Convicted Serial Rapist Goes To Court To Forbid Newspapers From Reporting On His Whereabouts
from the news-is-news... dept
You may recall that last year we wrote about a convicted murderer in Germany who was going to court to try to get a injunction against Wikipedia, banning people from mentioning his conviction and role in the murder, under some notion of trying to get his life back. Damian Byrne points us to a slightly similar situation in Ireland, which is a bit more complex. Apparently there’s a guy named Michael Murray who was convicted of multiple rapes — including a string of four rapes (and two additional sexual assaults) in a period of six days — as well as for exposing himself to children (as young as three years old). To say he’s a serial offender seems like an understatement. Back in 1996 he was convicted (again) and given 18 years in jail, but was released last summer (after serving just 13 years).
Since then, various newspapers have been reporting regularly on his whereabouts. Here’s an example: Serial rapist Murray is spotted in popular seaside resort. However, Murray is annoyed by this. So he’s gone to court to ask that newspapers not be allowed to report on his whereabouts:
[Murray] says he cannot live anywhere because as soon as he moves, newspapers reveal his address and print pictures of him….
He is claiming damages for for mental pain, distress and anguish caused by interference with his rights to privacy and to maintain a permanent dwelling as protected by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
What amazes me is that the court is even considering this. Getting an injunction that prevents a newspaper from reporting on facts — no matter how damaging those facts may be — seems wrong. Yes, it may suck for Mr. Murray, but it’s difficult to have sympathy for him. While I do have some concerns about the way certain sex offender list laws are structured, this is different. It seems like it is, in fact, newsworthy when someone with a record like Mr. Murray’s moves into a certain area — and barring publication of that fact seems like a dangerous precedent to set when it comes to press freedom.
Filed Under: free speech, journalism, reporting
Comments on “Convicted Serial Rapist Goes To Court To Forbid Newspapers From Reporting On His Whereabouts”
......wtf
So this guys rapes four people, with two additional sexual assaults, and suddenly, he’s mad because his life has been made hard by Newspapers?
Tough shit.
If he doesn’t like the Newspapers tailing him and reporting to the public at large where he is so that they can stay as far away as possible from him – He should have thought about that before raping people.
Why is this any different ....
… than the tabloids reporting on where Jenifer Aniston or Angelina is and what they are doing? It sucks to be famous, no matter what you are famous for.
Re: Why is this any different ....
Good point. The tabloids should be submitting amicus briefs because a win here would very likely become the template for celebrities restricting free press (of course, only when they didn’t like the press/attention they’re getting).
Re: Why is this any different ....
Maybe his legal fees are being secretly bank-rolled by the Actors Guild for just this reason?!?
cry me a river
Y’know how to avoid this kind of publicity? Don’t rape people.
Jackass.
Sex offenders
If he is a convicted sex offender then isn’t he supposed to be registered? And isn’t the sex offender registry supposed to be public so people who they have offended against can monitor their whereabouts after they have been released from prison? If that is the case, then what are the newspapers doing wrong here? I say throw the pervert back in prison for violating his parole by not registering his whereabouts if that is what happened.
Re: Sex offenders
In Ireland? Do they have sex offender registries over there?
Re: Re: Sex offenders
yes – the priesthood
Re: Re: Re: Sex offenders
Truth win….
Re: Re: Sex offenders
I didn’t catch the thing about it being in Ireland, so I don’t know if they have a registry or not. They ought to. Personally, I’d vote for requiring that they sew a big red X (for “seX offender”) on all of their shirts and other outerwear, kind of like the red A in “The Scarlet Letter”…
Re: Re: Re: Sex offenders
Yes we have a Sexual Offenders Register and he is both on it and required to register his where about’s as a condition of his release. However, in Ireland (and the Uk), this information is not made Public. Law enforcement have full access.
When you say wear clothing marked with a big Red X, you mean like those big Yellow Star’s of David that the Nazi’s made the Jews wear during WW2.
(Apologies for invoking Godwins Law)
Re: Re: Re:2 Sex offenders
The difference here is that he CHOSE to become a rapist he was not (setting aside the nature vs. nurture argument for the moment) BORN one. He was (presumably) an adult and responsible for his own actions. Now don’t get me wrong I am not saying I agree with Spif on this but I am just pointing out the analogy is not entirely accurate.
Now for those who actually want to argue the nature vs. nurture angle… DIAF …it is a moot point that is essentially unprovable on its face because BOTH are relevant factors and it CAN NOT excuse or condone that level of anti-social behavior.
Re: Re: Re:3 Sex offenders
Side Note: “[Murray] says he cannot live anywhere because as soon as he moves, newspapers reveal his address and print pictures of him…. “
GOOD!
Re: Sex offenders
This whole thing is happening in Ireland, where there likely isn’t a Megan’s Law. Otherwise the press probably wouldn’t bother. In all honesty, it does seem like undue harassment in my opinion. YES he was a criminal, but he served his time in jail, and thus in theory repaid his debt to society. Also, think about this. What if a newspaper decided to… let’s say… follow around all hot women and post where they lived every time they moved? And what their schedules were? These are all facts, and ones that are publicly accessible to anyone who cares to follow these poor people around, and it’s the same instance here. Sure you might say that the example is a bit far-reaching but the effect on the “victim” is the same. I’m not all-for chilling free speech, but at the same time people do have a right to their own privacy (although I don’t know how much of a “right” it is in Ireland).
Re: Re: Sex offenders
Ummm.. those “hot” women haven’t committed a crime. They haven’t raped people. There is no need to follow them (and if you did, you might be busted for stalking.)
There IS a reason, and a need, to report on the whereabouts of this… person… because he has a criminal record for rape, sexual assault, etc.
If he moved into YOUR neighborhood, 2 houses away and starting eyeing your wife/daughter/any female relative then you probably wouldn’t have the same opinion. Stop coddling the damn criminals.
He is claiming damages for for mental pain, distress and anguish caused by interference with his rights to privacy and to maintain a permanent dwelling as protected by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
F him. I don’t really give a shit how he feels or is bothered by the reports. He gave up his rights when he forcefully and without permission ran it up into someone.
Re: Re: Sex offenders
“repaid his debt to society” is a terrible phrase, because it is not possible to repay that debt. Nothing was set right, nothing was improved because of his incarceration. The only hope is that he realized how wrong what he was doing is and he won’t do it again.
Additionally, you have to balance his right to privacy against the public’s right to safety. Making the public aware of his presence does that.
Does his lawyer have a wife or daughter?
Or is this just a case of assuming every [jerk] should have representation?
Re: Does his lawyer have a wife or daughter?
Every jerk should have representation. That’s the best way to make sure you have gotten the right one.
Grounds for more lawsuits
All I know is if the court grants the injunction, if/when he rapes again, the victim should sue the court that granted it.
Re: Grounds for more lawsuits
There’s something wrong with that…
Mainly that would set the precedent that either the press or the courts are responsible for your own safety. “The newspaper didn’t tell me to lock my doors when I went on holidays, so it’s their fault I got robbed”
Wait...
Yes, this guy is a scumbag, but hasn’t he already served his time. Why should society be continually punishing him if he is no longer committing crimes?
This is no different than the Scarlet Letter unwed mothers had to bear for life. It’s cruel and unusual punishment AFTER he was already punished. All they’re doing is making it harder for him to live a legal life and be a productive member of society – do they want him to turn to crime of another sort just to live, or should he just kill himself rather than live with the misery of how he will be treated for the rest of his life?
Should we now allow newspapers the ability to publish the whereabouts of people who had a DUI for life? How about teens who got caught smoking marijuana? Let’s make sure they can never get a job.
Yes, the press has freedom. This post would be covered by that fact – but when it extends to the point of stalking, then it becomes a crime when you aren’t a journalist. Why should the newspapers be held to a different standard?
If anything, he has a civil case here, but considering the stricter privacy laws in Europe, he probably has a criminal case too.
Re: Wait...
It’s no different from the tabloids that report every time a “star” leaves their house. Reporters have a right to report on facts like when they see this guy or Lindsay Lohan or Brad Pitt in public.
Considering the fact that this guy spent the last 13 years in jail he probably hasn’t heard of the Streisand effect. His response can only make the problems worse. His best course of action would be to live a crime free life and wait for this media coverage to blow over.
Re: Re: Wait...
actually, there is a point where the tabloids stop reporting and start stalking (in a legal sense), and pretty much violate any hope of privacy that celebs might have. honestly, i would want to be famous considering what some of these people have to live through.
Re: Wait...
or should he just kill himself rather than live with the misery of how he will be treated for the rest of his life?
Yes.
Re: Wait...
“Yes, this guy is a scumbag, but hasn’t he already served his time. Why should society be continually punishing him if he is no longer committing crimes?”
Because the damage he has done to society will never be repaid. His incarceration can NEVER undo or fix his incidious crime; it will NEVER correct the psychological, emotional, and possibly physical damage he did to those victims. They are not “made whole” by his incarceration; so having ‘served his time’ does not repay his debt.
Society has every right to be aware of his location… and especially his previous victims should be. They may not sleep soundly even 13 years later, and this minor inconvenience for him is nothing compared to that burden. This man should never have been released at all.
Re: Wait...
What part of serial are you not getting? There is a high degree of his doing this again. Much as I think the sex offenders registration is abused if someone in the neighborhood preys on kids, I would like to know about it.
I don't know...
I can totally understand not having sympathy for him because of his crimes but at the same time if the constant hounding keeps him from doing things that would make him a productive member of society then maybe there is something to be said here. Active provokation like that runs the risk of turning the public against them. Yes that makes one’s inner vigilante feel. But happens when, after having legal avenues cut off, he goes back to crime and hurts more people? Is the pain and suffering of possible future vitims worth feeling good over hounding this guy’s every move?
Here in The States registered sex offenders can’t live within a certain distance of places where children gather (church, school, public library, etc…). That sounds good on paper, until you notice that by having their living options cut like they end up on the streets and thus off the grid. Its a lot harder to keep up with a person who has a job, home, and assets than a person that lives on the street and has no assets.
And I thought news papers were becoming less relevant in the internet age…
I definitely hear what you are saying Mike. It is really hard to have sympathy for this guy.
At the same time, in a more general context, the prison system is supposed to be about rehabilitation. While it may be true that often times rehabilitation does not happen, it is certain that it will not happen if a criminal is never allowed the opportunity to start a new life. After all, society felt that he should be sentenced to a certain amount of time in jail, not a lifetime of not being able to live anywhere. If that what the court wanted, then it should be written into law…that is if it could withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Even in the context of protecting society…ensuring that this guy can never start a new life only serves to dramatically increase the odds that he will revert to his old ways. Everyone wants to see him suffer, but at what point has a person paid for their crimes and at what point can they be allowed to move on?
Yes he served his time for his crime but the problem with your argument is you assume the news papers are writing about him to harrass him when in fact new papers just don’t care that much. They are writing about him because it sells papers. And if he was in the USA this wouldn’t be an issue. This wouldn’t even have made it to court because as long as the press isn’t printing lies or photos of you in your house they have the legal right to do so.
Him being punshed by it is a byproduct and in my option, to fing bad. I have zero sympathy for him regardless of how much time he spent behind bars.
Sex Offender's Register
To the people wondering about Ireland’s Sex Offender’s Register, we do have one, but alas, the public do not have access to it. I have seen Murray walking the streets a couple of times myself, I live in the district where he committed those rapes. I did what any sane person would do, and steered clear of him.
Upon Murray’s release last year, top Gardai (the Irish police) publicly stated he was a menace to society.
The good thing about his attempt at an injunction is that it only mentions a few newspapers: other papers, online blogs etc will not be affected, even if he wins.
If he does win, the locals here will just march on his place and force him out: a few weeks ago, a large crowd of people marched against a paedophile in Bray, just a short distance from where I am.
Re: Sex Offender's Register
Can you do me a favor? Say “They’re after me Lucky Charms!”
see copyright and such THINKS OF CHILDREN
yup and when the dont report his whereabouts and its later found out hes raping again
blame HOLLYWOOD and its supports for THINKING OF CHILDREN
this is sick
the guy should be a candidate for your chair or lethal injection
rehabilitation ?
Is it even possible to rehabilitate a serial rapist/sex offender?
If this man truly can’t keep himself from raping people, he should be put in jail or in a mental institution for the rest of his life. If the legal system thinks it’s OK to release him, he should enjoy the same rights as any other citizen. No one should have to put up with being stalked and harassed by a mob of do-gooders thirsting for pedophile blood. There is no excuse for driving a free man out of his home or his neighboorhood, no matter how much the “think of the children” mob says otherwise.
In the UK, naming and shaming campaigns against sex offenders have resulted in serious harm to innocent people at the hands of crowds too stupid to know the difference between the offender and some innocent person. When newspapers enable this kind of life-threatening harassment, you have to wonder if it’s not going too far.
Re: Re:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/vigilante-mob-attacks-home-of-paediatrician-710864.html
If there are people out there stupid enough to do that, I certainly wouldn’t like to be anyone living in or visiting that resort who happens to look a bit like Murray, or have the same name.
“‘repaid his debt to society’ is a terrible phrase, because it is not possible to repay that debt.“
Lets go one step further and admit there’s no such thing as a “debt to society”. Even for crimes involving money, any debts are owed to those who were harmed rather than society as a whole. Also, jail shouldn’t be about the repayment of debts, but about preventing people from doing any further harm while in jail and about rehabilitating criminals so they never reoffend.
“Additionally, you have to balance his right to privacy against the public’s right to safety. Making the public aware of his presence does that.“
Right. If that were the end of it, it would be OK.
What happens in practice is that the public, on being made “aware of his presence”, will engage in vigilante action against the suspect, and that is not OK.
Re: Re:
It is perfectly OK for a father to help direct his children where and how to avoid such a criminal. And when people stop visiting the location of his employment, he should be fired to protect the livlihood of the business… this is just common sense. He caused his own lifelong problem by choice, and he should not be making the public at large deal with the inconveniences for him.
Attn: Bleeding Hearts
To all those saying, “He’s paid his debt… He’s been rehabilitated, etc.” What a load of crap.
Prison does the opposite of rehabilitation. It’s like college for criminals. If anything he’s learned better techniques and other ways to commit crimes.
And you think after spending 13 years in prison he’s now attoned for his crimes? Ask his victims if they’re now even. I’ll bet they won’t feel that way.
So no, I don’t think he’s “rehabilitated” nor has he paid his debt to society.
“Prison does the opposite of rehabilitation. It’s like college for criminals. If anything he’s learned better techniques and other ways to commit crimes.“
That’s an argument for fixing the prison system, not for keeping people locked up indefinitely regardless of what crime they’ve committed. Petty thugs have a high recidivism rate, but not all criminals do. Jail may generally suck as a way to rehabilitate criminals, but not all convicts end up as career criminals.
“And you think after spending 13 years in prison he’s now attoned for his crimes? Ask his victims if they’re now even. I’ll bet they won’t feel that way.“
You can’t expect most victims to think rationally about such things. A criminal could be honestly sorry and completely rehabilitated and the victim still wouldn’t see it. Victims see their attackers as they were, not as they are.
Re: Re:
You can’t expect most victims to think rationally about such things. A criminal could be honestly sorry and completely rehabilitated and the victim still wouldn’t see it. Victims see their attackers as they were, not as they are.
Serial rapists should all be killed after having their testicles chewed by a small angry dog anyway. I don’t care about their rights. I can forgive murderers, thieves, and even the guy who burned my house down several years ago. However, there are some people who need to be killed for the betterment of society as a whole.
Re: Re: Re:
I can forgive murderers, thieves, and even the guy who burned my house down several years ago. However, there are some people who need to be killed for the betterment of society as a whole.
So you wouldn’t forgive a rapist, but you’d forgive a murderer? Does that mean murder isn’t as bad as rape is? Perhaps we should start improving society by getting rid of people who think like you.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Getting rid of people who don’t like rapists? Sounds like you stick things in people without consent.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
No. I mean getting rid of people who condone and encourage murder. Not that I’m seriously suggesting people like that should be murdered, but what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
It sounds like you enjoy killing people, so I’ll end my post here and let you get back to murdering your girlfriend.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I only murder rapists like you.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
If you killed me you’d be murdering an innocent person. So much for your claim that you only murder rapists.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself, murderer.
Worse off either way...
Yes, it may suck for Mr. Murray, but it’s difficult to have sympathy for him. While I do have some concerns about the way certain sex offender list laws are structured, this is different. It seems like it is, in fact, newsworthy when someone with a record like Mr. Murray’s moves into a certain area — and barring publication of that fact seems like a dangerous precedent to set when it comes to press freedom.
Somehow I doubt the the press is reporting this out of any kind of sense of civic duty but rather as a way of selling mewspapers. On the other hand, that kind of unrelenting pressure is rather likely to become the trigger that will hasten Mr. Murray to reoffend. Though with his particlar “thing” reoffending is probably just a matter of time.
Because the damage he has done to society will never be repaid. His incarceration can NEVER undo or fix his incidious crime; it will NEVER correct the psychological, emotional, and possibly physical damage he did to those victims. They are not “made whole” by his incarceration; so having ‘served his time’ does not repay his debt.
He has done no damage to “society”, and as for undoing, fixing, correcting, or making whole, that is not and has never been the point of incarceration.
Society has every right to be aware of his location… and especially his previous victims should be. They may not sleep soundly even 13 years later, and this minor inconvenience for him is nothing compared to that burden. This man should never have been released at all.
Being chased out of your home by a pack of bloodthirsty idiots is not a “minor inconvenience”.
He caused his own lifelong problem by choice…
No, he did not. He chose to rape people, but that’s the extent of his choice. The people who now choose to harass him because of what they’ve read about him in local newspapers are themselves the direct cause of this man’s “lifelong problems” with harassment. To say he brought it upon himself is just a dumb excuse for vigilantism.
… he should not be making the public at large deal with the inconveniences for him.
Since “the public at large” are the ones imposing these “inconveniences”, it is perfectly fair to expect the public at large to deal with the consequences.
Re: Re:
How does it feel being a rapist? Are you just afraid that people will know where you are and will chase you out too? Since you’re defending him, you must be in the same or a very similar situation (rape dogs instead of people?).
Re: Re: Re:
The best response you can think of is to say that I “must be” a rapist? I shall take that as an admission that you’ve lost the argument.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh no, I’ve lost an argument to a rapist monster who doesn’t want anyone to know where he lives! However will I live with myself?
I shall take your previous statement as an admission that you actually are a rapist. You didn’t deny it. Does it hurt to live with that? Does it hurt to know that you are reviled and hated? I hope one day you know what it is like to have someone stick something inside of you that you don’t want there so you know how you’ve made people feel.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Idiot.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Aww! Did I hurt your rapist feelings so much that instead of a snappy comeback and coherent argument, you are reduced to single word insults?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Considering all of your own replies have been baseless insults completely devoid of anything resembling a coherent argument, calling you an idiot seems perfectly appropriate.
Single word insults like “idiot” are just more economical than your irrational, emotional ramblings and cheap debating tricks.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
PS – I’ll stop raping puppies when you stop beating your wife to death.
What part of serial are you not getting? There is a high degree of his doing this again. Much as I think the sex offenders registration is abused if someone in the neighborhood preys on kids, I would like to know about it.
If there’s a high degree of his doing this again, then why the hell is he out of jail?
Once you get out of jail you should no longer be treated like a criminal. Don’t like it? Then change the law to keep serial rapists like him locked up for life.
Re: Re:
Because he was sentenced to 18 years and they were too stupid to keep him there. As to if there should be laws regarding this, in the US there are such laws. Ireland is just enlightened and only posts his whereabouts.
Re: Re: Re:
It makes no difference why. The point is the man is free and it’s not any citizen’s right to harass or inflict harm upon the man.
If somebody caught him in the middle of committing rape, then it would be OK to use violence to get him to stop.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It’s too late at that point. How about we just kill people like that so that we don’t have to catch them in the middle of doing it again?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
How about we just kill people like that so that we don’t have to catch them in the middle of doing it again?
That would be murder, so how about we don’t? Just keep them locked up if they can’t control themselves.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Everyone has to die sometime. Not everyone should have to be raped.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Everyone has to die sometime. No one should have to be murdered.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
You’re either a rapist, or an apologist for them. Maybe some sort of rape version of Stockholm syndrome? I bet a psychologist would have a field day with you!
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I am none of those things, but the fact that you resort to ad hominems proves that you have no valid argument against anything I said.
A world without privacy.
I think this is a great case to showcase what the future looks like without privacy.
No condoning or otherwise, just an observation on things to come.
On a more judgemental note the thing that shocks me is that some will not see a human being but will dehumanize that sick creature who probably shouldn’t be in the wild but have rights none the less, and that will cause problems to the law, since there will need to be a way to discriminate against who deserve privacy and who don’t, so it opens the door for politicizing anything, once that is opened everyone can be seen as a criminal an have their privacy stripped away, so I think people should start imagining how to live in a world you don’t have privacy, that means everybody will know when you masturbate and they will have to learn to live with that knowledge, everybody will know when you go to the bathroom and not only you but everybody will have to learn how to live with that knowledge.
Moral will have to change because some human nature traits will be hard to ignore or stop or change.
Like sharing, I doubt people will stop despite the attempts from some people LoL
Sleigh of hands.
If you allow emotion to take over and dehumanize a human being even a bad one you are opening the door to dehumanizing everybody.
If the only thing it takes is to label someone as bad then prepare yourself’s for a future without privacy where everyone will know when you masturbate, go to the bathroom, have sex, curse etc. People will have to develop new morals and ways to deal with those information because people have needs and they act upon those needs in private most of the time, but the future will not allow that because it only takes a moral taboo to completely strip away privacy from anyone and that is so great(insert sarcmark here).
I can't believe it
I think I trolled the same person through several threads here. I was hoping it was different people, but the arguments were all the same basic weak crap. How sad.
Re: I can't believe it
At least I have an argument. All you offer is insults and not a single argument against anything I said. You’re a good troll, but a shitty debater.
Re: Re: I can't believe it
If I was trying to debate I wouldn’t be trolling. The truth of the matter is that I was just trying to see if I could still rile someone up with a little trolling. If I really wanted a debate (which I don’t) I would have actually chosen a real side of this particular issue. I have very little opinion on whether or not it’s wrong for the press to report on him.
I don’t know you, so I’m not really accusing you of being a rapist. No hard feelings?
I’ll take The Rapist for $400, Alex!