Irish Justice system and minister for justice?

caseyann

I had no idea about this,never even heard about this.
I think Irish justice system needs a major over hall in these crimes.
http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2009/apr/05/double-killer-to-be-freed/

How does any animal get out who does this and why hasnt it been overhauled so they never get out?

On top of that he is not on the sex offenders list!

The killer will not be placed on the sex offenders register upon his release as his sentence pre-dates its establishment in 2001.
Laws need to be fixed.

Einhard

caseyann wrote: »

I had no idea about this,never even heard about this.
I think Irish justice system needs a major over hall in these crimes.
http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2009/apr/05/double-killer-to-be-freed/

How does any animal get out who does this and why hasnt it been overhauled so they never get out?

On top of that he is not on the sex offenders list!

The killer will not be placed on the sex offenders register upon his release as his sentence pre-dates its establishment in 2001.
Laws need to be fixed.

He's not on the sex offenders register because laws cannot be applied retrospectively. It's a fundamental, and necessary, legal concept.

Also, he was convicted of mansalughter, not murder. Whatever revulsion one might feel for the man and his crimes, the judge as to sentence according to the conviction. It would be entirely unacceptable for a judge to impose a murder sentence on a person convicted of manslaughter.

Nodin

caseyann wrote: »

I had no idea about this,never even heard about this.
I think Irish justice system needs a major over hall in these crimes.
http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2009/apr/05/double-killer-to-be-freed/

How does any animal get out who does this and why hasnt it been overhauled so they never get out?

On top of that he is not on the sex offenders list!

The killer will not be placed on the sex offenders register upon his release as his sentence pre-dates its establishment in 2001.
Laws need to be fixed.

That article is from 5th April 2009.

caseyann

Einhard wrote: »

He's not on the sex offenders register because laws cannot be applied retrospectively. It's a fundamental, and necessary, legal concept.

Also, he was convicted of mansalughter, not murder. Whatever revulsion one might feel for the man and his crimes, the judge as to sentence according to the conviction. It would be entirely unacceptable for a judge to impose a murder sentence on a person convicted of manslaughter.

Not the point shouldnt be off the list because of a clause and its is murder in the most disgusting manner.How they got manslaughter just because he said he didnt mean to do it is ridiculous.When you do it once perhaps but twice.

Nodin wrote: »

That article is from 5th April 2009.

And the thread isnt about the article in particular.But the situation and the laws of justice here in Ireland.That makes it no more than a slap on wrist and they get out to do it again.
So no need to try be smart because it wasnt.

twinQuins

caseyann wrote: »

Not the point

Very much so the point.

shouldnt be off the list because of a clause

It's not just a "clause", it's written into our constitution - retroactive laws cannot, legally, be drafted and it's for good reason.

and its is murder in the most disgusting manner.How they got manslaughter just because he said he didnt mean to do it is ridiculous.When you do it once perhaps but twice.

Maybe it's because the judge had access to all the facts where such rabble rousing journalists don't.

And the thread isnt about the article in particular.But the situation and the laws of justice here in Ireland.That makes it no more than a slap on wrist and they get out to do it again.

I wouldn't exactly call eighteen years a "slap on the wrist" and short of locking people up for the rest of their lives they're going to be let out again. Honestly, I don't see why this is so shocking for you.

caseyann

twinQuins wrote: »

Very much so the point.

It's not just a "clause", it's written into our constitution - retroactive laws cannot, legally, be drafted and it's for good reason.

Maybe it's because the judge had access to all the facts where such rabble rousing journalists don't.

I wouldn't exactly call eighteen years a "slap on the wrist" and short of locking people up for the rest of their lives they're going to be let out again. Honestly, I don't see why this is so shocking for you.

No it is not at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was in relation to my thread and the date he got out has nothing to do with it.It brought up the question of the overhaul and the justice system being re written.Just because he was charged before the sexual offenders act came in doesnt mean he should be allowed avoid being off it and watched.

And yes 18 years is nothing more than a slap for murder and hacking up of two women,which one he left a child behind also.
Which also needs to be reviewed.He kills someone by accident manslaughter he kills two people and hacks them up called murder.

As did so many other offenders get off lightly here and walk the streets freely,and he was just an example on a long list.
So stop trying to wreck the thread.

AlekSmart

twinQuins wrote: »

Very much so the point......

....Honestly, I don't see why this is so shocking for you.

Perhaps TwinQuins,caseyann might just be concerned that the good Mr Bambrick will be allocated a house next door to her...or some other equally selfish,uncaring motive,which suggests that she might not be deserving of the same compassionate understanding afforded this violent gent ?

twinQuins

caseyann wrote: »

No it is not at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was in relation to my thread and the date he got out has nothing to do with it.It brought up the question of the overhaul and the justice system being re written.Just because he was charged before the sexual offenders act came in doesnt mean he should be allowed avoid being off it and watched.

Except doing so would be illegal. Why can't you grasp that? Retroactive laws are constitutionally prohibited.

If you want them to be allowed you'd have to change the constitution and I doubt you'd receive much support for such a move, in any case.

And yes 18 years is nothing more than a slap for murder[ and hacking up of two women,which one he left a child behind also.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

As did so many other offenders get off lightly here and walk the streets freely,and he was just an example on a long list.

Care to provide this "long list"?

caseyann

twinQuins wrote: »

Except doing so would be illegal. Why can't you grasp that? Retroactive laws are constitutionally prohibited.

If you want them to be allowed you'd have to change the constitution and I doubt you'd receive much support for such a move, in any case.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

Care to provide this "long list"?

And they didnt break the laws of our Constitution and therefore should have no right to that protection?

All laws are there to be changed.

Larry Murphy

Gda Hobbs told the court that Byrne had nine previous convictions including one where he received a 15-year sentence for orally and vaginally raping an 18-year-old woman.

In that incident, he had stuck the woman on the head with a brick telling her he had to kill her as she would identify him, the court heard.

He also was sentenced to five years in October 2006 after a assaulting a 32-year-old woman whose throat he said he would cut. When two men came to her rescue, he said he would do the same to them.

It was on his release from this sentence that he carried out the offence on Ms Krey, just 14 hours after being let out of jail.


Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/eysneyaugbsn/#ixzz1HcXWFstG

And if you want the rest look for them yourself.I gave an example of bad justice already i am not your fact finder.
Everyone is well aware of how bad this countries laws are and how they protect the dangerous people. And put the normal people last.

twinQuins

caseyann wrote: »

And they didnt break the laws of our Constitution and therefore should have no right to that protection?

No? Are you asking a question or making a statement?

All laws are there to be changed.

I do believe I said you'd have to change the constitution. I just said you wuoldn't have much support as retroactive laws are not a good idea, really.

And if you want the rest look for them yourself.I gave an example of bad justice already i am not your fact finder.

Actually, you are. You made the claim so you substantiate it.

Everyone is well aware of how bad this countries laws are and how they protect the dangerous people. And put the normal people last.

I'm not. So, how about that "long list"?

Fr Tod Umptious

Let me try and explain this concept of 'retroactive laws' for you OP.

Lets say you are driving at 90km/ph in a 100km/ph zone.

A speed van is parked at the side of the road and records every car's speed that passes.

Since you are under the speed limit you are not going to get a fine in the post

Now lets say a day later they decide to reduce the speed on that road to 80km/ph.

They cannot go through the previous days records and send you out a fine because the limit has now changed and you were over it when you passed the van.

OhNoYouDidn't

Regardless of the usual hang em and flog em nonsense, the guy got and served 18 years.

Whats the problem exactly?

southsiderosie

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Regardless of the usual hang em and flog em nonsense, the guy got and served 18 years.

Whats the problem exactly?

Because serving 18 years seems insufficient for someone who committed pre-meditated murder that included dismembering the victim. This man is in his 50s, and will spend the next 20-30 years free to do as he pleases - after making a conscious decision to take another person's life.

Why should a murderer ever be released from jail? In particular anyone who engaged in pre-meditated murder? If you actively planned to take someone's life, you should lose all freedom until the end of yours.

blueythebear

southsiderosie wrote: »

Because serving 18 years seems insufficient for someone who committed pre-meditated murder that included dismembering the victim. This man is in his 50s, and will spend the next 20-30 years free to do as he pleases - after making a conscious decision to take another person's life.

Why should a murderer ever be released from jail? In particular anyone who engaged in pre-meditated murder? If you actively planned to take someone's life, you should lose all freedom until the end of yours.

It has not been proven that the killing was premeditated. This is why he receieved a sentence for manslaughter. The State did not prove that he had preplanned it. Therefore, he did not commit murder. I would be careful as to the words you use in relation to this. There is an argument to be made that your post is defamatory.

Not that I'm defending the man. What he has been convicted of is absolutely deplorable but the fact is, it has not been proven that he had made a conscious decision to take another person's life.

caseyann

blueythebear wrote: »

It has not been proven that the killing was premeditated. This is why he receieved a sentence for manslaughter. The State did not prove that he had preplanned it. Therefore, he did not commit murder. I would be careful as to the words you use in relation to this. There is an argument to be made that your post is defamatory.

Not that I'm defending the man. What he has been convicted of is absolutely deplorable but the fact is, it has not been proven that he had made a conscious decision to take another person's life.

How can they not see it as that, it wasn't one person he killed,it was two and both on different times.Once is a possible accident.Twice is intent.
And the thread was meant to be about laws being changed.Sentences of those people.How are they all still so low as you can also see with the repeat rapist.

caseyann

caseyann wrote: »

How can they not see it as that, it wasn't one person he killed,it was two and both on different times.Once is a possible accident.Twice is intent.

That's not for you to decide. That's for a jury to decide. A jury made up of ordinary people selected at random and asked to make an incredibly difficult decision about what happened and what was the intent of the perpetrator.

Unlike you they heard all the evidence. Unlike you they heard expert advocacy on behalf of both the State and the accused. Taking all the information they had they went and reflected and debated upon it amongst themselves and then they came to a reasoned and rational conclusion.

caseyann wrote: »

And the thread was meant to be about laws being changed.Sentences of those people.How are they all still so low as you can also see with the repeat rapist.

The three "sentences" above make almost no sense whatsoever.

ceadaoin.

caseyann wrote: »

And they didnt break the laws of our Constitution and therefore should have no right to that protection?

All laws are there to be changed.

Everyone is well aware of how bad this countries laws are and how they protect the dangerous people. And put the normal people last.

I don't think you understand what a constitution is?

8. the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation, or the like, is governed.
9. the document embodying these principles.

Can you give an example of a law that 'protects the dangerous people' at the expense of us 'normals'?

blueythebear

caseyann wrote: »

How can they not see it as that, it wasn't one person he killed,it was two and both on different times.Once is a possible accident.Twice is intent.
And the thread was meant to be about laws being changed.Sentences of those people.How are they all still so low as you can also see with the repeat rapist.

I agree that there is something very unusual in that particular case as he killed two women in similar circumstances. The phrase, "lightning doesn't strike twice" comes to mind. However, twice is not intent. Twice is possibly indicative of intent but that's up to the State to prove.

Sentences are probably too low, or certainly the sentences that are given are too low. For example, when you hear of multiple charges, very often, the individual is given concurrent sentences. It's very rare that you hear of consecutive sentencing. I think that consecutive sentencing should be used more often. Multiple charges from one incident should be concurrent but where a person commits an offence while awaiting sentencing for another previous offence, then consecutive sentencing should apply. I don't think that it does in every such case.

caseyann

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't think you understand what a constitution is?



Can you give an example of a law that 'protects the dangerous people' at the expense of us 'normals'?

Thats easy Pedophiles who have been convicted of abusing children and serve a minimum sentence and move next door to a family with kids or around the corner and go unnoticed.A repeat rapist who also serves a small few years in prison and is not on the sex offenders register.And all are monitored to such a poor amount.(I dont blame the Garda for this)
I personally dont see anything in the Constitution that says everyone after they either murder or rape any person should be entitled to be free to live in the society anonymously.
Are schools notified of predators in the areas?I dont believe they are.In USA they are.

blueythebear wrote: »

I agree that there is something very unusual in that particular case as he killed two women in similar circumstances. The phrase, "lightning doesn't strike twice" comes to mind. However, twice is not intent. Twice is possibly indicative of intent but that's up to the State to prove.

Sentences are probably too low, or certainly the sentences that are given are too low. For example, when you hear of multiple charges, very often, the individual is given concurrent sentences. It's very rare that you hear of consecutive sentencing. I think that consecutive sentencing should be used more often. Multiple charges from one incident should be concurrent but where a person commits an offence while awaiting sentencing for another previous offence, then consecutive sentencing should apply. I don't think that it does in every such case.

Thanks for that exactly what i mean.The sentencing and structure should be changed it is a farce and an insult to the people of Ireland who live by the law and dont cause harm on others.

caseyann

caseyann wrote: »

Thats easy Pedophiles who have been convicted of abusing children and serve a minimum sentence and move next door to a family with kids or around the corner and go unnoticed.A repeat rapist who also serves a small few years in prison and is not on the sex offenders register.And all are monitored to such a poor amount.(I dont blame the Garda for this)
I personally dont see anything in the Constitution that says everyone after they either murder or rape any person should be entitled to be free to live in the society anonymously.
Are schools notified of predators in the areas?I dont believe they are.In USA they are.

He asked for an example of a law that protects criminals and endangers "normies" as he puts it. The above is just an unsubstantiated rant.

caseyann wrote: »

Thanks for that exactly what i mean.The sentencing and structure should be changed it is a farce and an insult to the people of Ireland who live by the law and dont cause harm on others.

The sentencing structures may well need to be reviewed. Certainly not arguing with that. That's a whole other argument though.

twinQuins

caseyann wrote: »

Thats easy Pedophiles who have been convicted of abusing children and serve a minimum sentence and move next door to a family with kids or around the corner and go unnoticed.A repeat rapist who also serves a small few years in prison and is not on the sex offenders register.And all are monitored to such a poor amount.(I dont blame the Garda for this)

I am of the opinion that once you serve your sentence that's it - you should be given the opportunity to make a new start.

Sex offenders registers just give busybodies something to get up in arms about.

I personally dont see anything in the Constitution that says everyone after they either murder or rape any person should be entitled to be free to live in the society anonymously.

Nobody said there was. The constitution prohibits retroactive laws which is what you were advocating earlier.

Are schools notified of predators in the areas?I dont believe they are.In USA they are.

In the USA (at least in one state) you can be added to the sex offenders register for urinating in public. I can't find the article but there was a case of one unfortunate man this happened to.

Frankly, I'm fed up with the moral panic surrounding child abuse.

Thanks for that exactly what i mean.The sentencing and structure should be changed it is a farce and an insult to the people of Ireland who live by the law and dont cause harm on others.

I agree with Kayroo that it does need reviewing but with a more level-headed approach.