of journalism - that will be the kind of headline we'll see on their front pages, but that doesn't make it ok to sensationalise on Foot.ie.

**Beavis** · 31/05/2006, 11:06 AM

Arent we talking about statutory rape, as in the child consented? Obviously this is still a serious crime but in a situation where say a 16 year old boy has sex with a consenting young one at a party who turns out to be only 14, I think it is right that the law has been altered somewhat, in fairness it could have easily happened to you or a mate at that age.

I think the hysteria portrayed in the papers about paedos on a rapage and lock your kids out in the house is laughable. AFAIK Nothing changes, rape is still rape, there is now only a grey area where the underaged youth has consentual sex.

It is a disgrace that we have the lowest conviction rates though. A complete overview of the laws surrounding this are needed and on the positive, the recent events will force them to be addressed.

**as_i_say** · 31/05/2006, 11:20 AM

i really dont think i am sensationlizing it at all-however maybe a question mark after my title would be more apt. a self confessed child rapist has been set free because of this. The prediction is that others will follow. I dont think there's any doubt that Mr A is a child abuser, yet his conviction has been quashed and he's now free-its insane. Its also a fact that our current sentancing laws for paedophiles are incredibly lax.

Of course the press will take the "lock your kids up" view but that aside, what has happened this week is simply outrageous

**dahamsta** · 31/05/2006, 11:33 AM

I still think it's sentationalist, but I've added the question mark to make it less so. I'd just prefer people to come at things a bit more calmly on Foot.ie.

**WeAreRovers** · 31/05/2006, 11:37 AM

as i say - Have you been any phone in shows in the last few days? Because ill-informed "paedo" rants are all I've heard this week. This is a legal and constitutional issue and for once McDowell is not to blame. It's a lot more complicated than any commentators have given it credit for.

KOH

**dahamsta** · 31/05/2006, 11:40 AM

For the record, while I'm asking people not to sensationalise on Foot.ie, I'm not saying you shouldn't be outraged by the situation. And I find McDowell and Ahern's attempts to downplay the issue both in the Dail and in the media absolutely disgusting.

**as_i_say** · 31/05/2006, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by WeAreRovers

as i say - Have you been any phone in shows in the last few days? Because ill-informed "paedo" rants are all I've heard this week. This is a legal and constitutional issue and for once McDowell is not to blame. It's a lot more complicated than any commentators have given it credit for.

KOH

Fair enough about the title of my post. Otherwise, no i dont do phone ins and maybe you shouldnt listen to adrian kennedy if you expect to hear some rational thinking about ANYTHING. My feelings are one of dismay and anger on the subject.

**pete** · 31/05/2006, 7:56 PM

I haven't much about it as most of the commentary has added nothing to the debate.

From what i gather previously the accused could not use "...i didn't know she was underage..." as a valid defense therefore once proven had sex with the victom then carted off to jail. I believe Mr. A was denied that defece which has now been proven to be unlawful so he is freed. I read he had already served 2.5 years of a 3 year jail term so doesn't seem a big issue. Obviously there will be others lining up in front of the courts on similar issues.

AFAIK it should only affect a certain section of the currently jailed offenders? New offenders who come before the courts will now be able to use the excuse mentioned above as but obviously they will have to prove it to the Judge which seems fine as thats how courts operate...

Am i correct?

Who in the government is responsible for ensuring our laws are legal? isn't the Attorney General supposed to ok new laws when they enacted? Who was the AG when this law was imposed?

**superfrank** · 31/05/2006, 8:02 PM

For people my age it's only fair. Alot of teens are it but they run the risk of going to jail. How is that fair?

Is it another one of these laws to protect them from themselves? Fact is sex is put out there at an earlier age then it was in the 70's or 80's so kids of 11 or 12 are going to be curious about it.

If the two parties are consenting, whatever the age, I personally have no problem and to be honest I don't see why some people get so upset over that.

**Ringo** · 01/06/2006, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by pete

I haven't much about it as most of the commentary has added nothing to the debate.

From what i gather previously the accused could not use "...i didn't know she was underage..." as a valid defense therefore once proven had sex with the victom then carted off to jail. I believe Mr. A was denied that defece which has now been proven to be unlawful so he is freed. I read he had already served 2.5 years of a 3 year jail term so doesn't seem a big issue. Obviously there will be others lining up in front of the courts on similar issues.

AFAIK it should only affect a certain section of the currently jailed offenders? New offenders who come before the courts will now be able to use the excuse mentioned above as but obviously they will have to prove it to the Judge which seems fine as thats how courts operate...

Am i correct?

Who in the government is responsible for ensuring our laws are legal? isn't the Attorney General supposed to ok new laws when they enacted? Who was the AG when this law was imposed?

It won't effect anyone charged from now on, it only effects people convicted under the 1935 act. Even changing the the law or rushing through a new one tomorrow won't change the situation, its all for show. as far as the present AG was concerned it was lawful & the High court agreed with him. As with a lot of our laws, they are old & changing them can make things worse, rather than better.

**Ringo** · 01/06/2006, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by WeAreRovers

as i say - Have you been any phone in shows in the last few days? Because ill-informed "paedo" rants are all I've heard this week. This is a legal and constitutional issue and for once McDowell is not to blame. It's a lot more complicated than any commentators have given it credit for.

KOH

Spot on. But on such an important issue, the civil servants should have more on top of it.

**Passive** · 01/06/2006, 2:36 PM

People should not confuse the Mr. A case with the issue of underage consenting teens. Mr. A raped a 12 year old and got released on a total technicality.

As for McDowell, there are serious questions over why the legislation was not amended. If he didn't know about the constitutional challange, why didn't he? Who 'forgot' to tell him?

**John83** · 01/06/2006, 2:49 PM

Originally Posted by Passive

People should not confuse the Mr. A case with the issue of underage consenting teens. Mr. A raped a 12 year old and got released on a total technicality.

As for McDowell, there are serious questions over why the legislation was not amended. If he didn't know about the constitutional challange, why didn't he? Who 'forgot' to tell him?

Some underling in the Attorney General's office will doubtless get the blaim. The AG himself should have known, but claims not to have been informed. McDowell doesn't seem deserving of the flack he's getting here. He's trying to have new legislation in place by the weekend. So said the Times today, anyhow.

As Pete said, the guy got released 2.5 years into a 3 year sentence. Does anyone know if he got himself struck off the sex offenders register?

**WeAreRovers** · 01/06/2006, 2:59 PM

Originally Posted by Passive

People should not confuse the Mr. A case with the issue of underage consenting teens. Mr. A raped a 12 year old and got released on a total technicality.

Exactly, but the rights of underage consenting teens - ie. the right not to be locked up - are equally important here. And ultimately that's why the law is unconstitutional.

Mr A's legal team are merely doing their jobs, even if it is on behalf of an utter scumbag.

KOH

**Passive** · 01/06/2006, 3:36 PM

Originally Posted by WeAreRovers

Exactly, but the rights of underage consenting teens - ie. the right not to be locked up - are equally important here. And ultimately that's why the law is unconstitutional.

Mr A's legal team are merely doing their jobs, even if it is on behalf of an utter scumbag.

KOH

Agreed, but all it would have taken was a slight amendment to the legislation once the government knew this challenge was being taken.

Besides, the constitutional challenge wasn't to do with consenting teens as such, it was to do with cases whereby an adult male has relations with an underage female in the belief that she is of the age of consent. An amendment allowing for men to plead not guilty on the basis of a geniune mistake - as opposed to being automatically guilty regardless of what age they believed the girl to be - would have avoided the scrapping of the entire Act, and therefore would have avoided the situation whereby a man who pleaded guilty to the rape of a 12-year-old would be freed on a technicality.

**John83** · 01/06/2006, 3:42 PM

Originally Posted by Passive

Agreed, but all it would have taken was a slight amendment to the legislation once the government knew this challenge was being taken.

Nope. Nothing the government could have done would have changed the fact that people were convicted under legislation that was deemed unconstitional.

All they can do is make sure that future cases are tried under a new, constitutionally sound law.

Finally, "once the government knew this challenge was being taken" ignores the fact that they didn't.

**Passive** · 01/06/2006, 3:53 PM

Originally Posted by John83

Nope. Nothing the government could have done would have changed the fact that people were convicted under legislation that was deemed unconstitional.

All they can do is make sure that future cases are tried under a new, constitutionally sound law.

Finally, "once the government knew this challenge was being taken" ignores the fact that they didn't.

And what if they were convicted under legislation after the challenge was taken? Sort of blows the retrospective argument out of the water.

Should a government not be aware of a challenge to a fairly major piece of legislation? Should the DPP? Should the AG?

**John83** · 01/06/2006, 4:32 PM

Originally Posted by Passive

And what if they were convicted under legislation after the challenge was taken? Sort of blows the retrospective argument out of the water.

If you want to start at that lark, why didn't the government of 1935 draft a constitutional piece of legislation?

Should a government not be aware of a challenge to a fairly major piece of legislation? Should the DPP? Should the AG?

Yes. However, I've yet to read a declaration of ministerial infallability. None of them can know something they aren't informed of. The failure here seems very likely to be lower down the chain.