Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Avani Terraces - Greenway
Life is looking up

Paedophile Protection – sex offender guilty but not named

By weeziepops - 15 July 2009 87

Once again, the Canberra courts have taken a harsh stand. 

The ABC reports on a 22 year old who pled guilty to having sex with a 14 year old. 

In response, the courts have given him exactly NO jail time, even though he “still has some distance to go with respect to his attitude.”

Any Legal Eagle Rioters able to explain why he can’t be named?

UPDATED: The Canberra Times is identifying the perpetrator as Carlos Carcach, of Macgregor.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
87 Responses to
Paedophile Protection – sex offender guilty but not named
farnarkler 8:51 pm 15 Jul 09

The Mad Max conundrum. Good thinking banshee. Perhaps the two are from South of Mt Taylor, in which case they’re related, and that’s why the judge suppressed the names.

bd84 8:49 pm 15 Jul 09

Given the lack of details of the story, I tend to think there is more to the case than open and shut.

screaming banshee 8:34 pm 15 Jul 09

My mum had a solution for people like this. Put them in a small wooden shack with their balls in a vice, give them a blunt knife and set the shack on fire.

gertel 8:13 pm 15 Jul 09

What has that got to do with anything?

Perhaps because if the abuser is known or related to the victim then naming the ‘perp’ can also give away the identity of the victim?

Spideydog 8:13 pm 15 Jul 09

I don’t think WillowJim meant anything by that remark. I think he was just making the correlation that most of these are perpetrated by a known person to the victim and therefore is easier to identify the victim if the name of the offender is released.

Correct me if I’m wrong?

Granny 7:53 pm 15 Jul 09

WillowJim said :

Most child abuse (or statutory rape, if that’s what this was) is committed by people related or known to the victim.

What has that got to do with anything?

WillowJim 7:41 pm 15 Jul 09

Spideydog said :

They can’t name him as it may identify the juvenile if they did.

Exactly. Leaving aside the issue of whether he deserved time behind bars, naming him would probably hurt the victim even more. Most child abuse (or statutory rape, if that’s what this was) is committed by people related or known to the victim.

Spideydog 6:24 pm 15 Jul 09

They can’t name him as it may identify the juvenile if they did.

Granny 5:49 pm 15 Jul 09

Just as they’re protecting all the other 14 year olds in the region from this internet predator and convicted child sex offender.

taco 5:48 pm 15 Jul 09

This sounds a little grey – from the report the sex was consensual. It’s not clear who made the complaint.

For all we know the girls could have listed their ages on Bebo as 16/17/18 and the man may have thought it was legal (I’ve seen some 14 year olds who I wouldn’t be able to tell if they are over the age of consent or not)

This may well have been his only offense and by publishing his name he would be stuck with a sex offender stigma that could be impossible to shake off (something that those falsely accused and later cleared often never do)

This doesn’t sound like some 40+ year old preadator, but a young man who made a misjudgment against a societal norm

Either that or he knew full well of their ages and makes a habit of picking up under 16 year olds

sunshine 5:46 pm 15 Jul 09

however i reckon if he plead guilty – name and shame and save another young person

miz 5:45 pm 15 Jul 09

Probably to do with his age, which would indicate good rehabilitation prospects (and it is much easier to attend rehabilitative programs if not being hounded by the media and others).

There may also be mitigating circumstances – for example, was he aware of the girl’s age at the time, etc. The article appears to indicate that the intercourse was consensual.

While in no way excusing the offence, there can be grey areas in these kinds of cases where both victim and perp are young – and it can be complicated by parents, who can be somewhat naive about their own children’s actions, wanting to press charges.

Also, just a guess, but he is probably still living with family, so a suppression order also protects the family (who are also victims of the crime) from vigilantes who like to take the law into their own hands.

It’s usually a good idea to accept judge’s decisions about these kinds of issues, as they are cognizant with the full circumstances surrounding the offence.

sunshine 5:43 pm 15 Jul 09

maybe his name was not released to protect the identity of the 14 year old??

Granny 5:35 pm 15 Jul 09

Ozi said :

What a joke ruling. This guy gets a fully suspended jail term and has to do a course. The 14 year old lives with it for the rest of her life.

+1

Ozi 5:29 pm 15 Jul 09

The only reasons I know of is that a) he wasn’t convicted or b) the magistrate made an order to suppress his name from being released.

As he WAS convicted, it must be the latter. Probably because it was his first serious offence. (Well, first offense he was caught for.)

What a joke ruling. This guy gets a fully suspended jail term and has to do a course. The 14 year old lives with it for the rest of her life.

1 2 3 6

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au

Search across the site