It's a strange story that emerged yesterday about Mary Shannon, a rape victim who has waived her right to anonymity after the man who broke into her house and raped her while her children slept in the next room was given a three year suspended sentence on conviction. Adam Keane, 20, said his life has been ruined by a naming and shaming worthy of a Brenda Power initiative. Diddums. How does he think Mary Shannon feels?
Devastated, apparently. Ms. Shannon even had to share a train home with her attacker after the trial; her sister says they had to walk past him to get to their seats. Ms. Shannon has said that she feels like a "criminal"; she had to stand up in court and be cross-examined on "every detail" of her life while Mr. Keane sat there without having to explain his actions. That he was found guilty made Ms. Shannon feel "so relieved... I really believed justice would be done". That he was found guilty and walked away is what I find very strange.
The presiding judge, Mr. Paul Carney (the same judge who handed down a 15-year-sentence to Joseph Cummins for raping an elderly woman), has, according to RTE.ie, said that "the sentence was based on a previous ruling by the Court of Criminal Appeal following an appeal in relation to a similar sentence in which the sentence was set aside entirely". Does anyone know which case? That's what I'd like to examine, because, kiddos, I'm flummoxed.
I hope to God al-holy-mighty that Adam Keane wasn't given such a lenient sentence on very humbly coming up with the notion that he was blameless because he'd taken "alcohol and Ecstasy" and had "blacked-out". I really, really fucking hope that's not why he got off with his three-year-suspended. Coz let me tell you something about alcohol: being hammered is no excuse. Have a tendency to get violent on the alcopops? Don't fucking drink. Claim you didn't know you had a tendency til the deed was done? Fuck the fuck off. You cannot blame alcohol for your being an utter cunt.
And let me tell you something about Ecstasy. It's known for being the great bonder; like cuddly Bostik, it is. And generally your sexual urges and your urge to hurt and maim go down in direct proportion to your skyrocketing urge to love the world. It's also a great willy-shrinker in ze males. People on Ecstasy don't want to/can't for the life of them fuck, in general. Which suits Adam Keane, because rapists don't want to fuck either. They want to hurt and humiliate.
Now, I'm writing this early in the morning and as yet, I haven't heard any more details on why Adam Keane was given such a lenient sentence. Perhaps it has nothing to do with his "Ah, sorry about that, I was hammered by illegal dhrugs, oh, waily, the pushers, they're everywhere!" excuse. But if it was, it's just another reason for the rest of us to put our collective spawgs down and demand that judges presiding over cases in which drugs are involved as an offence or an excuse fuck off and learn something about them first. This reminds me of the case a couple of years back where someone used as his defense an addiction to Ecstasy, the one drug that's entirely non-addictive (yes, if you're bringing up that ould psychological addiction chestnut, let's remind ourselves that sucking one's thumb is psychologically addictive too. You can't use it as an excuse for robbing your neighbours blind. Sure, Ecstasy costs money and thumb-sucking doesn't. Ecstasy costs about €2-€3 a pill, and you can only munch through about €20 quids worth in a day. More than that and you ain't taking MDMA, mate. You're nibbling on amphetamine, which is considerably more addictive, but you have no right to know what exactly you're putting in to yourself, because you're a filthy criminal).
Judges in this country need to take a very long and intensive course on drugs and their effects. This is so they'll stop squeezing dealers into handy little pusher stereotypes, and stop blaming inanimate objects (line a' coke, Guv?) for the nasty things we get up to as a matter of course.
Bit too late for Mary Shannon, though. She's been very eloquent throughout her ordeal. Let's hope she at least raises awareness for the plight of the rape victim, who has to suffer so much to see her/his attacker convicted.
By the way, on the same topic, I don't condone mandatory sentencing for anything: PD TD Mae Sexton is calling for mandatory sentencing for rape. Yes, I know that it "works" in murder cases, but you'll find that the Life sentence doesn't necessarily mean life behind bars... In every case, I would hope we take each set of circumstances and set sentencing accordingly. Kind of like in Adam Keane's case, and perhaps the judge knows more about his circumstances than the rest of the country... but necking a yoke in a club does not amount to much of an excuse, and it doesn't give you license to attack whoever you want. If only the courts knew that. Then pricks like Mr. Keane wouldn't waste our time coming up with convenient fairy stories, would they?
UPDATE: Readers coming in from the Lounge at techfocus.net, leave comments, will you? I can't call you up on dropping me in it in what seems to be an interforum spat between two members, but telling each other I'm wrong when I know I'm not is beginning to get my rabid goat, that it is. Oh, but don't just believe me. I'm only going on personal experience and the research of Nicholas Saunders, me.
Devastated, apparently. Ms. Shannon even had to share a train home with her attacker after the trial; her sister says they had to walk past him to get to their seats. Ms. Shannon has said that she feels like a "criminal"; she had to stand up in court and be cross-examined on "every detail" of her life while Mr. Keane sat there without having to explain his actions. That he was found guilty made Ms. Shannon feel "so relieved... I really believed justice would be done". That he was found guilty and walked away is what I find very strange.
The presiding judge, Mr. Paul Carney (the same judge who handed down a 15-year-sentence to Joseph Cummins for raping an elderly woman), has, according to RTE.ie, said that "the sentence was based on a previous ruling by the Court of Criminal Appeal following an appeal in relation to a similar sentence in which the sentence was set aside entirely". Does anyone know which case? That's what I'd like to examine, because, kiddos, I'm flummoxed.
I hope to God al-holy-mighty that Adam Keane wasn't given such a lenient sentence on very humbly coming up with the notion that he was blameless because he'd taken "alcohol and Ecstasy" and had "blacked-out". I really, really fucking hope that's not why he got off with his three-year-suspended. Coz let me tell you something about alcohol: being hammered is no excuse. Have a tendency to get violent on the alcopops? Don't fucking drink. Claim you didn't know you had a tendency til the deed was done? Fuck the fuck off. You cannot blame alcohol for your being an utter cunt.
And let me tell you something about Ecstasy. It's known for being the great bonder; like cuddly Bostik, it is. And generally your sexual urges and your urge to hurt and maim go down in direct proportion to your skyrocketing urge to love the world. It's also a great willy-shrinker in ze males. People on Ecstasy don't want to/can't for the life of them fuck, in general. Which suits Adam Keane, because rapists don't want to fuck either. They want to hurt and humiliate.
Now, I'm writing this early in the morning and as yet, I haven't heard any more details on why Adam Keane was given such a lenient sentence. Perhaps it has nothing to do with his "Ah, sorry about that, I was hammered by illegal dhrugs, oh, waily, the pushers, they're everywhere!" excuse. But if it was, it's just another reason for the rest of us to put our collective spawgs down and demand that judges presiding over cases in which drugs are involved as an offence or an excuse fuck off and learn something about them first. This reminds me of the case a couple of years back where someone used as his defense an addiction to Ecstasy, the one drug that's entirely non-addictive (yes, if you're bringing up that ould psychological addiction chestnut, let's remind ourselves that sucking one's thumb is psychologically addictive too. You can't use it as an excuse for robbing your neighbours blind. Sure, Ecstasy costs money and thumb-sucking doesn't. Ecstasy costs about €2-€3 a pill, and you can only munch through about €20 quids worth in a day. More than that and you ain't taking MDMA, mate. You're nibbling on amphetamine, which is considerably more addictive, but you have no right to know what exactly you're putting in to yourself, because you're a filthy criminal).
Judges in this country need to take a very long and intensive course on drugs and their effects. This is so they'll stop squeezing dealers into handy little pusher stereotypes, and stop blaming inanimate objects (line a' coke, Guv?) for the nasty things we get up to as a matter of course.
Bit too late for Mary Shannon, though. She's been very eloquent throughout her ordeal. Let's hope she at least raises awareness for the plight of the rape victim, who has to suffer so much to see her/his attacker convicted.
By the way, on the same topic, I don't condone mandatory sentencing for anything: PD TD Mae Sexton is calling for mandatory sentencing for rape. Yes, I know that it "works" in murder cases, but you'll find that the Life sentence doesn't necessarily mean life behind bars... In every case, I would hope we take each set of circumstances and set sentencing accordingly. Kind of like in Adam Keane's case, and perhaps the judge knows more about his circumstances than the rest of the country... but necking a yoke in a club does not amount to much of an excuse, and it doesn't give you license to attack whoever you want. If only the courts knew that. Then pricks like Mr. Keane wouldn't waste our time coming up with convenient fairy stories, would they?
UPDATE: Readers coming in from the Lounge at techfocus.net, leave comments, will you? I can't call you up on dropping me in it in what seems to be an interforum spat between two members, but telling each other I'm wrong when I know I'm not is beginning to get my rabid goat, that it is. Oh, but don't just believe me. I'm only going on personal experience and the research of Nicholas Saunders, me.
66 comments:
might be the 10-2 verdict, hamstrung the good justice.
Bizarre.
It's a bloody joke. These useless pricks of judges should be sacked.
Sweary, if ya find out what that previous ruling by the Court of Criminal Appeal was, will ya post it, as I know from personal interest that this judge is not given to leniency for sexual offences.
hear hear. a fine post there old girl.
My inability with the English language means I cannot properly express how angry a judgement like that makes me.
Mandatory sentencing does worry me but surely a mandatory sense of justice would be useful.
Sweary - thanks for highlighting this, please keep updated if you do hear more.
Sweary, you forgot to mention that the victim was deaf. Unable to hear an intruder in her own home and protect herself. Her life put under the microscope and that bastard (I hope his balls shrivel up and die) hardly interrogated at all! The victim couldn't even hear what the judge was saying, or opposing counsel and no interpreter (whether oral or sign) provided for her by a justice system seemingly disinterested in actual justice. What a fucking fiasco!
I served on a jury once for a really harrowing case where a girl in her twenties took a case against the man who'd raped her when she was a child. She was put through hell (cos obviously it was hard for her to remember details that many years back) and when we finally found the fucker guilty he only got 8 years, which the judge said was the maximum he could give him, under the law at the time. Which probably means 5 at the most, in real terms.
Rape is not taken seriously enough. There's still this prevailing conviction deep down that "they were asking for it".
I'm definitely keeping an eye on this case, lads, because that verdict was absolutely headwrecking, and I really want to believe that there was good reason for it...
orfhlaith's right. I didn't mention that Mary Shannon is deaf. One of the more heart-wrenching things about this case was that Ms. Shannon didn't know the unbelievable sentence that had been handed down until her sister started crying beside her.
Caro's right too. Putting victims of such a dehumanising crime on trial themselves, where they have to live out in painstaking detail what happened to them, is absolutely terrible, whereas the accused doesn't much have to account for himself at all. I can't see another way around it, though. I would at least hope that court interviews with victims are conducted with tact and care...
"the sentence was based on a previous ruling by the Court of Criminal Appeal following an appeal in relation to a similar sentence in which the sentence was set aside entirely". Does anyone know which case? That's what I'd like to examine, because, kiddos, I'm flummoxed.
I agree, I'm flummoxed too. I would really like to understand the mind and reasoning of the judge.
ps - I have been reading your Blog for awhile, it's always interesting, sorry I haven't commented until now!
Found this online:
IRELAND(20)
85. In the main, sentencing in Ireland is at the discretion of the judiciary, subject to the
maximum penalties laid down in statute by the Oireachtas (the Legislature of Ireland). Over
time the Superior Courts have developed a substantial body of case law setting out general
principles of sentencing. For example, case law has established the principles that:
• a sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the personal
circumstances of the offender (The People (D.P.P.) v M, 1994).
• Save in exceptional circumstances a person convicted of Rape should receive an
immediate and substantial custodial sentence (The People (D.P.P.) v Tiernan, 1989);
and,
• A guilty plea should ordinarily attract a reduction in sentence (The People (D.P.P.) v
G, 1994). This principle is also supported by statute – the Criminal Justice Act, 1999
provides that a Court shall, if it considers it appropriate, take into account the stage at
which the person indicated an intention to plead guilty and the circumstances in which
the indication was given. The Act also provides, however, that a court is not
precluded from passing the maximum sentence prescribed by law if the court is
satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances.
20
Primary sources: Address by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform at the First Edward
O’Donnell McDevitt Annual Symposium: ‘Sentencing in Ireland’ Feb. 2004 Department of Justice, Equality
and Law Reform at http://www.justice.ie/80256E01003A02CF/vWeb/pcJUSQ5XUD5V-en
The Law Reform Commission Ireland (1996) – Report on Sentencing. At
http://www.lawreform.ie/publications/data/lrc90/lrc_90.html
The Working Group on the Jurisdiction of the Courts (2003) – The Criminal Jurisdiction of the Courts. http://www.courts.ie/WGJC.nsf/
The rape conviction statistics are appalling across Europe, it looks like women are very much still made to go through hell during the investigations, and a very small percentage of reported rapes (that is already only a small fraction of all rapes) result in convicting the accused. Who's protecting who and why?
Even making me think about the state of things around this issue makes me uncomfortable, it seems to be hopeless to expect things to change.
Exceptional circumstances, eh? Right. Perhaps as the employers of these judges we have a right to know what exceptional circumstances are involved in Adam Keane's case?
I noticed some visitors coming here from a closed forum who claim that my statement on Ecstasy and sex is absolute bollocks or some such. Sadly, I can't register on their closed forum to take them on, but I'd be delighted if they wanted to try and argue the point with me here. Yeah, some people are very up for it on yokes. That's why I said "in general". If I fancied a rockin' night in with my fella, I wouldn't give him a dose of MDMA first, that's for sure.
I've had a suggestion for the last few years now that if you plead not guilty for rape and are convicted that you should get a third extra added to your sentence since you were obviously lying in your testimony and hence committed perjury. I would also ban concurrent sentences in such cases.
I'm an old fashioned girl myself: found guilty of a rape? You get your boy bits cut off, full stop.
I think the Lounge posters are thinking about SEX too much and not about RAPE. Rape is about power and anger and domination first, and secondly, about sex.
Rape: power, anger, and sexuality
AN Groth, W Burgess and LL Holmstrom
Accounts from both offenders and victims of what occurs during a rape suggest that issues of power, anger, and sexuality are important in understanding the rapist's behavior. All three issues seem to operate in every rape, but the proportion varies and one issue seems to dominate in each instance. The authors ranked accounts from 133 offenders and 92 victims for the dominant issue and found that the offenses could be categorized as power rape (sexuality used primarily to express power) or anger rape (use of sexuality to express anger). There were no rapes in which sex was the dominant issue; sexuality was always in the service of other, nonsexual needs.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78818.htm
IRELAND
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2006
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
March 6, 2007
The law criminalizes rape, including within marriage, and provides for free legal advice to victims of serious sexual assault. The Courts Service annual report documented a total of 75 rape cases tried in 2005, in which 40 persons were convicted of rape and other sexual offenses. They received sentences of between five and 12 years in prison. At the end of 2005, 58 rape cases were pending.
In rape cases, the government brings formal charges against the accused, with the victim acting as a witness. The law provides for separate legal representation for victims in rape and other serious sexual assault cases when counsel for the defendant applies to enter evidence or to cross‑examine the victim about his or her past sexual experience.
Strengthened statutory rape legislation to eliminate ignorance of the victim's age as a mitigating circumstance in sentencing prevented convicted perpetrators from leaving prison by arguing that they were unaware of the victim's age, an acceptable legal argument under the previous law. The law changed after one man convicted of statutory rape successfully appealed his conviction on this premise and was released. Several other appeals were pending when the law changed, effectively eliminating the basis for the appeals.
Rape crisis centers, funded in part by the government, provided support by immediate telephone contact and one‑on‑one counseling. Government programs provided long‑ and short‑term housing options for victims of sexual violence. All police received training on the investigation of cases of domestic violence, rape, and sexual assault.
In 2005 the Dublin Rape Crisis Center reported receiving 12,244 counseling calls in all categories (child sexual abuse, adult rape, adult sexual assault, and sexual harassment), an upward trend in the frequency of calls. The center reported that 95 of the 335 rape victims recorded in 2005 reported their attacks to the police, resulting in five defendants being tried and four convicted.
THESE statistics particulary bother me
95 of the 335 rape victims recorded in 2005 reported their attacks to the police, resulting in five defendants being tried and four convicted.
Snippets from Irish Times Article today:
A Government backbench TD, Mae Sexton of the Progressive Democrats, has added her voice to Opposition demands for the introduction of mandatory sentencing for convicted rapists.
Fine Gael yesterday called for the same action after a Co Clare man was found guilty of raping a woman in her home and given a three year suspended sentence.
Fine Gael TD Olwyn Enright noted that Minister for Justice Michael McDowell has moved to impose mandatory sentences on drug offenders. "Fine Gael believes we must now give serious consideration for mandatory minimum sentences for convicted rapists."
Labour Party spokesman on justice, Brendan Howlin, said that there was a compelling case for the DPP, using the powers available to him under the 1993 Criminal Justice Act, to appeal the sentence imposed on Keane.
Meanwhile Sinn Féin Justice Spokesman Aengus Ó Snodaigh said: "This case highlights the urgent need for proper training for judges.
"As part of that training, judges should meet with the various victims groups to get an accurate picture of the true impact of rapes and sexual assaults.
"Having received proper training judges should then be issued with sentencing guidelines providing information and direction while at the same time allowing for a certain amount of judicial discretion.
Mr Ó Snodaigh added that what was needed was "more consistent prosecution of sexual assault, rapes and domestic violence".
"In the mean time where necessary the DPP should appeal sentences that are overly lenient including this one."
Sorry, Sweary, I'm done now. That anyone should have to go what Mary Shannon went through and then have to re-live it and THEN have to go home on the same train as her rapist just makes my blood boil. Something is definitely not right when so few cases are even getting to the courts. ARGH!
That's a 1.2% conviction rate. Woohoo for justice!
I think Ó Snodaigh has it right, actually. I'm not altogether fond of the notion of mandatory sentencing...
I can only hope and pray that this wee cunt Keane has a disastrous and unfortunate fatal accident sometime in the very near future.
As for the judge? Let's fill his earholes up with candle wax and send the Harlem Globetrotters round to fuck him repeatedly up the arse. THEN he may have some inkling of what this poor woman had to endure.
I have just typed 40 or so lines of a comment, and then deleted them. With the anger I feel right now I simply can't express my thoughts properly.
I think Carney is looking at the longer term. He seems to have deliberately engineered this controversy in order to discourage the appeals court from overturning future sentences. He calculates that the DPP will appeal the leniency of this sentence and Keane will probably get jail.
It ain't Carney's job to go philosophising from on high, is it? Oh hold on; he's a judge.
Well, it's the only theory that makes any sense to me.
"UPDATE: Readers coming in from the Lounge at techfocus.net, leave comments, will you? I can't call you up on dropping me in it in what seems to be an interforum spat between two members, but telling each other I'm wrong when I know I'm not is beginning to get my rabid goat, that it is. Oh, but don't just believe me. I'm only going on personal experience and the research of Nicholas Saunders, me."
Oh get over yourself..if you're that bothered sign up.
Googlegoat.
would it not make sense to imprison the rapist himself. afterall thats the fuckin judges job.this shit is like something from a horror movie.
From the Lounge, apologies for calling you a mong (heat of the debate etc) but I did point out you used the word 'generally' in realation to the E thing. Lanod
I can't understand this ruling at all. I just don't get what the judge was thinking with this. God, that poor woman must be in living hell.
Has the judge given any indication of what his "reasoning" was in this case?
S'alright. Gist of the argument over at the Lounge seemed to be that it was implied that Keane HADN'T taken yokes. I don't doubt he had. My point is that a yoke certainly isn't enough to push you over the edge into sexual violence, and a judge should know enough about illegal drugs to not accept something like that as an excuse.
Either way, I still don't know what the full story is, so I'm just speculating.
As for "getting over" myself and signing up... I can't, it's a CLOSED FORUM. Repeated for emphasis.
As an aside remember Lavinia Kerwick, back in the early 1990s she also swayed her anonymity to go public on the rapist that attacked her getting a suspended sentence!
In fact Judge Flood said something akin to no actual injury was inflicted on her other than the rape!
I was shocked and appalled at the decision in the case you blog about but unfortunately I am not surprised. I don't know which is worse.
I wonder if I knocked someone down would I get away with saying, well, I was out of my head on drink and drugs, and I don't remember a thing about it?
just wonder what would have happened if she'd bate the head off him and shot him in the back?
Wouldn't have worked, 'cos he wasn't a traveller.
Apparently I'm being naive in thinking she'd have been excused on that one...
Funny. This is the same week Mickey-Do brought in the bill on using force to protect one's property. Mary Shannon wasn't even awarded the right to protect herself and see justice done against the man who'd hurt her, let alone protect and uphold the sanctity of her own home.
or that of her body!
Of course, in PD-land (is that the same as Gang Land?) any kind of property is FAAAAAR more important (valuable) than anyone's body.
Well, that's what I meant by "herself". But you're dead right.
I don’t know what the reasoning behind giving this animal a suspended sentence was but really..he broke into her home and assaulted her while her three children were in bed in another room(heaven knows what he would have done to them had they woken up).The woman is deaf and no special arrangements were made for her (thousands of people in Ireland can sign)to hear the court proceedings.This is justice?..
A letter to the editor of the Irish Times today simply says ‘Madam, I am in contempt of court’..me too.
The judge supposedly referenced the 'NY' case when he handed down the suspended sentence. That case involved a man who had pleaded guilty to raping a woman (after breaking into her home), whereas Adam Keane did not plead guilty. (As to whether perpetrators should have guilty pleas taken into account as a mitigating factor, well, that leaves me uncomfortable because it seems to give them yet more control over their fate, whereas their victims are still left powerless: "Your Honour, the rapist has spared his victim from having to go through a trial [yes, but she wouldn't have to go through this ordeal in the first place if it wasn't for his actions].") I simply cannot see any logic whatsoever in the comparison: Keane broke into a woman's home - as her sister said on the radio this week "All Mary did was go to bed" - raped her, pleaded not guilty up until the end, despite the forensic evidence, didn't even apologise to his victim or express any kind of remorse, yet was allowed to walk free from court without the judge even ordering him to stay away from his victim. Mandatory sentences wouldn't be necessary if judges had the smallest inkling of what a victim suffers after such an assault, or if they made even the most token attempt at trying to show the victims due consideration.
Your perspective on this case is a reminder of why I don't trust the media. There are many things about Ms. Shannon that the public are not aware of and did not even come through to the trial. She is not the shining martyr of rapehood that she is held up to be in the public eye. Nor am I convinced that a 'rape' actually occurred. I have several reasons for this belief, not the least of which is her history - which included a previous rape accusation that was dismissed from court. I've also heard that she is a heroin addict with a heroin-dealing boyfriend, and that she nearly had her kids taken from her by social services at one point. Also, she was at a party that night, completely drunk (and probably drugged) as was Adam Keane. Minutes before she invited Adam Keane back to her house, she had approached the bouncer at the pub with the same offer. That never went to court because the bouncer didn't even know there was a rape case occurring until it was in the papers. There's so much more... none of this will ever make page one of the papers because it probably isn't as interesting as hanging Adam Keane out to dry. Bring on the pitchforks and torches! We got a witch burning to do! Hahaha... the truth always comes out in the wash though. As soon as people hear the word 'rape', they freak out, and the accused is always guilty, and the accuser is always a saint. Well, folks, I do believe that is true in 99 percent of the cases, most likely, and I think rape is a horrible crime. But I don't believe this is a clear case of rape by any stretch of the imagination. The only good that will come of this is that there might be a mandatory sentencing in future cases, and while I think that is excellent for the other real rape victims out there, it's pretty sad how it had to come about in this case.
There was no physical evidence of rape, by the way, and the jury's verdict was based largely on ''he said, she said''. Did you ever wonder WHY a judge who sentenced another rapist to 15 years on the same day let this one walk? Maybe he had a very good reason, such as 'extenuating circumstances' as I heard it put in one news program. Think about it before you curse the man, and don't let the word 'rape' make you lose all sense of reasoning. Last of all, and I can't stress this enough...realize that you are only hearing one side of the story in the media, as the media tends to do with all things. People should really try to get more facts or have more firsthand information before letting these outrageous opinions loose.
Oh yes, I nearly forgot to mention: I am not a friend or family member of Adam Keane, so don't go there. I just find it appalling, given what I know of the details not printed in the papers, that he is being persecuted so while she is held up on a pedestal. Ultimately, it doesn't affect my life any more than it does yours, and I do think they were *both* stupid in doing drugs and getting themselves into this situation in the first place. If anything, this case should be a shining example of the trouble that drugs can cause. Have a nice day - peace and out.
A couple of points:
First off, even if the woman has a heroin problem and is a bad mother, blah blah blah, does that mean she's not entitled to bring a case against the man who raped her? Is she somehow subhuman?
Secondly; I agree that the case is not clear cut at all. I did say this, and highlighted it, in the blog post. My concern was that the judge might have taken the "Ah, I was hammered" line as a valid excuse. It's not. If Mary Shannon was inebriated as well, it doesn't make it somehow less of a problem that she was raped. Drunk or otherwise inebriated women aren't fair game; they're not asking for it. They might be fucking stupid to put themselves in such a situation, but that doesn't mean they deserved what they got.
From what I read of the case (very recently), Mary Shannon was very distressed at realising that the man in bed with her wasn't her boyfriend, like she'd thought. Why the distress? It seems ridiculous to write it off as a change of heart on her part.
We're coming back to the "date rape" issue with this one. Yes, sometimes people are in such a state through use of alcohol and other drugs that they can't make responsible decisions... what I'm wondering here is how Adam Keane managed to have sex with Mary Shannon if he was so far gone as to be deemed NOT RESPONSIBLE for his actions.
Don't trust the media? In cases such as this, there are rather strict controls, both legal and moral, on the media's reporting of it. I don't read tabloids. Everything I learned about this case I learned it from broadsheet/state broadcasters, which seemed to me to be impartial given the emotional nature of the case.
Mary Shannon waived her right to anonymity after Adam Keane got a suspended sentence. The actions of an attention-seeking junkie? That doesn't seem likely, now does it?
'I heard, I think, rumour has it,' blah blah indeed. This man was found guilty was he not? Then the sentence should reflect his guilt.
I just find it appalling, given what I know of the details not printed in the papers, that he is being persecuted so while she is held up on a pedestal.
So rapists shouldn't be persecuted? And rape victims should be left to clean up their own mess? Or were you perhaps suggesting that people might think the judge was right to give the rapist a suspended sentence, because the victim was only a deaf junkie? Rape is a rape is a rape, no matter who commits it and who the victim is.
Did anyone else see the article on Indo's Weekend Magazine last Sat, where Mary Kenny is making excuses for the married man she was seeing as a young girl, and who raped her one night after she had passed out.
Already back in 2001 she has written about the same incident, solely blaming herself for drinking too much.
Maybe that's her way of dealing with the pain the date rape has caused, but I don't see the benefit of a prominent female journalist promoting such backwards attitudes.
Lauranen -
I too was raped as a teenager, and to this day (16 years later....damn, I got old fast!) still think it was my own gosh darn fault for making such poor decisions.
No matter if it's a stranger or someone you know, anyone who uses force or alcohol or drugs to extract sex from you is dead wrong.
It's also wrong to use someone's "prior bad acts" against them (I do believe that's illegal in the U.S., even for things like...murder). Who was on trial here? Adam or Mary? Mary should not be in a position of having to defend her lifestyle. Yeah, we all admit to making bad decisions when we are twisted, but...that doesn't mean that someone else has the right to take advantage of the situation. Using drugs or nearly having your children taken away does not in any way give someone permission to assault you.
Sorry, on a rant.
Your responses are exactly what I expected.
Every woman who is raped has a right to bring a case against the rapist, but this case is not 'every rape case' and has already been demonstrated, in various ways, how she is *just as responsible* as he is for getting herself into this predicament. I am a woman myself, so don't think I am unsympathetic to the cause. However, it's outrageous for a man to be found guilty for being too inebriated to make a responsible decision while the equally inebriated woman gets off.
Secondly, there was no physical indication of rape. What part of that don't you understand? It *all* boils down to HE said, SHE said. *She* has plenty of motivation to lay on the rape charges. There is NOTHING to prove that he forced her. Quite the opposite; if it hadn't have been Adam Keane, it might have been that bouncer, or whomever else she invited that night.
I agree that in many rape cases, some will claim, 'she asked for it', and I don't condone rape when the word ''no'' is given anyway. But **THIS** is not every other rape case, and it is fallacy to extend those generalities to THIS case.
Also, whether you'd like to believe it or not, there actually exist people in this world who *like* to be victims. As abbhorent as that sounds, there is a kind of warped fascination and association with being a victim. I'm sure you can look up many incidents of such scenarios on the net if you are so inclined.
Mary Shannon, from my personal and private knowledge of this woman, exhibits class A victim mentality, and she has been riding high on her 15 minutes of fame while you all use your generalized rape case cliches to keep her up there. Shame on you.
Yes, she was fucking stupid, and so was Adam Keane, fucking stupid. One of them gets ribbons of honor while the other gets verbally burned at the stake, for being fucking stupid. Just because most women in history are victims, doesn't mean they all are.
People should take responsibility for their own lives, and it starts with not putting themselves in positions where this ambiguity should occur. If anyone should hang for this, then they BOTH should. Or NEITHER of them should.
As painful as it is for rape victims to recount their experience and more or less offer proof or evidence that it occurred, there is a reason why this happens. It's so innocent men are not put in jail for a crime that they didn't commit. All of you don't know Mary Shannon or Adam Keane, and base all of your information off of what you've read in the papers. I am privy to some inside background on this case involving them both, and as a result, the history and reputation of Mary Shannon does indeed play a central role in this case, not the least of which was waving the 'rape flag' against another man in the past.
Good luck with your judgments. I hope they serve you well. Bring on the torches!
By the way, I find it very telling that one of you would say that you felt the news stories on this subject was impartial.. I would be very interested to know by what yardstick you measure impartiality? The only information given in the news is that of interviews with Mary Shannon and the public and politicians. The other key person in this case, Adam Keane, hasnt been interviewed at all. Good thing you arent in charge of writing the history books.
This is what I see: woman with a bad history who has knowingly lied about another rape charge in the past, and who has since been heard telling stories about other people around Adam Keane, versus a man who has no prior record and is known in every sector as being a decent human being.
People can be so blind when it comes to gender. Sometimes sexism works two ways.
Anonymous... how hard is it to choose a moniker, by the way?.. get a fucking grip on yourself.
Your absolute contempt for everyone else who's just going on reported facts beggar belief. Great that you have personal knowledge of what a harlot Mary Shannon is! The rest of us have what was deemed important at the case to go on. This is the reason the opinions of the crowd are kept out of the courtroom, you know.
The fact that you seem to think that you can bundle every rape case into a single scenario is very puzzling. The Shannon/Keane case is atypical? WHAT'S A TYPICAL RAPE CASE? He said, she said? MANY rape cases go on he said, she said. Rape within marriage or an abusive relationship, for example? Not every rape victim is covered in physical scars.
Fatmammmycat sums it up perfectly, and you're entirely missing her point. We're not here to say whether Adam Keane is guilty or not, no matter what a fine upstanding young fella you think he is. HE WAS FOUND GUILTY, and his sentence should reflect that. In this case the judge seemed to be unable to make up his mind - guilty, but unpunished? What kind of sense does that make?
Just to inform you; I've not seen or heard any interviews with Ms. Shannon. I've written this blog post on RTE reporting, the only way any of us outside your "personal realm of interest" would hear about the case.
Imagine a character similar to the character you're painting for Ms. Shannon; she's hysterical, vindictive, etc. That doesn't mean we shouldn't investigate her claims if she says she's been raped. Not taking her seriously amounts to "verbal burning at the stake", no?
I completely agree that cases of rape should be investigated. What happens on this blog is not investigation; it is pure judgment based on lack of facts. The point being: unless you know something about something, you ought to keep your mouth shut. Nearly everyone on this thread has damned Adam Keane to hell and back without knowing the details. Find something more useful to do with your time. Is this seriously how you go form your opinions about things?
This *is* an atypical rape case, and the sentencing reflects that.
I'm going to take my own advice and exit this place. I've had enough of your narrowmindedness. Hopefully none of you are religious; your god would be ashamed of your attitudes. Judge not lest ye be judged. Have a nice one!
Judge not lest you be judged? Is that not exactly what you're doing?
Hope the cake of hypocrisy doesn't get stuck on your throat on the way down.
There are earthworms in my garden more religious than me, but even so, I have a clear conscience on my commentry on this case. I took a very clear angle and pointed out more than once that I was only going on what I'd read in news reports.
The village mag site has a transcript drawn from the sentence hearing.
Might help,or not.
Good for you, swearing lady. Glad someone hear illustrates some degree of truth.
I just had to come back because it's like a trainwreck, to be honest. I can't help but look...lol... my decision to even post on this forum was made very deliberately. I knew that everyone had already formed opinions about the subject (perhaps aside from swearing lady, don't know her too well, but she seems to be the most logical of the group) based on news reports.
I was interested to see if learning new, and more personal and immediate knowledge, of the case, from a basically neutral party, would serve to cause people to question their own acceptance of media coverage.
I was not surprised to see most pepole clinging onto old cliches about rape cases and generally defending their erroneous conclusions that were based entirely on media demonstration.
A small part of me hoped that people would come to realize that there's more about life than what they see in the media, but I was sadly disappointed, once again.
Also, on the subject of the judicial system, I find it interesting that you're willing to accept the judgment of the jury, after I've offered information that wasn't even present at trial, and still hold tenaciously to some ideal 'the jury found him GUILTY' as if that is the word of God. You were offered information that the jury was not, and yet you still held onto your convictions, because God forbid that you might be wrong, especially when that all-sensitive word ''rape'' is uttered.
Rape sucks, but not all rape cases are this one. Do you not realize that inserting the ideas, 'what about date rape' and 'what about...blah blah' has NOTHING to do with THIS case. We are talking about *this case*, not others. Quit waving your banner of generalized rape cliches at this case as if it's proof that you are correct. It's sort of like using the words in the bible, as *proof* that the bible is correct. Preposterous.
Exercise some real scrutiny before you start mouthing off about things of which you don't know all about. Nearly everyone of you were willing to put your torches to the stake of Adam Keane, and that makes me very afraid. Afraid for you and afraid for me. I hope to God none of you are falsely accused of something and the media is on the other person's side in the matter.
There's a big difference between forced rape, and two people who were fucked out of their goards, one of which (Mary Shannon) inviting more than one person back to her house, where her children slept, to engage in sex.
She made a fucked up decision based out of being totally drunk/drugged out of her goard. Adam Keane made a fucked up decision in accepting her invitation.
They should BOTH be poster children for anti-drinking/anti-drug campaigns. That's all I have to say about it.
Also, I just read the transcript in question. The part ommitted was that she *invited* more than one male person back to her house *for sex*.
He followed her invitation, and midway through coitus, perhaps sobered, perhaps not, realized he wasn't who she wanted and freaked out.
That's not Adam Keane's fault and he should spend zero time in jail as a result. She ought to start giving talks about how dangerous it is to go pubbing, drinking, and end up doing fucked up things that she regrets the next day. End of story.
Fucking ridiculous that he should burn for this.
Just read a related blogging forum about ecstasy and alcohol. I assure you, growing up in Las Vegas as I did, that ecstasy does not in any way impede the possibility of arousal and sex. You're trying to say that he is such a jacked-up fella that he would get off on getting it on with a 'passed out' chic. Bullshit. She invited more than one male back to her house.
It's preposterous how the media is highlighting the idea that she is 'mother of three' who was innocently 'asleep' in her house at 10 pm, when in fact ,she'd invited more than one man to her place for sex.
Bullshit story.
I assure you, growing up in Las Vegas as I did, that ecstasy does not in any way impede the possibility of arousal and sex.
Another one going against fact and the research of Nicholas Saunders amongst others. You seem to be implying that I said the man HADN'T been necking yokes. Go back and read my argument again, then. The angle I took on this case was one of fear that Adam Keane's taking of Ecstasy had somehow been used as an excuse. "I'd necked a yoke, m'lud, so I was insufferably horny; it wasn't me, it was the MDMA!" Which would have been absolute and utter bullshit.
If you fancy a night of ultra-heightened sexual pleasure, you don't go ingesting MDMA, because you're likely to be unable to maintain an erection for as long as you need. Hence the hybrid known as Sextacy; E and Viagra.
I'll tell you what you see at raves and parties. Lots and lots of kissing, and then lots and lots more yokes.
Anyway...
Also, on the subject of the judicial system, I find it interesting that you're willing to accept the judgment of the jury, after I've offered information that wasn't even present at trial, and still hold tenaciously to some ideal 'the jury found him GUILTY' as if that is the word of God.
I suggest, then, that you bring your anonymous complaints to someone who could do something about it. Clearly you feel there's been a mistrial. Funnily enough, I think it's quite right that past personal histories aren't brought before the jury, as the jury need to make an impartial, clear judgement, not jump on the past sins of anyone. Mary Shannon's past ( as vague and he said, she said as you're making it out to be) was not taken into account in this case. Mr. Keane, as far as I can gather (and I've not read the transcript yet) was bloody lucky the judge took his background into account.
I still stand by my previous statement/point. If someone is found GUILTY of rape, surely a custodial sentence should be given? Was the judge in this case disregarding the jury entirely? It's all quite confusing; it's as if the jury's input was not at all valued, a waste of their time and the courts. If Mr. Keane believed himself to be innocent of the charges, then indeed he's entitled to be tried in front of a jury; but if said jury finds him guilty, why does he go pretty much unpunished? That's the question people were getting riled up about. We, the citizens of this state, pay the judiciary to make decisions on our behalfs, and if the decision seems strange, erroneous or just plain wrong, do we have a right to know the reasoning behind it? This information was not available to us at the time of the judgement, which is why we gathered here, scratching our virtual heads at the oddness of it all.
I don't think ANYONE here claimed that all rape cases are the same. My point was that EVERY rape case is different, not just this one. It seems that you think there should have been special consideration given to this case because it was so unique; I like to think that every case is heard as a unique case, and every case is judged on its particular circumstances and facts.
One more point. If Mary Shannon had such a wanton lifestyle (you did say you'd heard second-hand information on that too, from someone closer to the case; to someone like me who knows nothing of either party, that sounds more rabid as anyone verbally hanging Adam Keane on the outcome of a trial), don't you think that it was essential, for a fair trial, to keep her past out of it, so as to prevent people writing her claims off as attention-seeking hysteria before she'd ever given her evidence?
thems some fair points Anon.
ya see that version of events works far better as an explanation of what happened.
Sweary and al the other females out there ye are falling for this mary shannon birds line about the rape and her being asleep in the house with her kids etc... as reported by RTE, no mention was initialy made as to how the 2 met that night, or what prompted Mr Keane to enter her house, well being invited over for a quick shag explains a lot.
also was a rapekit done at the copshop or Hospital? without this piece of evidence I would be inclined to say that there is more than reasonable doubt that she made it up.
its all very easy for Women to cry rape when they realise they've done something stupid and they need to coverup before their boyfirend finds out. however being the poor pleb who's life is destroyed by some lying bitch aint that much fun.
she only has to say rape once for the stigma to attach, he can spend the rest of his life giving his version of events, but fair and liberal minded people like yerself will still cry for his castation because he 'might' be a rapist
Podge
these comment thingys are'nt workin right
Oh and as for the drug situation,
I have had ragin horns from pills and speed, only problem wa an inability to blow the load, ya could be rock hard and strokin for hours but not one drop.
So I too would question your (and this scientisty bloke you like to quote) knowledge on the workings of the male anatomy when subjected to narcotic influences.
Two points.
If he's so bloody innocent, why was he found guilty? Jesus, are you missing everyone's point or what?
And Nicholas Saunders some "scientisty" bloke? Hahahahahaha!
Lets put it this way, actually.
Compare the atmosphere in a drink-fueled nightclub - it's a fucking meat market. Girls especially are seen as objects, and those who turn down sexual offers are called every name under the sun by increasingly scary young fellas.
Now think about the atmosphere at a "rave" (in quotation marks because the term is so bloody outdated). Are you likely to be felt up against your will by a crowd of braying fellas? Nope. People aren't there to score. People on yokes are too busy loving the fucking world than fucking the fucking world, if you know what I mean.
Good for you and your stalk, Podge. This is why phrases such as "in general" were coined, you know.
Oh, also. The amount of MDMA in pills these days is generally nowhere near the level found in pills around the late eighties/ early nineties. A surprising amount of pills are more speed than MDMA. Which naturally would make any excuse used in court on the backs of the little speckled fellas a lot murkier and shakier, etc.
And if judges only knew half what they're supposed to on the effects/street prices/current state of illegal drugs, wouldn't Irish courts be fairer places? They'd obviously be more bloody difficult places too; God forbid the judiciary accept that nothing's clear cut (excuse the pun) with street drugs.
well thats why I asked about the evidence, if its like anon said and he was invited back, albeit by a very drunken mary who apparently 'mistooke him for someone else' till they were mid deed??????????
theres a lot of questions here and both sdes will eventualy come out, who knows maybe he really is a sick twisted pervert who gets off on sneaking into deaf womenshomes and trying to rape them after a night on the lash.
There's evidence permitted at the trial, though, and word-of-mouth, which isn't reliable at the best of times...
If Anon truly feels there's been a miscarriage of justice, she should raise her points with someone who may be able to advise better than a load of strangers on a blog board.
True, but the problem is that I ain't Adam Keane and am not the one to make that decision. He has recently been made aware of the bouncer's information and will do with it what he will. Time will tell, and as it's said, 'We're working on it'.
From what I can see of the transcript, no mention was made that she was completely blocked or at a party. You'd think, as a juror, that she just got home from Sunday church. That is not the case. The information was not all there for which the jury could make an informed decision, from all that I can see, and as a result of that, the ''guilty'' verdict of the jury means nothing to me, and holding that up as evidence of logic and reason in this case, is laughable at best.
The jury took five hours to even reach that verdict and had to be ''advised'' by the judge in any case, to **reach** that verdict. All of this spells a lot of fishy water to me.
Good for the other rapists out there who might accrue a ''mandatory sentencing'' as a result of Mary Shannon's case and its timely political appeal. Too fuckin bad for Adam Keane, who will no longer be able to walk the streets of his hometown in Ennis because of this.
On a more personal note, I think Miss Shannon ought to be majorly ashamed of herself and she ought to spend some time in jail herself for freely throwing around these rape charges at, the very least, two men in her life. She has a known reputation for inviting men and putting out to men. All so she can play the ''rape victim'' in the end and severely handicap another person's life in their own hometown as a result. Double shame on her, as far as I'm concerned. However, from my understanding of life, what goes around, comes around, and she will at some point in her life come to realize what she's done, even if she's too high at the moment to grasp the concept.
She might have done some good for future REAL rape victims as a result of this political ''mandatory sentencing'' thing, and for that, I guess one can think that some good came of it. Too bad that Adam Keane has to bear the cross that brings this about, however.
She's also badmouthed other members of Adam Keane's family including glaring at a cousin of his from across the street for no particular reason except that he's related to Adam Keane. She's certaintly enjoying her fifteen minutes of fame, isn't she? LOL... what goes around...
Found out more info about the previous sexual assault charge Mary Shannon made on someone: she accused a teacher of molesting her. There was no evidence concerning the matter, and it was thrown out of court. His life was ruined in Ireland as a result of her accusation, and he left the country. He paid her money to quit harassing him on the matter.
Funny how the word ''rape'' automatically conjures all kinds of allies, who don't even know the circumstances.
She knows this very well, I gather, and uses it to her benefit. As far as I'm concerned, she is an insult to real rape victims. Shame on her.
Post a Comment