Paedophile Protection – sex offender guilty but not named

weeziepops 16 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?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
87 Responses to Paedophile Protection – sex offender guilty but not named
Filter
Order
« Previous 1 3 4 5
fgzk fgzk 9:41 pm 25 Dec 09

Tooks, Zilog could also be a paedophile. They generally have no idea how their behaviour impacts on the victim.

My guess foul troll.

Tooks Tooks 7:40 pm 25 Dec 09

Zilog said :

And the fourteen year-old’s penalty for willingly engaging in criminal behaviour is what precisely…. ?

The law is an especially sexist and maggoty ass.

You are either a troll or an imbecile.

Zilog Zilog 10:49 am 25 Dec 09

And the fourteen year-old’s penalty for willingly engaging in criminal behaviour is what precisely…. ?

The law is an especially sexist and maggoty ass.

peterh peterh 11:25 am 17 Jul 09

regardless of the label you put on him, how did his name become public? isn’t that a bigger issue here? if the offender, as per the original article could not be named, why has he been named? did the court allow the naming, or not?

Don’t get me wrong, I think he has gotten off far too lightly – I would have expected that he got a severe sentence for his actions, not a stern talking to. He groomed this girl for sex. this shows me that he knew her age and was prepared to ignore it.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 9:58 am 17 Jul 09

Fine: he’s an evil kiddy-fiddling paedophile just like Dolly Dunn; burn him burn him burn him.

weeziepops weeziepops 9:48 am 17 Jul 09

Sorry – as many people KNOW – missed a word.

weeziepops weeziepops 9:48 am 17 Jul 09

I’m not missing the point. I’m just disagreeing with it. As many people who have dealt with sexual abuse and sex crimes, the age difference matters as well as the actual ages involved.

chewy14 chewy14 9:46 am 17 Jul 09

weeziepops said :

A friend pointed out to me that girls can reach puberty at age 9. So anyone who has sex with a 9 year old, as long as she has reached puberty, is NOT a paedophile.

Or you could just take every case on its merits.
Whatever works for you.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 9:45 am 17 Jul 09

I think you’re missing the point weeziepops. Apart from that fact that it’s extremely rare for a girl to reach puberty at 9, the definition of paedophile proffered was “a paedophile is someone who is *attracted to* prepubescent children”.

Would you call a 17-year-old who had sex with a 15-year-old a paedophile?

weeziepops weeziepops 9:35 am 17 Jul 09

A friend pointed out to me that girls can reach puberty at age 9. So anyone who has sex with a 9 year old, as long as she has reached puberty, is NOT a paedophile.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 9:33 am 17 Jul 09

I think the point Jakez was trying to make is that by labelling this bloke a ‘paedophile’, the instant reaction is to think of him as a ‘kiddy-fiddler’ (someone who gets off on very young – prepubescent – children) and the conversation is confined to that stereotype.

In this instance, the act was completely dodgy/loathsome/blah-blah-blah [insert-mandatory-‘won’t-someone think-of-the-children’-statement here], but no matter how you look at it, it’s not an instance of the stereotypical predatory kiddy fiddler, it’s probably some dumb bogan who has sex with young teens because he can’t make it with a lady and/or he’s a bit touched in the head. Applying the ‘paedophile’ label is counterproductive when discussing the case.

But if you could find out his religion, that would be cool. At very least it would give all of us an opportunity to do some religious scapegoating.

weeziepops weeziepops 9:01 am 17 Jul 09

Sorry. I should have been much clearer when describing this man and how his actions should be classified. I’ll try to find out his race, religion, hair colour and the type of car he drives so I can be clearer about what and who he is.

chewy14 chewy14 8:59 am 17 Jul 09

Special G said :

Still people attempting to justify how a 20yr man old grooms and has sex with a 14yr old girl. Then saying letting him off as it’s the first time is a load of bollocks. Throw the book at them.

1st offence on minor crime sure cautions and community service.
Any serious crime or repeat offenders don’t get that luxury.

Are you saying that you would want sentences raised across the board or are you saying that if you commit any serious crime you go straight to jail for a long time?

I would happily see all sentences raised and people sent away for crimes like this, but the judge still has to have leeway to be differentiate between levels of crime.
You can’t possibly be saying that this crime should be treated the same as say the Marist ones.

chewy14 chewy14 8:47 am 17 Jul 09

Tooks said :

jakez said :

The morality of this persons actions and the justice of the decision aside (I have not read the article or judgment), I don’t think paedophile is the correct descriptive term. 14 would make him an ephebophile would it not?

Definition of a paedophile: an adult who is sexually attracted to children.

Sorry, a paedophile is someone who is attracted to prepubescent children which was Jakez’s point. Not that it really matters.

Tooks Tooks 8:41 am 17 Jul 09

jakez said :

The morality of this persons actions and the justice of the decision aside (I have not read the article or judgment), I don’t think paedophile is the correct descriptive term. 14 would make him an ephebophile would it not?

Definition of a paedophile: an adult who is sexually attracted to children.

Ozi Ozi 8:32 am 17 Jul 09

Thumper said :

Mandatory reporting.

that’s it. Very simple in the end.

Yup. It’s taken very seriously in my job (we are “mandated persons”) and if you fail to make a notification, not only are you liable for prosecution, you are liable to lose your job. You can’t simply “tell the parents” and then hope they deal with it, ant. Not with something this serious. Not when a young child’s life is on the line.

Thumper Thumper 10:45 pm 16 Jul 09

Mandatory reporting.

that’s it. Very simple in the end.

YapYapYap YapYapYap 10:40 pm 16 Jul 09

ahappychappy said :

Hmmmm, Ozi I don’t know whether you’re entirely correct. I agree with your point(s), but figured I’d state a few things.

I know of a situation very similar to this, however the school was not legally obliged to notify the AFP. I think their obligation is to notify the legal parents/guardians, and if it then goes to the AFP from the parents so-be-it. Anyone know definintely? I’d like to know to tell you the truth.

As to the offender knowing the girl was underage, he may not have. Admittedly, there is not much one can take from that defence, as it is still a rather large and disturbing age gap. If the offender admits that he knew she was underage, I agree whole heartedly that he should be dragged through the mud on his face. However, I also remember growing up a lot of girls who lied about their ages to “attract” older guys.

I’m not trying to upset anyone or to defend the bloke, however we don’t know the full details. There are definitely a few grey-patches.

ahappychappy,

The Children and Young Peoples Act prescribes a range of people to be Mandated Reporters, including among others, teachers. Mandated Reporters are obliged under law (with penalties applying if a report is not made) to report to Care and Protection if they know, or even suspect, that a child is/has been neglected or abused. Care and Protection then have a range of obligations to meet from that point on.

Mandated Reporters include teachers, police officers, doctors, nurses, other health professionals, ambulance drivers, childcare workers, sporting coaches, scout leaders and others.

Hope that clarifies things.

Ozi Ozi 9:40 pm 16 Jul 09

BerraBoy68 said :

Sounds good to me.

I hate these “I only raped her a little bit, and she looks older than she is” type of excuses.

Call me old fashioned but I prefer the “Crucifiction?!”

+1

Spideydog Spideydog 9:01 pm 16 Jul 09

Special G said :

Still people attempting to justify how a 20yr man old grooms and has sex with a 14yr old girl. Then saying letting him off as it’s the first time is a load of bollocks. Throw the book at them.

1st offence on minor crime sure cautions and community service.
Any serious crime or repeat offenders don’t get that luxury.

+1

« Previous 1 3 4 5

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site