Teen gets 7 yrs for petrol bombing a Cllr's home

gurramok

I'm shocked that a judge actually gave a 'stiffer' sentence than normal for this.:)

Will the culprit serve the 5 years in total though, whats there to stop him and the likes of him doing it again?

From http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/11/15/story285306.html?rss=yes

'A teenager who petrol-bombed the home of an outspoken councillor whilst his wife and daughter were present was today sentenced to seven years in jail, with the last two years suspended.'

smemon

gurramok wrote:

was today sentenced to seven years in jail, with the last two years suspended

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

why not just say 5 years? This is what annoys me about our length of sentencing. You say 'life' and it's 5 years or something. You say 1 year an it's 2 weeks.. :rolleyes:

The_Minister

I think the "stiffer" sentence was because the councillor was a member of the Green party, and therefore opposed to incineration.

Rb

Jesus, what a little knacker. Should have got a longer sentence imo.

Sure enough theres really not anything that will stop him doing it again. One can only hope going through the prison system will actually reform him and he'll come out a better person.
That said, he is going in a drug abuser/addict (it was a bit vague) so kicking his habit whilst in there will generally be a whole lot harder than if he weren't in there.

He is an absolute scumbag though, but he is only a 17 year old kid so hes in for a hard time in prison. You can only hope our prison system will actually do what its meant to and cause some reform in his life.

lostexpectation

wow thats actually a really long sentence imho

Rb

lostexpectation wrote:

wow thats actually a really long sentence imho

For petrol bombing someones home whilst their whole family is asleep inside?Seriously?

joebhoy1916

lostexpectation wrote:

wow thats actually a really long sentence imho

Its because is was a councillor's home.

Thrill

People are always crying out for stiffer sentencing and now that someone has gotten one people are saying it was a bit stiff. Three people could have died in that attack and he could be going down for murder, and we would all be saying he deserves everything he gets. Lets just hope he learns his lesson.
The reason that they suspend some of the sentence is to make the person behave themselves while inside and when they are released. If he messes up he'll do the full seven years.

lostexpectation

thrill wrote:

People are always crying out for stiffer sentencing and now that someone has gotten one people are saying it was a bit stiff. Three people could have died in that attack and he could be going down for murder, and we would all be saying he deserves everything he gets. Lets just hope he learns his lesson.
The reason that they suspend some of the sentence is to make the person behave themselves while inside and when they are released. If he messes up he'll do the full seven years.

I agree that it was serious attack with near serious injury buy then you compare to sentences for attack resulting in injury and it is stiff, I guess its when you compre it to other cases it seems stiff, on its on its ok

Capt'n Midnight

Quinn pleaded guilty to a total of six charges including the arson attac

Two people have died up north recently because of arson.

Should people get lighter sentences for attempted murder where they try to shoot someone, depending on where the bullets hit, which is random, or because of the INTENTION. If you don't intend to kill someone, you can still get done for manslaughter and people die from house fires often enough that it's not an unforseen circumstance.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

rb_ie wrote:

For petrol bombing someones home whilst their whole family is asleep inside?Seriously?

he should of been done for 3 counts of attempted murder.

Mr Magnolia

smemon wrote:

why not just say 5 years?

I take you're point but, afaik: if the wee sh!te steps out of line he'll go done for the last 2

joebhoy1916 wrote:

Its because is was a councillor's home.

:rolleyes:

Gurgle

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Two people have died up north recently because of arson.

I'm still trying to get my head around that one.
How is dousing people in petrol and setting them on fire arson?

Were they just trying to destroy their clothes?

As for the petrol-bomb scumbag - He'll do 5 years, get out, rape or murder someone and get put back in for the other 2 amidst much complaining about how the justice system let us down again. 15 years for attempted murder would have been more appropiate imho.

connundrum

smemon wrote:

why not just say 5 years? This is what annoys me about our length of sentencing. You say 'life' and it's 5 years or something. You say 1 year an it's 2 weeks.

Agreed. I think suspending of sentences should be done away with.

ie. If you stole a car, and rammed in into a Grada car - then you should get 4/5 years with parole after 3.5 years. NOT 6 years with 3 suspended cos you had a deprived upbringing and you couldn't sit still in school.

The kid should serve a minimum of 7 years. Its attempted fcukin murder like.

Who do you complain to about changing the judicial system? This whole 'suspended sentences' bollocks is really pissing me off :mad:

gimmick

The sentence wasn't stiff enough IMO. For all intends and purposes, what he did was attempted murder, and should have been tried as such.

Too many bleeding heart liberals out there.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

The_Minister

connundrum wrote:

Who do you complain to about changing the judicial system?

Michael McDowell. Alternatively st up a thread in legal discussion or humanities.

connundrum wrote:

This whole 'suspended sentences' bollocks is really pissing me off :mad:

Suspended sentences are IMO, a good thing.
They provide an incentive to reform. Prisoners have this hanging over them, and know that if they break the law, then they go to jail, or stay in jail for longer. This means that they behave for a time, and this gets them into a pattern of obeying the law. I fully believe that if one gets into the habit of obeying a set of rules, then eventually one does so without thinking.
If they go out into society, and are forced to interact with society in solely a lawful way, due to the threat of jailtime, then they will soon, only interact in this way.

They thus reduce crime, without the cost of keeping these people in jail.

but, he should have been charged with attempted murder.
EDIT: He pleaded guilty, thats why he wasn't.

John R

The_Minister wrote:

Michael McDowell. Alternatively st up a thread in legal discussion or humanities.

Suspended sentences are IMO, a good thing.
They provide an incentive to reform. Prisoners have this hanging over them, and know that if they break the law, then they go to jail, or stay in jail for longer.

Then we should have extremely long sentences, say 40 years with 35 suspended. Then they will have a SERIOUS threat hanging over them not just an extra few months.

The_Minister

John R wrote:

Then we should have extremely long sentences, say 40 years with 35 suspended. Then they will have a SERIOUS threat hanging over them not just an extra few months.

That would definately increase the fear element, but then you would end up with people going to jail for 50% of their lives for one case of arson, and one of drunk&disorderly. That would be unjust.

connundrum

The_Minister wrote:

Michael McDowell. Alternatively st up a thread in legal discussion or humanities.

Suspended sentences are IMO, a good thing.
They provide an incentive to reform. Prisoners have this hanging over them, and know that if they break the law, then they go to jail, or stay in jail for longer. This means that they behave for a time, and this gets them into a pattern of obeying the law. I fully believe that if one gets into the habit of obeying a set of rules, then eventually one does so without thinking.
If they go out into society, and are forced to interact with society in solely a lawful way, due to the threat of jailtime, then they will soon, only interact in this way.

They thus reduce crime, without the cost of keeping these people in jail.

but, he should have been charged with attempted murder.
EDIT: He pleaded guilty, thats why he wasn't.

But isn't there a huge re-offending trend regardless of the suspended sentence scheme?

I went looking but could only find stats from 1997 where there was a study done on youth re-offenders. 75% of those (boys & girls) released had re-offended within a year.

Any up to date stats would be good!

The_Minister

I must admit that 75% is far higher than I expected.
Still, I would expect the rates to be even higher without it.
At least it'll make them behave in jail.

Degsy

The_Minister wrote:

I must admit that 75% is far higher than I expected.
Still, I would expect the rates to be even higher without it.
At least it'll make them behave in jail.

Dont be so sure,jail turns petty criminals into hardened criminals..its an exam factory for people who want to graduate to a life of crime.Make no mistake a lot of these little s hitheads arent afraid to go to prison,they have friends and family inside or who have been inside,its like going to school for them.Go into st pat's and you'll see the little bastards showing off thier charge sheets and bragging to thier mates,a long sentence is a badge of honour.Make teh sentence fit the crime..he tried to burn down soembody's house then burn down his mother's house,see how he feels about it.If a scumbag blinds somebody,cut out an eye of his..steals a thousand quid?No problem,a kidney will cover that nicely.

John R

The_Minister wrote:

That would definately increase the fear element, but then you would end up with people going to jail for 50% of their lives for one case of arson, and one of drunk&disorderly. That would be unjust.

IMO going to jail for that length for intentionally setting fire to a house with a family inside is just.

If they are going to get a second chance then they should be prepared to not break ANY laws.

A high percentage of the population manage to never get in trouble without any threat hanging over them. If the threat of being banged up for decades doesn't stop some scumbag from committing petty crimes then it is only fair on the rest of us that they be kept in prison until they are no longer a threat.

DemonOfTheFall

Degsy wrote:

Make teh sentence fit the crime..he tried to burn down soembody's house then burn down his mother's house,see how he feels about it.If a scumbag blinds somebody,cut out an eye of his..steals a thousand quid?No problem,a kidney will cover that nicely.

Stern. Stern, but fair.

l3rian

he should have got 20 years

Gurgle

Degsy wrote:

Dont be so sure,jail turns petty criminals into hardened criminals..its an exam factory for people who want to graduate to a life of crime.

I think this particular scumbag has little to learn about being a thug.