Five suspended life sentences?!!?

Tha Gopher

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0723/midwest.html

It rather reminds me, as I said in the News forum, how men who murder their families are portrayed as thugs and cold bastards, and all women in the same position shown to be confused and depressed


What are the rules regarding a suspended life sentence? If it was, lets say, covering 10 years, does someone who gets arrested for drunk and disorderly really face life? Its unprecedented I would think

aequinoctium

a real puzzle

445279.ie

From reading the report the husband seems to have been very forgiving.

Said they are a million times stronger :eek:

Nevyn

Ah the joys of postnatal depression.

meglome

She has a history of mental illness but it does appear she got off pretty lightly.

Tha Gopher

As opposed to any form of male depression? I dont think either is an excuse for murder, but for whatever reason the media and judicary treat them differently.

nesf

Attempted murder isn't murder and in fairness if she's already back living with her husband and kids and nothing else has happened then it could be said that she isn't presently a danger to anyone and that it could have been an isolated incident based on a mental illness episode.


Five suspended life sentences is a bit crazy though.

Nevyn

Tha Gopher wrote:

As opposed to any form of male depression? I dont think either is an excuse for murder, but for whatever reason the media and judicary treat them differently.

That type is very different if you don't know then I suggest you do some research.

Victor

She is either ill and in need of care or she is a criminal. I see a gross injustice.

PeakOutput

she was found guilty of five counts of attempted murder not attempted murder due to diminished responsibility(if that exists) so her mental state at the time is irrelvant.....she got off due to current mental illness which a psychiatrist specifically said she was exaggerating to avoid jail..........

ridicolous

seamus

She's clearly a cold, calculating bitch. The state showed that (a) She had multiple affairs with men under an assumed name, and (b) soon before the fire had rented an apartment, taken out a few life insurance policies, and kept them in the apartment. Yet somehow she managed to convince her husband and the judge clearly that she believed her home was possessed :rolleyes:
The husband is clearly an idiot.

Suspending a life sentence is a joke. It's a contradiction in terms.

I agree with Tha Gopher - There's a sexist biase in the State and the public against men. Men who murder their wives are cold heartless murdering bastards, whereas women who do the same are just confused and in mental anguish, God bless the poor things.

nesf

Well, Justice Carney does have quite the penchant for suspended sentences.

the_syco

seamus wrote:

I agree with Tha Gopher - There's a sexist biase in the State and the public against men. Men who murder their wives are cold heartless murdering bastards, whereas women who do the same are just confused and in mental anguish, God bless the poor things.

I wonder what she'll be called when she actually succeeds?

Victor

I might have suspended the sentences for attempted murder and given her 10-life for arson.

Tha Gopher

Thaedydal wrote:

That type is very different if you don't know then I suggest you do some research.

So post natal depression is a more, shall we say, sympathy worthy illness than, say schizophrenia or paranoia in males?

Do explain.

oneeyedsnake

I wonder will the husband feel the same way if he is woken up for a split second as his little bunny boiler sinks a knife into his heart

Nevyn

This is AFTERHOURS, if you think I am going to try and get into the differences your more fúcked in the head than even I imagined

Schozpherinics and those who are suffering from paranoid schizophrenia tend to kill them selfs rather then others.

PeakOutput

Thaedydal wrote:

This is AFTERHOURS, if you think I am going to try and get into the differences your more fúcked in the head than even I imagined

Schozpherinics and those who are suffering from paranoid schizophrenia tend to kill them selfs rather then others.

mental illness is mental illness...........its either grounds for mitigating circumstances or its not

nesf

A mental illness debate on AH?

O_o

Capt'n Midnight

I'm still upset that yer man in Sligo got off on mental illness because the gun jammed when he tried to kill a third person, then skipped from the lunny bin to the UK.

So I can in part understand that the sentences are suspended on condition she keeps getting teatment, if she misses treatment then 5 X life. But there should be some conditions on defining her as cured, in case there is a repeat of the Ernst Saunders case where someone recovers form an incurable disease once they've benefited from the leniency of the court. I would at least expect regular medical attention until at least the prison term would have ended.

Love is sometimes blind. In the past there have been numerous cases of partners forgiving an attempt at murder or several and later being killed.

Irish Wolf

Why five suspended sentences? I thought there were only 4 other people involved.. her husband and three children..?

Reku

:mad: Perfect example of the on-going sexism in society, the woman is always the victim, regardless of how clear it is that this belief is a load of BS.
Other good examples being that a female can be beating the heck out of a guy but he is expected to just take it (have known girls who admitted to using this to vent on guys for no reason), or 2 people have sex while drunk => the woman can claim rape, a male teacher has a relationship with a female student he's labelled as a paedophile for life, female teacher on a male student - usually just labelled as lonely and thankful for the male attention.

For the love of god tell the feminists start protesting the inequalities that are unjustly in their favour as well as those that are unjust against them, otherwise just sit down, shut up, and be glad for what they have achieved before some sort of misguided backlash starts.

And IMO claims of post-natal depression as an excuse are no more valid than any other claim of mental illness, you might have problems but you still know right from wrong (unless you're a sociopath, but to be honest I don't think they can ever really function properly in a society), afterall being under the influence of drugs does not usually earn you a "get out of jail free card" for what you do, why should any other altered mental state (and yes I feel alcohol should be disputed as a valid excuse for peoples' behaviour, especially since I know people who get drunk entirely to take advantage of this view people hold of how "ah sure, they were drunk, not their fault what they did").

I'll stop here before I go into the racist/ageist/sizeist and social background inequalities in society too...:mad:

Tar.Aldarion

What? Are they like suspended until her next five lives?

A mental illness debate on AH?

O_o

I imagine it will go like 'What do you got?'

connundrum

I'm sure she's sorry for attempting murder, and that in itself is good enough for me.

Would it then stand to reason that if you act crazy when taken in to custody, you will improve your chances of a reduced/suspended sentence? Or does this only work if your a woman acting crazy? What if you're a man acting like a crazy woman?

/adds to 'Things to do' list.

Terry

connundrum wrote:

What if you're a man acting like a crazy woman?

I'll tell you on the 4th of October.

skywalker

nesf wrote:

Attempted murder isn't murder

Im not sure if Ive misread that, but it really sounds like your playing down the seriousness of attempted murder there. The only difference between attempted murder and murder is the person ****ed it up.

Tar.Aldarion

Sideshow Bob: You don't get the nobel prize in chemistry for attempted chemistry.
:P

Marksie

Irish Wolf wrote:

Why five suspended sentences? I thought there were only 4 other people involved.. her husband and three children..?

She was split personality and tried to kill the dark half.

big b

I'm sure there's women up & down the country weighing up the odds of getting a similarly light sentence for offing their men.
Seems in this case there's no punishment and no deterrent.

Still, she only tried to kill a few people. Bless.

nesf

skywalker wrote:

Im not sure if Ive misread that, but it really sounds like your playing down the seriousness of attempted murder there. The only difference between attempted murder and murder is the person ****ed it up.

Not at all, only that sentencing tends to be harsher for murder cases from what I've seen over the years. I didn't mean to imply that I agreed with this or anything.

nesf

farohar wrote:

And IMO claims of post-natal depression as an excuse are no more valid than any other claim of mental illness, you might have problems but you still know right from wrong (unless you're a sociopath, but to be honest I don't think they can ever really function properly in a society), afterall being under the influence of drugs does not usually earn you a "get out of jail free card" for what you do, why should any other altered mental state (and yes I feel alcohol should be disputed as a valid excuse for peoples' behaviour, especially since I know people who get drunk entirely to take advantage of this view people hold of how "ah sure, they were drunk, not their fault what they did").

I disagree. There is an enormous difference between taking drugs of your own violation and then committing a crime and someone suffering from a mental illness which they have no control over and then committing a crime. It shouldn't (and generally isn't) a get out of jail for free card but there are good grounds for considering it in a case. You do have to take responsibility for your actions but to say that someone doesn't know right from wrong unless they are a sociopath is simply wrong. You're confusing the general sense of that term with the personal sense.

However, I don't for a second believe that everyone who claims mental illness in court actually does have one.

Reku

nesf wrote:

I disagree. There is an enormous difference between taking drugs of your own violation and then committing a crime and someone suffering from a mental illness which they have no control over and then committing a crime.

Fine, how about those born XYY, that is a illness over which they have no control (and short of a test showing it they will usually be unaware of it) and yet most of them end up in prison since their testosterone levels result in them being EXTREMELY agressive. How is this any different than this woman, her condition is a result of hormones, their condition is a result of hormones. Surely they should be placed in psychiatric institutions and not prisons (certainly in the US they go into the prison system, not institutions) since if this trial were anything to go on it's all good as long as you can claim you were under the effect of hormones.
Does this mean a considerably lesser crime such as vandalism should be forgiven if it's just that point in her cycle when she does it? The whole thing is just a complete disgrace.

nesf wrote:

You do have to take responsibility for your actions but to say that someone doesn't know right from wrong unless they are a sociopath is simply wrong.

Well if they don't know right from wrong they really don't have any place in society and should be locked away indefinitely.


And I agree with others in that the only difference between attempted murder and murder is how well you do it, as such both should carry equal sentences IMO (perhaps if you make an action afterwards that could clearly only save the person and does, then I might consider that it deserves a lesser sentence, but otherwise no).

Kimbot

nesf wrote:

I disagree. There is an enormous difference between taking drugs of your own violation and then committing a crime and someone suffering from a mental illness which they have no control over and then committing a crime. It shouldn't (and generally isn't) a get out of jail for free card but there are good grounds for considering it in a case. You do have to take responsibility for your actions but to say that someone doesn't know right from wrong unless they are a sociopath is simply wrong. You're confusing the general sense of that term with the personal sense.

However, I don't for a second believe that everyone who claims mental illness in court actually does have one.

Actually you can control a mental illness!! By seeking professional help!
I know a lot of women that give the "I can kill you and get away with it" excuse, women do tend to get it lighter when it comes to jail terms because as the law stands men are stronger and have more control than women!! The one thing that gets me about it is that she planned what she was doing and someone suffering from a mental illness will not plan such an event, they will just snap and that will happen!! How the family didn't cop something was wrong a long time ago is beyond me!!

nesf

jonny24ie wrote:

Actually you can control a mental illness!! By seeking professional help!

That is not necessarily true, not everyone's condition can be treated successfully. Plus, a person who is mentally ill might think that they are fine, which is part of the problem. If they can't be treated and are undoubtedly a danger to society then sure, lock them up in a mental home, but if they can be treated then give them care until they're in a condition to re-enter society.


People seem to have a big problem differentiating between justice and punishment a lot of them time. One does not equate the other.

nesf

farohar wrote:

Well if they don't know right from wrong they really don't have any place in society and should be locked away indefinitely.

Should we lock away children then? Seriously, you're oversimplifying things here.

Kimbot

nesf wrote:

That is not necessarily true, not everyone's condition can be treated successfully. Plus, a person who is mentally ill might think that they are fine, which is part of the problem.

Yes but your comment was suggesting that all mental illnesses can't be helped. I'm just pointing out that people can be helped where possible!!In this case I think that applies because she was able to take out life insurance and all sorts which means it was well planned and she should go down for that!!

Reku

nesf wrote:

Should we lock away children then? Seriously, you're oversimplifying things here.

We're talking about adults here, children are covered by a different sentencing system, but fine, I'll rephrase that as ANY ADULT, if they don't know right from wrong they really don't have any place in society and should be locked away indefinitely. For sh**s sake we're talking about murder here nesf, anyone who understands what death is knows that it is wrong to kill someone intentionally, it's not a particularly grey area were talking about here, it's premeditated murder.
However you have raised the point that being a child has not been accepted as a valid excuse (Jamie Bulger killers) so why should an adult really have any excuse for murder other than self defence.

nesf

jonny24ie wrote:

Yes but your comment was suggesting that all mental illnesses can't be helped. I'm just pointing out that people can be helped where possible!!

Ah, ok. I didn't mean to imply that, only to say that in the case where mental illness could be acceptable as a defence the person would have to be of not sound judgement due a cause not of their own violation, rather than this being a default state of affairs for people with mental illnesses.

Plenty of people with mental illnesses are perfectly sound of judgement and mind most of the time and at these times they should be fully culpable for their actions.

MooseJam

crazy stuff, it's very true woman get it easier in court, and are viewed more sympathetically by the public, I don't know why this is so as half the population is male

nesf

farohar wrote:

We're talking about adults here, children are covered by a different sentencing system.
However you have raised the point that being a child has not been accepted as a valid excuse (Jamie Bulger killers) so why should an adult really have any excuse for murder other than self defence.

Yes, but the whole mental health debate is around people who aren't of sound mind and not of sound judgement when they commit a crime. This creates a problem since they are not rationally going out to commit a crime necessarily versus someone of sound mind and judgement who would in committing the crime be acting rationally if not in a sociably acceptable manner.

Does that distinction make more sense to you?

Kimbot

nesf wrote:

Ah, ok. I didn't mean to imply that, only to say that in the case where mental illness could be acceptable as a defence the person would have to be of not sound judgement due a cause not of their own violation, rather than this being a default state of affairs for people with mental illnesses.

Plenty of people with mental illnesses are perfectly sound of judgement and mind most of the time and at these times they should be fully culpable for their actions.

Exactly! And in this case and many others that go through our courts people will always try to get away with it and the easiest way to do so is to claim that your nuts!! Alot of doctors (maybe even all) can't properly diagnose mental issues so they should not be able to use that excuse in a court of law. I know people that were misdiagnosed as children as been a nutballs!! Its wasn't a mental illness it was just loosing the rag too easy and the guys that gave the verdict where the best in the business!!

Reku

Once again nesf, if they can't be trusted to make such decisions unsuppervised then clearly they need permanent supervision, in a nice padded cell/cell with bars for the rest of their lives. If they can put the thoughts together to plan out a murder then their thinking can't be all that impaired.
And you missed some of my previous post due to replying while I editted, sorry.

Kimbot

on another note, how can you determine if they were of sound mind at the time unless you were assessing them at that moment in time??

MarkR

I knew this girl some time ago, actually minded her twins. I won't say much but it was only by the grace of god it was attempted murder, and not murder. (Neighbour's heard children crying and had a long ladder).

Still, i'm not a doctor (I don't even play one on tv!). As they are all back playing happy families we have to hope she's over her madness.

I think the real feeling of outrage over the crime is that most mothers who kill or attempt to kill their babies usually kill themselves immediately afterwards, while she obviously had no intention of doing this.

In regard to the suspended sentences (If you try to kill anyone again we'll put you away for real this time! No messin'!), what would she have had to do to have it activated? Are we talking not paying your tv licence, or serious crime?

Victor

Irish Wolf wrote:

Why five suspended sentences? I thought there were only 4 other people involved.. her husband and three children..?

Criminal Damage Act, 1991 Section 2 - arson gets life (and possibly a fine).

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/en/act/pub/0031/sec0002.html

Damaging property. 2.—(1) A person who without lawful excuse damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person who without lawful excuse damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another—

( a ) intending to damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be damaged, and

( b ) intending by the damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered,

shall be guilty of an offence.
.
.
(4) An offence committed under this section by damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
.
.
( b ) on conviction on indictment—

(i) in case the person is guilty of arson under subsection (1) or (3) or of an offence under subsection (2) (whether arson or not), to a fine or imprisonment for life or both, and

Raiser

Heard on the radio about 2 weeks ago that theres a load of people [figure anyone ?] currently in jail for non-payment of the Pat Kenny tax [ie. TV License]

Terry

Really?

They gave up on me.

Cue summons in the door tomorrow morning.

Irish Wolf

Victor wrote:

Criminal Damage Act, 1991 Section 2 - arson gets life (and possibly a fine).

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/en/act/pub/0031/sec0002.html

Thanks Victor - but can you clarify it please - she got 4 suspended life sentences for the people she attempted to murder, and another suspended life sentence for arson??

I guess it's a moot point - but you never know when the law could be on your side*...







*only joking of course

Jesus Wept

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: I am confident that she is no longer a threat to her husband, family, society, or herself anymore. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Tha Gopher

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cornwall/6922504.stm

The actual killer (female) gets 10 years. Guy who helped gets 25 years. All scumbags but honestly, this is ridicilous. Give him 25 by all means, but imo give the actual killer the same if not more

thebaz

Equality should be equality , not just for the nice things