Justice?????

miseeire

A young boxer who carried out an unprovoked assault on another person was given a suspended sentence.I'm sure there is a VERY intelligent person out there who willm explain to me that this was a just and correct sentence.And do not forget to explain why.

MagicSean

I doubt anyone can explain until they know what you're talking about. Sentence doesn't sound unreasonable though.

thebullkf

miseeire wrote: »

A young boxer who carried out an unprovoked assault on another person was given a suspended sentence.I'm sure there is a VERY intelligent person out there who willm explain to me that this was a just and correct sentence.And do not forget to explain why.

what do YOU think?

PeakOutput

in an ideal world leaving aside politcal motivation, there is one long scale of punishments that every crime must fit into, death penalty at one end which we dont use so lets say life in prison and no punishment at the other end.

each crime has to be put somewhere on that scale relative to the other crimes.

for a first time offender being found guilty of assault a suspended sentence sounds about right, it allows for the fact that it could have been an out of character anomally for that person while allowing for a far harsher sentence should it happen again. It allows for the fact that the crime was assault and therefore not as serious as say murder, attempted murder or grievous bodily harm.

MinnyMinor

PeakOutput wrote: »

in an ideal world leaving aside politcal motivation, there is one long scale of punishments that every crime must fit into, death penalty at one end which we dont use so lets say life in prison and no punishment at the other end.

each crime has to be put somewhere on that scale relative to the other crimes.

for a first time offender being found guilty of assault a suspended sentence sounds about right, it allows for the fact that it could have been an out of character anomally for that person while allowing for a far harsher sentence should it happen again. It allows for the fact that the crime was assault and therefore not as serious as say murder, attempted murder or grievous bodily harm.

thats all very well if you are the defendent what about the victim. i know o fthigs who did this for years and got suspended sentences. not saying the boxer is a thug

PeakOutput

MinnyMinor wrote: »

thats all very well if you are the defendent what about the victim. i know o fthigs who did this for years and got suspended sentences. not saying the boxer is a thug

well knowing why the assault occured is obviously a pretty important factor

Dan133269

MinnyMinor wrote: »

thats all very well if you are the defendent what about the victim. i know o fthigs who did this for years and got suspended sentences. not saying the boxer is a thug

Well this is a good point. Thanks to our backward legal system, previous convictions of an accused are not allowed to be disclosed in the court while he is being charged. Therefore, every time could be the first time in the eyes of the judge and jury. HOWEVER, what is allowed is a character reference from the local priest, politician etc saying "oh Johnny is actually a lovely fella and wouldn't hurt a fly" which can be taken into account. So, fact is legally excluded, whereas subjective opinion is accepted. Go figure that one out.

And this is without even addressing sentencing per se. If this case pisses you off OP, I suggest you don't read about the case where a man walked free from the courtroom having been convicted of rape. "A suspended sentence is still a sentence" argues judge Paul Carney. Yes of course, while the person serving his sentence is free to enjoy almost the luxuries and freedoms as someone who has no criminal record.

Or the case where a person was given suspended sentence for 3 counts of attempted murder, can't remember the names of these off top of my head!

Vigilanteism is the way to go! :cool:

234

Previous convictions are taken into account at the sentencing stage. Logically what you have done in the past has no bearing on your actual culpability for a subsequent incident; therefore evidence of previous convictions are not taken into account pre-sentencing. Innocent until proven guilty.

MagicSean

234 wrote: »

Previous convictions are taken into account at the sentencing stage. Logically what you have done in the past has no bearing on your actual culpability for a subsequent incident; therefore evidence of previous convictions are not taken into account pre-sentencing. Innocent until proven guilty.

Possibly the only part of the legal system that allows for the possibility that a person can reform.

johnnyskeleton

Dan133269 wrote: »

Well this is a good point. Thanks to our backward legal system, previous convictions of an accused are not allowed to be disclosed in the court while he is being charged. Therefore, every time could be the first time in the eyes of the judge and jury. HOWEVER, what is allowed is a character reference from the local priest, politician etc saying "oh Johnny is actually a lovely fella and wouldn't hurt a fly" which can be taken into account. So, fact is legally excluded, whereas subjective opinion is accepted. Go figure that one out.

You really shouldn't comment on a system you clearly know nothing about except what you read in the redtops.

Every time I read someone talk about how backward our legal system is based on some patently untrue understanding of what happens in court, my faith in the system is increased and I increasingly believe that the media are really doing a disservice to the people of Ireland, getting them unnecessarily angry.

Dan133269

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You really shouldn't comment on a system you clearly know nothing about except what you read in the redtops.

Every time I read someone talk about how backward our legal system is based on some patently untrue understanding of what happens in court, my faith in the system is increased and I increasingly believe that the media are really doing a disservice to the people of Ireland, getting them unnecessarily angry.

I probably have a better academic legal education than you. And in any event how is that relevant, is what I said not factually true about previous convictions? explain to me where I was wrong? Because you're a solicitor that makes what you say automatically gospel and opinions of non-legal professionals are irrelevant, is that the case?

MagicSean

Dan133269 wrote: »

I probably have a better academic legal education than you. And in any event how is that relevant, is what I said not factually true about previous convictions? explain to me where I was wrong? Because you're a solicitor that makes what you say automatically gospel and opinions of non-legal professionals are irrelevant, is that the case?

rofl

Dan133269

k_mac wrote: »

rofl

What's so funny about that? the probably bit?

MagicSean

Dan133269 wrote: »

What's so funny about that? the probably bit?

The fact that you felt the need to highlight it.

FreudianSlippers

Play nice or we won't play at all!

johnnyskeleton

Dan133269 wrote: »

I probably have a better academic legal education than you. And in any event how is that relevant, is what I said not factually true about previous convictions? explain to me where I was wrong? Because you're a solicitor that makes what you say automatically gospel and opinions of non-legal professionals are irrelevant, is that the case?

It's true what you said about previous convictions (with caveats however, it is not an absolute rule) but it not true what you said about positive character evidence. Such is normally inadmissible as well, but in the event that it is put before the jury, the prosecution are entitled (some say obliged) to rebut it if there are previous convictions.

So your suggestion that someone with several previous convictions can go before a jury and hide the convictions while getting someone to give character evidence that they wouldn't hurt a fly is a fallacy. Such evidence is only ever adduced at the sentencing stage i.e. post conviction.

As regards the other comments, while I don't hold myself out to be a solicitor (nor am I in this thread claiming any formal legal education), I'm curious as to what sort of better legal education someone would have over a solicitor. All solicitors have a professional (masters level) qualification in law, and have passed 8 of the hardest legal exams in Ireland. Most will have a basic degree in law or conversion course degree, and many will have masterses or PhDs in law. They also have much practical legal learning from appearing before judges (the source of a lot of law) dealing with the constitution and statutes (another big source of law) and attend CPD conferences. So, while I don't want to intrude on your privacy, I'm intrigued as to what legal educatios would be superior to those of solicitors.

Reloc8

Dan133269 wrote: »

Well this is a good point. Thanks to our backward legal system, previous convictions of an accused are not allowed to be disclosed in the court while he is being charged. Therefore, every time could be the first time in the eyes of the judge and jury. HOWEVER, what is allowed is a character reference from the local priest, politician etc saying "oh Johnny is actually a lovely fella and wouldn't hurt a fly" which can be taken into account. So, fact is legally excluded, whereas subjective opinion is accepted. Go figure that one out.

This is almost true.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You really shouldn't comment on a system you clearly know nothing about except what you read in the redtops.

Every time I read someone talk about how backward our legal system is based on some patently untrue understanding of what happens in court, my faith in the system is increased and I increasingly believe that the media are really doing a disservice to the people of Ireland, getting them unnecessarily angry.

I'll join you in that.

Dan133269 wrote: »

I probably have a better academic legal education than you. And in any event how is that relevant, is what I said not factually true about previous convictions? explain to me where I was wrong? Because you're a solicitor that makes what you say automatically gospel and opinions of non-legal professionals are irrelevant, is that the case?

Quoted for truth.

Bolded for fun

(I mean seriously. You think of yourself in terms of having a legal education which is so 'good' that its probably better than some random person with whom you are debating on the internet, knowing nothing about their qualifications or experience ?)

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's true what you said about previous convictions (with caveats however, it is not an absolute rule) but it not true what you said about positive character evidence. Such is normally inadmissible as well, but in the event that it is put before the jury, the prosecution are entitled (some say obliged) to rebut it if there are previous convictions.

So your suggestion that someone with several previous convictions can go before a jury and hide the convictions while getting someone to give character evidence that they wouldn't hurt a fly is a fallacy. Such evidence is only ever adduced at the sentencing stage i.e. post conviction.

^ This.

Section 1 of the Criminal Justice (Evidence) Act 1924 as amended makes clear that where an accused relies on previous bad behaviour of a person in his defence the accused's previous convictions can be adduced in front of the jury.

The same section also allows the prosecution to call evidence to rebut any evidence called on behalf of the accused which is called to show that the accused is unlikely to have committed the offence(s) charged on the basis of his good character.

In fact as amended by Section 33 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2010 on one reading the accused is required to give seven days notice of his intention to seek to impugn the character of prosecution witnesses (not tested in court - it may only apply in respect of persons who are dead or incapacitated).

Its in an interesting section. You'll find comment on it in all good eh academic textbooks :rolleyes:

Dan133269 wrote: »

Because you're a solicitor that makes what you say automatically gospel and opinions of non-legal professionals are irrelevant, is that the case?

I don't know if he's a solicitor but if he is he's not right because of that and I don't know if you're a non-legal professional but if you are you're not wrong because of that. He's just right and you're just wrong.

pirelli

miseeire wrote: »

A young boxer who carried out an unprovoked assault on another person was given a suspended sentence.I'm sure there is a VERY intelligent person out there who willm explain to me that this was a just and correct sentence. And do not forget to explain why.

Unprovoked assault: Was there CCTV of this.

Can you be certain it was unprovoked. Assault is assault regardless of provocation but since you claim it was unprovoked perhaps you could explain.

How severe was the injury. Was a section 2 or section 3?

What were the circumstances?

What has boxing got to do with it?
As for boxing, there is little advantage there. Boxing is about fitness. Is your friend a wrestler or a karate kicker or kick boxer or judo expert.

As a boxer myself i quickly became cynical of the fact that you have highlighted the fact that the accused was a boxer as a reason to punish him.

I agree that people trained in martial arts to such a degree that they are certainly more than just fighting fit (which is boxing) and are trained to cause injuries to person ( boxers are not trained in any way like this) would be an issue. There are soldiers that might be trained to kill people. This cannot compare to a boxer who nothing more than fighting fit. Although i would like to think a boxer could get an uppercut in before the soldier snapped his neck.

Provocation does not justify an assualt in any case however most lay person would like to be cognizant of as many facts as possible and determine provocation for themsleves.

Maybe that boxer is a reminder that life is not to be taken for granted and people should be mindful of miscarriage's of justice. If you take justice for your granted you will one day discover there will be very little left for you when the time comes.

Some people care about justice and some people don't. Why should the law doggedly prosecute persons for people who don't care a whit about justice , the wrongfully convicted or miscarriages of justice.

My cynical side is saying:
The boxer is skilled at what he does and should be entitled to beat up weaker people, just as the prosecution is rigged and highly skilled in sending innocent people to jail....Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Sollecito case is a prime example.

Or perhaps I am being unfairly cynical, but if you could explain why a conviction is just not good enough other than boxing.