‘Sexual Emergency’ Migrant Who Raped 10-Year-Old Boy Has Sentence Reduced

[Angel4Truth]

‘Sexual Emergency’ Migrant Who Raped 10-Year-Old Boy Has Sentence Reduced

The Iraqi asylum seeker who raped a 10-year-old boy in a swimming centre in Vienna will have his sentence reduced from six to four years after a judge felt his punishment was too “draconian”.

On the 2nd of December 2015, the 20-year-old Iraqi Amir A. brutally raped a 10-year-old boy at the Theresienbad in Vienna and shocked the country after claiming that he had a “sexual emergency”.

The Iraqi was found guilty of rape and sentenced to six years, but may see freedom much sooner as a judge has now reduced his sentence to four years, meaning he may be free as early as 2019, Kronen Zeitung reports.

Amir A., who came to Austria purely for economic reasons and was found to not have been persecuted in his native Iraq, confessed to the brutal rape. He said he had “not had sex for four months” and that it was an “emergency”.

Roland Kier, the lawyer for the attacker, appealed the initial judgement claiming the sentence had been too “draconian” for the crime and too “excessive”.

The appeal process eventually made it all the way to the Austrian supreme court (OGH). Senate president judge Thomas Philipp agreed with Kier and said the sentence of six years was too much.

Judge Philipp said that “four years is appropriate here” claiming the incident had only happened once and the Iraqi migrant had no other history of sexually abusing children in Austria.

He called the case a “one-time incident” and said it was not a case of “many years of abuse in family circles, with often serious consequences” – indicating he was not sure there would be any lasting effect on the 10-year-old who had been raped.

The judge also said other factors had to be taken into account such as the attacker not being over 21 and the fact he gave a full confession and expressed guilt.

The young victim is said to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the attack. But despite this, there is no longer room for any more appeals as the supreme court decision is final.

The case was only one of a number of sexual attacks that have occurred at swimming pools across Austria and Germany.

The attacks became so frequent that some pools attempted to ban migrants from entering whilst local governments and organisations attempted to create programmes to educate the migrants not to attack young girls and boys.

We should definitely invite more of these monsters to come live among us.

I advocate for the firing squad in this case, for the child raping pervert and the judge. Thoughts?

 

[Tambora]

I just don't know what to say anymore, Angel.
Seems like folks would rather just ride the fence and not choose a side.
And that's a big problem.
You end up with a bunch of couch sitting amateur philosophers thinking it's more important to know and understand "WHY" the pervert would do such a horrid thing instead of just slapping the piece of trash silly.

 

[Nihilo]

slapping the piece of trash silly.

If we could all acknowledge that there are morals, and that severely immoral things deserve the death penalty, WITH brutal torture, we could build upon that foundation. Right now, even mass murderers, if they are given the death penalty at all, are given a quick and painless and merciful death penalty, like with Saddam Insane. He was hanged, gone rather quickly, he didn't suffer, why not? He organized the mass murder of innocent people.

So if we can agree on the morals, then we can have the discussion we need to have, which is, how is this EXPERIMENT going? The experiment where we're NOT brutalizing and torturing without mercy those capital criminals of the worst kind? How is that going? Is it working? What are our objectives? Are we meeting them?---Is this working?

If we can't agree on morals, then we can't have this talk. And we should have this talk, because you're right and I agree with your sentiment, this is nuts.

 

[Tambora]

If we could all acknowledge that there are morals, and that severely immoral things deserve the death penalty, WITH brutal torture, we could build upon that foundation. Right now, even mass murderers, if they are given the death penalty at all, are given a quick and painless and merciful death penalty, like with Saddam Insane. He was hanged, gone rather quickly, he didn't suffer, why not? He organized the mass murder of innocent people.

So if we can agree on the morals, then we can have the discussion we need to have, which is, how is this EXPERIMENT going? The experiment where we're NOT brutalizing and torturing without mercy those capital criminals of the worst kind? How is that going? Is it working? What are our objectives? Are we meeting them?---Is this working?

If we can't agree on morals, then we can't have this talk. And we should have this talk, because you're right and I agree with your sentiment, this is nuts.

I understand your feelings.
And I may not be far behind, but I am still at the point where I consider the motive to torture an incarcerated criminal is self gratification and not just.

But we can talk about it some more if you like.

 

[Nihilo]

I understand your feelings.
And I may not be far behind, but I am still at the point where I consider the motive to torture an incarcerated criminal is self gratification and not just.

But we can talk about it some more if you like.

You're probably right. I'm not one to dismiss what our ancestors did, without a darn good reason. Some capital criminals were treated so horrifically, that I don't wonder whether there was a real deterrent effect, so that even under the worst conditions, people still would not choose to commit the gravest of crimes, for fear of a brutal death penalty waiting for them.

The move toward minimizing or even completely preventing pain during the administration of the death penalty (for example, the guillotine, hanging, lethal injection, electrocution), preceded the very popular view today, that we should never use the death penalty for any crime, no matter how grave. I just wonder if that's the best policy, and whether we can figure out the objectives of such a large social experiment, where murderers have no fear anymore of being killed for their deeds.

I suggest that ideally, the gravest capital criminals deserve torture and drawn out painful death---it doesn't mean we have to ever give them what they deserve, just that we have a standard that we agree on. Take the worst crime, the one who did that worst crime, ideally, deserves the breaking wheel. We remind these criminals about this at their sentencing, so that they know we're showing mercy. We acknowledge that we're showing mercy, and we understand to what end, we are showing mercy.

Something like that, and like I said, you're probably right.

 

[ok doser]

I advocate for the firing squad in this case, for the child raping pervert and the judge. Thoughts?

kier, too

 

[Angel4Truth]

If we could all acknowledge that there are morals, and that severely immoral things deserve the death penalty, WITH brutal torture, we could build upon that foundation. Right now, even mass murderers, if they are given the death penalty at all, are given a quick and painless and merciful death penalty, like with Saddam Insane. He was hanged, gone rather quickly, he didn't suffer, why not? He organized the mass murder of innocent people.

So if we can agree on the morals, then we can have the discussion we need to have, which is, how is this EXPERIMENT going? The experiment where we're NOT brutalizing and torturing without mercy those capital criminals of the worst kind? How is that going? Is it working? What are our objectives? Are we meeting them?---Is this working?

If we can't agree on morals, then we can't have this talk. And we should have this talk, because you're right and I agree with your sentiment, this is nuts.

There is no deterrence to crime by slaps on the wrist and long comfortable prison stays before a death sentence is commuted to parole anyway or early release for devils to prey on society even more:

Killer in brutal murders paroled early in Dallas

Rachel Torres says for a decade her family has repeatedly lived a nightmare.

Torres wipes away tears as she tells us, "It just seems like we are brought back down again and it's not fair. It's not fair.”

Her baby sister, Linoshka, was 19 years old and five months pregnant when she and her boyfriend Luis Campos were kidnapped in Oak Cliff in January 2007.

"Sometimes it feels like a long time and sometimes if feels like it was yesterday," Torres says.

The young couple was taken to two different homes and brutally tortured. They were electrocuted and beaten with baseball bats for two days.

Their remains and their baby girl's were found dumped off a bridge on Dowdy Ferry Road a month later.

Dallas police say the three killers were looking for someone else when they mistakenly kidnapped the couple.

"She did not deserve this. She would have been a great mother," Torres said.

Because DPD detectives botched some of the cases, two of the killers received a plea bargain. The hitmen, Nicolas Monarrez and Frank Estrella, dumped the bodies and only got 15 years.

Estrella served just over five years and was recently paroled.

Prison officials tell WFAA he is living in a house in Oak Cliff with relatives. It's right across the street from a school and there is no law that prohibits that.

"I feel like she has never gotten justice for anything, and it is just kind of crazy he can keep on with his life and we are just stuck with memories," Torres said.

Linoshka's family says they had no idea Frank Estrella was even up for parole, and can't believe he was released early and back onto the streets of Dallas.

WFAA asked the parole board why Estrella didn’t serve more time, or all of his sentence, and how many members of the parole board voted to release him early.

They say they will try to have that answer for us soon.

Swift execution should be whats happening with these animals. Hang them in the town square and see what a deterrent it is then.

 

[Tambora]

You're probably right. I'm not one to dismiss what our ancestors did, without a darn good reason. Some capital criminals were treated so horrifically, that I don't wonder whether there was a real deterrent effect, so that even under the worst conditions, people still would not choose to commit the gravest of crimes, for fear of a brutal death penalty waiting for them.

The move toward minimizing or even completely preventing pain during the administration of the death penalty (for example, the guillotine, hanging, lethal injection, electrocution), preceded the very popular view today, that we should never use the death penalty for any crime, no matter how grave. I just wonder if that's the best policy, and whether we can figure out the objectives of such a large social experiment, where murderers have no fear anymore of being killed for their deeds.

I suggest that ideally, the gravest capital criminals deserve torture and drawn out painful death---it doesn't mean we have to ever give them what they deserve, just that we have a standard that we agree on. Take the worst crime, the one who did that worst crime, ideally, deserves the breaking wheel. We remind these criminals about this at their sentencing, so that they know we're showing mercy. We acknowledge that we're showing mercy, and we understand to what end, we are showing mercy.

Something like that, and like I said, you're probably right.

Just so you know, I am not opposed to brutality.
If I had caught some pervert trying to rape my little girl, I would not hesitate to take a baseball bat and not stop swinging away until there was nothing but bloody chucks of him to feed to the hogs.

What I wouldn't do is try to tie him up and strap him to a table in my basement and start removing parts of him little by little while shocking him with a cattle prodder.
But I would UNDERSTAND why someone would.

My reasoning is for the justice system to do it swiftly, and get busy tracking down the next one right away (instead of wasting time to hang on to them to torture for a while).
It's one of those times I prefer quantity over quality.

 

[Nihilo]

...
Killer in brutal murders paroled early in Dallas



Swift execution should be whats happening with these animals.

That's what I'm questioning. Not knowing anything else but what was quoted, it surely sounds like these people are among the gravest capital criminals. And I understand wanting animal slaughter to be quick and painless. But what they apparently did, is deserving of having their bodies smashed into bits, little by little, making sure that they're conscious for it all. That they aren't subjected this type of penalty for their horrid crimes, must be seen by all sides as a mercy, or this is just abject stupidity IMO.

Hang them in the town square and see what a deterrent it is then.

Isn't gibbeting fascinating?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbeting

 

[jgarden]

Sexual Emergency’ Migrant Who Raped 10-Year-Old Boy Has Sentence Reduced

Fake News

 

[Nihilo]

Just so you know, I am not opposed to brutality.
If I had caught some pervert trying to rape my little girl, I would not hesitate to take a baseball bat and not stop swinging away until there was nothing but bloody chucks of him to feed to the hogs.

What I wouldn't do is try to tie him up and strap him to a table in my basement and start removing parts of him little by little while shocking him with a cattle prodder.
But I would UNDERSTAND why someone would.

My reasoning is for the justice system to do it swiftly, and get busy tracking down the next one right away (instead of wasting time to hang on to them to torture for a while).
It's one of those times I prefer quantity over quality.

LOL, understood. Call me old fashioned, but there's just something idyllic about the idea of publicly and orderly, torturing and killing the earth's scum, sending them right back into the earth, preferably via them being eaten alive by the birds and rodents and other wild animal scavengers and opportunists, and pooped out somewhere, and then the maggots and flies and microbes can reabsorb them molecularly, until they completely disappear. From a certain vantage point for me, it's almost a serene way to correct a serious problem, and a thorough way, and a simple way. Certain crimes---and they are rare, but they do happen---are deserving of horror as retribution, I just want us all to at least talk about it, maybe I'm wrong, but justice requires brutality IMO, when it is a sentence for a brutal capital crime.

 

[Tambora]

LOL, understood. Call me old fashioned, but there's just something idyllic about the idea of publicly and orderly, torturing and killing the earth's scum, sending them right back into the earth, preferably via them being eaten alive by the birds and rodents and other wild animal scavengers and opportunists, and pooped out somewhere, and then the maggots and flies and microbes can reabsorb them molecularly, until they completely disappear. From a certain vantage point for me, it's almost a serene way to correct a serious problem, and a thorough way, and a simple way. Certain crimes---and they are rare, but they do happen---are deserving of horror as retribution, I just want us all to at least talk about it, maybe I'm wrong, but justice requires brutality IMO, when it is a sentence for a brutal capital crime.

Atta boy!

 

[quip]

Lot of cheek turners here. lain: