Jump to content

Girl raped, attacker walks free on a technicality. Shocking


babs135
 Share

Recommended Posts

I aggree, the incident is shocking. But I think people have to wait and see if the attacker walks free permanently. It looks like, from the story, that one jurisdiction has passed on the case. Let's see what the others do.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are several things in this story that I have questions about. The fact that the Spanish judge could not claim jurisdiction is not one of them. That is simple law. It says the ship left at 4pm for Marsaille without the alleged attacker. Since Spain doesn't have jurisdiction, was he simply "put off" the ship? Since it happened in International Waters, wouldn't the jurisdiction the fall to whatever country the ship is flagged under? Finally, I understand there is no "right way" to handle a situation such as this. However, the family continued on? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jurisdictional issues are real. It sounds as though there are possibly 3 countries where charges can still be brought, Spain just happens to not be one of them. He’s not getting off on a technicality, he was simply released pending charges brought in a valid jurisdiction.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not being within the Spanish court's jurisdiction is hardly a technicality. 

 

What else would you have expected the court/judge to do other than perhaps direct that it be directed to another countries court system where there was jurisdiction?

 

T

Edited by iancal
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's free and probably back in Italy.  The ships registered in Panama.  The odds on this accused rapist being successfully extradited from Italy to face justice in Panama over a raped British girl on a cruise would not be great. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally speaking if a US citizen is the victim (or perpetrator) of a serious crime and/or tort onboard a ship the US Government has the right to assert jurisdiction no matter where in the world the incident took place. That is why in the ship's info notebook in your cabin there is (supposed to be) a list of contact numbers for the overseas offices of USA Law Enforcement bureaus in the various nations the ship calls at.

 

Perhaps it is time for the UK to secure such an agreement with the various cruise lines that have a business footprint there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the UK already does but the cruise line failed to notify them. 

 

Cruise lines are well know for not wanting any prosecutions relating to on board violence or theft.  They do not want any negative publicity.  This has been a matter of concern for years.  Which is why the US authorities clamped down on the industry at the behest of Congress and the police authorities a number of years ago.  There is a reason why  the industry spends millions of dollars on lobby firms at the state and federal levels.

Edited by iancal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, iancal said:

Perhaps the UK already does but the cruise line failed to notify them. 

 

Cruise lines are well know for not wanting any prosecutions relating to on board violence or theft.  They do not want any negative publicity.  This has been a matter of concern for years.  Which is why the US authorities clamped down on the industry at the behest of Congress and the police authorities a number of years ago.  There is a reason why  the industry spends millions of dollars on lobby firms at the state and federal levels.

The industry certainly got their money’s worth when implementation of passport requirements on closed loop cruises was first postponed then dropped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fishywood said:

Generally speaking if a US citizen is the victim (or perpetrator) of a serious crime and/or tort onboard a ship the US Government has the right to assert jurisdiction no matter where in the world the incident took place. That is why in the ship's info notebook in your cabin there is (supposed to be) a list of contact numbers for the overseas offices of USA Law Enforcement bureaus in the various nations the ship calls at.

 

Perhaps it is time for the UK to secure such an agreement with the various cruise lines that have a business footprint there.

This is not quite correct.  The US's claim to extraterritorial jurisdiction for its citizens only applies when the crime is committed in waters where no other jurisdiction applies (i.e. international waters).  Crimes committed onboard a ship within another nation's territorial waters becomes the jurisdiction of that nation, but the US can claim "substantially interested party" status to review the investigation.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iancal said:

Perhaps the UK already does but the cruise line failed to notify them. 

 

Cruise lines are well know for not wanting any prosecutions relating to on board violence or theft.  They do not want any negative publicity.  This has been a matter of concern for years.  Which is why the US authorities clamped down on the industry at the behest of Congress and the police authorities a number of years ago.  There is a reason why  the industry spends millions of dollars on lobby firms at the state and federal levels.

If you are referring to the Cruise Ship Safety and Security Act, it really has not "clamped" down on the industry, it only has tightened the reporting requirements if a US citizen is involved, and some training requirements for shipboard security in the aspects of crime scene recording.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, iancal said:

Perhaps the UK already does but the cruise line failed to notify them. 

 

Cruise lines are well know for not wanting any prosecutions relating to on board violence or theft.  They do not want any negative publicity.  This has been a matter of concern for years.  Which is why the US authorities clamped down on the industry at the behest of Congress and the police authorities a number of years ago.  There is a reason why  the industry spends millions of dollars on lobby firms at the state and federal levels.

 

I think what you are saying would apply to most any company.  No one wants negative publicity.   I suppose most companies would be OK if violent acts were not brought to the light of day.   I don't know one way or another but if violent acts were being routinely swept under the rug, then I'm in favor of the clamp down.   

Edited by ldubs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

I think what you are saying would apply to most any company.  No one wants negative publicity.   I suppose most companies would be OK if violent acts were not brought to the light of day.   

I worked for a credit card issuer in the early days.  If a credit card is stolen during a violent crime theoretically anyone caught using that card would be a suspect for that crime.  This tool was not and is not implemented due to the cost/hassle for the credit card issuer. 

Companies exist purely to make profit.  We should not expect any other social function from them.  That requires intelligent regulation.  As stated, they spend millions of dollars to avoid exactly that.  Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lard Greystoke said:

I worked for a credit card issuer in the early days.  If a credit card is stolen during a violent crime theoretically anyone caught using that card would be a suspect for that crime.  This tool was not and is not implemented due to the cost/hassle for the credit card issuer. 

Companies exist purely to make profit.  We should not expect any other social function from them.  That requires intelligent regulation.  As stated, they spend millions of dollars to avoid exactly that.  Good luck.

 

That is why they are so willing to reverse any fraudulent charges on our cards. By removing those charges, they eliminate the requirement of investigating and bringing charges against the suspect. It is cheaper to cover the monetary loss than to cover the cost of an investigation. 

Edited by SantaFeFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Lard Greystoke said:

I worked for a credit card issuer in the early days.  If a credit card is stolen during a violent crime theoretically anyone caught using that card would be a suspect for that crime.  This tool was not and is not implemented due to the cost/hassle for the credit card issuer. 

Companies exist purely to make profit.  We should not expect any other social function from them.  That requires intelligent regulation.  As stated, they spend millions of dollars to avoid exactly that.  Good luck.

 

I'm not completely following.  Are you saying credit card companies purposely withhold evidence due to cost?   Yikes!  

 

I do agree companies exist to make a profit.  I believe good ones are also socially responsible.    

 

Edit:  Sorry I think I misread your comment -- SantaFe's comments helped me understand.  

Edited by ldubs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SantaFeFan said:

 

That is why they are so willing to reverse any fraudulent charges on our cards. By removing those charges, they eliminate the requirement of investigating and bringing charges against the suspect. It is cheaper to cover the monetary loss than to cover the cost of an investigation. 

 

Aw, OK.  I was reading that differently.  Makes sense to me.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a common misconception that those accused of breaking a law, especially certain types of crime, are guilty and have the book thrown at them. Contrary to what you hear in the media about people going to jail for silly things, it doesn't really happen that way. Some crimes are tough to prove. It's even tougher to navigate through all of the legal guidelines we have. Heck, we don't even want to sentence murderers to death anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

I'm not completely following.  Are you saying credit card companies purposely withhold evidence due to cost?   Yikes!  

 

I do agree companies exist to make a profit.  I believe good ones are also socially responsible.    

 

Edit:  Sorry I think I misread your comment -- SantaFe's comments helped me understand.  

To further clarify, it's more to do with our fragmented system of jurisdiction.  When I was working fraud I did authorize several arrests.  This was only with 1) cards issued locally, and 2) crimes occurring locally where we were able to get one of our investigators involved.

The trouble is that we, and most call centers, dealt with cards from different issuers all over the US.  The card belongs to the issuing bank, not the cardholder, so contacting each issuer for each incident is rather tangled.  In order to modify the system to catch criminals you'd basically have to centralize reporting and arrest authorization at the federal level.  Too many players, too much inertia.

The issuing bank that I worked for was definitely not socially responsible.  Morally the worst place I've ever worked.  Petty criminals to the core.  They deliberately delayed sending out bills, for example, in order to hit cardholders with late fees.  Etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, SantaFeFan said:

 

That is why they are so willing to reverse any fraudulent charges on our cards. By removing those charges, they eliminate the requirement of investigating and bringing charges against the suspect. It is cheaper to cover the monetary loss than to cover the cost of an investigation. 


If a fraudulent charge is made at store X and the owner of the card calls and disputes it and wins, store X is out the money. Not the credit card company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Mike981 said:


If a fraudulent charge is made at store X and the owner of the card calls and disputes it and wins, store X is out the money. Not the credit card company.

 

Not always true. If the store uses the embedded chips, called EVM, they won't be responsible for fraudulent charges. However, if the store only uses the swipe code on the back, then they will be responsible. This distinction is well documented all over the internet.  

Edited by SantaFeFan
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In our experience...if the card/transaction is approved by the card issuer, electronically or otherwise, and the merchant has verification of this, then the merchant is not on the hook for the fraudulent transaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, iancal said:

In our experience...if the card/transaction is approved by the card issuer, electronically or otherwise, and the merchant has verification of this, then the merchant is not on the hook for the fraudulent transaction.

They are now if the merchant does not use the chip reader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 2:56 AM, babs135 said:

Terrible situation where once again the law is shown to be an ass and justice is not served.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

Terrible situation where once again the law is shown to be an ass and justice is not served.

 

How is the law an ass?  Spain cannot exercise jurisdiction over an Italian suspect and UK victim on a Panamanian flagged ship outside of Spanish waters.  

Edited by Aquahound
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...