Another "the law doesnt work" thread

7sr2z3fely84g5

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/courts/serial-thief-tried-to-snatch-diners-bag-2634270.html

A SERIAL thief caught trying to snatch a diner's handbag at a Dublin sandwich bar had 109 previous convictions, a court heard.
Kathleen Comerford (60) was seen by a garda reaching into the victim's bag after sitting down at the city centre restaurant and refusing to order anything.
The case against her was adjourned after Dublin District Court heard she had already been given a suspended sentence.
Judge Bryan Smyth found Comerford guilty of attempted theft at O'Brien's Sandwich Bar at The Ilac Shopping Centre on January 20 last.
Comerford, with an address at Sean O'Casey Avenue in the north inner city, had denied the charge. The victim, Carina Greer, told the court she was at the restaurant when another woman tapped her on the shoulder and told her "the lady behind me had my bag".
Her purse was on the table in front of her at the time.
Monitored
Garda Patrick Gallagher told the court he was on duty in the shopping centre at 4.20pm on the day in question when he saw the defendant enter O'Brien's.
"I monitored her movements and observed that she sat down behind the injured party, Ms Greer and sat there for a number of minutes," Garda Gallagher said.
"She didn't order anything from the menu and refused to order when approached by members of staff."
He saw the accused put her hand into the victim's bag, which was on the floor by her seat.
Defence Solicitor Jenny McGeever asked the judge to dismiss the charge, saying Ms Greer had not identified the accused as being the person who allegedly committed the offence. The judge said he accepted the garda's evidence.
Garda Gallagher said the defendant had 109 previous convictions, 94 of which were for theft and attempted theft.
He adjourned the case for the attention of Judge Mary Collins because of the issue of the suspended sentence.

is there any point bringing to court with these outcomes?.

starbelgrade

Shocking stuff Joe.

Horndawg

Mariam Melted Standby wrote: »

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/courts/serial-thief-tried-to-snatch-diners-bag-2634270.html


is there any point bringing to court with these outcomes?.

Yes. Seeing as the accused currently has a suspended sentence, Judge Smith is obliged to refer the matter back to the original Judge in order to decide whether or not to activate the suspended sentence, which is likely to happen.

Dangerous Man

I think you're missing the point of the question in fairness...

policarp

109 previous convictions.
She should be doing hard labour in Van Demons Land.

Horndawg

Dangerous Man wrote: »

I think you're missing the point of the question in fairness...

Actually I don't think I am.........in fairness.

starbelgrade

policarp wrote: »

109 previous convictions.
She should be doing hard labour in Van Demons Land.

Van Diemen's Land hasn't been a penal colony since 1856.

It's now called Tasmania & is by all means, a rather beautiful island.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mariam Melted Standby wrote: »

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/courts/serial-thief-tried-to-snatch-diners-bag-2634270.html


is there any point bringing to court with these outcomes?.

As opposed to NOT bringing her to court...?

El Weirdo

Should change title to "Another 'the law doesn't work because I don't understand it' thread", tbh.

drunkmonkey

The law saves criminals from **** kickings from the general public maybe it's time criminals lose the right to a fair trial and we just knock the bollix or fanny in this case out of them until they cop on.

starbelgrade

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The law saves criminals from **** kickings from the general public maybe it's time criminals lose the right to a fair trial and we just knock the bollix or fanny in this case out of them until they cop on.

If people don't have the right to a fair trial, then how do you know if they are criminals or not?

El Weirdo

starbelgrade wrote: »

If people don't have the right to a fair trial, then how do you know if they are criminals or not?

America tells us, apparently.

Dangerous Man

Horndawg wrote: »

Actually I don't think I am.........in fairness.

Okay - you ARE missing the point. She has 109 previous convictions - the fact that this case has to go to yet another judge, costing more money, wasting more time, jamming up the system even further is what the OP is alluding to. That is to say, here is a clear case of a repeat offender offending YET AGAIN and what does the judge decide to do? 'We'd better have more pointless procedure please - because that's the way our stupid fucking laws are arranged - even when it's blindingly obvious that this is a waste of time.'

amacachi

starbelgrade wrote: »

If people don't have the right to a fair trial, then how do you know if they are criminals or not?

Think the point that was being made was that the justice system supposedly exists to take the burden of dispensing justice off of the general public.

Dangerous Man

El Weirdo wrote: »

Should change title to "Another 'the law doesn't work because I don't understand it' thread", tbh.

That's a bunch of crap. A person doesn't need a degree in law to know something is broken when a convicted offender with 109 convictions is STILL OFFENDING. You may understand the law and be able to recite statutes by the briefcase-load, but that doesn't mean that you understand justice.

amacachi

Horndawg wrote: »

Yes. Seeing as the accused currently has a suspended sentence, Judge Smith is obliged to refer the matter back to the original Judge in order to decide whether or not to activate the suspended sentence, which is likely to happen.

So the way suspended sentences work is that it takes another hearing to activate a custodial sentence? Wonderful.

drunkmonkey

amacachi wrote: »

Think the point that was being made was that the justice system supposedly exists to take the burden of dispensing justice off of the general public.

Very close but I wouldn't call it a burden, I'd gladly lash the arse off her with a pony whip for a 6 pack.

policarp

policarp wrote: »

109 previous convictions.
She should be doing hard labour in Van Demons Land.

starbelgrade wrote: »

Van Diemen's Land hasn't been a penal colony since 1856.

It's now called Tasmania & is by all means, a rather beautiful island.

Sorry.
It was my feeble attempt at a pun....:D