Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A fine example of crime and punishment

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    TerrorFirmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    muppetkiller wrote: »
    Am I the only one who actually thinks that it's a pretty good outcome considering how normally scumbags who rape and knife people get out in a few months ,not years...

    EDIT not saying that I think it's enough years but it's good considering normal punishments handed out...


    Not at all. While a few more years would be ideal, I wouldn't have been surprised to have opened the link to read '3 years with one suspended, he came from a bad family, lots of pressure at home, taken into account etc etc yadda yadda'

    I even read one lately where a teenager who had several previous convictions for assault and robbery, and was then before court after having viciously raped and attacked a woman had the judge take into account that as a youngster witnessing a friend trying to hang himself, it was a significant reason for his behavoiur. If that were the case then 50% of the population would be savage thugs.

    To be honest sometimes I think a good old fashioned beating is necessary. I would definitely not believe in the death penalty, but maybe if that fella was tied down, beaten, and raped us the ass with a dildo he'd be more inclined to realise his mistake.


  • Options
    #33
    ambro25
    Registered Users Posts: 5,994 ✭✭✭ambro25


    DaveMcG wrote:
    I'm not sure 20 years for arson is proportional at all. If they knew the kids were there, that's a different story...

    I didn't propose 20 years for arson, btw ;)

    We don't know if they knew or not that kids were in the car. The point to start from, therefore, is that they were going to torch a car (supposedly for being refused a lift, but that looks like it may change).

    I'd sentence payment for the value of the car on conviction and maybe a year to reflect on the error of their ways, more if they can't pay (though they would eventually pay, increased sentence or not).

    Ah but wait, now... there were kids in the car :eek:

    Were they harmed? N = 3 years + car compo
    Were they harmed? Y = 4/5 years + car compo
    Were they seriously harmed? Y = 6/7 years + car compo
    Were they seriously harmed and scarred for life? Y = 10 years + car compo + kids compo
    Was there intent to harm? N = no change
    Was there intent to harm? Y = + 2 years or more

    Looks perhaps too clinical that way. Perhaps there's something to be said for civil law jurisdictions ;)


  • Options
    #34
    Mr. Presentable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,496 ✭✭✭Mr. Presentable


    The best sentence would be to hand them to the victim's family and let them mete out appropriately


  • Options
    #35
    hopalong85
    Registered Users Posts: 541 ✭✭✭hopalong85


    x_Laura_x wrote: »
    well i didnt do it so i dont know the whole truth of it but what i heard i def believe!!

    but again i do think they got what they deserved

    Why imply that you know the reason and then refuse to share it?!


  • Options
    #36
    x_Laura_x
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭x_Laura_x


    hopalong85 wrote: »
    Why imply that you know the reason and then refuse to share it?!


    fine i heard that it was as a warning to the mother (drugs related ) and they did not know the kids were in the car....hense them tryin to get them out!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    indough
    Registered Users Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭indough


    Was the mother in the car with the kids at the time?


  • Options
    #38
    x_Laura_x
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭x_Laura_x


    indough wrote: »
    Was the mother in the car with the kids at the time?


    no she was in the house...i think!!


  • Options
    #39
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    ambro25 wrote: »
    I didn't propose 20 years for arson, btw ;)

    We don't know if they knew or not that kids were in the car. The point to start from, therefore, is that they were going to torch a car (supposedly for being refused a lift, but that looks like it may change).

    I'd sentence payment for the value of the car on conviction and maybe a year to reflect on the error of their ways, more if they can't pay (though they would eventually pay, increased sentence or not).

    Ah but wait, now... there were kids in the car :eek:

    Were they harmed? N = 3 years + car compo
    Were they harmed? Y = 4/5 years + car compo
    Were they seriously harmed? Y = 6/7 years + car compo
    Were they seriously harmed and scarred for life? Y = 10 years + car compo + kids compo
    Was there intent to harm? N = no change
    Was there intent to harm? Y = + 2 years or more

    Looks perhaps too clinical that way. Perhaps there's something to be said for civil law jurisdictions ;)

    Let's take your 10 years for now... A news article says the following:

    "Judge Moran said, without the guilty pleas, their admissions to Gardai, the fact that the State accepts they did not know the children were in the car and their immature ages at the time, they would be facing sentences of 12 to 14 years."

    So they admitted what they did to the Gardai, they pleaded guilty, they were immature at the time (although still >18), and they didn't know that the kids were in the car (one of them actually tried to rescue the kids when they discovered them).

    Makes me think that the sentence was quite appropriate.


  • Options
    #40
    Wacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,057 ✭✭✭Wacker


    As Havok posted above, I was expecting to see something along the lines of suspended sentences being dished out. The jail terms sound about right to me, in this instance.


  • Options
    #41
    delop
    Registered Users Posts: 490 ✭✭delop


    Well in Morocco the general public believe you hand should be cut off for stealing...

    Im happy to leave the sentencing to those who have the experence and training to do so...

    I think its understandable thats ppl show an interest in hi profile cases, but a little perspective is no harm either...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Outer Bongolia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 258 ✭✭Outer Bongolia


    It actually was a fine example of crime and punishment. The sentences are about right, given all the circumstances. There was a danger of sentences that were too lenient but the judge did well.

    Furthermore, in response to some of the posts above, I think the majority of judges do a good job. We only ever hear about the bad judgments.
    It is very difficult to be a judge, to rise above the baying mob. The mob roams the land in plastic clown faces, seeking death sentences and castration, all the while led by their leader and Lord of the Underworld Joe Duffy.


  • Options
    #43
    hshortt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭hshortt


    I'm happy to see that they got sentencing, and will actually serve time. For the victims families the amount of time will never be enough, and my initial thoughts were that they should be getting a much longer period locked up. Is there evidence to say that the culprits didn't know the kids were in the car? Or are we generally assuming that wouldn't do harm to little kids?

    On a related note, why do people commiting crimes get x amount of years with a certain amount suspended?

    I do hope they are made complete the full term and not get time off for being good young fellas.

    Time will tell.
    Cheerio
    Howard


  • Options
    #44
    delop
    Registered Users Posts: 490 ✭✭delop


    hshortt wrote: »

    On a related note, why do people commiting crimes get x amount of years with a certain amount suspended?

    Time they have served while waiting for trial
    hshortt wrote: »
    I do hope they are made complete the full term and not get time off for being good young fellas.

    You dont think that priosners should get a few yrs knocked off at the end for reforming themselves and expressing remorse? Esp in cases where there were no deaths?

    I think thats fair isnt it?


  • Options
    #45
    hshortt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭hshortt


    delop wrote: »
    Time they have served while waiting for trial

    You dont think that priosners should get a few yrs knocked off at the end for reforming themselves and expressing remorse? Esp in cases where there were no deaths?

    I think thats fair isnt it?

    I don't, it's my opinion that a sentence is given and takes into account the severity of the crime. - The sentence given should be served completely. Getting off early for being a good lad, lessens the severity of the original crime.

    Sorry for going off topic.
    Cheerio
    Howard


  • Options
    #46
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    hshortt wrote: »
    Is there evidence to say that the culprits didn't know the kids were in the car? Or are we generally assuming that wouldn't do harm to little kids?

    Well the DPP accepts that they didn't know the kids were in there (so there's obviously evidence to that effect), and one of them also helped to rescue the kids. Not really somethin you'd do if you had the intention of burning them... Unless you're Chopper Reid (shoot the person and then take them to the hospital!)


  • Options
    #47
    hopalong85
    Registered Users Posts: 541 ✭✭✭hopalong85


    delop wrote: »
    Time they have served while waiting for trial



    You dont think that priosners should get a few yrs knocked off at the end for reforming themselves and expressing remorse? Esp in cases where there were no deaths?

    I think thats fair isnt it?

    I don't think it's fair for prisoners to get early release for showing remorse when two children have been badly scarred in what could have been a fatal attack. Thats just me though...:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #48
    indough
    Registered Users Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭indough


    hopalong85 wrote: »
    I don't think it's fair for prisoners to get early release for showing remorse when two children have been badly scarred in what could have been a fatal attack. Thats just me though...:rolleyes:

    Prison is supposed to be more about rehabilitation than punishment AFAIK, and rightly so. If someone is rehabilitated then they are not the same person as they were when they committed the crime, so should be treated more leniently. Thats one of the things that separates justice from revenge.


  • Options
    #49
    hopalong85
    Registered Users Posts: 541 ✭✭✭hopalong85


    indough wrote: »
    Prison is supposed to be more about rehabilitation than punishment AFAIK, and rightly so. If someone is rehabilitated then they are not the same person as they were when they committed the crime, so should be treated more leniently. Thats one of the things that separates justice from revenge.

    Yes prison is supposed to be about rehabilitation. Unfortunately the amount of repeat offendors proves that the rehabilitation thing doesn't really work for the majority. I don't really see why behaving well in prison should make you eligible for early release in a case like this. I wouldn't view this as "justice", but again, that's just me.


  • Options
    #50
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    hopalong85 wrote: »
    Yes prison is supposed to be about rehabilitation. Unfortunately the amount of repeat offendors proves that the rehabilitation thing doesn't really work for the majority. I don't really see why behaving well in prison should make you eligible for early release in a case like this. I wouldn't view this as "justice", but again, that's just me.

    Maybe cos the perps are 18 years old, and you want to give them an incentive to avoid the criminality that goes on in prisons, and not to get sucked into that lifestyle. They committed a crime and should serve an appropriate sentence for it, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be helped to get back on track.


  • Options
    #51
    hopalong85
    Registered Users Posts: 541 ✭✭✭hopalong85


    DaveMcG wrote: »
    Maybe cos the perps are 18 years old, and you want to give them an incentive to avoid the criminality that goes on in prisons, and not to get sucked into that lifestyle. They committed a crime and should serve an appropriate sentence for it, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be helped to get back on track.

    We will just have to disagree on this one. I think it's likely that guys who are petrol bombing cars at 18 have already been sucked into the lifestyle. If, after serving a full sentence, they leave prison rehabilitated then that's great. I don't think it's fair for them to be released early though. They committed a crime, they received a sentence, and it should be served in full imo. I know this is a cliched argument, but do you think your opinion would be the same if was your children this happened to?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    jor el
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭jor el


    delop wrote: »
    Time they have served while waiting for trial
    No, the sentences were back dated to earlier this year, or even last year, so that takes care of time served. The suspended part of a sentence is a time in which you have to keep your nose clean or you go straight back to prison. If they get arrested for any reason while the suspended sentence is still over them then it's straight to jail with them.

    Just listening to Matt Cooper there and a guy from the Indo said Jonathan O'Donoghue laughed when the judge handed him an 8 year sentence. I don't think 2 years suspended is going to do much for a scumbag like that.
    You dont think that priosners should get a few yrs knocked off at the end for reforming themselves and expressing remorse? Esp in cases where there were no deaths?

    I think thats fair isnt it?
    As long as they show a willingness to reform, but once out if they're involved in any crimes it should be straight back to prison and not an endless stream of court appearances as often happens here.

    I think the sentences in this case were fairly OK. It's a real shame that these two kids had to suffer (and continue to) the way they did. No sentence can reverse that.


  • Options
    #53
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    hopalong85 wrote: »
    We will just have to disagree on this one. I think it's likely that guys who are petrol bombing cars at 18 have already been sucked into the lifestyle. If, after serving a full sentence, they leave prison rehabilitated then that's great. I don't think it's fair for them to be released early though. They committed a crime, they received a sentence, and it should be served in full imo. I know this is a cliched argument, but do you think your opinion would be the same if was your children this happened to?
    I suspect not, that's why jurors are chosen carefully to objectively analyse the evidence, and why we have judges whose job it is to look at the case and emotionlessly decide, based on a variety of factors, an appropriate sentence. It's why Majella Holohan isn't deciding the fate of the perps -- because she would no doubt have them in jail for the rest of their lives.


  • Options
    #54
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    DaveMcG wrote: »
    "Judge Moran said, without the guilty pleas, their admissions to Gardai, the fact that the State accepts they did not know the children were in the car and their immature ages at the time, they would be facing sentences of 12 to 14 years."
    So, if you knew they were there, admitted you knew that they were there, and pleaded guilty, you'd get a lesser jail sentence?:eek::eek::eek:
    indough wrote: »
    Prison is supposed to be more about rehabilitation than punishment AFAIK, and rightly so.
    And what happens if prison is a holiday home where they get to watch TV, take drugs, and f**k around all day...?

    =-=

    I still think that they should bring in hard labour in to our jails.


  • Options
    #55
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    the_syco wrote: »
    So, if you knew they were there, admitted you knew that they were there, and pleaded guilty, you'd get a lesser jail sentence?:eek::eek::eek:

    Yes, I think zat ist what the judge was getting at :)


  • Options
    #56
    indough
    Registered Users Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭indough


    hopalong85 wrote: »
    Yes prison is supposed to be about rehabilitation. Unfortunately the amount of repeat offendors proves that the rehabilitation thing doesn't really work for the majority. I don't really see why behaving well in prison should make you eligible for early release in a case like this. I wouldn't view this as "justice", but again, that's just me.

    It doesn't prove that rehabilitation doesn't work, it proves that our method of rehabilitation doesn't work.

    If a prisoner behaves well over a long enough period of time then it's reasonable to believe that they've been rehabilitated and therefore reasonable enough to believe that they have changed their ways and deserve a second chance.
    the_syco wrote: »
    And what happens if prison is a holiday home where they get to watch TV, take drugs, and f**k around all day...?

    Doesn't really relate to my point, either a prisoner is rehabilitated or not, and seeing as prison is no holiday camp it's a moot point anyway.
    the_syco wrote: »
    I still think that they should bring in hard labour in to our jails.

    Good thing you're not in power then.


Advertisement