Four accused of sexual offences

jpace

Sep 21st 2008, 18:05

Why is it that in all other similar cases, particularly concerning minors, the court witheld the names of the accused????

Do the law courts in Gozo work differently? or perhaps have they finally realised that protecting such offenders is encouraging others to do similar acts!!!

Not publishing the names of the accused to 'protect the victim' was only using the victim is a human shield to actually protect such offenders and no one else!

John Azzopardi

Sep 21st 2008, 14:18

The bottom line here is that there was a rape that took place. The names should always be published to protect other citizens from these potential criminals. I think most people in an given town in Malta or Gozo know right away who the culprits are. If these individuals are then found guilty, they should be put on a registry. ALthougth, I doubt how much weight a registry will have in Malta and Gozo. On top of this all, if some of these individuals have already had a brush with the law, they should be given tough sentences to deter further crimes. Of course the way things work in Malta and Gozo, I doubt they will get much jail time. Such a shame.

Andrew Azzopardi

Sep 21st 2008, 12:19

@Gillian sims

I agree that the Sex Offenders Register (even though being far from perfect) is a good system where professionals and job employers have access to criminal records. When used well the system does work to protect children. However the protective system is very different to what is used in the US where child paedophiles are known to the public.

I think Malcolm Tortell shows his experience of working with children in his comments. Naming and shaming does not protect children. In fact research shows that isolating sex offenders increases the likelihood of re-offending. While protective measures need to be taken - like minimizing direct acces to children - isolation is not really the answer. Education and therapy can help some sex offenders towards rehabilittion. The so-called Megan's Law in the US did not have a significant effect on the frequency of sex offences, which to me showes that it does not really work.

simon galea

Sep 21st 2008, 10:32

Irrelevant to the nature of the crime, I believe that the name of the accused should never be published. Once found guilty then their names ought to be published for obvious reasons already mentioned above.
Let us consider a particular situation. A fifteen year old girl who fabricates a rape resulting in an innnocent person being arrested and taken up to court. Apart from serving months in jail (unless granted bail), this person is labelled paedophile, pervert...etc. Although finally proven innocent, the labelling remains and no compensation whatsoever is provided for the days spent behind bars. Do you call that justice?
Please let us all keep this fundamental human right in mind: ' innocent until proven guilty' and distinguish between accused and proven guilty. After all we all heard and read about frame ups and other fabricated stories occuring all around the globe. Let us all hope and pray that none of us will face this horrible ordeal in his/her lifetime. Having said that, I repeat that those proven guilty should get what they deserve.

Vincent Galea

Sep 21st 2008, 09:39

In this day and age where sex is abundant before us to see and hear in parks, on television , in tinted cars and in all other imaginable places you can imagine between adults, between teeny bopers, between married men and teenage girls , between mecaphiles and their lovely cars. No news is anymore shocking.

Malcolm Tortell

Sep 21st 2008, 09:21

@ Tim
Doesn't work. What generally happens is that if the perpetrator is ostracised, he then acts out of spite with the degree of the crime escalating. Naming and shaming is counter-productive and works against the interests of children. Also protection can easily become revenge. A register should be accesible to certain people who can monitor perpetrators and not to the general public, also to reduce the risk of people turning vigilante.
The best way to protect children is education. We either want to protect children or take revenge. The two are not the same.

Gillian sims

Sep 21st 2008, 00:08

I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY FOR MARK CASSAR THAT THE SEX OFFENDERS REGISTER IN THE COUNTRIES WHERE IT IS OPERATIONAL IS NOT FOR QUEING UP TO LOOK AT . IT IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO THE APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONALS. ACCESS IS IMMEDIATE AND BELIEVE ME IT DOES WORK! I AM A RETIRED PERSON WHO WORKED FOR MANY YEARS IN THIS FIELD AND WHILST NO SYSTEM IS PERFECT.....I ONLY WISH IT WERE...AT LEAST IT AFFORDS SOME PROTECTION AGAINST THE WRONG PEOPLE GAINING ACCESS TO CHILDREN.........VIA.SCHOOLS/YOUTH CLUBS ETC.

Joseph Schembri

Sep 20th 2008, 23:35

For the record - ages of consent in Europe range from 13 to 17, the average being around 15. Malta is the ONLY European country with an age of consent of 18. Meanwhile, here people can marry at 16, but sex is illegal between a person of 16 and one of 18. Crazy isn't it?

When are we going to lower Age of Consent to 16? I am convinced that people in touch with today's world, including most officers high up in the police force agree that this should happen.

A 20 year old man in Malta will be accused of corruption of minors if he so much as does a little more than just hold hands with his 15 year old girlfriend and for some reason she later decides to hurt him. He will probably be thrown in prison and his whole life will be ruined. Had the same young man met an even younger girlfriend of 14, just 60 miles away from here in Sicily, they would have been able to do anything with no repercussions because the age of consent there is 14.

Chris Grillo

Sep 20th 2008, 19:24

While I agree that were it rape, the individuals should be locked away, I have to disagree a bit (a lot actually) about the ages of consent, and about the physiology of children these days.My eldest daughter is 14 yrs old, but I would hardly call her a child! She is a fully grown young woman, and her reasoning is on a par with young women of the age of 17/18 of bygone years.

Mind,I am only saying this only because children have developed immensely in the last twenty years or so, and not suggesting 14yr olds go hither and thither. But shouldn't this be taken into consideration?

Here in Joann Garden Tarxien, twelve and thirteen year old girls and boys can be seen roaming the garden until way way past MY bedtime...3am is normal for them. And we have seen with our eyes these children waiting in line for a quick one in the gazebo. So children aren't innocent anymore.

You might call me a hard-nosed cynic,but if it's the truth, I don't really care what anyone says!

As always, better education all around is the only answer. Look at HI5!

Joseph Schembri

Sep 20th 2008, 19:16

Adults having sex with children is a crime, as is stealing (e.g. cheating with tax), bigamy, slander, and above all murder. Mustn't society be protected from all those criminals? If we are going to argue in favour of a name and shame society (we already have it actually) then it should apply to all crimes.

Tim Ripard

Sep 20th 2008, 13:26

@ Cousin Malcolm
Surely naming and shaming is at least a two-edged sword. Whilst it may create resentment in the perpetrator it also gives normal, law-abiding citizens the opportunity to give such slime a very wide berth. By not naming, on the other hand, one gives the opportunity to the pervert to blend in and get the opportunity to repeat his perverted acts. On the balance, I feel society has the right to know about and avoid such scum. Naming and shaming will also act as a deterrent - perverts will think twice about their actions if they know they're liable to lead to life-long rejection by society.
At the same time, I'm all for help, support and counselling being given to those man enough to realise they have a problem and want to deal with it.

Joseph Schembri

Sep 20th 2008, 11:36

I agree with Malcolm Tortell. I have no morbid interest in knowing the names of the alleged perpetrators. I'm afraid that all the people baying for blood are succumbing to some of our basest animal instincts. What separates us from the other animals is that most of us have been educated to deny or at least keep at bay what comes naturally to us: things like revenge, sex with young healthy persons and hatred of what is different.

I find that the study of Ethology gives one unshackled insights into parallels in human behaviour and is very useful before one becomes too judgmental of the actions or thoughts of us humans.

malcolm tortell

Sep 20th 2008, 09:31

@ Marc Cassar:
taking nothing away from the seriousness of the alleged crimes naming and shaming is a very good way to practically guarantee a repeat offence. Naming and shaming does not protect children. What it does is create a level of resentment in the perpetrator that acts as a spur to offend again and all too often in a more serious manner.

marc cassar

Sep 19th 2008, 23:43

@ All
THE FACT HERE IS THAT 4 ADULT MALES have Raped, Corrupted and held a CHILD against her will. By definition a 15year old is a CHILD - refer to:- "The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child.... locally".
Conclusion 4 ADULTS did disgusting things to a CHILD –
In the eyes of the UN, there is no distinction if the victim was 1year old or 17 year old, all are protected by various Laws, incl UN.
Still strongly believe in Name & Shame.

Franco Farrugia

Sep 19th 2008, 20:48

@ Dr John Zammit: Abortion is still abortion, whatever the context, in my opinion.

P Scicluna

Sep 19th 2008, 20:42

I am sorry to hear that people agree on the reasoning that 15 year olds urge to have sexual behaviours with much older guys... This may be all true... but!!! do you agree on the fact that 15 year olds who are relatively considered as vulnerable may be manipulated, by all means, to have such sexual acts...? we must not forget that such reasoning of yours can be an indusing force and an enabling master piece in leading a mentality of "accepting" without even knowing it. May I also add that, we must not generalize!!! had it been an open argument I would urge you to fulfill, enlighten and elaborate on the subject... But we do not know the girl, therefore arguments which are generalizable are in my opinion sinful!!!

Noel Enriquez

Sep 19th 2008, 20:22

Dear Mr. Azzoppardi,

From a legal point of view, Mrs. Caruana Galizia has it right this time. Nothing more to add than what she already wrote. The law sees a person under the age of 18 as a minor. Morally from the public's point of view, persons who seek such minors are perverts and sick. However for the law it's a different matter, these persons are arraigned as having committed sexual acts with a minor not paedophilia. A paedophile is a person who is attracted to children. I do not think a 15 year old girl is a little innocent child. I extensively condemn such actions and hope these persons go severely punished! But one may ask, are they only to blame? Let's all be honest and go back in time, what is the average age of the first sexual encounter most of us had? Of course partners were of our same age group differentiating us from these four individuals, but it shows that most persons seek intercourse at the age of 16! Psychiatry and the law are two separate and different entities -unfortunately, because I think you are very right from the pschiatric point of view.

P Scicluna

Sep 19th 2008, 20:08

The case Caruana Galizia is actually talking about happened in Gozo in
fact. And same people are involved... And by the way, the fact that girls
choose to have sexual behaviour with older men is not solely, exclusively and
exhaustively "biex jikbru" but to feel possessed and have a protective
figure. May I add that we should by no means judge or point at the girl,
because first and foremost we do not know her and secondly she is not to
be pointed at by no means... Even if sexual acts were done with her consent, we should question how she was manipulated, why and keep in mind that the older men involved should know better than doing a 15 year old - whom is not capable of taking such decision. Therefore, please lets discuss the issue without putting on her any sort/s of guilty, shame or injustice.

S Grima

Sep 19th 2008, 19:50

Today, a 15 year old is considered a MINOR and these men are arrested for 'holding her against her will' and rape. I agree with Andrew Azzopardi that these men have allegedly committed a very serious crime and they are paedophiles, hence they deserve to be punished (whatever their age).

Alexandra Borg

Sep 19th 2008, 19:07

I agree with J Schembri..... my 15 year old neice was here some time ago chatting with her friends on hi5 and some of ther nicks and pics left me flabbergasted...... they are all the same age and frequent same school

s.muscat

Sep 19th 2008, 18:19

Thank you Mr Andrew Azzopardi for answering my question..and DCG, "God forbid every case on sex offenders noqodu nghidu she went willingly into the mess or that 15 year old girl actually seek out sexual attention and sexual intercourse

Joseph Schembri

Sep 19th 2008, 17:55

As I have done in other posts I invite those who think that 'minors' (under 18 in our law, just like Vietnam, Gabon, Turkey et al)) are as pure as the driven snow to visit the hi5 network (http://hi5.com). It is very popular with Maltese young people who put their pictures and comments there. I wish that I could list here some direct links but that would be unkind.

This networking site was first mentioned by another poster, but just be careful, you might be accused of viewing child pornography by some do-gooder if you look at the profiles of some of the people there! I know that the police are aware of this network... I wish that our judiciary would visit it too before they become too impressed by the innocence of some 'child'.

Joseph Schembri

Sep 19th 2008, 17:40

I agree with Charles J Buttigieg - age of consent of 18 in Malta is ridiculously high. Nowhere else in Europe is the limit set at such a level. It should be lowered to 16 which is still slightly above the European average. The high age of consent is causing too much trouble here and people are being sent to prison and worse because of it.

Andrew Azzopardi, I don't know what kind of 'practitioner' you are but how can you call a 20 year old who has sex with a 15 year old a paedophile? It happens all the time all over the world. Would you call George Washington (and a couple more American presidents) paedophiles? I've just read a short biography and he appears to have had a relationship (+ a baby) with what today we would call a minor.

J Galea

Sep 19th 2008, 17:13

Hopefully they will be prosecuted like all the other offenders, irrelavant if you are related to anyone in power.

Andrew Azzopardi

Sep 19th 2008, 16:40

@Daphne CG

I am a practitioner who works with sex offenders. I would like to clarify a few poijnts:

Men who have sexual contact with 15 year old are paedophiles (both from a psychiatric point of view as well as from a legal point of view). The psychiaric diagnosis of paedphilia states that the victim must be under 16 years of age and at least 5 years younger that the perpetrator. I would probably add that the more worrying factor are the sexual thoughts and fantasies of these individuals rather than a one off incident. However in this case the adults involved seem to have been ivolved in this behaviour over a significant period of time which from a Risk perspective is very worrying.

Stating that men who have sex with 15 year olds are 'simply' men who are perverts and 'like them young' is increasing the reason for these men to live in denial of their very serious offences.

Furthermore a Sex Offender's Register would be a very good idea even though we do not need to apply the so-called 'Megan's Law' used in the US.

Dr. John Zammit

Sep 19th 2008, 16:22

Can Paul Vincenti of Gift of Life tell me if this girl becomes pregnant and wants to abort he is going to stop her?!? That is why we are in favour to decriminalise abortion. www.freewebs.com/maltaabortionrights For me those who rape young girls should be condemned.

John Borg

Sep 19th 2008, 15:22

@Daphne: Ok, I cannot but agree with you on the technicality - statutory rape. But in human life, we as parents, adults and responsible human beings are meant to protect children,
and adolescents, whether they are well behaved and even moreso if they are not. But let me be blunt - if our daughter of 15 years (I have two boys in my case) consented to sex with a boy of say 17, legally it is a crime. True? Morally, I see nothing more than 2 teenagers doing what comes natural, albeit with all of the risks it involves. But if our same daughter consents to sex with 34 year old man? Apart from being a crime, I'm sure we would seek revenge of some sort, and why? Because it's immoral that a responsible adult should take advantage of a girl who cannot cope with her hormones. Having 2 boys myself, I can imagine my horror if the 16 year old comes home and says he has just had the greatest sex with a woman of 35! It may be every teenage boys fantasy, but we live in the real world. Video episode sequel? It serves us right then.

P. Camilleri

Sep 19th 2008, 15:10

The report states clearly that the four men were charged of doing what they did against the girl's will. So why question her will?!

Daphne Caruana Galizia

Sep 19th 2008, 15:05

@Paul Portelli: read my remarks again carefully. This case may be what it seems to be at face value, for all I know. I was speaking about something different: reacting to your comments and those of others, which seem to make the assumption that a 15-year-old girl is by definition innocent/virginal/does not enjoy sex/cannot possibly want to sleep with several men at once. Those are dangerous and unrealistic assumptions.

Daphne Caruana Galizia

Sep 19th 2008, 15:01

@Amy Scicluna: it's not the law that defines paedophila, but psychiatry. The law defines a child as anyone who has not attained the age of majority (18). But men who fancy 14, 15, 16 and 17 year-old girls are NOT paedophiles - just perverts who like them young. What separates paedophiles from run-of-the-mill perverts is pubescence. When a girl's body becomes a woman's body, paedophiles are no longer interested - it's the body, not the age as such, that they're interested in. A man who goes for a 14-year-old boy, as opposed to girl, on the other hand can be considered a paedophile because boys are rarely developed at that age, but even so, it's stretching it. The more correct term would be pederast.

P Portelli

Sep 19th 2008, 14:40

@Daphne Caruana Galizia - In my opinion, your remarks are out of place. I am aware that youngsters are sexually active at a very young age but I wasn't even thinking of the victim's age when writing my comments. It could have happened to a 20-year old and I would have been just as appalled. I do live in this world and know exactly what there is around. I also remember my childhood days which were very different to what they are today but one still doesn't condone such behaviour. It's as though the victim is to blame for what has happened and it shocks me to read your remarks. Even if the girl 'provoked' these men (your insinuating comments), it doesn't warrant such a vile act. A moral decadence already exists in this world - even in Malta -, let's not encourage it further.

Charles J Buttigieg

Sep 19th 2008, 14:25

As a young lad I looked older than my age and at the age of 16 I dated girls of 18 without any problem. My parents were the only people that tried to stop me and I never claimed rape. At 17 boys and girls may join the armed forces, thought how to use firearms and actually use them to kill other human beings. This means that a 17 year old girl is allowed to make war but for her love is illegal.

With body implants assessable to under 18 year olds will it be just to crucify an 18 year old boy for going to bed with a voluptuous 17 year old girl whose parents cried rape? My point is that the age of maturity needs to be lowered to 16 and each case has to be judged by the physical appearance as well and not only by the statutory age limit.

Denis Catania

Sep 19th 2008, 14:17

For once I may have to agree with Daphne Caruana Galizia, but on the other hand grown men should be strong enough and have the morals to push away these girls.

Marc Cassar

Sep 19th 2008, 12:49

@John Borg - Forget the "Sex Offender's Register" - it does not really work! Everybody has to queue up to check it - too long...
@Andy Brown - Forget the issue of naming / not naming offenders – still wont know who is who.
@Daphne Caruana Galizia – in some EU countries, 15 is the legal Age of Consent – but we are in Malta. 18 is the legal AoC. Touching a minor can be called a number of names – but the end result is… Illegal, immoral and totally Sicko.

Name & Shame attitude should be enforced by the Courts ordering that a LARGE tattoo is applied to their faces (across check-bone area where it cannot be hidden) - This way everybody, parents, children and general public can identify them at a glance and know what they did.
If anybody thinks it is drastic - what about some kid's life that has been ruined for someone's sick pleasure.

Amy Scicluna

Sep 19th 2008, 12:48

@Daphne Caruana Galizia
I think the episode you are talking about the one with the video tape, happened a couple of years ago in Marsa, not Gozo. Not that it makes a difference they are still sick b******s.
Although this case is one of statutory rape I seen to think that the offenders still fall under the pedophile category legally as the victim is still legally a child.

Daphne Caruana Galizia

Sep 19th 2008, 12:46

@P Portelli and others. Please don't fail to differentiate between a girl of 12 and a girl of 15. These outraged remarks are entirely out of place. Many 15-year-old girls are both sexually aware and sexual, which is to be expected given that they are, by this stage, biologically young women rather than children. Some develop more precociously than others and it might astonish you to discover that some 15-year-old girls actually seek out sexual attention and sexual intercourse, preferring grown men because it makes them feel grown up, and also because boys their age are not quite what they want. The crime is when those grown men take advantage of a troubled youngster as, I suspect, is the case here. There were 15-year-olds who slept around when I was that age in 1980. It's nothing new. One of them actually set up 'shop' one evening at Sliema Pitch in February, and had a queue of expectant customers right up the slope. Effectively, there is no difference between a 16yr old and a 15yr old, yet sex with a 16yr old doesn't shock.

P Portelli

Sep 19th 2008, 12:34

My heart goes out to the poor victim who has to live with the horrible nightmare of this atrocious and disgusting act of violence. What about the offenders, will they get what they deserve? I sincerely hope so, otherwise, our legal system will only prove itself to be a joke.

Daphne Caruana Galizia

Sep 19th 2008, 12:18

I seem to have a recollection of earlier reports about this episode - did it involve a video? The word 'rape' here might very well be, again from what I recall, statutory rape - which means that the girl went willingly into the mess but because she is underage, the men are prosecuted all the same (and rightly so). For grown men to have sex with a 15-year-old girl is perverted and repulsive, but it's not paedophilia or child abuse. The average 15-year-old girl has the body of a fully-grown woman, even if she still has the mind of a child. A paedophile is attracted to the prepubescent body of a child, precisely because it is undeveloped.

s.muscat

Sep 19th 2008, 12:12

Arent these men called pheodophiles,please correct me if am wrong..In Malta we think we dnt have sex offenders,but in my opinion these are,right????what does the meaning of pheodophiles means to the court in Malta??

Andy Brown

Sep 19th 2008, 11:53

How come when these cases happen in Gozo the accused persons are named and here in Malta they are not "to protect the victims" supposedly. Don't Gozitan victims deserve to be protected? Or am i missing something here?
It has nothing to do with the age of the victims as the "man" (and I use that term loosely) who was accused of doing the same to a 14 yr old boy was not named and out on bail as he had a full time job and lived with his parents (as if that has anything to do with it). What is the difference may I ask?

nadia dallita

Sep 19th 2008, 11:33

don`t worry they will be set free like their previous court sentence and thier previous sentences, poor child cause she have to live with those terrible emotional scars the rest of her life.

John Borg

Sep 19th 2008, 11:33

Need I say more?
When will we have a sex offenders register? All parents have a right to know from whom we are to protect our children from! If they were convicted fraudsters, all financial institutions would be alerted and have nothing to do with them.. But in the case of abuse of children, the law has different rules!

Daniel Russell

Sep 19th 2008, 11:10

Disgusting and sick individuals - I hope that they are severely punished if convicted. But what of the emotional scars that girl have got to live with?