Despicable Justice?

walshb

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0527/hanleyc.html

I read about this case a while back and now hear this.

83 years old, tied up and beaten
to death and the judge thinks that there
is a reasonable possibility that Cawley didn't
intend to cause serious harm?:rolleyes:

The pathologist said the man could have died from blood
inhalation? Wow! Wonder what caused him to inhale
that blood.

I'm sick thinking about this.

Rabies

The guy intended to steal , he beat him and tied him up. Death a result of his actions, he didn't set out to murder the guy.

Manslaughter is deserved.

The guy will go away to jail for a few years. I doubt his intention was to kill someone that night

walshb

Rabies wrote: »

The guy intended to steal , he beat him and tied him up. Death a result of his actions, he didn't set out to murder the guy.

Manslaughter is deserved.

Really. So what the **** did he intend to do by beating a man about the head and face, severely. Did he think it would cause him a little discomfort? He broke in, tied him up and beat on him until he died.
What is difficult to understand with this

83 years old. What was the need to severely beat the man. Jeez, I'd hate to think you ever served on a jury to be believing crap like this!

Murder doesn't always HAVE to have a motive or intent.

Rabies

Ya he beat him. But like I said, I don't think he expected death.

The age of the victim doesn't matter to the crime. The guy still committed a serious crime, no doubting that He is getting punished for it.

Sometimes the emotional side of things needs to be put to one side. The consequence of his actions resulted in a death, but it wasn't the expected out come. If it was, then it would have been murder.

walshb

Rabies wrote: »

Ya he beat him. But like I said, I don't think he expected death.

The age of the victim doesn't matter to the crime. The guy still committed a serious crime, no doubting that He is getting punished for it.

Sometimes the emotional side of things needs to be put to one side. The consequence of his actions resulted in a death, but it wasn't the expected out come. If it was, then it would have been murder.

No emotion here. But I ask, how the hell can ANYONE then ever know if someone meant to kill?

Only that person can say this and if we allow this defence of, "I didn't mean to kill", then how would anyone be convicted of murder?

The guy battered the man until the man died. Now, we are expected to accept that
in severely beating him, that he didn't intend to kill? What was the intention? To rough him up?

Oh, I stabbed him to death, but I didn't mean to? I only meant to cause a little
sharp pain?

How does this work?

IMO, it is the single biggest problem with our system.
Killers getting away with the "Manslaughter" charge when
they murdered. There have been so many
cases where persons stabbed others dozens of times and yet they
get cleared of murder and it is accepted as manslaughter.

Ciaran500

walshb wrote: »

IMO, it is the single biggest problem with our system.
Killers getting away with the "Manslaughter" charge when
they murdered. There have been so many
cases where persons stabbed others dozens of times and yet they
get cleared of murder and it is manslaughter.

walshb wrote: »

83 years old, tied up and beaten
to death and the judge thinks that there
is a reasonable possibility that Cawley didn't
intend to cause serious harm?:rolleyes:

The pathologist said the man could have died from blood
inhalation? Wow! Wonder what caused him to inhale
that blood.

Why do you keep
starting new lines in the middle of a
sentence?

Its annoying reading it
when the sentence is broken
up and only taking up a tiny
part of the screen.

The_Minister

For a charge of murder to be valid you have to either want to kill them, or want to cause serious harm.
This guy just wanted to tie the man up.
So the appropriate charge is manslaughter.

The_Minister

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Why do you keep
starting new lines in the middle of a
sentence?

Its annoying reading it
when the sentence is broken
up and only taking up a tiny
part of the screen.

And so I write
my post
hoping
that
it
will
be
thanked
Poetry
Emo.
Sadness

walshb

The_Minister wrote: »

For a charge of murder to be valid you have to either want to kill them, or want to cause serious harm.
This guy just wanted to tie the man up.
So the appropriate charge is manslaughter.

What?

Wanted to tie him up? He did tie him up, but aren't you forgetting
that he also severely beat him to death?

Does this not show a want to kill or cause serious harm?

walshb

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Why do you keep
starting new lines in the middle of a
sentence?

Its annoying reading it
when the sentence is broken
up and only taking up a tiny
part of the screen.

Not sure what exactly is hard for you here.
It's just a style of writing and I doubt it's all
that difficult to follow.

Rabies

walshb wrote: »

What?

Wanted to tie him up? He did tie him up, but aren't you forgetting
that he also severely beat him to death?

He did not die from the beating, he died as a result of the beating. The choked on his own blood. Probably due to the fact that he was tied up. Maybe he couldn't clear his throat/lungs due to the position he was in.

To be honest, I really don't know. I'm speculating. All of the above is my opinion. But i do find it weird he is still denying everything.

Naos

walshb wrote: »

Not sure what exactly is hard for you here.
It's just a style of writing and I doubt it's all
that difficult to follow.

Ooooh he has a writing style!

Rabies

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Why do you keep
starting new lines in the middle of a
sentence?

Its annoying reading it
when the sentence is broken
up and only taking up a tiny
part of the screen.

Perfect for those on 4" monitors.

Shush now :pac:

walshb

Rabies wrote: »

He did not die from the beating, he died as a result of the beating. The choked on his own blood. Probably due to the fact that he was tied up. Maybe he couldn't clear his throat/lungs due to the position he was in.

To be honest, I really don't know. I'm speculating. All of the above is my opinion. But i do find it weird he is still denying everything.

This is getting funny. Now, we are to believe that he didn't die from the beating, it was the result of the beating? He choked on his own blood? What made the man choke on
his own blood. The man bled due to a severe beating and died.

Jeez, how can you now try and say that it wasn't Cawley who caused this, but the man choking that caused it?

So, if you strangle someone, can you not then say that it wasn't me, it was the victim who died because the victim stopped breathing?

Cawley beat him to death.

The pathologist said he received a severe beating
to the head ad face and 'probably died from inhaling his own blood.'

The man inhaled his own blood because he
was severely beaten. Cawley is the reason!

Ciaran500

Rabies wrote: »

Perfect for those on 4" monitors.

Shush now :pac:

Thats why the magic forum software is scalable to every screen size.

Wagon

Lets be honest, he must have really beaten the ****e out of him to cause him to choke on his own blood. and the poor bloke was 83. It wouldn't have taken much to kill him and anyone would know that. Then the príck denies he robbed him. If that's the case then he did it with no intention other then to beat him in which case you could call it murder.

Did he tie him up then beat him? It's not very clear...

connundrum

I felt the same for the manslaughter charge for that Ronnie Dunbar chap up in Sligo.

If he didn't mean to kill her, why go to the trouble of sticking her body in a sleeping bag and dumping it in a river.

Intention to murder is such a crazy thing to try and prove, all you have is the word of the accused to go on.

In my opinion, if I go out, start a fight, and punch a guy to death, then I have murdered him. It may not have been my intention to murder him, but my excessive use of force lead to his death - therefore I am a murderer.

If I hit a person with my car, as they ran out into the road, I caused their death unintentionally - manslaughter with no jail sentence.

If I hit a person with my car, as they were crossing (with right of way), I caused their death unintentionally - manslaughter with possible jail sentence for neglect.

I think there are too many grey areas, everything needs to be more black and white.

Rabies

walshb wrote: »

This is getting funny. Now, we are to believe that he didn't die from the beating, it was the result of the beating? He choked on his own blood? What made the man choke on
his own blood. The man bled due to a severe beating and died.

Jeez, how can you now try and say that it wasn't Cawley who caused this, but the man choking that caused it?

So, if you strangle someone, can you not then say that it wasn't me, it was the victim who died because the victim stopped breathing?

It was his actions that led to his death, all factors considered it may not have been the out come expected.

So ya, I'm saying manslaughter not murder. Serious crime none the less, and he should do as long in jail as he can for the crime committed.

Dravokivich

I declare a plee of insanity M'Lord.

- Drav!

walshb

Wagon wrote: »

Lets be honest, he must have really beaten the ****e out of him to cause him to choke on his own blood. and the poor bloke was 83. It wouldn't have taken much to kill him and anyone would know that. Then the príck denies he robbed him. If that's the case then he did it with no intention other then to beat him in which case you could call it murder.

Did he tie him up then beat him? It's not very clear...

He tied him up and then beat him severeley and some think that
this was not intent and that the man didn't die from the beating.
What baloney. He died because Cawley deliberately beat him badly and he then died from the result of this beating. How the hell any court can reduce this to
manslaughter is a disgrace.

The_Minister

connundrum wrote: »

In my opinion, if I go out, start a fight, and punch a guy to death, then I have murdered him. It may not have been my intention to murder him, but my excessive use of force lead to his death - therefore I am a murderer.

What if he starts on you? Calls your recently deceased mother a whore?
And you punch him, he falls, hits his head and dies.
Is it murder? or manslaughter?

connundrum wrote: »

I think there are too many grey areas, everything needs to be more black and white.

Justice knows no absolutes.


Do you think that provocation should be a defence, mental impairment...

Do you see no difference between a man who intends to kill someone, and a man who does it by accident?

Kintarō Hattori

I'm with waslhb on this. If the law says he didn't intend to kill the chap and his death was accidental then the law is an ass and should be changed. The scumbag broke into a pensioners home, tied a frail man up and then attacked the man resulting in his death.

He would not have died if he hadn't been broken into. You kill someone, not in self defence, then you should be sent away for a long long time.

It's as simple as that.

Nelson Muntz

Rabies wrote: »

It was his actions that led to his death, all factors considered it may not have been the out come expected.

So ya, I'm saying manslaughter not murder. Serious crime none the less, and he should do as long in jail as he can for the crime committed.

It depends, If he hit the guy only once and then he choked on blood the defense could argue he did not intend for him to die.

If he punched the guy 27 times, then the prosecution could argue that 27 blows was excessive & that any reasonable person would know that amount of blows could & probably would cause death.

*BTW, I think it is murder & he should get life. Any crime against the old or very young should carry mandatory maximun sentences.

The_Minister

walshb wrote: »

He tied him up and then beat him severeley and some think that
this was not intent and that the man didn't die from the beating.
What baloney. He died because Cawley deliberately beat him badly and he then died from the result of this beating. How the hell any court can reduce this to
manslaughter is a disgrace.

You do realise that manslaughter can lead to life imprisonment?

He meant to beat him and tie him up, not kill him.
He did not have the intention to kill him, and under our law that is required for murder.

Rabies

connundrum wrote: »

If I hit a person with my car, as they ran out into the road, I caused their death unintentionally - manslaughter with no jail sentence.

Accidental death. That is if you were driving with due care and fault is at the pedestrian.

connundrum wrote: »

If I hit a person with my car, as they were crossing (with right of way), I caused their death unintentionally - manslaughter with possible jail sentence for neglect.

Manslaughter. If they had right of way, then you were not driving with proper care and attention. Your actions led to their death.

walshb

Rabies wrote: »

It was his actions that led to his death, all factors considered it may not have been the out come expected.

So ya, I'm saying manslaughter not murder. Serious crime none the less, and he should do as long in jail as he can for the crime committed.

Okay, using this logic, anyone can claim it wasn't me who caused the death, it was the victims heart that stopped or his brain that swelled etc etc. Never mind the fact that the heart stopped because a knife went thru it or the brain swelled because it was severely kicked

Seriously, this logic baffles me and if this is what is being
accepted in court, then we are screwed.

I know manslaughter and I know murder. The Irish justice system
is all over the place concerning the two.

Sam Vimes

walshb wrote: »

Murder doesn't always HAVE to have a motive or intent.

I'm pretty sure it does......

walshb

The_Minister wrote: »

You do realise that manslaughter can lead to life imprisonment?

He meant to beat him and tie him up, not kill him.
He did not have the intention to kill him, and under our law that is required for murder.

Oh, so how the hell do you know what he meant. Is it because the guy said that, "I didn't mean to kill." If so, then anyone can use this defence.

How can he claim that he didn't mean to kill when the evidence says that he
severely beat the guy around the head and face while the guy was tied up.

Now, you will just believe Cawley when Cawley or any other killer says, "I didn't
mean to kill."

Dead men tell no tails. Cawley can say anything about what happened and it
seems some will believe it.

TequilaMockingBird

I get that murder is supposedly pre-meditated.

And manslaughter is when you just decide in that minute - f*ck this - I'll kill him/her.

But surely if you kill someone while being unfortunately inadequately prepared (doh ), but THEN decide to wrap that body in a sleeping bag, that body being a 14 year old girl you have impregnated incidentally - oops , then stuff her in the boot of your car (morto when your own teenage child hears the crack of the dead girls neck as you shove her in the boot), drive your kids to the local lake, get them to help you chuck the dead child into the lake, and then you completely deny any guilt, in fact you ring all the local press to complain about your name being besmirched with such accusations. Her remains are eventually found, after being dragged from the lake by animals, and eaten.

Is that murder? I think so.

Ronnie Dunbar will be sentenced on the 6th of June for the manslaughter of 14 year old Melissa Mahon.

walshb

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it does......

Okay, lets say it does. Anyway, in this case, Cawley murdered the man and his
only defence is that, "He didn't intend it." Of course he will say this. That doesn't mean we
have to accept or believe it

Sam Vimes

walshb wrote: »

Okay, lets say it does. Anyway, in this case, Cawley murdered the man and his
only defence is that, "He didn't intend it." Of course he will say this. That doesn't mean we
have to accept or believe it

No of course it doesn't, that's what the trial is for. They look at the evidence and they look for a motive. If they can find no good reason why he would intend to kill the guy, it adds weight to his claim that it wasn't intentional. The guy should of course be punished severely but he can't be convicted of murder unless intent can be established beyond reasonable doubt

O'Coonassa

Bring back eineachlan/blood money.

The_Minister

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

I get that murder is supposedly pre-meditated.

And manslaughter is when you just decide in that minute - f*ck this - I'll kill him/her.

But surely if you kill someone while being unfortunately inadequately prepared (doh ), but THEN decide to wrap that body in a sleeping bag, that body being a 14 year old girl you have impregnated incidentally - oops , then stuff her in the boot of your car (morto when your own teenage child hears the crack of the dead girls neck as you shove her in the boot), drive your kids to the local lake, get them to help you chuck the dead child into the lake, and then you completely deny any guilt, in fact you ring all the local press to complain about your name being besmirched with such accusations. Her remains are eventually found, after being dragged from the lake by animals, and eaten.

Is that murder? I think so.

Ronnie Dunbar will be sentenced on the 6th of June for the manslaughter of 14 year old Melissa Mahon.

Manslaughter can't 'become' murder after the person is dead.
Concealing the crime does not mean that it was a murder.
The issue is what was going on when the act occured.

walshb

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No of course it doesn't, that's what the trial is for. They look at the evidence and they look for a motive. If they can find no good reason why he would intend to kill the guy, it adds weight to his claim that it wasn't intentional. The guy should of course be punished severely but he can't be convicted of murder unless intent can be established beyond reasonable doubt

Okay, grand. So, to me, intent was clearly established. The evidence says the man was severely beaten about the head and face. This shows an intent to cause serious harm or kill. It resulted in death. Had he not severely beat the guy, the man would be alive.

Now, if we simply accept that, "I didn't mean to kill," then we will never be able
to prosecute a murder case. Cawley is OBVIOUSLY going to say
that he didn't intend to kill. He has to try and come up
with some defence, but for folks to buy it is what baffles me!

He chose to severely beat an 83 year old man. What the hell did he expect the result to be? He got the result that was expected from beating a person severely around the head and face. This is open and shut to any normal intelligent person.

It is muddied and clouded by defences and mischievous people

Wagon

walshb wrote: »

He tied him up and then beat him severeley and some think that
this was not intent and that the man didn't die from the beating.
What baloney. He died because Cawley deliberately beat him badly and he then died from the result of this beating. How the hell any court can reduce this to
manslaughter is a disgrace.

If he beat him up after he tied him up then the verdict should be murder. He intended to rob the chap. Why did he feel the need to beat an 83 year old man after he tied him up? there was nothing but intent to harm there and it led to an innocent man getting killed. Life sentence? tough **** sunshine. Shouldn't have beaten a pensioner should you?

And yes he choked on his own blood but i do agree with WalshB. That would never have happened if the man hadn't had the living ****e beaten out of him. So id say murder is the suitable charge because that's what it was. It also can carry a life sentence so if he gets life in prison, good! All the better for the rest of us because it's another scumbag off the streets.

walshb

Wagon, sense at last.

This crap of believing the story of, "I didn't mean to kill," bugs the crap out
of me.

Now, a driver makes a dangerous move and ends up killing someone is
a valid argument for not meaning to kill; but a guy breaking
into a house, tying up a man and beating him so badly that
the man dies is absolute no defence, so why the hell
do we accept this

And on top of this we have folks saying it was because of the choking and not
Cawley?

This is plain madness. The man may well have choked to death on his own
blood. I ask the simple freaking question. Why?

If you tie someone up and lock them away and they starve to death, who is to blame?
Did they die because they starved? Yes, buy they starved because
you made it happen.

You shoot someone in the face. They died from severe head trauma.
Why? Because you made it happen!

TequilaMockingBird

Sam Vimes wrote: »

...If they can find no good reason why he would intend to kill the guy..

Is there ever a good reason?

walshb

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

Is there ever a good reason?

Exactly, and also, what about the reason that Cawley was a simple scumbag.
What about evil or bad or heinous. Does there have to be some complex and convoluted reason why folks kill? Whatever happened to plain crazy psycho scumbag?

You know, some mad man stabs a complete stranger to death. Is there a reason?
Yes, he's a freaking mad man. You will have some saying, "Well, he didn't have a reason and didn't
even know the person." It must be manslaughter, duh?

So what. He still bloody murdered the person!

the_syco

If someone breaks into your house, and you beat them up, you'll get charged if your life wasn't in danger.

If they tie you up, and beat the crap out of you, and you die, it's murder.

If they tie you up, and beat the crap out of you, and you die, but they steal your wallet, it'll be manslaughter :rolleyes:

walshb

the_syco wrote: »

If they tie you up, and beat the crap out of you, and you die, but they steal your wallet, it'll be manslaughter :rolleyes:

Just make sure they die due to them and not you. Like, choking on something:rolleyes:

connundrum

The_Minister wrote: »

What if he starts on you? Calls your recently deceased mother a whore?
And you punch him, he falls, hits his head and dies.
Is it murder? or manslaughter?

My example was of me (hypothetically) punching a guy to death. No falling, no provocation. I've seen cases where (as reported by the media) this situation happened, and the accused was charged with manslaughter.

This is wrong imo.

You've probably seen cases where one person has stabbed another to death, again with a manslaughter charge. Unless, the accused was actually being threatened with a knife/gun at the time - there is no defence for stabbing another person to death.

Man calls my mother a whore, I stab him to death, I get charged with manslaughter. Crazy.

The_Minister wrote: »

Do you think that provocation should be a defence, mental impairment...

Do you see no difference between a man who intends to kill someone, and a man who does it by accident?

Provocation can absolutely be a defence, but the level of provocation which has been presented in recent cases is poor.

Dunbar - he was provoked into killing her by her being pregnant and threatening to go public with it?

Christy Hanley - he was provoked into beating the 83 year old to within an inch of his life by the fact that the old man was probably shouting for help?

walshb

The key in THIS case is that the old man is dead and cannot say what happened.
Cawley can say what he damn well likes. He can say the old man attacked him, spat at him, called his mammy a whore or whatever he likes. The old man cannot defend himself as dead men tell no tales.

Now, just because Cawley says this that and the other, that doesn't mean we simply accept his word for it.

The evidence speaks for itself. The man was tied up and severely beaten around the head and the face. He died as a result of this terrible beating. That is murder.

Now, again, Cawley can say, "I didn't mean it."

We still do not have to accept this. The evidence suggests that he did mean it.

If we were to simply accept the four words, "I didn't mean it," then how the hell could
we ever prosecute a person for murder?