You gotta love our judges

dotsman

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/no-jail-for-woman-who-lacerated-boyfriends-groin-528331.html

Breakingnews.ie wrote:

A Dublin woman who attacked her ex-boyfriend leaving him with injuries to his scrotal area has been given a suspended sentence today.

Lisa Moran (aged 42) of O’ Devaney Gardens pleaded guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to recklessly assaulting Eamon Desmond causing him harm in the early hours of June 5, 2007 at his home at Annamoe Drive, Dublin 7.

Following her sentence at the Criminal Courts of Justice, Moran, who formerly worked as a cleaner in the building, was escorted out a restricted entrance by an employee working at the CCJ, preventing waiting photographers at the public entrance from taking her picture.

An audible gasp was heard in the courtroom as details of Mr Desmond’s injuries, which included “an exposed left testicle”, were read out by prosecution counsel, Mr Colm O’Briain BL.

Garda Brian McCann, of Cabra Garda Station, agreed with Mr O’Briain that Mr Desmond, who was in a relationship with Moran at the time of the offence, was asleep in bed when Moran arrived at his home and kicked in a glass panel of his front door.

Mr O’Briain told Judge Martin Nolan that on the night of the assault, Moran was out socialising and heard “rumours” that Mr Desmond had made “disparaging” comments about her daughter and decided to confront him.

Mr Desmond initially appealed to Moran, who was screaming obscenities and threatening to “smash the whole house down”, to go home.

The victim agreed to let her in after a few minutes following assurances from Moran she would not cause any further damage and he believed her to have “calmed down”.

On opening the door Moran “launched” herself upon Mr Desmond and knocked him to the floor and began kicking, scratching and slapping him.

Mr Desmond, who Mr O’Briain said “at no point retaliated”, managed to get to his feet and tried in vain to remove Moran from his home.

When trying to restrain Moran, Mr Desmond “straddled” her on the floor and held her two arms down. After a few minutes Moran again appeared calm and “promised” she would stop attacking Mr Desmond who then let go of her arms.

Immediately afterwards, Moran began “slapping and scratching” him again. The court heard that at this point Moran was “frothing at the mouth”.

Mr Desmond once again restrained her and decided to ring the gardaí.

To do this he was required to let go of Moran’s arms and as he dialled the number he “felt a sharp pain in his scrotum area”, Garda McCann said.

Gda McCann told Mr O’Briain that when he arrived at the scene Mr Desmond brought him aside and showed him his injuries which included a lacerated scrotum leaving the victim’s “left testicle extruding”.

Defence counsel Cormac Quinn BL, told Judge Nolan that his client had “no intention to cause serious injury” to Mr Desmond and said the court accepted that the injury to his scrotum was caused by Moran’s belt buckle.

Mr O’Briain said that the prosecution accepted Moran’s claim the injury was caused by her belt buckle but added “that reason is speculated by the victim.”

Mr Quinn told Judge Nolan that Moran had once been a cleaner “in this very building” and as a consequence of this offence had lost her job.

Gda McCann agreed with Mr Quinn that the victim has made a good recovery and is left with only a small scar.

Gda McCann said that Mr Desmond was “happy to put the incident behind him” and had no wish for compensation.

Judge Nolan said that Moran was guilty of the reckless assault causing harm to Mr Desmond but accepted the injury was not intentional.

He sentenced her to 18 months imprisonment, suspended in its entirety for one year.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/no-jail-for-woman-who-lacerated-boyfriends-groin-528331.html#ixzz1djFP0THE

tldr: Evil bitch tries to kick in boyfriends door; then attacks him; he doesn't fight back; she cuts his balls open; as per typical domestic abuse victim, he doesn't want her punished; judge lets her off.

P.S. Also, where are all the domestic abuse campaigners now?

FatherLen

i will love whoever i want to love.


today it just so happens to be carol vorderman.

Eathrin

tl;dr

We get it judges make disgraceful decisions.

LighterGuy

Ahhh, I reckon you'll get alot of gender biasm on this one:

Certain Women:
".. i dont know, she might of had a reason to do this. dont take everything you read as the truth"

Everyone else:
"..if it was the other way around and he disfigured her, he'd be locked up for 5 years (or whatever sentence)"

mackg

What a joke of a sentence. What would she have to have done to warrant a proper sentence? I have a friend who was on the receiving end of domestic violence from his OH as was his his mother and the fact that they get away with it with a slap on the wrist sickens me.

pragmatic1

A man in Donegal got community service today for battering another man around the head with a claw hammer. Judges are jokes.

Logical Fallacy

Take home lesson...if a woman attacks you...just hit her.

Hasmunch

The judge made a right testicles outa that one.... wait what??

pragmatic1

mackg wrote: »

What a joke of a sentence. What would she have to have done to warrant a proper sentence? I have a friend who was on the receiving end of domestic violence from his OH as was his his mother and the fact that they get away with it with a slap on the wrist sickens me.

His auld one. Thats messed up. Any biotch touches my mamma and they're going through a window.

Gummy Panda

Bitches be crazy

fran oconnor

mackg wrote: »

What a joke of a sentence. What would she have to have done to warrant a proper sentence? I have a friend who was on the receiving end of domestic violence from his OH as was his his mother and the fact that they get away with it with a slap on the wrist sickens me.

I know of one fella that got split open with a high heel shoe, when he wen't to stop his OH and they both fell to the ground, she had a mark on her face from the fall, but he was the one who ended up getting charged as she said he started it.

MrStuffins

Imagine this was a man smashing a woman's door in, attacking her and leaving her genetals mutilated.

He wouldn't only be gettin a suspended sentence!

mackg

fran oconnor wrote: »

I know of one fella that got split open with a high heel shoe, when he wen't to stop his OH and they both fell to the ground, she had a mark on her face from the fall, but he was the one who ended up getting charged as she said he started it.

my buddy got a bit of his nose broken, the chunk lodged somewhere then and made it nearly impossible to breath through his nose had to go to hospital over it:mad:

mackg

MrStuffins wrote: »

Imagine this was a man smashing a woman's door in, attacking her and leaving her genetals mutilated.

He wouldn't only be gettin a suspended sentence!

And people on here would be calling for the death penalty instead of making jokes.

ResearchWill

dotsman wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/no-jail-for-woman-who-lacerated-boyfriends-groin-528331.html



tldr: Evil bitch tries to kick in boyfriends door; then attacks him; he doesn't fight back; she cuts his balls open; as per typical domestic abuse victim, he doesn't want her punished; judge lets her off.

P.S. Also, where are all the domestic abuse campaigners now?

Did the article not say "Defence counsel Cormac Quinn BL, told Judge Nolan that his client had “no intention to cause serious injury” to Mr Desmond and said the court accepted that the injury to his scrotum was caused by Moran’s belt buckle." She did not cut his ""balls open" as you put it it seems from the article that the balls injury was not intentional.

Plautus

Well, at least nobody can come out with the de rigueur she 'should have her bollocks chopped off ...'

So I'm happy. Have we gotten around to recommending the death penalty yet?

Chuck Stone

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Take home lesson...if a woman attacks you...just hit her.

No. That's a bad idea. Walk away because the moment a man strikes a woman he loses.

fran oconnor

mackg wrote: »

And people on here would be calling for the death penalty instead of making jokes.

It's no joke when you are on the end of something like that, male or female. That sick tramp should be serving at least 12 months for that.

FFS, of all the place's to cut him open.:mad:

ResearchWill

fran oconnor wrote: »

It's no joke when you are on the end of something like that, male or female. That sick tramp should be serving at least 12 months for that.

FFS, of all the place's to cut him open.:mad:

Again I say the Court it seems accepted that the cutting was not intentional, I assume as she arrived to house late he was naked in bed, during the struggle her belt buckle caused the injury. While I am not condoning what she did the cutting it seems was not intentional or caused by a knife.

fran oconnor

ResearchWill wrote: »

Again I say the Court it seems accepted that the cutting was not intentional, I assume as she arrived to house late he was naked in bed, during the struggle her belt buckle caused the injury. While I am not condoning what she did the cutting it seems was not intentional or caused by a knife.

I wouldn't give a crap if she didn't intend as such, she broke into his house and beat the sh!te out of him, cutting his bollox by doing so. How she's not serving time is a f*cking joke.

Pompey Magnus

ResearchWill wrote: »

Did the article not say "Defence counsel Cormac Quinn BL, told Judge Nolan that his client had “no intention to cause serious injury” to Mr Desmond and said the court accepted that the injury to his scrotum was caused by Moran’s belt buckle." She did not cut his ""balls open" as you put it it seems from the article that the balls injury was not intentional.

So what? Just because she didn't intend to cause a particular injury doesn't make the fact that her actions caused the injury any less worthy of condemnation and punishment. A drunk driver doesn't intend to injure or kill people when they get behind the wheel after more than a few pints either, should they be allowed use the unforeseen consequences of their actions as an excuse?

Logical Fallacy

ResearchWill wrote: »

Did the article not say "Defence counsel Cormac Quinn BL, told Judge Nolan that his client had “no intention to cause serious injury” to Mr Desmond and said the court accepted that the injury to his scrotum was caused by Moran’s belt buckle." She did not cut his ""balls open" as you put it it seems from the article that the balls injury was not intentional.

I don't think it should matter...if she had pushed him and he fell and hit his head and ended up in coma then she should be prosecuted to the extent of the injury.

The idea that you don't mean to hurt someone when assaulting them is bull****...the second you physically attack someone you should be legally held accountable for the injuries, freak or otherwise, they sustain as a result of that assault.

languagenerd

told Judge Nolan that his client had “no intention to cause serious injury” to Mr Desmond

What the hell? Right, so she goes around to his house in the middle of the night, kicks in a glass panel and starts beating him up... but doesn't intend to cause serious injury?!

Oh, well, that's ok then. She only wanted to give him a black eye and a couple scratches, sure let her off there, as long as it wasn't serious, like. =/

ResearchWill

fran oconnor wrote: »

I wouldn't give a crap if she didn't intend as such, she broke into his house and beat the sh!te out of him, cutting his bollox by doing so. How she's not serving time is a f*cking joke.

The court must weigh up all the evidence. The Maximum sentence for section 3 is 5 years I believe, from the article I am assuming she pleaded guilty so gets a discount for that, it can also be assumed that she has no previous so again in such a case a first time offence for section 3 would rarely get a jail sentence. The judge has to look at intention in relation to the injury and the relationship of the parties. The range of sentence in section 3 is from probation act to the max. To get the max you would have to have previous and fought the case and be in the judges mind a person a danger to society.

Lastly she has children, we do not know the ages, and assuming she is a single mom if she is jailed then not only will the state have to pay for that it will have to more than likely put the child or children into care. And finally the victim it seems did not want her jailed, I think his views are more important than outraged Ireland.

Logical Fallacy

ResearchWill wrote: »

The court must weigh up all the evidence. The Maximum sentence for section 3 is 5 years I believe, from the article I am assuming she pleaded guilty so gets a discount for that, it can also be assumed that she has no previous so again in such a case a first time offence for section 3 would rarely get a jail sentence. The judge has to look at intention in relation to the injury and the relationship of the parties. The range of sentence in section 3 is from probation act to the max. To get the max you would have to have previous and fought the case and be in the judges mind a person a danger to society.

Lastly she has children, we do not know the ages, and assuming she is a single mom if she is jailed then not only will the state have to pay for that it will have to more than likely put the child or children into care. And finally the victim it seems did not want her jailed, I think his views are more important than outraged Ireland.

Obviously the legal system viewed it as a section 3, but do you feel an argument could be made for a Section 4 assault?

Being honest, if i was assaulted and as a result was able to view one of my nuts i'd be looking for a section 4.

Maybe it's as simple as the divide between sentencing on both is too big, a section 3 is 5 years, a section 4 is life.

Fart

ResearchWill wrote: »

The court must weigh up all the evidence. The Maximum sentence for section 3 is 5 years I believe, from the article I am assuming she pleaded guilty so gets a discount for that, it can also be assumed that she has no previous so again in such a case a first time offence for section 3 would rarely get a jail sentence. The judge has to look at intention in relation to the injury and the relationship of the parties. The range of sentence in section 3 is from probation act to the max. To get the max you would have to have previous and fought the case and be in the judges mind a person a danger to society.

Lastly she has children, we do not know the ages, and assuming she is a single mom if she is jailed then not only will the state have to pay for that it will have to more than likely put the child or children into care. And finally the victim it seems did not want her jailed, I think his views are more important than outraged Ireland.

You're a judge, aren't you? Or you want to be.

fran oconnor

ResearchWill wrote: »

The court must weigh up all the evidence. The Maximum sentence for section 3 is 5 years I believe, from the article I am assuming she pleaded guilty so gets a discount for that, it can also be assumed that she has no previous so again in such a case a first time offence for section 3 would rarely get a jail sentence. The judge has to look at intention in relation to the injury and the relationship of the parties. The range of sentence in section 3 is from probation act to the max. To get the max you would have to have previous and fought the case and be in the judges mind a person a danger to society.

Lastly she has children, we do not know the ages, and assuming she is a single mom if she is jailed then not only will the state have to pay for that it will have to more than likely put the child or children into care. And finally the victim it seems did not want her jailed, I think his views are more important than outraged Ireland.

I don't think his views are more important. What about the next person that this happens to??, i think the fact that you can brake into someone's home, bash them about, while near ripping his bollox off and getting away with it to be madness. And as for the kids, they should be taken into care rather than be around someone like that..

ResearchWill

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

So what? Just because she didn't intend to cause a particular injury doesn't make the fact that her actions caused the injury any less worthy of condemnation and punishment. A drunk driver doesn't intend to injure or kill people when they get behind the wheel after more than a few pints either, should they be allowed use the unforeseen consequences of their actions as an excuse?

There is a difference between using an excuse to try and get away with a crime and using an excuse to look for a lighter sentence.

To take your above example, say a person who is slightly over the limit crashes the morning after, pleads guilty to death by dangerous driving. Should he get the same sentence as a person who is 3 times over the limit, with cocaine in his system, driving a faulty car, who pleads not guilty.

In this case she pleaded guilty, so she was not denying responsibility, she was requesting in light of all the facts that she should not serve a sentence, if her ex did not want her jailed then I think in light of all the facts the judge was correct.

ResearchWill

fran oconnor wrote: »

I don't think his views are more important. What about the next person that this happens to??, i think the fact that you can brake into someone's home, bash them about, while near ripping his bollox off and getting away with it to be madness. And as for the kids, they should be taken into care rather than be around someone like that..

In cases of assault, the views of the victim are taken into account, usually in a victim impact statement. But in all cases the Judge will ask does the victim wish to say anything, the judge will take what ever is said into account when sentencing.

ResearchWill

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Obviously the legal system viewed it as a section 3, but do you feel an argument could be made for a Section 4 assault?

Being honest, if i was assaulted and as a result was able to view one of my nuts i'd be looking for a section 4.

Maybe it's as simple as the divide between sentencing on both is too big, a section 3 is 5 years, a section 4 is life.

My own view is that it could have been seen as a section 4, but either he had a very good recovery, or the medical evidence did not support a section 4.

ResearchWill

Fart wrote: »

You're a judge, aren't you? Or you want to be.

No I am not a judge, but I do work in the legal field.

fran oconnor

ResearchWill wrote: »

In cases of assault, the views of the victim are taken into account, usually in a victim impact statement. But in all cases the Judge will ask does the victim wish to say anything, the judge will take what ever is said into account when sentencing.

So how come she wasn't done for brake and entry??. She should at least be locked up for that..

MrStuffins

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No. That's a bad idea. Walk away because the moment a man strikes a woman he loses.

Sorry but this is nonsense.

If a woman comes at me with the intention of hurting me so bad that she is going to leave my balls hanging out i'm going to do anything and everything I can to stop her.

MrStuffins

fran oconnor wrote: »

So how come she wasn't done for brake and entry??. She should at least be locked up for that..

I think her let her in.

mackg

ResearchWill wrote: »

There is a difference between using an excuse to try and get away with a crime and using an excuse to look for a lighter sentence.

To take your above example, say a person who is slightly over the limit crashes the morning after, pleads guilty to death by dangerous driving. Should he get the same sentence as a person who is 3 times over the limit, with cocaine in his system, driving a faulty car, who pleads not guilty.

In this case she pleaded guilty, so she was not denying responsibility, she was requesting in light of all the facts that she should not serve a sentence, if her ex did not want her jailed then I think in light of all the facts the judge was correct.

ResearchWill wrote: »

In cases of assault, the views of the victim are taken into account, usually in a victim impact statement. But in all cases the Judge will ask does the victim wish to say anything, the judge will take what ever is said into account when sentencing.

ResearchWill wrote: »

My own view is that it could have been seen as a section 4, but either he had a very good recovery, or the medical evidence did not support a section 4.

ResearchWill wrote: »

No I am not a judge, but I do work in the legal field.

Multi-quote is your friend.

billybudd

ResearchWill wrote: »

No I am not a judge, but I do work in the legal field.

As a matter of interest if this was gender reversed do you think the same sentence would have been handed down? not starting a gender war just curious.

KKkitty

To start I'm female.This is appalling. Someone has been maimed for life and all the perpetrator gets is a slap in the wrist and a telling off. The judiciary system in this country is a joke. They might as well have a naughty step in the courtroom and get the accused to sit on that.

fran oconnor

MrStuffins wrote: »

I think her let her in.

I thought she smashed a window to gain entry. I still think she should be locked up though, we don't need scum like her walking the streets..

ResearchWill

fran oconnor wrote: »

So how come she wasn't done for brake and entry??. She should at least be locked up for that..

While the article says they where in a relationship, it does not make clear if she shared the house etc., or spent regular time, more than likely she was also charged with other offences, but may have agreed to plead to the most serious on the basis that it would not be a trial. Again a first time offence of that nature would rarely lead to prison time.

ResearchWill

KKkitty wrote: »

To start I'm female.This is appalling. Someone has been maimed for life and all the perpetrator gets is a slap in the wrist and a telling off. The judiciary system in this country is a joke. They might as well have a naughty step in the courtroom and get the accused to sit on that.

How do you know the person has been maimed for life. The fact that it seems to be a section 3 not a section 4 would lead to the conclusion that there was no serious harm.

fran oconnor

KKkitty wrote: »

To start I'm female.This is appalling. Someone has been maimed for life and all the perpetrator gets is a slap in the wrist and a telling off. The judiciary system in this country is a joke. They might as well have a naughty step in the courtroom and get the accused to sit on that.

It all comes down to money over here, its the fact that it cost to keep these scum bags locked up, and it costs money to have their kids looked after while they are in jail. Its a shambles that this type of decision can be handed out. I also don't think its right that the guy this happend to should have any real say in what the outcome should be.

ResearchWill

billybudd wrote: »

As a matter of interest if this was gender reversed do you think the same sentence would have been handed down? not starting a gender war just curious.

My personal experience where the genders are reversed, where the victim either speaks up or does not speak badly, and the court is of the opinion that the victim is not under duress, the sentence would have been more than likely the same.

KKkitty

ResearchWill wrote: »

KKkitty wrote: »

To start I'm female.This is appalling. Someone has been maimed for life and all the perpetrator gets is a slap in the wrist and a telling off. The judiciary system in this country is a joke. They might as well have a naughty step in the courtroom and get the accused to sit on that.

How do you know the person has been maimed for life. The fact that it seems to be a section 3 not a section 4 would lead to the conclusion that there was no serious harm.

The victim will never forget this and will have a scar as a constant reminder to him of what has happened to him. If that's not maimed enough I don't no what is.

fran oconnor

ResearchWill wrote: »

While the article says they where in a relationship, it does not make clear if she shared the house etc., or spent regular time, more than likely she was also charged with other offences, but may have agreed to plead to the most serious on the basis that it would not be a trial. Again a first time offence of that nature would rarely lead to prison time.

What do you think would be the out come if the roles where reversed??.

ResearchWill

fran oconnor wrote: »

What do you think would be the out come if the roles where reversed??.

I answered above, I believe the result would more than likely be the same.

billybudd

ResearchWill wrote: »

I answered above, I believe the result would more than likely be the same.

A Quick google will discount this theory.

KKkitty

fran oconnor wrote: »

KKkitty wrote: »

To start I'm female.This is appalling. Someone has been maimed for life and all the perpetrator gets is a slap in the wrist and a telling off. The judiciary system in this country is a joke. They might as well have a naughty step in the courtroom and get the accused to sit on that.

It all comes down to money over here, its the fact that it cost to keep these scum bags locked up, and it costs money to have their kids looked after while they are in jail. Its a shambles that this type of decision can be handed out. I also don't think its right that the guy this happend to should have any real say in what the outcome should be.

She'll do the same again now. If it's in you to do something like that once you'll do it again.

fran oconnor

ResearchWill wrote: »

I answered above, I believe the result would more than likely be the same.

I think you are wrong, there is no way a man would get away with cutting a woman open in the way he was and get away with it.

ResearchWill

KKkitty wrote: »

The victim will never forget this and will have a scar as a constant reminder to him of what has happened to him. If that's not maimed enough I don't no what is.

I know of a case where a person was scared on their face by a bottle. The guilty person pleaded guilty, on the facts of the case the judge gave the probation of offenders and the CCA upheld that decision. The short report in a papers rarleys reflects what happens in court.

If you feel so strongly, go to your local circuit court, sit in on a sentencing judge, listen to all that is said and see then if you agree or disagree with the sentence passed.

ResearchWill

billybudd wrote: »

A Quick google will discount this theory.

Can you point at a case with similar facts, with a materially different result.

billybudd

ResearchWill wrote: »

I know of a case where a person was scared on their face by a bottle. The guilty person pleaded guilty, on the facts of the case the judge gave the probation of offenders and the CCA upheld that decision. The short report in a papers rarleys reflects what happens in court.

If you feel so strongly, go to your local circuit court, sit in on a sentencing judge, listen to all that is said and see then if you agree or disagree with the sentence passed.

I do and what i have noticed is that female circumstances are taken into account far more than mens. strange logic as if a child should be reared by a mentaly ill woman.