Tom Humphries

Started by bottlethrower7, January 29, 2007, 09:35:03 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

seafoid

Quote from: Main Street on November 07, 2017, 01:11:31 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 07, 2017, 04:04:57 AM
Most prisoners in Roi come from 3 areas.  Inner city Dublin, Tallaght and Darndale. Character references help mitigate sentences for people from other areas .Criminal can be habitual or once off. The crime may be as a result of a personal traged or it may be systematic. The character reference examines this
For the record, it is not location but social/economic status which determines the likelihood of imprisonment, also add on ethnicity. A tiny ethnic group, the Travellers, make up 10% of the male and 22% of the female prisoners in Ireland


QuoteSex crimes are different because they are also committed by middle class people.  And everyone looks down on paedophiles.   Even scobies
Sex criminal rapists are mainly of a lower socioeconomic status, pedophiles are more of a mixed bunch I'd guess.
When it came to sentencing in this case, it would appear the judge took into careful consideration the fall from social grace as a part of his punishment already served. I came across that opinion (or similar) reported quite a few times, 'ah sure hasn't he already suffered greatly, isn't his life as he knew it in bits', 'hasn't he been made to suffer enough'?
'the sentence is about right'.
I imagine that sex crimes are not driven by economic factors. Poverty seems to be the main crime.
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

criostlinn

I see this case is back in the news

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/former-gaa-coach-jailed-for-seven-years-for-dozens-of-indecent-assaults-on-two-young-boys-36308209.html

Here are a couple of articles  Eamon Sweeney wrote about it a while back

https://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/hold-the-back-page-courage-takes-many-forms-30282655.html

https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/eamonn-sweeney-real-bravery-is-surviving-abuse-eric-35265976.html

I thinks its fair to say this guy was a monster who used his position as coach of the u12 team to prey on young boys.

When it comes to character references for someone like this what do people think is acceptable. Would it be right for a high up official in Eastern Harp and Sligo GAA to write a glowing reference for the court describing how he was a great community man and attributing the skills of current players to this monsters great coaching and mentor ship. 

Lar Naparka

Quote from: criostlinn on November 11, 2017, 09:35:18 AM
I see this case is back in the news

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/former-gaa-coach-jailed-for-seven-years-for-dozens-of-indecent-assaults-on-two-young-boys-36308209.html

Here are a couple of articles  Eamon Sweeney wrote about it a while back

https://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/hold-the-back-page-courage-takes-many-forms-30282655.html

https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/eamonn-sweeney-real-bravery-is-surviving-abuse-eric-35265976.html

I thinks its fair to say this guy was a monster who used his position as coach of the u12 team to prey on young boys.

When it comes to character references for someone like this what do people think is acceptable. Would it be right for a high up official in Eastern Harp and Sligo GAA to write a glowing reference for the court describing how he was a great community man and attributing the skills of current players to this monsters great coaching and mentor ship.
That's a difficult one alright. I think if I was the official in question, I would stop well short of issuing a glowing character reference  but I would give an honest opinion of what I had thought of the accused before the allegations were made known. To do otherwise would be to attempt to influence the judge's verdict.
I mean it would be up to the judge to consider all aspects of the case before the court and arrive at a verdict after considering all the evidence presented in court.
In my book, individuals should be presumed innocent unless and until they are found guilty in a court of law. I'd be confident that even if I said I found the accused to be an enthusiastic and committed underage coach, the judge would figure out what his motives for spending so much time with young people really were.
Nil Carborundum Illegitemi

Itchy

Quote from: Lar Naparka on November 11, 2017, 11:29:20 AM
Quote from: criostlinn on November 11, 2017, 09:35:18 AM
I see this case is back in the news

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/former-gaa-coach-jailed-for-seven-years-for-dozens-of-indecent-assaults-on-two-young-boys-36308209.html

Here are a couple of articles  Eamon Sweeney wrote about it a while back

https://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/hold-the-back-page-courage-takes-many-forms-30282655.html

https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/eamonn-sweeney-real-bravery-is-surviving-abuse-eric-35265976.html

I thinks its fair to say this guy was a monster who used his position as coach of the u12 team to prey on young boys.

When it comes to character references for someone like this what do people think is acceptable. Would it be right for a high up official in Eastern Harp and Sligo GAA to write a glowing reference for the court describing how he was a great community man and attributing the skills of current players to this monsters great coaching and mentor ship.
That's a difficult one alright. I think if I was the official in question, I would stop well short of issuing a glowing character reference  but I would give an honest opinion of what I had thought of the accused before the allegations were made known. To do otherwise would be to attempt to influence the judge's verdict.
I mean it would be up to the judge to consider all aspects of the case before the court and arrive at a verdict after considering all the evidence presented in court.
In my book, individuals should be presumed innocent unless and until they are found guilty in a court of law. I'd be confident that even if I said I found the accused to be an enthusiastic and committed underage coach, the judge would figure out what his motives for spending so much time with young people really were.

How could you say something positive about this guy. Everything thought of him previously was a lie as he no doubt manipulated his way with people in his community and GAA club to abuse children. His life in my book is defined by this. Anyone who would write a character reference for him is a buffoon. Its not difficulty at all Lar, not one bit. Judge shouldn't even be listening to such nonsense in cases like this.

Lar Naparka

Quote from: Itchy on November 11, 2017, 12:23:03 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on November 11, 2017, 11:29:20 AM
Quote from: criostlinn on November 11, 2017, 09:35:18 AM
I see this case is back in the news

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/former-gaa-coach-jailed-for-seven-years-for-dozens-of-indecent-assaults-on-two-young-boys-36308209.html

Here are a couple of articles  Eamon Sweeney wrote about it a while back

https://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/hold-the-back-page-courage-takes-many-forms-30282655.html

https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/eamonn-sweeney-real-bravery-is-surviving-abuse-eric-35265976.html

I thinks its fair to say this guy was a monster who used his position as coach of the u12 team to prey on young boys.

When it comes to character references for someone like this what do people think is acceptable. Would it be right for a high up official in Eastern Harp and Sligo GAA to write a glowing reference for the court describing how he was a great community man and attributing the skills of current players to this monsters great coaching and mentor ship.
That's a difficult one alright. I think if I was the official in question, I would stop well short of issuing a glowing character reference  but I would give an honest opinion of what I had thought of the accused before the allegations were made known. To do otherwise would be to attempt to influence the judge's verdict.
I mean it would be up to the judge to consider all aspects of the case before the court and arrive at a verdict after considering all the evidence presented in court.
In my book, individuals should be presumed innocent unless and until they are found guilty in a court of law. I'd be confident that even if I said I found the accused to be an enthusiastic and committed underage coach, the judge would figure out what his motives for spending so much time with young people really were.

How could you say something positive about this guy. Everything thought of him previously was a lie as he no doubt manipulated his way with people in his community and GAA club to abuse children. His life in my book is defined by this. Anyone who would write a character reference for him is a buffoon. Its not difficulty at all Lar, not one bit. Judge shouldn't even be listening to such nonsense in cases like this.

Nah, you don't get my meaning. If the allegations surfaced, before a trial was heard, the man must be presumed innocent even though you and I know he's as guilty as hell. The problem is that if you allow public opinion influence the verdict, there is always the probability that mistakes will be made. Lynch law is no law.
It's not one bit too fanciful to bring up the case of the Birmingham Six. Maggie Thatcher was all for hanging every one of the accused and, to a large degree, British public opinion was of the same mind. Only the certainty that there would be endless legal challenges and that it would drive Irish Nationalists into the arms of the IRA caused her to back down.  To say, "Oops, we got it wrong. Sorry 'bout that," would have been of feck all use to anyone.
I'm not talking about giving anyone a positive character reference to this guy in question but I wouldn't deliberately omit that could be relevant to the case. It wouldn't be my job to influence the judge, the facts alone should determine that.
Nil Carborundum Illegitemi

armaghniac

Quote from: Lar Naparka on November 11, 2017, 01:32:48 PM
Nah, you don't get my meaning. If the allegations surfaced, before a trial was heard, the man must be presumed innocent even though you and I know he's as guilty as hell. The problem is that if you allow public opinion influence the verdict, there is always the probability that mistakes will be made. Lynch law is no law.
It's not one bit too fanciful to bring up the case of the Birmingham Six. Maggie Thatcher was all for hanging every one of the accused and, to a large degree, British public opinion was of the same mind. Only the certainty that there would be endless legal challenges and that it would drive Irish Nationalists into the arms of the IRA caused her to back down.  To say, "Oops, we got it wrong. Sorry 'bout that," would have been of feck all use to anyone.
I'm not talking about giving anyone a positive character reference to this guy in question but I wouldn't deliberately omit that could be relevant to the case. It wouldn't be my job to influence the judge, the facts alone should determine that.

You are fighting an uphill battle Lar, some people here want to be the judge and jury as well as a witness.
From my perspective, someone could say of this individual that he was perceived at the time to be good coach if this was true. The judge is perfectly competent to take that on its merits and recognise that some of the enthusiasm had a malign intent.
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

Lar Naparka

Quote from: armaghniac on November 11, 2017, 03:40:59 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on November 11, 2017, 01:32:48 PM
Nah, you don't get my meaning. If the allegations surfaced, before a trial was heard, the man must be presumed innocent even though you and I know he's as guilty as hell. The problem is that if you allow public opinion influence the verdict, there is always the probability that mistakes will be made. Lynch law is no law.
It's not one bit too fanciful to bring up the case of the Birmingham Six. Maggie Thatcher was all for hanging every one of the accused and, to a large degree, British public opinion was of the same mind. Only the certainty that there would be endless legal challenges and that it would drive Irish Nationalists into the arms of the IRA caused her to back down.  To say, "Oops, we got it wrong. Sorry 'bout that," would have been of feck all use to anyone.
I'm not talking about giving anyone a positive character reference to this guy in question but I wouldn't deliberately omit that could be relevant to the case. It wouldn't be my job to influence the judge, the facts alone should determine that.

You are fighting an uphill battle Lar, some people here want to be the judge and jury as well as a witness.
From my perspective, someone could say of this individual that he was perceived at the time to be good coach if this was true. The judge is perfectly competent to take that on its merits and recognise that some of the enthusiasm had a malign intent.
Exactly! You got it in one.
Nil Carborundum Illegitemi

criostlinn

I'm not sure what exactly you are saying here Lar.

This case is fairly clear. This monster used his position as a GAA coach to prey on and abuse young boys. He was found guilty of this thanks to the evidence of five brave men. God only knows how many more victims didnt get the opportunity or just couldnt find it in themselves to come forward

Despite this when all facts were heard and the jury had made its decision a senior club official from the very same club where the boys were abused provides a character witness for the accused  in which he speaks in glowing terms about his mentoring and coaching skills. For christ sake, the monster hadn't coached in the club in 30 years and the last time he did these offences occurred. I think its wrong that this kind of shite can be handed into a court in any case let alone something like this. Its not sworn evidence so should have no relevance to a judges decision on sentencing. If its not been used to try and influence a judge what is the purpose of it.

I'm sure the victims were delighted to know they had such great support from the club and the GAA in general.


Owen Brannigan

The UK government are in the process of extending the 'position of trust' legislation to sports coaches. This makes sexual relationships illegal between sports coaches and 16- and 17-year-olds in their care. The law currently covers teachers, hospital workers and carers, but not sports coaches.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/42018265

Milltown Row2

Quote from: Owen Brannigan on November 16, 2017, 06:58:31 PM
The UK government are in the process of extending the 'position of trust' legislation to sports coaches. This makes sexual relationships illegal between sports coaches and 16- and 17-year-olds in their care. The law currently covers teachers, hospital workers and carers, but not sports coaches.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/42018265

New coaching legislation coming in from Croke this year I hear... while the child protection courses were a great initiative when they first came out they needed to be backed by a police check if you're being totally honest
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Lar Naparka

Quote from: criostlinn on November 11, 2017, 04:22:40 PM
I'm not sure what exactly you are saying here Lar.

This case is fairly clear. This monster used his position as a GAA coach to prey on and abuse young boys. He was found guilty of this thanks to the evidence of five brave men. God only knows how many more victims didnt get the opportunity or just couldnt find it in themselves to come forward

Despite this when all facts were heard and the jury had made its decision a senior club official from the very same club where the boys were abused provides a character witness for the accused  in which he speaks in glowing terms about his mentoring and coaching skills. For christ sake, the monster hadn't coached in the club in 30 years and the last time he did these offences occurred. I think its wrong that this kind of shite can be handed into a court in any case let alone something like this. Its not sworn evidence so should have no relevance to a judges decision on sentencing. If its not been used to try and influence a judge what is the purpose of it.

I'm sure the victims were delighted to know they had such great support from the club and the GAA in general.
Sorry, Críost, just saw this now...
I'm afraid I support the right of Clarke to have mitigating factors taken into account before the judge. Just as the the victims of abuse in this and similar cases had to right to have victim impact statements read into court proceedings, the accused is entitled to have speak on his behalf before the judge had arrived at his verdict. This is a democracy and this is the law.
Just as you can't half dig a hole or half kick someone up the same, you can't half prevent someone found guilty in a criminal trial from having someone speaking up on his or her behalf.
I mean the law in all its shapes and forms must be objective at all times- you can't pick and choose who should be allowed to introduce positive character references and who shouldn't.
I presume we are talking about Ballymote here. I know the place well and, by and large, the people there are as upright and conscientious as you will find anywhere. But it is a small, tightly-knit community where everyone one knows everyone else. At the very least, everyone there has to come into contact with every other local from time to time.
The official who came up with a positive character reference for the accused knew full well that he would be meeting up with friends and relations of the five who came forward and, if they are still living in the area, he will have to come face to face with the victims of Clarke's abuse on a regular basis.
For him, knowing the consequences of his actions, he had to strongly believe that what he said in court was true that but it would also upset others in the locality. I don't know for certain but I believe that others would have looked for leniency also. They not have come forward to testify but I'm sure there are some.
Otherwise the official who spoke up for Clarke would hardly have done so if he felt he was the only one in Ballymote who'd say a word in Clarke's favour.
In any event, the judge wasn't swayed by the glowing reference for the accused; seven years for a 75-year old is effectively a life sentence.
Nil Carborundum Illegitemi

macdanger2

Quote from: Lar Naparka on November 16, 2017, 11:12:10 PM
Quote from: criostlinn on November 11, 2017, 04:22:40 PM
I'm not sure what exactly you are saying here Lar.

This case is fairly clear. This monster used his position as a GAA coach to prey on and abuse young boys. He was found guilty of this thanks to the evidence of five brave men. God only knows how many more victims didnt get the opportunity or just couldnt find it in themselves to come forward

Despite this when all facts were heard and the jury had made its decision a senior club official from the very same club where the boys were abused provides a character witness for the accused  in which he speaks in glowing terms about his mentoring and coaching skills. For christ sake, the monster hadn't coached in the club in 30 years and the last time he did these offences occurred. I think its wrong that this kind of shite can be handed into a court in any case let alone something like this. Its not sworn evidence so should have no relevance to a judges decision on sentencing. If its not been used to try and influence a judge what is the purpose of it.

I'm sure the victims were delighted to know they had such great support from the club and the GAA in general.
Sorry, Críost, just saw this now...
I'm afraid I support the right of Clarke to have mitigating factors taken into account before the judge. Just as the the victims of abuse in this and similar cases had to right to have victim impact statements read into court proceedings, the accused is entitled to have speak on his behalf before the judge had arrived at his verdict. This is a democracy and this is the law.
Just as you can't half dig a hole or half kick someone up the same, you can't half prevent someone found guilty in a criminal trial from having someone speaking up on his or her behalf.
I mean the law in all its shapes and forms must be objective at all times- you can't pick and choose who should be allowed to introduce positive character references and who shouldn't.
I presume we are talking about Ballymote here. I know the place well and, by and large, the people there are as upright and conscientious as you will find anywhere. But it is a small, tightly-knit community where everyone one knows everyone else. At the very least, everyone there has to come into contact with every other local from time to time.
The official who came up with a positive character reference for the accused knew full well that he would be meeting up with friends and relations of the five who came forward and, if they are still living in the area, he will have to come face to face with the victims of Clarke's abuse on a regular basis.
For him, knowing the consequences of his actions, he had to strongly believe that what he said in court was true that but it would also upset others in the locality. I don't know for certain but I believe that others would have looked for leniency also. They not have come forward to testify but I'm sure there are some.
Otherwise the official who spoke up for Clarke would hardly have done so if he felt he was the only one in Ballymote who'd say a word in Clarke's favour.
In any event, the judge wasn't swayed by the glowing reference for the accused; seven years for a 75-year old is effectively a life sentence.

Not half long enough imo

Itchy

Quote from: Lar Naparka on November 16, 2017, 11:12:10 PM
Quote from: criostlinn on November 11, 2017, 04:22:40 PM
I'm not sure what exactly you are saying here Lar.

This case is fairly clear. This monster used his position as a GAA coach to prey on and abuse young boys. He was found guilty of this thanks to the evidence of five brave men. God only knows how many more victims didnt get the opportunity or just couldnt find it in themselves to come forward

Despite this when all facts were heard and the jury had made its decision a senior club official from the very same club where the boys were abused provides a character witness for the accused  in which he speaks in glowing terms about his mentoring and coaching skills. For christ sake, the monster hadn't coached in the club in 30 years and the last time he did these offences occurred. I think its wrong that this kind of shite can be handed into a court in any case let alone something like this. Its not sworn evidence so should have no relevance to a judges decision on sentencing. If its not been used to try and influence a judge what is the purpose of it.

I'm sure the victims were delighted to know they had such great support from the club and the GAA in general.
Sorry, Críost, just saw this now...
I'm afraid I support the right of Clarke to have mitigating factors taken into account before the judge. Just as the the victims of abuse in this and similar cases had to right to have victim impact statements read into court proceedings, the accused is entitled to have speak on his behalf before the judge had arrived at his verdict. This is a democracy and this is the law.
Just as you can't half dig a hole or half kick someone up the same, you can't half prevent someone found guilty in a criminal trial from having someone speaking up on his or her behalf.
I mean the law in all its shapes and forms must be objective at all times- you can't pick and choose who should be allowed to introduce positive character references and who shouldn't.
I presume we are talking about Ballymote here. I know the place well and, by and large, the people there are as upright and conscientious as you will find anywhere. But it is a small, tightly-knit community where everyone one knows everyone else. At the very least, everyone there has to come into contact with every other local from time to time.
The official who came up with a positive character reference for the accused knew full well that he would be meeting up with friends and relations of the five who came forward and, if they are still living in the area, he will have to come face to face with the victims of Clarke's abuse on a regular basis.
For him, knowing the consequences of his actions, he had to strongly believe that what he said in court was true that but it would also upset others in the locality. I don't know for certain but I believe that others would have looked for leniency also. They not have come forward to testify but I'm sure there are some.
Otherwise the official who spoke up for Clarke would hardly have done so if he felt he was the only one in Ballymote who'd say a word in Clarke's favour.
In any event, the judge wasn't swayed by the glowing reference for the accused; seven years for a 75-year old is effectively a life sentence.

7 years? Ask any man on the street and they will tell you what they think of 7 years for a child rapist.

I'm interested to know what you think of the victims Lar. Bad enough they have to live through the horror and then relive it in court but then to hear some stupid bollox give character reference to a rapist, fully aware of what he was just found guilty off. Does the victim get a thought at all?

Lar Naparka

Quote from: Itchy on November 16, 2017, 11:46:26 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on November 16, 2017, 11:12:10 PM
Quote from: criostlinn on November 11, 2017, 04:22:40 PM
I'm not sure what exactly you are saying here Lar.

This case is fairly clear. This monster used his position as a GAA coach to prey on and abuse young boys. He was found guilty of this thanks to the evidence of five brave men. God only knows how many more victims didnt get the opportunity or just couldnt find it in themselves to come forward

Despite this when all facts were heard and the jury had made its decision a senior club official from the very same club where the boys were abused provides a character witness for the accused  in which he speaks in glowing terms about his mentoring and coaching skills. For christ sake, the monster hadn't coached in the club in 30 years and the last time he did these offences occurred. I think its wrong that this kind of shite can be handed into a court in any case let alone something like this. Its not sworn evidence so should have no relevance to a judges decision on sentencing. If its not been used to try and influence a judge what is the purpose of it.

I'm sure the victims were delighted to know they had such great support from the club and the GAA in general.
Sorry, Críost, just saw this now...
I'm afraid I support the right of Clarke to have mitigating factors taken into account before the judge. Just as the the victims of abuse in this and similar cases had to right to have victim impact statements read into court proceedings, the accused is entitled to have speak on his behalf before the judge had arrived at his verdict. This is a democracy and this is the law.
Just as you can't half dig a hole or half kick someone up the same, you can't half prevent someone found guilty in a criminal trial from having someone speaking up on his or her behalf.
I mean the law in all its shapes and forms must be objective at all times- you can't pick and choose who should be allowed to introduce positive character references and who shouldn't.
I presume we are talking about Ballymote here. I know the place well and, by and large, the people there are as upright and conscientious as you will find anywhere. But it is a small, tightly-knit community where everyone one knows everyone else. At the very least, everyone there has to come into contact with every other local from time to time.
The official who came up with a positive character reference for the accused knew full well that he would be meeting up with friends and relations of the five who came forward and, if they are still living in the area, he will have to come face to face with the victims of Clarke's abuse on a regular basis.
For him, knowing the consequences of his actions, he had to strongly believe that what he said in court was true that but it would also upset others in the locality. I don't know for certain but I believe that others would have looked for leniency also. They not have come forward to testify but I'm sure there are some.
Otherwise the official who spoke up for Clarke would hardly have done so if he felt he was the only one in Ballymote who'd say a word in Clarke's favour.
In any event, the judge wasn't swayed by the glowing reference for the accused; seven years for a 75-year old is effectively a life sentence.

7 years? Ask any man on the street and they will tell you what they think of 7 years for a child rapist.

I'm interested to know what you think of the victims Lar. Bad enough they have to live through the horror and then relive it in court but then to hear some stupid bollox give character reference to a rapist, fully aware of what he was just found guilty off. Does the victim get a thought at all?
No problem with that at all; I have unreserved sympathy with the victims. But I didn't give any sort of a personal opinion here. I'm just saying what the legal position is. Clarke had the right to have pleas for leniency entered on his behalf and no matter what any of us here might think, that's a legal right.
I'd be very reluctant to go any further as I don't know the full facts and I'm not referring to the verdict here. That seems clear enough; Clarke was found guilty as charged but I don't know why anyone would speak up on his behalf. However, if anyone chooses to do so,  I, or you, may disagree with his motive but not with his right.
Nil Carborundum Illegitemi

johnneycool

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 16, 2017, 09:37:25 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on November 16, 2017, 06:58:31 PM
The UK government are in the process of extending the 'position of trust' legislation to sports coaches. This makes sexual relationships illegal between sports coaches and 16- and 17-year-olds in their care. The law currently covers teachers, hospital workers and carers, but not sports coaches.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/42018265

New coaching legislation coming in from Croke this year I hear... while the child protection courses were a great initiative when they first came out they needed to be backed by a police check if you're being totally honest

All coaches are meant to have Access NI clearance, are they not? Ours do.