Burglar cut off artist's fingers...

Plautus

Indeed, I am sick and tired at this stage that it is not taken as read that when I either a.) want to find out why crime like this happens (with a view to stopping it) or b.) don't want criminals horribly tortured and mutilated in my name, I'm not 'soft' and 'excusing' criminality either. Bloody illogical.

ballsacky

Time to start eliminating these people that are an obvious threat to civilized society I think.

Millicent

Plautus wrote: »

The DPP taking the case to court at suit of the state wants a high conviction rate. He isn't guided by sentencing outcomes per se. Therefore, whatever he can get to stick that will pass the burden of proof he'll go with. A case of hitting for the low-hanging fruit.

Sometimes, the evidence just isn't good enough in some cases. Specific type of crimes might require a very high standard of proof. In murder, it's the mens rea - the guilty mind and intention - which is difficult to show.

Thanks for the explanation.

Surely attempted manslaughter would be a viable option then? It would be easy to argue that you don't stab someone ten times or in the face, neck and abdomen without at least a very strong disregard for their life?

He left her alone after she played dead. It may not have been premeditated but that sounds calculating enough to constitute attempted manslaughter to me.

Millicent

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

Nope, I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't try to prevent it either though.

Honestly though? I think when it comes down to it, most people would have a higher regard for human life. It's what separates us from those same criminals we say we'd let die.

Plautus

The trouble is that the DPP doesn't want to pursue charges against individuals he knows he can't make work. To do otherwise brings failure and costs upon his office. Can't speak for this case without knowing what the DPP knows. You'd have to know the law in the area in some detail and the evidence in detail, as well as defence submissions.

On the face of it, the DPP could have made an argument for attempted manslaughter at least, but if he didn't pursue that line it's a good guess there were some constraints on his position.

As you might also guess, the amount of people in AH with this kind of knowledge about this case tends toward zero.

EDIT: I might also add that sending more people to prison for ever longer jail terms would be nice but faces severe logistical difficulties. Namely that we don't have enough prison space as it is.

howamidifferent

Millicent wrote: »

Thanks for the explanation.

It would be easy to argue that you don't stab someone EVEN ONCE ten times or in the face, neck and abdomen without at least a very strong disregard for their life?

:mad:

Plautus

Yeah, again you can't craft a blanket legal test along the lines of 'a person who stabs a person once has an evident disregard for human life.'

Sample circumstances which can inveigh are:

a.) provocation
b.) mental instability
c.) self-defence
d.) accident

Of these, a.) only mitigates, and is not a defence, b.) has to show that the instability was such as to completely impair judgement otherwise it's merely mitigatory, c.) is usually a defence (provided it's proportional force) and d.) is a defence, but might require an especially convincing argument.

You need to show a pattern of behaviour which illustrates a disregard for human life and not just a single fact of a stabbing in isolation from the circumstances. In this case, it is clear (at a surface reading) that the guy had little to no respect for the life/bodily integrity of his victim.

Justice is blind to emotion and responsive only to evidence and reason. Which is why so many people here are convinced that it's not fit for purpose :rolleyes:

zenno

It's obviously attempted murder so this freak should get life and when i say life i mean life till he dies of old age. or even better if there was a secret organization somewhere that assassinates these twisted freaks then that would be a nice cleanup job and would save the taxpayer, sounds good to me. maybe it's time that an organization like this was founded.

Plautus

*yawn* the guy's not obviously a biological freak and still seems to be of the human species so we'll have to put up with the banality of evil, so to speak.

It's obviously attempted murder

Well, no actually, the fact that he kept checking to see if she was alive while mutilating her in her own home suggests aggravated assault, aggravated burglary, unlawful imprisonment, and attempted manslaughter (that is imperilling the life of a person without intending to end it) but murder? Very detailed sort of offence. Have a read around the whole area:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

Needless to say, if it was so simple, prosecutions would be that much easier. They're not.

charlemont

TheUsual wrote: »

Life is never life here, as far as I know there is nobody here in prison for life in Ireland.
I know in Britain that the Yorkshire ripper was refused release 2 years ago and will die in prison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkshire_Ripper

You get time off for good behaviour as well here so murder would be typically 12 to 15 years. I could be wrong.

Manslaughter means you did not intend to kill the person or it was self-defence so a lower sentence would be applied there.

Murder doesn't have a set time so Remission doesn't apply, As far as I know a prisoner must see a committee every few years starting from the 7th year to see is he/she suitable for release, But don't worry I would be very surprised to see somebody being released on licence after 7 years, More than likely it would be after 14 to 20 years, Lots of people involved in gang or particularly gruesome murders will be inside till at least 20 years.

The guy this thread is about will more than likely be out after 12 years but depending on his behaviour and rehabilitation he could be out earlier.

zenno

Plautus wrote: »

*yawn* the guy's not obviously a biological freak - still seems to be of the human species so we'll have to put up with the banality of evil, so to speak.



Well, no actually, the fact that he kept checking to see if she was alive while mutilating her suggests aggravated assault, aggravated burglary, unlawful imprisonment, and attempted manslaughter (that is imperilling the life of a person without intending to end it) but murder? Very detailed sort of offence. Have a read around the whole area:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

Needless to say, if it was so simple, prosecutions would be that much easier. They're not.

The law would not come into it if this happened to a member of my family that's for sure. I'm sick of judges letting these sick twisted fcuks off easily and it is only a matter of time before someone deals with it outside of law as the law is not working.

also this arsehole could be out in 8 years to do this all over again to someone else so imo i'd personally exterminate it.

I never said he was a biological freak I said he was a freak, get your facts straight.

Plautus

zenno wrote: »

The law would not come into it if this happened to a member of my family that's for sure. I'm sick of judges letting these sick twisted fcuks off easily and it is only a matter of time before someone deals with it outside of law as the law is not working.

also this arsehole could be out in 8 years to do this all over again to someone else so imo i'd personally exterminate it.

I wouldn't be so eager to drape yourself in the clothes of righteousness when you propose to act outside of the law and commit murder yourself. There is no safe argument by which you can grant yourself that authority. Equally, it invites chaos - I suppose the family of the murderer can murder you in reprisal by a similar argument?

Judgement is delivered impartially. That's why victims and family members don't sit in judgement on the accused. The law works just fine in my book when the number of offences is decreasing and the vast majority of people do not encounter serious crime. Law also works when it's constantly being reviewed and/or revised to keep up with society.

And if the guy's not a biological freak, then you're not really using it with any sense of the meaning of the word. He's a human being. He's done a despicable, wicked thing. We have to grapple with the fact that members of our species, not 'monsters', are capable of doing this.

zenno

Plautus wrote: »

The law works just fine in my book when the number of offences is decreasing and the vast majority of people do not encounter serious crime. Law also works when it's constantly being reviewed and/or revised to keep up with society.

where did you get that hypothesis ? maybe in the land of make-believe I assume.

when the law fails there are other choices.

Plautus

No, there is no reasonable argument I've heard of that says Mr. zenno gets to exact blood feud as a law unto himself whenever he or his family are slighted, injured or killed. It's a nasty little 'system' of justice that is brimming with emotion, can't be trusted to ensure only the guilty are punished and which is motivated by revenge and not the welfare of society at large.

Crime is decreasing, the vast majority of people won't encounter serious crime in their life-time and vigilantism really is stupid. Do you think you're really so original? Law has endured in some form for thousands of years. It's on no verge of breakdown in Ireland, and we're long since past tit for tat.

Make-believe is the land where most people wanting to castrate offenders are living.

zenno

Plautus wrote: »

No, there is no reasonable argument I've heard of that says Mr. zenno gets to exact blood feud as a law unto himself whenever he or his family are slighted, injured or killed. It's a nasty little 'system' of justice that is brimming with emotion, can't be trusted to ensure only the guilty are punished and which is motivated by revenge and not the welfare of society at large.

Crime is decreasing, the vast majority of people won't encounter serious crime in their life-time and vigilantism really is stupid. Do you think you're really so original? Law has endured in some form for thousands of years. It's on no verge of breakdown in Ireland, and we're long since past tit for tat.

Make-believe is the land where most people wanting to castrate offenders are living.

well I was just stating what I personally would do and it wouldn't be just revenge it would be to make sure sicko freaks like this would not kill or maime another person again as people like this usually get a light sentence and let out to do it over and over again just like this sicko.

I don't agree with your comment on crime is decreasing as stats have showed a large increase unfortunately.

I have no faith in our law anymore and I would not hesitate for a second to deal with scumbags like this personally and i'm not alone. judges and the law better get their act together soon because if they don't people will take it into their own hands whether you think it's wrong or not.

for example say if this particular freak got released in 7/8 years and he done the same or worse to another mother or some kid would you still not wish him exterminated ? or would you wish it to go on and on.

Plautus

it wouldn't be just revenge

So how would I be satisfied that you murdered someone with 'just cause' when you assure me that they did something to your family? Where's your proof and what of the requirement of proof if the murderer's family murdered you and might also claim that you did something to deserve it? Propose to abolish law, and you disclaim all of its protection.

Illustrating the flaws in vigilante justice is a very, very elementary point. I despair that it has to be done.

don't agree with your comment on crime is decreasing as stats have showed a large increase unfortunately.

Wrong.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0201/1224288694645.html

^ That's robberies, not burglary which is theft with forced/violent entry onto property, by the way.

I have no faith in our law anymore and I would not hesitate for a second to deal with scumbags like this personally and i'm not alone.

You don't seem to actually understand what the law is nevermind why it's there and how it is constructed to ensure fairness so I wouldn't expect you to have faith in something which you don't understand. In the event, you're in a minority of would-be vigilantes. We hear seldom of cases involving retaliation attacks and killings outside of gangland crime. The law operates with the consent of the majority, or else it could not hope to work at all.

for example say if this particular freak got released in 7/8 years and he done the same or worse to another mother or some kid would you still not wish him exterminated ?

Incarcerated, not exterminated. It achieves the same aim. I can't tell you what will happen in 7 or 8 years time. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. And still, death penalties are not reversible, when we have no completely infallible system of determining guilt. Least of all your gut instinct with which you propose to overthrow centuries of jurisprudence developed by minds more acute than either yours or mine.

mikemac

The man should not be in prison


Whoah, before you call me a bleeding heart, he should be in Clonmel or Dundrum or some mental hospital in solidarity confinement.
Anyone who stabs a man four times, a women ten times and cuts fingers from another women is too far gone

Plautus

mikemac wrote: »

The man should not be in prison


Whoah, before you call me a bleeding heart, he should be in Clonmel or Dundrum or some mental hospital in solidarity confinement.
Anyone who stabs a man four times, a women ten times and cuts fingers from another women is too far gone

Not necessarily. Unless you can show his mental impairment to be so severe that it was bordering on automatism when he committed the act then even a person with a severe personality disorder (such as a sociopath) can't weasel out of the actus reus. You can be rational, wilfully disregarding the fact that what you are doing is wrong (or believing it to be right) and not be 'insane' in a medical or legal sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus

The defence of insanity is also pretty novel in Ireland, only being introduced in the last number of years, afaik. It might only work here if the guy was following voices willing him to kill such as in cases of severe schizophrenia. No evidence of that.

mikemac

TheUsual wrote: »

Life is never life here, as far as I know there is nobody here in prison for life in Ireland.

Not so, life is life and up to the Minister of Justice.
There are two British men in jail for over thirty years, sentenced for attacking young women.
Only reason I heard of this was one of them was getting expensive hospital treatment, the very best of treatment the HSE can offer and there was anger over this

I know in Britain that the Yorkshire ripper was refused release 2 years ago and will die in prison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkshire_Ripper

And this is not a good system either. Political pressure happens and tabloids whip up outrage so some people will never get out while others are let go

You post about the Yorkshire Ripper
But equally there were campaigns about the Krays and sure they weren't bad lads at all, lovely rogues realy, always good to their community :rolleyes:

zenno

I understand the law very well as a matter of fact but the law as i have said is not working. the way the law works in this country is in respect to the abuser/murderer and not the victims and this has to change.

ok i see the point you are making in regard to retaliation and i may suffer for taking the law into my own hands but what else can a person do when the law is devoid of law ?. look at the previous cases that have happened in Ireland recently especially the one in dundalk where a few young men and women had a gun put to their head and smashed to bits with an iron bar and raped ? the law let them go, and this was a very serious assault as these victims will never recover and the sh1ts that did this will never face prosecution ever and this is just one example of the law as you may know plenty of others as well.

the only way to stop people taking the law into their own hands is to make the law work with sentences that suit the crime but this backward country called Ireland will never get it right so unless they do then I have my own law regardless.

Plautus

You're highlighting specific cases, failing to consider that evidence might be lacking in some of those cases, and also completely ignoring the larger statistical picture. Cases of a heinous nature could be cited at any point in legal history: cases of injustice or miscarriages of justice could also be highlighted at any point in legal history. It would not invalidate the value of law more generally for the benefit of the public. Law develops in response to inadequacy. Crime is on the decrease, so I see no reason to believe that the law is failing society.

In fact, that's something of 'the rub' - you're likely never going to have to put your money where your mouth is and face being locked up for murder because I rather doubt any relative of yours will be attacked or murdered in their lifetime so as to require reprisal.

I understand the law very well as a matter of fact

Showing, not telling, might help. I see nothing that would suggest to me you do know the law 'very well'.

Cut of his fingers and lock him up for good. Fuk it, amputate all his limbs. I would feel no remorse for ordering that to be done to him.

zenno

Plautus wrote: »

You're highlighting specific cases, failing to consider that evidence might be lacking in some of those cases

this is very untrue as I have studied this particular case and know what happened "regarding dundalk"

you my dear friend do not seem to understand the problems within the justice system here in Ireland. you want to believe the Irish justice system is working and so do many a people but the true fact is, it's not working and an overhaul of the law system here needs to be implemented before it get's really out of hand.

my personal opinions on this are my own and my own only. If you don't like what i say that is ok as this is how i feel with it all. I stick to what i say though and am well capable of dealing with such things if ever it does occur.

Plautus

No, I'm not saying that the justice system is perfect, or not (necessarily) subject to ongoing review and reform, I'm saying that it isn't failing or otherwise in breakdown (which is a different matter entirely) and that what you propose to replace it with is purest codology.

And again, I doubt your legal nous when you claim to 'know' things about a specific case which are either hearsay or otherwise inadmissible in evidence. Do you know what that means? If your 'knowledge' is something you're so assured of, why didn't it secure a conviction?

And again, you ignore the larger statistical picture: crime, going down. Easy to understand.

kraggy

Can someone tell me this.

Who decides that what the parameters are for each offence? e.g. 12 years to life for murder or whatever.

Is it a case that the judges can only give these miniscule sentences because their hands are tied or what?

If the offendant in this case could have got more, it's a disgrace. But more importantly, WHY did he only get what he did?

Anyway, my question is, who decides the minimum and maximum sentences?

Plautus

Who decides that what the parameters are for each offence?

The State. Or specifically the government, which places law governing the conviction and sentencing of offenders before the Oireachtas which judges then implement. Different courts with different jurisdictions (the District is Summary, the Circuit is Trial and the High - with Criminal and Criminal Appelate divisions - is Original) will have further limits imposed on the kind of sentences they can mete out. The High Court, with original jurisdiction, can apply the highest sentences and hears cases of serious crime.

Is it a case that the judges can only give these miniscule sentences because their hands are tied or what?

16 years is not a miniscule sentence and is at the upper range of sentencing for something like aggravated burglary. In the event, sentencing must take account of mitigating factors and pay heed to a 'bell curve', so to speak, of sentencing applied to similar crimes in similar circumstances in the past. The Court of Criminal Appeal also acts to hear pleas of mitigation against harsh sentencing and judges are anxious to prevent costly appeals by offenders to that Court when these could be avoided.

But more importantly, WHY did he only get what he did?

One would have to read the judgement of the trial judge and the balance they strike between mitigating and aggravating factors. Scope for sentencing is rather broad, stemming from the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001, 13.3:

(3) A person guilty of aggravated burglary is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

Which sets a theoretical maximum, not a minimum. The last time minimum sentencing was mooted in the area was in 2009:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/minimum-sentence-for-burglary-to-be-examined-1911544.html

Manic Moran

The death penalty and/or cruel and unusual punishment in other jurisdictions doesn't have a deterrent effect.

I beg to differ, capital punishment has a 100% success record at preventing re-offence, zombie movies notwithstanding. Plus, as death is a very definite risk when conducting home invasions in the US, it has a very definite effect on reducing such home invasions. Homeowner and intruder meet much less frequently in the US than in Europe, and the only notable difference between the two jurisdictions is that we get to shoot people in America. Ergo, death has a deterrent effect, the real question is the belief that the judicial system will catch up with them in any case (if they survive the offence).

I am not a fan of differing sentences between attempted murder and murder. The intent behind both is exactly the same, if the other guy happened to get a good doctor in the ER is not anything within the attacker's control.

NTM

Zulu

Manic Moran wrote: »

I beg to differ...

You can all you want. Capital punishment has done nothing to prevent those crimes. While someone murdered by the state won't reoffend, murder still continues.

Personally, I prefer when society strives to set standards, not debase itself to be on par with some of the animals that live in it.

Dudess

Deserves locking up til the day he dies - ok I'm no psychiatrist but he seems beyond redemption, and people need to be protected from a monster like him. Yeah, maybe Dundrum should be the place - although no doubt he has been psychiatrically assessed.

Dyr

Dudess wrote: »

Deserves locking up til the day he dies - ok I'm no psychiatrist but he seems beyond redemption, and people need to be protected from a monster like him. Yeah, maybe Dundrum should be the place - although no doubt he has been psychiatrically assessed.

Why do you need to be a psychiatrist to spot a durty good for nothing c**t?