Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Man drinks 8 pints, kills another in crash, judge thinks alcohol isn't a factor...
Options
Comments
-
Ray Palmer wrote: »No you don't understand what knee jerk reaction is. As I couldn't be bothered disproving your theory with stats your must be right . Good logic. I have looked where as you obviously haven't I don't run around providing every theory with absolute proof and neither do you. You have a theory that harsh punishment deters people yet can't show evidence. Have you ever read anything that actually proves it??
I understand what knee jerk reaction is perfectly well Ray. That's another fairly lazy accusation of that you're bandying around there.
The theory was yours Ray, you just couldn't be bothered to prove it. I stated that I believe that a prison theory deters drink driving and that it is the correct punishment. You told me you had evidence to prove it doesn't. If you have that evidence it should be fairly easy to produce it. I have a position, backed up nothing more than my own opinion. You claimed to have evidence, which you don't. You should avoid making claims you can't back up because it lazily lends some credibility to an argument.0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »Obviously. Way to overly simplify what I said and then exagerate. You are a powerhouse of wit and amaze me with your debating skills.:rolleyes:
No exaggeration. The guy got drunk, took a lethal weapon and used it to kill an innocent party. Why is that not worthy of a custodial sentence?0 -
Getting ridiculous now. I never said rare and weird mean the same thing. Just read my posts and you'll see what I say. You won't have to jump to any conclusions. What happened that night was rare. It was also a weird thing for him to do. It wasn't normal. That he was drunk doesn't change the fact that it was a weird thing to do, based on the details we have.Rare does not equal weird Humanji. That is pretty clear despite your attempt to blur the distinction between the 2. It is rare that it happens, however it's a ridiculous leap to suggest that it's weird that 8 pints would be the cause of this accident. Extremely tenuous. Ridiculous in fact.It is not weird. Quite the opposite, it is weird that anyone (not you, before you get all defensive again) could believe that drinking 8 pints did not cause this accident, especially considering the documented effects of drinking that amount of alcohol would be lack of coordination and memory loss. Which maybe, just maybe...would contribute to clumsily driving down the wrong side of a dual carriageway after remembering something you had forgotten.
I emphasised the important part. It's possible and quite likely it was due to the alcohol. As I said several times, we don't have all the details. But someone who does, thought that something was amiss. So do you not think that maybe it's possible we're missing something?0 -
One possible reason for why he was driving the wrong way down the dual carriageway could be the fact that he's from Cavan, and this incident happened around Naas. He may not have been familiar with the area, and having had about 8 pints, that wouldn't have helped his sense of direction there either.0
-
Getting ridiculous now. I never said rare and weird mean the same thing. Just read my posts and you'll see what I say. You won't have to jump to any conclusions. What happened that night was rare. It was also a weird thing for him to do. It wasn't normal. That he was drunk doesn't change the fact that it was a weird thing to do, based on the details we have.
I emphasised the important part. It's possible and quite likely it was due to the alcohol. As I said several times, we don't have all the details. But someone who does, thought that something was amiss. So do you not think that maybe it's possible we're missing something?
You said "
Does this happen everyone that has 8 pints? Or would this be a rare, nay "weird", thing to happen?
Right there, with your 'rare nay weird'...that's where you tried to turn a rare into weird. Right before our very eyes !
'Maybe, just maybe' was sarcasm, as clearly 8 pints were the over riding factor in this accident and a lengthy custodial sentence was appropriate.0 -
Advertisement
-
No exaggeration. The guy got drunk, took a lethal weapon and used it to kill an innocent party. Why is that not worthy of a custodial sentence?
Depends on what you think the Law's primary purpose is.
I think it's to protect the people, this man most-likely poses no threat to the people.
If it's to punish the guilty then he should he be given a custodial sentence.
It tries to be both but punishment isn't a deterrent and locking up those who aren't threats is inefficient and destroys more lives than necessary.
People should be judged firstly on their intent, not the necessarily the consequences of their actions. That means attempted murder should be the same as murder and accidental, although avoidable, deaths should be treated as accidental.0 -
Look up the meaning of the word "nay".You said "
Does this happen everyone that has 8 pints? Or would this be a rare, nay "weird", thing to happen?
Right there, with your 'rare nay weird'...that's where you tried to turn a rare into weird. Right before our very eyes !
'Maybe, just maybe' was sarcasm, as clearly 8 pints were the over riding factor in this accident and a lengthy custodial sentence was appropriate.
As for the rest, from the article:Judge Nolan said Cunningham was certainly “drunk while driving the car” and it was “obviously a possibility” that the amount of drink put him into an “insensible state”. He had to take the guilty plea into account, along with Cunningham’s co-operation with gardaí, his lack of previous convictions and, centrally, his doubt about whether the guilty man knew what he was doing.
The judge didn't just say "alcohol had nothing to do with it, so I'm letting him off". There were a series of things that he took into account, one of which was that he wasn't sure if it was solely the drink that made him do it. Again, we don't know all the facts. The judge does, so maybe we're missing something.0 -
That is the problem right there, it was unintentional. Whether you or I agree with it or not the law treats people who kill unintentionally with less culpability than those that do it intentionally.the groutch wrote: »he should have gotten about 8-10 years (not suspended), he killed another man (albeit unintentionally) and to not serve any time and be back behind the wheel in 5 years is a joke.
I don't think he said it wasn't a factor, he said that it did not explain the behaviour. There is a difference.gosuckonalemon wrote: »Once again you are missing my point, it's not that he wasn't jailed, it's the fact that the judge thinks drink was not a factor.
If the judge said alcohol was a major factor and then gave him a suspended sentence I wouldn't have an issue.
I think you are wrong. I don;t have any figures for it, but I will try to explain logically. A punishment will only work as a deterrent if it is possible for the person to make a concious choice as to whether or not to carry out the act.
I also would be very interested to see your statistics which indicate that harsh sentences for drink driving fatalities do not work. I suspect your statistics will tell us that harsh sentences for career criminals / repeat offenders do not work, I do not believe that this will hold true for one off drink driving casualties. If I am wrong, I will admit it.
This is why the law has defences against certain crimes. If a person did not choose to commit a particular crime, either because they were mentally unwell and did not posses the faculties or they were not capable, for whatever reason, of knowing that their action was wrong then harsh punishments, or in some cases any punishments are hard to justify. Firstly, it is inherently unfair to punish someone for something he did not choose to do and secondly, where that act is carried out without concious deliberation the thought of punishment is irrelevant and so there is no real deterrent value.
Murder is a very specific thing and has very specific requirements and it is unlike that driving a car drunk will amount to murder, unless the person got drunk and got into the car with the specific intention of causing death or really serious harm.jonnyfingers wrote: »In my opinion driving a car after 8 pints should be the same as attempted murder.
I think the issue in this case is that there was probably no point where this guy made a conscious decision to get into the car and drive it while drunk.jonnyfingers wrote: »You know you don't have adequate control over your body, you know you're going to be in control of a lethal weapon, and you know that if you crash into someone at speed there is every likelihood that person will die. So by choosing to get behind the well you accept that you may kill someone.
Model citizen or not the driver in this case made a decision that directly led to somebody's death. That's murder.
He booked a hotel room, so clearly he intended not to drink and drive. At some point, after 8 pints or so he got into the car and drove. What the judge seems to be saying is that at that point, either because of the drink, or because of the drink and some other factor, he drove the car. At the point where he drove the car he was not capable of realising what he was doing was wrong. This, in conjunction with the fact that he pleaded guilty lead to the very lenient sentence.
I am not saying I agree with the sentence or not, I am simply pointing out that the law does not always work in a way that is easily comprehensible to the lay person, and sometimes we get verdicts which appear to be manifestly unfair.
MrP0 -
+18 Pints, drove down wrong side of the road, killed someone. 0 days spent in prison.
There can be no mitigating circumstances for that sentence. Its a disgrace, and more worrying is the attitude of the judge. Consequences are for the little people obviously, not those who can throw €25,000 at the problem to see it go away.
There is more to this case than we know imo.
I live in a country that the Mafia has complete control of, followed by the Big Business types think of Ben Dunne etc who are intertwined thru the mafia anyway...then followed by the politicians, then by the hangers on of these people.
Justice for the average family is really non-existent.........
So when I read the story this morning, for the first time in my life, I can honestly say I am embarrassed and ashamed to be an Irishman. Sean Fitzgearld and those guys, yeah I knew they would get off scott free, they might have bankrupted a nation, but they never killed a guy in a head-on crash.........
But I never ever thought that one day, a drink driver that killed somebody would walk away scott free from an Irish court.
Mr Cunningham drank 8 pints:rolleyes: (YEAH, RIGHT)
He got behind the wheel of a car.
He drove the car.
He drove on the wrong side of the road.
He crashed into an on-coming car.
He killed the occupant of the other car.
and the judge thinks drink was not a factor.......
He broke how many laws and he doesn't see a day in prison. The Judge should be ashamed of himself. In fact he should be investigated by the ombudsman office if thats even possible.
I do have a small bit of sympathy for Mr Cunningham, because from now on he will be known as a killer, something we hope will never happen us thru crashing a car.
And sincere condolences to the family of the victim, nothing we can say on an internet forum board will ever bring your son back, I didn't know him, but I would like to say I'm really sorry this happened and words cannot express how I feel for you as a family.0 -
Obviously there is more to this and until I get further information (Unlikely) I refuse to make assumptions... HOWEVER... The fact that he killed a man, got a suspended sentence, and is not in a mental institution confuses me. I mean if he was suicidal because his entire family had died in a fire you'd think he'd be in some sort of institution.0
-
Advertisement
-
Took a wrong turn at Compton boulevard.gosuckonalemon wrote: »http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1207/1224308683781.html
The court heard that Mr Mendez and his fiancee, Latoya Scott, were returning from a dinner celebrating Ms Scott’s birthday, and were travelling on the outer lane in the direction of Naas, when, according to Ms Scott, all she could remember was seeing a flash of light and feeling the impact, which sent the car spinning out of control.
Ms Scott managed to free herself, but Mr Mendez, who was revived momentarily at the scene, was trapped and had to be cut from the wreckage. He was taken to hospital, where he later died as a result of damage to his liver.
Ms Scott said in her victim-impact statement that her fiance’s death has left her completely devastated.
After the crash Cunningham was found to have had 150mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood.
Judge Nolan said he wasn’t sure what had happened to Cunningham on that night, but said he didn’t think drink caused him to do what he did. He said that what Cunningham did was totally reckless and something no sensible person would do.
He said Cunningham’s behaviour was totally out of character, as he was “a perfectly sensible man” up until that night.
“I’m not sure Mr Cunningham knew what he was doing. I’m not sure the drink was the cause. I’m not sure that I don’t accept his explanation. It’s very difficult to justly sentence this case,” the judge said.
“He’s not dishonest, he’s not stupid and he’s a man who doesn’t lack sense. I think something happened to Mr Cunningham that night that’s not explainable by the drink he took.”
Judge Nolan said Cunningham was certainly “drunk while driving the car” and it was “obviously a possibility” that the amount of drink put him into an “insensible state”. He had to take the guilty plea into account, along with Cunningham’s co-operation with gardaí, his lack of previous convictions and, centrally, his doubt about whether the guilty man knew what he was doing.
He sentenced Cunningham to five years in prison which he suspended in full on condition that he is of good behaviour for that period. He also disqualified him from driving for five years.
Defence counsel Paul Greene said Cunningham had paid €25,000 to the family as a token of his remorse.
This judge should be struck off. What a disgrace. The man drinks 8 pints, drives the wrong way down a dual carriage way and the judge gives him a suspended sentence because he reckons alcohol was not a factor!0 -
rich.d.berry wrote: »I knew Manny, he worked as a shop assistant in Kildare and was very popular. Always friendly and good banter with customers. A young man with loads of potential who is sorely missed.
I was at his funeral along with about 600 other people, maybe more. The church was packed and there were over a hundred more accommodated in an adjoining hall.
What amazed me most is that his mother stood up and spoke saying that she had already forgiven Cunningham for the death of her son. I wonder if he'll ever be able to forgive himself. The €25,000 token of remorse he paid can never make up for the lost life, and I'm sure he knows it.
personally I see no reason for him to be jailed. He's not a danger to society, he doesn't need any rehabilitation. I doubt that he will ever drink and drive again. If he does, then chuck him in jail and ban him for life. Ruining his life won't bring back Manny.
Absolutely right.0 -
No, you needlessly changed a word in my post to point out something that everyone already knows. How did that make anything better? No one is disputing that he was drunk. No one is disputing that it was illegal.
Driving the wrong way down a motor way stone cold sober might be construed as being weird (in so much as it's outside of most normal peoples behavior on the road network)
Driving the wrong way down a motor way after downing 8 or more pints of beer is no longer weird, it now becomes something much more sinister. I was merely pointing out to you that a legal line was crossed and this is what people (including you and the judge) should have focused on.
All of the reasons being put forward as to why he may have driven down the wrong way might (just might) have been acceptable had he been stone cold sober (geography, lack of knowledge of the area etc) , being pissed however grants him none of this understanding and the judgement handed out was way off the mark as a result despite the judge claiming there might be something else behind it.0 -
C unt should have got ten years0
-
It's still a weird thing to do. Alcohol messes up your ability to make decisions, It doesn't excuse these decisions. Had he not been drunk, he would still be breaking the law. So there's no reason to point out the obvious to everyone.Driving the wrong way down a motor way stone cold sober might be construed as being weird (in so much as it's outside of most normal peoples behavior on the road network)
Driving the wrong way down a motor way after downing 8 or more pints of beer is no longer weird, it now becomes something much more sinister. I was merely pointing out to you that a legal line was crossed and this is what people (including you and the judge) should have focused on.All of the reasons being put forward as to why he may have driven down the wrong way might (just might) have been acceptable had he been stone cold sober (geography, lack of knowledge of the area etc) , being pissed however grants him none of this understanding and the judgement handed out was way off the mark as a result despite the judge claiming there might be something else behind it.
No, the judge has to take everything into consideration. That's his job.0 -
No, the judge has to take everything into consideration. That's his job.
Well then its really starting to look like the judge took a decidedly selective view in this case. Just looking at the amount of laws that were broken and the fallout from this accident should have a least merited a custodial sentence despite the protestations to the contrary from Mr. Cunningham's legal party.
Now not being "up on the law" I can only assume that there must have been some crucial piece of evidence that was withheld from the public about this case for whatever reason.
Starting to really stink if you ask me.0 -
Well in fairness, the sentence is par for the course for most crimes these days. Every week there's another thread on here about someone else not going to prison on the promise that they "won't do it again". The criminal system here is a bit of a joke at times, particularly when sentencing is involved.Well then its really starting to look like the judge took a decidedly selective view in this case. Just looking at the amount of laws that were broken and the fallout from this accident should have a least merited a custodial sentence despite the protestations to the contrary from Mr. Cunningham's legal party.
Now not being "up on the law" I can only assume that there must have been some crucial piece of evidence that was withheld from the public about this case for whatever reason.
Starting to really stink if you ask me.0 -
Letting a drunk driver who caused the death of another, walk away scot free is a total joke considering the time of year it is and the anti drink driving ads were about to be hit with.0
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
MPG now stands for Maimings Per Gallon (of Beer).Its pretty obvious that the average citizen finds this judgement to be abhorrent so why do we put up with it?0
-
Another thing that caught my attention about this case is the IrIsh Independent.
Usually they have comment boxes but on this story there is none. You are not able to comment on this story.
I genuinely wonder why?0 -
Another thing that caught my attention about this case is the IrIsh Independent.
Usually they have comment boxes but on this story there is none. You are not able to comment on this story.
I genuinely wonder why?
I noticed that too - good observation.
Wonder whats really up here.
BTW - the judge should be ashamed of himself for this days work.0 -
Putting the judge's name into google reveals some absolutely bizarre sentences. And he does love the suspended sentences:
Here, he gives 2 years to a man who slept with a 14 year old boy - who had put up an ad looking for sex and initially said he was 19: http://www.examiner.ie/breaking/ireland/eyaucwojqlau/
But then he gives a suspended sentence (!) to a man who sexually abused a 6 year old boy (!) because the man had been abused himself (!): http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1208/1224308743036.html
And he happily gives out suspended sentences for violent crimes:
He sentences a man who beats his ex-gf bloody to 2 years, suspends all but 9 months: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1130/1224308334244.html
Woman lacerates boyfriend's scrotum, gets a suspended sentence:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1115/1224307584052.html
Man stabs someone with broken glass at a wedding, gets a suspended sentence:
http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/dad-stabbed-wedding-guest-with-glass-shard-2937776.html
However, you deal drugs, with out any violence, and you're definitely going to jail:
16-months for a 'low level' coke dealer:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1130/1224308334209.html
3.5 years(!) to a woman importing cannabis (who seemed to think it legal, since she showed it to the guards!):
http://www.fingal-independent.ie/news/jail-term-for-woman-who-imported-cannabis-2955936.html
So. yer man was lucky he hadn't smoked a spliff before he drove, or the judge would've put him away for a while!0 -
-
:eek::eek::eek::eek:cafecolour wrote: »Putting the judge's name into google reveals some absolutely bizarre sentences. And he does love the suspended sentences:
Here, he gives 2 years to a man who slept with a 14 year old boy - who had put up an ad looking for sex and initially said he was 19: http://www.examiner.ie/breaking/ireland/eyaucwojqlau/
But then he gives a suspended sentence (!) to a man who sexually abused a 6 year old boy (!) because the man had been abused himself (!): http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1208/1224308743036.html
And he happily gives out suspended sentences for violent crimes:
He sentences a man who beats his ex-gf bloody to 2 years, suspends all but 9 months: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1130/1224308334244.html
Woman lacerates boyfriend's scrotum, gets a suspended sentence:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1115/1224307584052.html
Man stabs someone with broken glass at a wedding, gets a suspended sentence:
http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/dad-stabbed-wedding-guest-with-glass-shard-2937776.html
However, you deal drugs, with out any violence, and you're definitely going to jail:
16-months for a 'low level' coke dealer:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1130/1224308334209.html
3.5 years(!) to a woman importing cannabis (who seemed to think it legal, since she showed it to the guards!):
http://www.fingal-independent.ie/news/jail-term-for-woman-who-imported-cannabis-2955936.html0 -
gosuckonalemon wrote: »http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1207/1224308683781.html
The court heard that Mr Mendez and his fiancee, Latoya Scott, were returning from a dinner celebrating Ms Scott’s birthday, and were travelling on the outer lane in the direction of Naas, when, according to Ms Scott, all she could remember was seeing a flash of light and feeling the impact, which sent the car spinning out of control.
Ms Scott managed to free herself, but Mr Mendez, who was revived momentarily at the scene, was trapped and had to be cut from the wreckage. He was taken to hospital, where he later died as a result of damage to his liver.
Ms Scott said in her victim-impact statement that her fiance’s death has left her completely devastated.
After the crash Cunningham was found to have had 150mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood.
Judge Nolan said he wasn’t sure what had happened to Cunningham on that night, but said he didn’t think drink caused him to do what he did. He said that what Cunningham did was totally reckless and something no sensible person would do.
He said Cunningham’s behaviour was totally out of character, as he was “a perfectly sensible man” up until that night.
“I’m not sure Mr Cunningham knew what he was doing. I’m not sure the drink was the cause. I’m not sure that I don’t accept his explanation. It’s very difficult to justly sentence this case,” the judge said.
“He’s not dishonest, he’s not stupid and he’s a man who doesn’t lack sense. I think something happened to Mr Cunningham that night that’s not explainable by the drink he took.”
Judge Nolan said Cunningham was certainly “drunk while driving the car” and it was “obviously a possibility” that the amount of drink put him into an “insensible state”. He had to take the guilty plea into account, along with Cunningham’s co-operation with gardaí, his lack of previous convictions and, centrally, his doubt about whether the guilty man knew what he was doing.
He sentenced Cunningham to five years in prison which he suspended in full on condition that he is of good behaviour for that period. He also disqualified him from driving for five years.
Defence counsel Paul Greene said Cunningham had paid €25,000 to the family as a token of his remorse.
This judge should be struck off. What a disgrace. The man drinks 8 pints, drives the wrong way down a dual carriage way and the judge gives him a suspended sentence because he reckons alcohol was not a factor!
Why do Irish people on all levels of society act in a way that defies common sense?0 -
Still way exagerated.No exaggeration. The guy got drunk, took a lethal weapon and used it to kill an innocent party. Why is that not worthy of a custodial sentence?
A car is not intended by design to be a leathal weapon a gun is.
He didn't intend to kill anybody, a guy shooting at people would be considered to be trying to kill them.
So to compare the two to say they are the same is just plain and simply stupid or very stupid wit.
Intent means a lot and if you don't understand that I'd be very surprised.0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »Still way exagerated.
A car is not intended by design to be a leathal weapon a gun is.
He didn't intend to kill anybody, a guy shooting at people would be considered to be trying to kill them.
So to compare the two to say they are the same is just plain and simply stupid or very stupid wit.
Intent means a lot and if you don't understand that I'd be very surprised.
No need for the ad hominems. It doesn't come across very well. A kitchen knife is not classified as a weapon either by your definition but has been used to kill many people. Where you would draw the line is what intrigues me while reading this thread.0 -
Advertisement
-
He wasn't just a small bit over the limit, he had 8 pints ffs. That amount of drink will have even a seasoned drinker tipsy at the very least, and in this case there was an admission that the guy was drunk, yet the judge thinks drink wasn't really a factor? How in the name of Moses could it not be?
Whether he's generally a decent guy or not, he drove a car drunkenly down the wrong side of the road and left a young guy dead, his fiance devastated. Family too no doubt. That's lives wrecked. He should have gone to jail full stop. It should not be seen as acceptable that you can do what he did and walk out of court a free man. In Britain they don't even call it 'death by dangerous driving' anymore it's treated as manslaughter and prosecuted accordingly.0
Advertisement