Tom Humphries thread

1549

I’ll again ask the questions I asked in my previous post.

Can an abuser’s character before they were an abuser be divorced from their character when they became that abuser?

Or, were they always an abuser in waiting and did they always have the character of an abuser, even before they were an abuser?

Is human character an unchanging thing over the course of one’s life?

Do you believe that any mitigating factors should be taken into account when sentencing a person, including in sexual abuse cases?

Remember, these mitigating factors can only reduce a sentence.

1550

OOOFFFTTT!

1551

I think you have to play the ball on it’s merits Sid.

1 Like
1552

The five year maximum sentence argument is basically a cop out that allowed this judge impose a lenient sentence. Under current Irish law, the maximum sentence for defilement of a child under 15 is life imprisionment. Defilement is defined as having sex or attempting to have sex with a child. For children under 17 the sentence is five years and ten years for a person in authority. The maximum sentence can be increased for a second or more offenses.

Humphries was apparently grooming this girl since she was 14. There apparently is evidence she wasn’t his only victim. The argument that he wasn’t a person in authority in this context is extremely tenuous. In my opinion he deserved at least a 10 year sentence. The message a 2.5 year sentence (which means he will serve half of that) sends to those who have similar tendencies and consider acting out those tendencies is a very dangerous one and frankly puts children at risk.

5 Likes
1553

If you believe the character of a human can change of the course of their life, then somebody making a character reference on behalf of a defendant must be not just acceptable, but a key part of the justice system.

And it doesn’t matter what sort of a case it is. That’s not how justice works. A defendant has every right to have a trial conducted in the fairest manner possible. Character references allow this to happen by painting a fuller picture of a person.

It’s for the judge to play the ball on its merits.

1554

Exactly

1555

It isn’t. He wasn’t a person in authority.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/15/enacted/en/html

Amendment of section 1 of Act of 2006

  1. Section 1 of the Act of 2006 is amended—

(a) by the substitution of the following definition for the definition of “person in authority”:

“ ‘person in authority’, in relation to a child against whom an offence is alleged to have been committed, means—

(a) a parent, grandparent, uncle or aunt whether of the whole blood, of the half blood or by affinity of the child,

(b) a current or former guardian or foster parent of the child,

Š a current or former step-parent of the child,

(d) a current or former partner of a parent of the child who lives or has lived in an enduring family relationship with the parent,

(e) any person who is for the time being, or has been, in loco parentis to the child, or

(f) any other person who is or has been responsible for the education, supervision, training, care or welfare of the child;”,

and

(b) by the insertion of the following definition:

“ ‘foster parent’ means a person other than a relative of a child who is caring for the child on behalf of the Child and Family Agency in accordance with regulations made under the Child Care Act 1991 ;”.

1556

You are confusing the terms character and personality. A persons personality is their outward appearance, which in the case of even the most evil psychopaths can appear normal or even likeable as they are master manipulators. A personality frequently changes over time depending on the circumstances of a persons life.

Character is the core set of morals and beliefs a person holds which defines how they behave or treat others. It’s something that develops in childhood through teenage years and the evidence says it doesn’t really change over time. A person’s sexual preference for example is formed in the early teens and rarely changes. If one is sexually attracted to children as in a pedophile, one is a pedophile for life, again based on evidence.

Their is no way Cusack or Walsh or you for that matter know or knew anything about Humpheries “character”. The evidence regarding his character comes from his actions. I have no doubt they were surprised by his actions which means they knew nothing about his character.

1557

Of course character can change over time and in response to different life events or other changes within the person. And character can have many different facets.

Those arguing that a character reference should not be allowed make the mistake of thinking that human character is a narrow, singular entity indivisible from a crime.

Even if part of person’s character is indivisible from a crime, the person is entitled to be allowed have a fuller picture to be heard.

A person’s sexual preference is not part of a core set of morals and beliefs and does not define how they behave or treat others.

1558

I see you are not arguing the basic point which is Cusack or Walsh could know nothing about Humpheries character. His personality yes, but that says nothing about his character.

You are correct, just because someone is attracted sexually to children does not mean they will act out on such urges. Their character may be strong enough to resist such urges. Clearly Humpheries by his actions in grooming and defiling a child does not fit into this category. As they say actions speak louder than words.

1559

You are thus saying that character is an exclusively internal and intrinsic quality with no external manifestations, and that nobody else can know anything of a person’s character.

That’s nonsense.

Of course others can know something about a person’s character. They are highly unlikely to know the full picture of it. But they don’t have to. They are only giving their experience of what they know of it.

1560

Boom!

1561

A picture tells a thousand words… Especially a picture of a throbbing penis… Maybe smart phones made Humphries a deviant? Or it changed him from an aspiring kiddy fiddler to a committed one?

Only Tom knows.

2 Likes
1562

No need to bring Ballyragget into this.

1563

Was there smartphones then?

1564

That’s what you’re most concerned about there?

1565

Your point was that smartphones maybe made him a deviant. I suspect he was the sort who was drawing pictures of his willy in the back of class.

1 Like
1566

Take out phone and throw in technology…he wouldn’t draw dicks for ducks that fella.

1567

So are you arguing that Cusack and Walsh knew Humpheries was sexually attracted to children but believed he would not act out on such urges?

Anything else relating to his character is irrelevant to the case, the only relevant character evidence is his actions.

1568

WTF?

You clearly don’t understand Irish law.