Suspended Sentence for Manslaughter

VO

I hope that this is the correct forum for this post. I have just read in the Irish Times where a suspended sentence was handed down to a girl who made an allegation of rape and whose boyfriend and another man went to an apartment where this alledged rape took place and a totally innocent man was shot dead. The girl later retracted the allegation of rape. I know she was 15 at the time of the incident in 2007 , however , I believe this is another example of how the courts & judges constantly ignore equality of the sexes and give more lenient sentences to females. This is not the first time this has happened. Last year a female got a suspended sentence for fraud while her husband got a custodial sentence for the same crime why - because she was a mother, not in my opinion a valid reason.

This whole incident stemmed form this girls false allegation of rape, if she had not made the allegation the 18 year old man would be probably still walking around enjoying his life. I believe she should have been treated exactly the same as her then boyfriend , her co-accused who got a 7 year sentence. She at least deserved the same sentence. Time to educate our judges me thinks.

Mena

VO wrote: »

Time to educate our judges me thinks.

Is it a problem with the judges or is the legislation at fault? I don't know.

I would however agree that she should get the same sentence, but seven years for what is effectively murder? That I still find a joke... Would make it almost worth it in some cases...

VO

Mena,

I agree I think the problem is a combination of both - outdated legislation but also judges who don't live in the real world. I am sick to the teeth of seeing people coming before the courts and getting lenient sentences. Everytime the come up they have some excuse - bad background, abused as children, bad parents etc etc. but there is rarely if ever any evidence of this produced. They always show remorse when they are caught not before hand or while subjecting their poor victim to the crime. And then there are the ones who had a momentary lapse in their lives - my interpretation of this is first time they were caught.

Mena

VO wrote: »

Mena,

I agree I think the problem is a combination of both - outdated legislation but also judges who don't live in the real world. I am sick to the teeth of seeing people coming before the courts and getting lenient sentences. Everytime the come up they have some excuse - bad background, abused as children, bad parents etc etc. but there is rarely if ever any evidence of this produced. They always show remorse when they are caught not before hand or while subjecting their poor victim to the crime. And then there are the ones who had a momentary lapse in their lives - my interpretation of this is first time they were caught.

Well quite frankly, having a "bad background" or being abused as a child should carry no weight at all. People need to start taking responsibility for their actions. Remorse carries no weight in my book either. I hate to spout a cliché but: Do the crime, do the time as they say.

Sentences in Ireland, from what I can see, are farcical for the most part. Even worse, is when someone is up on a charge and you hear they have "50 previous convictions"... this is lunacy. We need a three strikes you're out rule.

Brenji

i think this is the case you are referring to http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0206/1233867922829.html
it seems to me that the judge was lenient not because of her sex but rather because of the circumstances of the case in question. Her culpability seems to be far less than that of her boyfriend and the sentence seems reflective of that. It's easy to have a knee jerk reaction to sentencing but it seems to me that a more considered approach makes more sense than a blanket policy of lock them all up and throw away the key.

Sangre

Mena wrote: »

Well quite frankly, having a "bad background" or being abused as a child should carry no weight at all. People need to start taking responsibility for their actions. Remorse carries no weight in my book either.

It pretty easy to say that in an abstract sense. However, plenty of brutally abused and neglected children do turn to crime. Not as easy to take a harsh view when you're the one sentencing them to jail, where a life of drug addiction is bound to follow. There is a reason nearly all criminals come from the same areas.

Anyway, people scream for tougher sentences? Why? They cost us huge amounts and don't do anything. They don't prevent serious crimes and certainly don't rehabilitate people. All they are extend punishments at huge cost to the state. The suggestion that doing 7 years in Mountjoy is worth a murder is laughable.

hullaballoo

Why was this heard in the Circuit Court? That seems a little out of kilter. I mean, I presume the gunman is awaiting a separate trial for murder, undoubtedly in the Central Criminal Court, but it doesn't make much sense to me that the couple were tried in the Circuit Criminal Court.

I think the fact that the girl was only 15, whereas her boyfriend at the time was 23 may have been a factor. I wonder if the case will be available online. Oddness.

VO

Brenji wrote: »

i think this is the case you are referring to http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0206/1233867922829.html
it seems to me that the judge was lenient not because of her sex but rather because of the circumstances of the case in question. Her culpability seems to be far less than that of her boyfriend and the sentence seems reflective of that. It's easy to have a knee jerk reaction to sentencing but it seems to me that a more considered approach makes more sense than a blanket policy of lock them all up and throw away the key.

How was her culpability less than the that of the boyfirend. She initiated the false complaint of rape for reasons we do not know. Presumabley she was doing this to save her own ass. Her actions led to the death of a totally innocent 18 year old. My reaction is not a knee jerk reaction but is one that I have thought out logically. People should be held accountable for their actions and in this case her actions led to a murder- surely worth more than a slap on the wrist. By the way her boyfriend carried out exactly the same crime as her manslaughter, on exactly the same person , and in exactly the same manner he gets 7 years, she gets suspended sentence. Why -only difference is gender as far as I can see

Pub07

Sangre wrote: »

Anyway, people scream for tougher sentences? Why? They cost us huge amounts and don't do anything. They don't prevent serious crimes and certainly don't rehabilitate people. All they are extend punishments at huge cost to the state. The suggestion that doing 7 years in Mountjoy is worth a murder is laughable.

Its pretty obvious why we need tougher sentences, some people are so evil/psycho that they pose a constant threat to the general public. There have been plenty of cases where guys who should've been in jail commited serious offences including rape and murder. One example is the guy that is currently awaiting trial for the murder of the Swiss girl Manuela Reido in galway, that guy should've been locked up for life, he would've been in the United States, for a previous incident where he was involved in kicking someone to death but as usual he got a nice handy sentence and was back on the streets in a matter of years.

Then there is the basic fact that you have to be punished for your crimes and in Ireland the only way we have of doing that is jail time. If someone killed one of your family members and got off with a very lenient sentence, as is happening all time these days, would you not be calling for a tougher sentence?

Lefournier

Imagine the suffering of the family of the unfortunate young victim. First, they have the horror of learning that their son in Ireland has been shot dead. What anguish and confusion! Then they discover he is the victim of an atrocious case of mistaken identity. They try to come to terms with the senselessness of his death. Then they are told that the girl who initiated this chain of events (I'm putting it mildly) will walk free.

I hope the liaison Garda didn't insult their intelligence by trying to make the suspended sentence sound like anything other than a slap on the wrist. But I wonder what the Garda said when they asked him - as they must have - whether she would have walked free if their son was white?

I think the judge's reasoning for sentencing the girl was that

At the time Craig was 15 years old and Judge O'Shea was told she had tried to dissuade the men from going to the apartment. She only saw the gun when they were in the car on the there. The judge said Craig was caught in a difficult situation after making the complaint. She had "foolishly involved herself", he added.

I can only judge from newspaper reports but it seems like the judge believed every word that came out of her mouth. The doctrine of "common purpose" used to be a strong presumption in dealing with murder cases where a group of people attack the victim. Now it seems to have disappeared and no one is convicted of murder unless the prosecution can prove BRD who struck the fatal blow/ pulled the trigger.

I am particularly puzzled as to why the gunman was not on trial and why no one was charged with murder. Even if the girl was held not to be party to a plot to kill or seriously injure the victim (why else were they going to his home?), it is hard to understand why Sullivan was not charged with murder. The fact that the victim was shot through the door is no defence. They knew he was in the room and, at the very least, were reckless as to whether the gunshot would hit him or not.

The DPP should appeal the leniency of the sentence but it was the DPP who decided not to charge Sullivan with murder.

994

Sangre wrote: »

Anyway, people scream for tougher sentences? Why? They cost us huge amounts and don't do anything. They don't prevent serious crimes and certainly don't rehabilitate people. All they are extend punishments at huge cost to the state. The suggestion that doing 7 years in Mountjoy is worth a murder is laughable.

Do they, though? Consider, for every thug you set free, that's more property damage, more drug sales, more violence, more garda work, more court costs, that he/she will cause in the future.

A large amount of blame rests on the girl. She didn't admit to cheating on him - presumably because she knows he's a violent man. So she fabricates a claim that she knows won't end well for the innocent Mr Owoija. You'll probably see her on Westmoreland St. this evening, fighting some howiya over a taxi, while that man's parents and friends mourn.