Justice?

miseeire

I have posted in the past about the system of justice in our country and have been shot down by the supporters of the present system.My latest rant is about an arsonist,who caused 280,000 euro damage to cars,initially gave a false alibi,then pleaded guilty and received a 3 year suspended jail sentence.The picture of the gurrier leaving court on the front of the indo says it all.I expect a post feeling even the suspended was too tough.One again I ask "are there judges doing work they are not able to do?"

nuac

Miseeire

My experience is that Judges take great care to consider all evidence and submissions before passing sentence.

miseeire

I appreciate what you are saying but surely it is not unreasonable to expect judges to be hoodwinked occasionally and therefore not pass an appropriate sentence.The picture I referred to shows the young man leaving court with an appearance of having got away with what he wanted.What are the odds he reoffends again?I mean,he has got away with it once.

darragh666

What do you think the sentence should have been?

MrPudding

miseeire wrote: »

I appreciate what you are saying but surely it is not unreasonable to expect judges to be hoodwinked occasionally and therefore not pass an appropriate sentence.

I expect it is highly likely that a judge might be hoodwinked occasionally, but I think it would be occasionally.

miseeire wrote: »

The picture I referred to shows the young man leaving court with an appearance of having got away with what he wanted

I have not seen the picture, but I hope you are not basing your entire opinion on the very subjective view of how you think he looked at the precise moment a photo was taken.

miseeire wrote: »

What are the odds he reoffends again?

Who knows?

miseeire wrote: »

I mean,he has got away with it once.

He didn’t get away with it, he was found guilty. The “punishment” he has received does not seem appropriate to you, that does not mean he has gotten away with it.

As a matter of interest, what details do you have of the trial? Do you know what had to be taken into consideration by the judge before the sentence was passed? I think the problem in cases like this can often be that we don’t necessarily have all the information, most certainly no where near the information that a judge would have. That said, I suspect it is probably unlikely that even knowing all the facts would influence your opinion.

I think that judges, for the most part, probably get it right. They have to take a lot more into consideration that what you will find in a headline. Personally I think that custodial sentencing should be reduced in general, this is not necessarily a comment on this particular case as I don’t know the details. Particularly in the UK I think too many people are being sent to prison and not enough thought is going into alternative options that would reduce the strain on the prison system, offer offenders a better chance to reform their ways, benefit society and ultimately save the country more. Have a read of this:

http://www.barristermagazine.co.uk/articles/issue32/hedderman.html

and this:

http://www.barristermagazine.co.uk/articles/issue33/hooper.htm

Scotland has now effectively scrapped sentences of less than three months:

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Threemonth-prison-terms-scrapped-in.6393628.jp

I appreciate that none of this might be relevant to this particular case, but I know you seem to have a particular issue when you see a sentence that does not match what you think it should be. The problem is, things are rarely as simple as the front pages try to make them.

MrP

Jarndyce

This is the relevant article (with photograph) http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/8364280000-arsonist-walks-away-with-a-suspended-sentence-2243164.html

OP, you're right. Justice was not done. Not by any stretch of the warped imagination of a do-gooder.

Unfortunately, such judgments are not rare. The criminal-justice system in this country is abysmal. That is no secret. It has always been ten steps behind commonwealth counterparts, struggling to catch up but so often failing. Such derisory judgments go only to further undermine what little credibility it has.

the_wheel_turns

Jarndyce wrote: »

It has always been ten steps behind commonwealth counterparts, struggling to catch up but so often failing. Such derisory judgments go only to further undermine what little credibility it has.

Such crap.

Jarndyce

the_wheel_turns wrote: »

Such crap.

Such an enlightening contribution.

the_wheel_turns

Jarndyce wrote: »

Such an enlightening contribution.

There wasn't exactly much argument to rebut in the first instance. If there was, it would have been tackled I assure you.

Suffice to say, offhand and populist statements like the one you made have no basis where the academic legal community have documented a move in the total opposite direction to the one you suggested in making the statement.

It's plainly crap, aimed at misleading people. Such BS from you.

Jarndyce

the_wheel_turns wrote: »

There wasn't exactly much argument to rebut in the first instance. If there was, it would have been tackled I assure you.

So instead you thought it better to add "such crap"? For someone who is so self-assured in their position, you come across as a petulant whelp.

the_wheel_turns wrote: »

Suffice to say, offhand and populist statements like the one you made have no basis where the academic legal community have documented a move in the total opposite direction to the one you suggested in making the statement.

It's plainly crap, aimed at misleading people. Such BS from you.

Oh, so that suffices to say? A bald assertion to the contrary?

I should add that my comment was not intended to suggest that fault lies entirely with the criminal-justice system. Of course it's a multi-faceted failure that entails shortcomings of the legislature, the prison service etc. But then again, I never claimed that my post would "suffice to say". It was, quite obviously, an offhand statement.

If you can contribute nothing more than churlish remarks then perhaps you shouldn't contribute at all.

the_wheel_turns

No, no. Your persistent propensity to leap onto the bandwagon astounds me.

This is the part I took issue with from the outset:

Jarndyce wrote:

It has always been ten steps behind commonwealth counterparts, struggling to catch up but so often failing.

This is false and incorrect, a remark engineered by you alone to mislead the readers of this thread. Period.

If you're going to just make **** up, I'm quite certain there's a multiplicity of other fora available to you. This simply isn't one of them. Get real.

Jarndyce

the_wheel_turns wrote: »

No, no. Your persistent propensity to leap onto the bandwagon astounds me.

This is false and incorrect, a remark engineered by you alone to mislead the readers of this thread. Period.

If you're going to just make **** up, I'm quite certain there's a multiplicity of other fora available to you. This simply isn't one of them. Get real.

"Get real". Another pearl of wisdom.

Your baseless assertions that my statement is "false and incorrect" are of no value whatsoever.

It's a display of blind arrogance to attempt to write-off my comment as a mere 'populist statement'. You unsuccessfully feign elitism by ascribing such a pejorative connotation to "populist".

You want to talk about misleading people? You have made it quite clear that you enjoy no place in the academic legal community, yet you purport to have a convincing knowledge of what has been documented 'in the community'.

You have simply re-affirmed my initial impression that you are a petulant whelp.

the_wheel_turns

Jarndyce wrote: »

"Get real". Another pearl of wisdom.

"Get real" is an exasperated imperative, it was never intended as a "pearl of wisdom". I would have considered that obvious.

Jarndyce wrote: »

Your baseless assertions that my statement is "false and incorrect" are of no value whatsoever.

I don't need a basis by your logic. From the statement I've quoted back to you twice now, and won't be again, you've made it clear that "baseless assertions" are what you're into, so I figured I'd return the favour. Speaking of baseless assertions, isn't that one right there? I can tell argumentation was never your strong point.

Jarndyce wrote: »

It's a display of blind arrogance to attempt to write-off my comment as a mere 'populist statement'. You unsuccessfully feign elitism by ascribing such a pejorative connotation to "populist".

That's your opinion. I vociferously disagree. It was a totally populist statement. Only a moron would defend it. And what was that about baseless assertions? Oh yes...

Jarndyce wrote: »

You want to talk about misleading people? You have made it quite clear that you enjoy no place in the academic legal community, yet you purport to have a convincing knowledge of what has been documented 'in the community'.

Now you just look ignorant. But then again, your originating dearth of argument would make that clear to any member of "the community". And, once again, speaking of baseless assertions.

Keep them coming pighead, you're cracking me up!

Jarndyce

the_wheel_turns wrote: »

From the statement I've quoted back to you twice now, and won't be again, you've made it clear that "baseless assertions" are what you're into, so I figured I'd return the favour. Speaking of baseless assertions, isn't that one right there? I can tell argumentation was never your strong point.

What has argumentation got to do with that statement? It was made, as you rightly pointed out, as an offhand comment to the thread topic, not as a postulate for debate. It is only you, with your puerile responses, who has attempted to make it into argumentation. So, strictly speaking, from an 'argumentation' viewpoint, that point is moot.

the_wheel_turns wrote: »

That's your opinion. I vociferously disagree. It was a totally populist statement. Only a moron would defend it. And what was that about baseless assertions? Oh yes..."

First, how can you vociferously disagree on a internet forum?? Second, I never denied that it was a populist statement. Third, "only a moron would defend it" - could you appear any more childish? You are embarrassing yourself.

the_wheel_turns wrote: »

Keep them coming pighead, you're cracking me up!

If that is true, then I pity you more now than I did initially. You strike me as being an awfully childish and socially inept person. In addition, I would wager that you are also very sexually frustrated, hence the venting of aggression on an internet forum instead of actually having a life.

Regrettably (yet unsurprisingly), by having to address you on your level this 'argument' has now detracted from the thread topic rather than contributed to it. Thus, I choose to end this futile bickering. You are well and truly a waste of time.

drkpower

Settle down ladies, settle down.

MrPudding

Jarndyce wrote: »

The criminal-justice system in this country is abysmal. That is no secret. It has always been ten steps behind commonwealth counterparts, struggling to catch up but so often failing.

Can you elaborate on how the Irish system is ten steps behind commonwealth counterparts? I see you have subsequently defended this post, but not actually added any substance.

MrP