Recent attempted murder case

johnnyskeleton

I'm surprized there isn't already a thread on this(or maybe I'm just lazy):

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/victims-family-says-sentence-on-wouldbe-killer-a-disgrace-1390710.html

independent wrote:

THE family of a man shot twice in the head by a "friend" yesterday expressed outrage after his attacker was jailed for 12 years.
Ian Kenny (21) requires permanent hospital care after he was shot in the head by Jonathan Dunne (23) while they sat in Mr Dunne's car in Dublin last July.
Mr Justice Paul Carney yesterday said he considered handing down a life sentence to Dunne for the attempted murder but, because of his age, background and early plea, the judge instead imposed a 12-year sentence.
Speaking outside the court, Mr Kenny's family strongly criticised the sentence, maintaining that they did not get justice and that the sentence was a "disgrace" rather than a deterrent.
"We got no justice for my son," Mr Kenny's mother, Kathleen, said. "Jonathan Dunne shot him in the head and that man is talking about Joe Duffy," she added, referring to the judge's criticism of an interview during Tuesday's 'Liveline' programme on RTE.
Crucified
"He crucified him ... he's left him in a worse state than if he killed him," Mrs Kenny said.
"The judge is letting them off, the Government is letting them off, and the Minister for Justice is letting them off."
When asked by reporters what she would like to see happen, an upset Mrs Kenny questioned what could be done.
"Have we to take our justice? Have we?" she asked. "We did not get justice in that court. That judge is more interested in Joe Duffy than in my son getting shot.
"Have I got the right to take someone's life now that they took my son's life? Would I only get 12 years?
"Wouldn't it be worth it? But no, we don't do that. We live in a civilised place."
Her husband John expressed his fear that Dunne could be back on the streets within six years.
"It has destroyed my family, my son has two kids and it's destroyed his family too," he said. Mr Kenny, of Monasteraboice Road in Crumlin, remains seriously ill and under permanent care in St Vincent's Hospital where he is fitted with a breathing tube, is fed through a tube and has no control over his bladder or bowels as a result of the attack.
Dunne, of Windmill Court, Crumlin, pleaded guilty at the Central Criminal Court on Monday to the attempted murder of Mr Kenny at Lakelands Road in Stillorgan on July 4, 2007.
Dunne told gardai that he had shot Mr Kenny in the head and shoulder with a double- barrelled sawn off shotgun as a favour he owed to drug dealers because he had lost IR£50,000 worth of drugs when he was a 16-year-old. The judge said that over the last couple of days he had given very close consideration to imposing a life sentence for two reasons.
The judge added: "The message must go out from this court in the strongest possible terms that the only option to a person in that (Dunne's) situation is to go to the Garda Siochana and place themselves in whatever programme the gardai are in a position to make available," he added.
"It is not acceptable that somebody should come into this court and say, 'I attempted to carry out an assassination on the instructions of a nameless godfather and on that account I should be entitled to claim mitigation'.''

My view is that 12 years for a guilty plea to attempted murder makes sense, particularly in the light of the guilty plea and the other factors. However, what is interesting is the response. While I can understand that the mother will never be happy no matter what the result, the media attention attached to this case shows what I see as the modern trend of the media to protray any sentence - no matter how severe - as lenient. Any takers?

The Artist

he'l be out in 8 years.

Pigletlover

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

While I can understand that the mother will never be happy no matter what the result, the media attention attached to this case shows what I see as the modern trend of the media to protray any sentence - no matter how severe - as lenient. Any takers?

Because most sentences given out are too lenient, 12 years for attempted murder seems a bit soft imo.

Daftendirekt

Pigletlover wrote: »

Because most sentences given out are too lenient, 12 years for attempted murder seems a bit soft imo.

I agree. If not life, then why not a good 20 - 30 years at least?

Guy:Incognito

Meh, dont thnk the country will be any worse off with either of these two on the streets. The sentence could have been longer, but I stil dont have any sympathy for either of them

The family of the uy that got shot were whinging on the radio after the trila and giving the usual line " my son wasnt involved in drugs etc". Drug dealers dont have radom people shot, especially in payment of a €50k debt.

johnnyskeleton

Alan Ford wrote: »

he'l be out in 8 years.

He might be out in 9 if given the maximum remission (25%), and that's assuming that he is a model prisoner. In any event, it's a matter for the Minister for Justice.

Pigletlover wrote: »

Because most sentences given out are too lenient, 12 years for attempted murder seems a bit soft imo.

Compared to what exactly? The point I'm trying to get at is that when people talk about sentences these days it seems to be in the abstract - they never associate it with 12 years out of their lives locked up with their chamberpot when everyone else is getting on with their lives.

Don't get me wrong, the starting point for such a case would be a life sentence, and if the accused had fought the case and had previous convictions I have no doubt that he would have got a life sentence. But he is entitled to credit for pleading guilty and for his otherwise good charachter. Also, you have to remember, that if he hadn't confessed to the gardai he might never have been prosecuted, or if he had he might have gotten off, so there is probably some level of remorse here.

gurramok

Stekelly wrote: »

Meh, dont thnk the country will be any worse off with neither of these two on the streets. The sentence could have been longer, but I stil dont have any sympathy for either of them

The family of the uy that got shot were whinging on the radio after the trila and giving the usual line " my son wasnt involved in drugs etc". Drug dealers dont have radom people shot, especially in payment of a €50k debt.

Its better they are off the streets. If this country is serious with gun control, harsher sentences than a 12yr(really 8) stint for shooting someone in the head are needed.

Anyone notice it's the infamous Justice Paul Carney again with his dodgy sentencing(a certain Clare rape case comes to mind where he imposed a suspended sentence which was met with righteous outrage)

johnnyskeleton

gurramok wrote: »

Its better they are off the streets. If this country is serious with gun control, harsher sentences than a 12yr(really 8) stint for shooting someone in the head are needed.

First off, since people don't seem to believe me when I say that the maximum remission is 25% (i.e. 9 years for a 12 year sentence, provided that is that he is of good behaviour) here's a link: link

I'll try to make my point by analogy to the debates in accomodation and property.

At the moment, we have people saying "My house is worth €1m" but no one is even looking at it to pay that amount. What these people fail to realise is that price is not an absolute or inherent figure, but instead it is whatever the market will bear. So when the supply and demand factors are taken into account, the price is fixed at the point at which they meet. But more fundamentally, the person who says "My house is worth €1m" is not basing this on the relative cost of renting or in proportion to other goods, or even to their yearly salary. They are basing it entirely on:
1) what other people have told them,
2) what's worse, they are basing it on what they read in the papers,
3) they might also be basing it on the idea that since house prices have risen by double digits over the last few years, therefore their house must have increased by the same amount, and
4) the misguided idea that property prices will always go up.

Now, the court has to first of all see where on the scale of punishments the offence lies, then within that framework the supply and demand factors of aggravation and mitigation will determine the appropriate tarriff. To assume that a 12 year sentence is not harsh enough is like 1) above. To assume that sentences of 12 years for such offences is indicative of our system not being serious with gun control is like 2) above. To impose a blanket tarriff without looking at the specific circumstances of the case is like 3) above. To believe that harsher sentences act as a deterrent or that after the term in prison the person will go on to live a normal life is as insubstantial as 4) above.

When I hear someone say "He only got 12 years" it has the same resonance to me as someone saying "My house is worth €1m but no-one wants to buy at the moment". It is not looking at the reality of the situation but is instead relying on a perception which is not shared by the judiciary (or the market in my analogy).

What I don't understand when people make adverse comments about judges is whether they have actually considered what they would do in the cirucmstances. If you can point to some reason why judges might want to be lenient towards serious criminals (perhaps they don't want to look them up for too long in case they run out of work!) then you might have a valid argument, but otherwise you must accept that a judge in imposing sentence is taking a rational and learned view of the situation, like a buyer who accepts a 20% reduction on their house because, although unpleasant to them, they know that is what the going rate is.

dresden8

Johnny

That analogy is crap.

Criminals should be locked up, where's the problem with that?

Getting shot twice in the head is not like losing some money off the value of your house.

gurramok

Well Johnny, i had posted before in the Legal forum but it appears there is no performance review on judges.
ie..if they do not perform, there is no sacking mechanism to kick out judges not doing their job.

When i mean judges, i dont label them all as dodgy. It's this particular one who has given out sentences which are ridiculously lenient(the Clare rape case is one)

In this case, the defendant will be out when he is 32 for shooting a man in the head and throwing him from a passing car!

Its only luck he was not facing a murder charge, mitigating factors are a load of boll0x, a person like this is capable of doing this again.

utick

shoot someone twice in the head and you dont even get 10 years for it? thats disgraceful, i guess he was leniant because it was only ATTEMPTED murder and not actual murder

King of Kings

12 years for attempted murder may be fair - but the victim here is left in a vegetative state and is unlikely to ever wake up or have a proper life.

The effects on the victim should be taken into account and in this case a sentence equivalent to a murder sentence would be approprate

if the victim was able to function normally then 12 yeas would be ok but he's not.He is as good as dead - in fact most people would say that he is worse off

shooter should have got life.

johnnyskeleton

dresden8 wrote: »

Johnny

That analogy is crap.

It's valid insofar as gurramok will subject people's aribtrary views on what their house is worth to scruitiny in another forum, but what I am suggesting is that it is equally misleading to have an arbitrary view of what a 12 year prison sentence actually is.

dresden8 wrote: »

Criminals should be locked up, where's the problem with that?

I wouldn't put it so inelegantly, but for serious crime they should serve high prison sentences. I never said anything to the contrary, so I don't see why you are saying this. This thread however is about the arbitrary views some people (and the media) have about prison sentences and what they actually entail.

dresden8 wrote: »

Getting shot twice in the head is not like losing some money off the value of your house.

I never said it was. But the media leads people to be deluded as to the reality of a) the housing market and b) the criminal justice system, and I used the analogy as a device to show that the media hype as regards the property market (which I would have thought is apparent to everyone) is very similar to the media hype as regards the criminal justice system (which a lot of people don't seem to recognise it for what it is).

johnnyskeleton

gurramok wrote: »

Well Johnny, i had posted before in the Legal forum but it appears there is no performance review on judges.
ie..if they do not perform, there is no sacking mechanism to kick out judges not doing their job.

A judge can be removed by the Oireachtas. But this "if they do not perform" is worrying. What are they, thoroughbred studs? If they don't perform you put them down? More importantly, what is performing? Is it that nice little trick of imposing whatever prison sentences the government want them to impose. That sounds like a great idea, lets reign in these judges with their grand ideas of "an independent judiciary".

gurramok wrote: »

When i mean judges, i dont label them all as dodgy. It's this particular one who has given out sentences which are ridiculously lenient(the Clare rape case is one)

Like the time he gave a life sentence for a guilty plea to manslaughter in similar cirucmstances? Or how about the myriad of heavy sentences imposed by him which were reduced by the CCA. Of course, these sentences do not attract media attention, but the handful of times when he appears lenient are always touted to suggest that he is an excessively lenient judge generally.

But tell me, why do you think this sentence is lenient, and what do you think is the reason why the judge gave such a "lenient" sentence?

gurramok wrote: »

In this case, the defendant will be out when he is 32 for shooting a man in the head and throwing him from a passing car!

He might be out when he is 32, but even if he is, think of it this way, he will spend the majority of his 20s locked up with no one for company but his junkie cell mate. And it's not like he is going to have an easy life after prison either.

You might counter this by saying well the victim will suffer miss out on much more, but we don't live in a society that lives by "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" etc. If we did so then everyone who causes another's death would be executed. Justice cannot be perfect, and the courts are not a forum for retribution between the victim and offender.

gurramok wrote: »

Its only luck he was not facing a murder charge, mitigating factors are a load of boll0x, a person like this is capable of doing this again.

How can you be so sure? I think it's fair to say that you're basing this on prejudice rather than on anything more concrete.

utick wrote: »

shoot someone twice in the head and you dont even get 10 years for it? thats disgraceful, i guess he was leniant because it was only ATTEMPTED murder and not actual murder

He got 12 years, so it's not disgraceful at all.

King of Kings wrote: »

12 years for attempted murder may be fair - but the victim here is left in a vegetative state and is unlikely to ever wake up or have a proper life.

I know, but what more can be done? Should we cause equal damage to the offender so that we can all sleep easier at night, even though it wouldn't make a whit of difference in reality?

King of Kings wrote: »

The effects on the victim should be taken into account and in this case a sentence equivalent to a murder sentence would be approprate

They were, and the judge considered it, but only after considering everything in its entirity he imposed a lesser sentence. It might not be popular to say this, but if he were looking at a life sentence for this then he might be tempted to contest the matter, putting the victims family through the ordeal of a trial and possibly even getting off on a legal point or due to insufficient evidence. So in the grand scheme of things, isn't it better that of 10 similar offences there are 10 similar sentences rather than 8 life sentences and 2 people getting off scott free?

King of Kings wrote: »

if the victim was able to function normally then 12 yeas would be ok but he's not.He is as good as dead - in fact most people would say that he is worse off

Is a higher sentence going to bring him back, or even make him feel better? To be honest, although the victims family have made this outcry, I don't think a higher sentence would make them feel better either.

King of Kings wrote: »

shooter should have got life.

Can I ask you:
1) why do you want him to have gotten life, and
2) what benefit would there have been if he got life as opposed to the 12 year sentence?

The Artist

imo the prison sentance here is a joke.
I knew a guy who shot someone in cold blood and witnesses as as well.
the muderer got life but theres no such thing as life here max is about 14 years,if good behaviour out in ten.
and this was 12 years ago and if seen him still in my area,so i say he got out in 9 years.
its a complete joke to see him around and still wary that he'l do it again.
If that happened in England he still wouldnt be out yet as life sentance there is life!

keen

12 years for shooting someone in the head is madness, should of been a lot more. Maybe if 12 years meaned 12 years but he won't serve the full whack.

Sherifu

That's a very weak sentence. :mad:

johnnyskeleton

Alan Ford wrote: »

imo the prison sentance here is a joke.
I knew a guy who shot someone in cold blood and witnesses as as well.
the muderer got life but theres no such thing as life here max is about 14 years,if good behaviour out in ten.
and this was 12 years ago and if seen him still in my area,so i say he got out in 9 years.
its a complete joke to see him around and still wary that he'l do it again.
If that happened in England he still wouldnt be out yet as life sentance there is life!

There are life sentences, and they mean life. That is, they are sent to prison for life but the Minister for Justice can let them out on licence if he wishes to do so. Very few people who have been sentenced to life get out in less than 12/13 years, and many stay in prison for the majority of their natural lives.

johnnyskeleton

keen wrote: »

12 years for shooting someone in the head is madness, should of been a lot more. Maybe if 12 years meaned 12 years but he won't serve the full whack.

Why should it have been a lot more, what purpose would it serve? He will serve the full whack unless he is of good behaviour.

Sherifu wrote: »

That's a very weak sentence. :mad:

No it's not. Imagine 12 years out of your life spent in mountjoy or wheatfield. The problem that I want to highlight is that people don't seem to think about what they are saying when they say that it is a weak sentence. The idea that 12 years in prison is nothing is a highly abstract idea, borne from the pages of the evening herald. 12 years is an incredible amount of time, for this person it will mean the majority of his 20s and on into his 30s.

keen

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Why should it have been a lot more, what purpose would it serve? He will serve the full whack unless he is of good behaviour.

He left his victim's life runined, he will be out 12 years max, that to me isn't fair.

If a best mate of yours was in the victims shoes would you feel your mate got justice? It's mere fortune the victim isn't dead and 12 years isn't much of a deterent.

"12 years is an incredible amount of time, for this person it will mean the majority of his 20s and on into his 30s."

Should of thought of that before putting two bullets into his mates head and dumping him at the side of the road in fairness.

The Artist

keen wrote: »

He left his victim's life runined, he will be out 12 years max, that to me isn't fair.

If a best mate of yours was in the victims shoes would you feel your mate got justice? It's mere fortune the victim isn't dead and 12 years isn't much of a deterent.

"12 years is an incredible amount of time, for this person it will mean the majority of his 20s and on into his 30s."

Should of thought of that before putting two bullets into his mates head and dumping him at the side of the road in fairness.

+1

Sherifu

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No it's not. Imagine 12 years out of your life spent in mountjoy or wheatfield. The problem that I want to highlight is that people don't seem to think about what they are saying when they say that it is a weak sentence. The idea that 12 years in prison is nothing is a highly abstract idea, borne from the pages of the evening herald. 12 years is an incredible amount of time, for this person it will mean the majority of his 20s and on into his 30s.

Yes, it is.

"Ian Kenny (21) requires permanent hospital care."

He would be better off dead for his and his family's sake.

In a few years time the other guys life goes on.

The Artist

quote=johnnyskeleton;56103095
12 years is an incredible amount of time, for this person it will mean the majority of his 20s and on into his 30s.

how can say 12 years is a incredible amount of time,its not for what the person did,like i said life means life and never let out again.
pure simple reasons is that imo the guilty one will strike again.
so if the person is 20 and gets left out in 12 would still be a young man at 32.
he'l just go on as normal like going to pubs,looking for a partner etc.and enjoy himself while the lifers inside for the rest of their lives is where they should be and so should he.

PeakOutput

im 22 i dont remember the first half of my life pretty much but i know for 10 yrs old to now has taken a loooonnnngggg time. if i got sent to jail for 12 years that would be me in the same place for the amount of time i can remember

12 years is a long time, 25 is longer but i trust the judges to make generally fair informed decision based on years of expertise in the area the liveline crowd that second guess every decision made by any expert in the public eye should open their minds a bit