Man avoids jail for sexually assaulting two nieces

davet82

Dravokivich wrote: »

He is/was involved in a car dealership, this kind of exposure will likely result in reduced sales for him. It has the potential to greatly hurt him financially, will will have a bigger impact on his livelyhood than a short term custodial sentence that most likely wouldn't be fully served.

thats a consquence of his actions not a legal punishment, so tough shít imo

jmayo

super_furry wrote: »

This is the same judge who sent a man to jail for not paying tax on garlic. Should be on trial himself.

He wasn't even placed on the sex offenders list.

Yep we live in a funny old country where some are more equal under the law than others, mostly decided on a judges whim or on a judges preconceived notions of class and background.

It is now apparent that you can rape or sexual assault someone and just because you have the money to fire at the victims and maybe find a judge who only considers bad people to come from a certain background you get to walk with no jail time.

The real story here is that the same judge reckons someone guilty of fraud is more deserving of heavy sentences than some guilty of sexual offences.

I note he reckoned the garlic importer was a decent man yet he sent him to jail for 6 years.

The maximum sentence for the offence is five years in prison or a fine of three times the value of the goods.

Judge Martin Nolan imposed the maximum term on one count and one year on another count. These are to run consecutively, meaning a total of six years. “It gives me no joy at all to jail a decent man," Judge Nolan said.

If you defraud the state of duty on a vegetable you get 6 years from this judge.
And even on that there is a glaring issue of how bad our judiciary are.

Mr garlic man got a 5 year and a 1 year sentence to run consecutively, yet how many criminals facing gbh, attempted murder, murder, or more usually manslaughter charges, get
concurrent sentences.

And it isn't as if we are hard on fraud, white collar crime or tax evasion in this country.
Whereas mr garlic man gets 6 years, another person can defraud the state of about the same amount of tax revenue yet they get to continue as a public representative all the while receiving large funds from the same exchequer they just defrauded.

You couldn't make this sh** up if you tried.

ResearchWill

jmayo wrote: »

Yep we live in a funny old country where some are more equal under the law than others, mostly decided on a judges whim or on a judges preconceived notions of class and background.

It is now apparent that you can rape or sexual assault someone and just because you have the money to fire at the victims and maybe find a judge who only considers bad people to come from a certain background you get to walk with no jail time.

The real story here is that the same judge reckons someone guilty of fraud is more deserving of heavy sentences than some guilty of sexual offences.

I note he reckoned the garlic importer was a decent man yet he sent him to jail for 6 years.



If you defraud the state of duty on a vegetable you get 6 years from this judge.
And even on that there is a glaring issue of how bad our judiciary are.

Mr garlic man got a 5 year and a 1 year sentence to run consecutively, yet how many criminals facing gbh, attempted murder, murder, or more usually manslaughter charges, get
concurrent sentences.

And it isn't as if we are hard on fraud, white collar crime or tax evasion in this country.
Whereas mr garlic man gets 6 years, another person can defraud the state of about the same amount of tax revenue yet they get to continue as a public representative all the while large receiving funds from the same tax they just defrauded.

You couldn't make this sh** up if you tried.

Lets look at the Garlic case in another way, how many hospital beds is €1.6 million. Or to put it another way its the state pension for 132 old people in a year. People forget about the garlic guy he only agreed to pay it back when he was caught. While I think the sentence was very harsh he took the risk and got his punishment.

Dravokivich

davet82 wrote: »

thats a consquence of his actions not a legal punishment, so tough shít imo

I'm not saying it isn't. Just that it appears to me, that that was the intention from the judge.

davet82

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'm not saying it isn't. Just that it appears to me, that that was the intention from the judge.

He asked the victims if they wanted to wave their anonymity and they chose to expose him, i dont think that should have an impact on the sentence. So the victims chose to out him not the judge would be another way of looking at it.

if i rob a bank lets say, would it be right to suspend my sentence just because i've been named and shamed? - thats my point of view about it all

jmayo

ResearchWill wrote: »

Lets look at the Garlic case in another way, how many hospital beds is €1.6 million. Or to put it another way its the state pension for 132 old people in a year. People forget about the garlic guy he only agreed to pay it back when he was caught. While I think the sentence was very harsh he took the risk and got his punishment.

I know he defrauded the state of revenue, which is important especially nowadays since we need all the revenue we can get, and thus deserves to be punished.

My point is that so did other people ala mr wallace.
What is the difference ?
Both left a hole of over 1 million in our exchequer funds, yet one gets to reside in jail whereas the other gets to be handsomely paid out of the very funds he failed to pay into.

There is a litany of fraud and a litany of white collar criminals who get a little slap on the wrist, yet one guy has the full extent of the law thrown at him.
Why, how come ?

Looking at the sentence he got in comparison to those handed down to dangerous criminals also raises questions.
How many killers like the guy who killed the two Polish guys, get concurrent sentences whereas mr garlic gets consective sentences.

It just makes a joke out of the whole system.

Mr Garlic should be fined and jailed.
So should mr wallace.
So should fitzpatrick, drumm, fingelton, etc.
And so should the car dealer who sexually assualted his nieces.

Dravokivich

davet82 wrote: »

He asked the victims if they wanted to wave their anonymity and they chose to expose him, i dont think that should have an impact on the sentence. So the victims chose to out him not the judge would be another way of looking at it.

if i rob a bank lets say, would it be right to suspend my sentence just because i've been named and shamed? - thats my point of view about it all

I don't get why you are looking to be so argumentative with me on this. Unlike anyone else in this thread, I just put out what appears to be the reasoning behind what the judge has done. I've not shown any form of support for it, so throwing out an attempt of comparison referencing another type of crime aimed at me is of no use.

ScumLord

I wonder did the guy get a fine? That seems to be more important to our justice system than actually punishing the criminal.

Loomis

bluewolf wrote: »

What the f*ck is wrong with the judges
Seriously

I do hope there is some vigilante justice here since that seems to be what they are pushing for :mad:

Judges don't seem to live in the real world by many accounts. One judge had no concept of what a supermarket was when it came up. I don't even know what to think about that.
My parents have spent a fair bit of time in court due to their jobs. They're convinced many of the judges are paedophiles given the pathetic sentences they hand down to sex offenders.

ResearchWill

jmayo wrote: »

I know he defrauded the state of revenue, which is important especially nowadays since we need all the revenue we can get, and thus deserves to be punished.

My point is that so did other people ala mr wallace.
What is the difference ?
Both left a hole of over 1 million in our exchequer funds, yet one gets to reside in jail whereas the other gets to be handsomely paid out of the very funds he failed to pay into.

There is a litany of fraud and a litany of white collar criminals who get a little slap on the wrist, yet one guy has the full extent of the law thrown at him.
Why, how come ?

Looking at the sentence he got in comparison to those handed down to dangerous criminals also raises questions.
How many killers like the guy who killed the two Polish guys, get concurrent sentences whereas mr garlic gets consective sentences.

It just makes a joke out of the whole system.

Mr Garlic should be fined and jailed.
So should mr wallace.
So should fitzpatrick, drumm, fingelton, etc.
And so should the car dealer who sexually assualted his nieces.

Wallace etc are not down to judges that's AGS and DPP. In relation to this sex offender in light of all the facts disclosed sententce is ok in my view, garlic guy I have stated I think 6 years way too much but I do think he should do time.

Blazer

Mr. Anderson wrote: »

Judges don't seem to live in the real world by many accounts. One judge had no concept of what a supermarket was when it came up. I don't even know what to think about that.
My parents have spent a fair bit of time in court due to their jobs. They're convinced many of the judges are paedophiles given the pathetic sentences they hand down to sex offenders.

Wasn't there a high number of judges listed on the pedophile list that the FBI had a few years ago?
Including that shítbag judge down in Kerry? Curtin?

ResearchWill

Mr. Anderson wrote: »

Judges don't seem to live in the real world by many accounts. One judge had no concept of what a supermarket was when it came up. I don't even know what to think about that.
My parents have spent a fair bit of time in court due to their jobs. They're convinced many of the judges are paedophiles given the pathetic sentences they hand down to sex offenders.

Adult sex offences getting in your opinion light sentences = paedophile. BTW that post is defamation.

ResearchWill

Blazer wrote: »

Wasn't there a high number of judges listed on the pedophile list that the FBI had a few years ago?
Including that shítbag judge down in Kerry? Curtin?

Can you link.

Blazer

ResearchWill wrote: »

Can you link.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/the-increasingly-puzzling-case-of-judge-brian-curtin-164415.html

only for the fact that the cops doing the search was frakking retards who didn't notice the warrant has expired he might have actually done some jailtime.

I'd link the fbi report later on...in work and don't really want to google "paedo" etc in an office full of people

DirtyBollox

Reminds me an awful lot of this

Holsten

Love reading all this angry posts about the light sentence haha!

The Judge knows much, much more about the case than any of us, he'll know exactly why this man got the sentence that he did.

If you're not happy with the sentence given out, why not actually do something like contacting the justice department, your local TD or perhaps Judge Nolan himself?

From reading the report, he got a light sentence because; he plead guilty, this is his first offence, and he is a low risk of ever re offending.

Madam Marie

bluewolf wrote: »

I do hope there is some vigilante justice here..

Such as?

Loomis

ResearchWill wrote: »

Adult sex offences getting in your opinion light sentences = paedophile. BTW that post is defamation.

1. I didn't say adult.
2. I didn't say it was my opinion.
3. Punctuation is nice.

davet82

Dravokivich wrote: »

I don't get why you are looking to be so argumentative with me on this. Unlike anyone else in this thread, I just put out what appears to be the reasoning behind what the judge has done. I've not shown any form of support for it, so throwing out an attempt of comparison referencing another type of crime aimed at me is of no use.

I dont mean to be argumentative with you personally (i get what you're saying) i just feel very strongly about what i preceive the judge as using a consequence as a form of punishment, a cop out on punishing this guy for his crime.

When refering to another type of crime I was explaining my views, it was not ment to be directed at you

curlzy

benwavner wrote: »

Scumbag....vigilante justice will sort that out.

I wish, but we're Irish, people will give out behind his back but shake his hand. He will never face justice of any kind. I wish we had vigilante justice, at least it would be something but Irish people never act, they just moan.

Holsten

curlzy wrote: »

I wish, but we're Irish, people will give out behind his back but shake his hand. He will never face justice of any kind. I wish we had vigilante justice, at least it would be something but Irish people never act, they just moan.

WHAT! What a stupid, stupid post. I have to assume you're joking. Thank GOD we don't have vigilantes. Jesus christ.

You're not looking for justice here, you're looking for revenge. That's not the way the judicial system works thankfully.

davet82

Holsten wrote: »

Love reading all this angry posts about the light sentence haha!

The Judge knows much, much more about the case than any of us, he'll know exactly why this man got the sentence that he did.

If you're not happy with the sentence given out, why not actually do something like contacting the justice department, your local TD or perhaps Judge Nolan himself?

From reading the report, he got a light sentence because; he plead guilty, this is his first offence, and he is a low risk of ever re offending.

So judges cant be wrong?

A previous poster has already contacted a TD about a another similar light sentenced case in this thread and is suggesting people should do the same so you'd be surprised how many people actually do something about it.

I think a first offence is enough to warrant a custodial sentence when it comes to these type of sex crimes imo regardless of risk (which is a guessing game really)

MagicMarker

Holsten wrote: »

Love reading all this angry posts about the light sentence haha!

The Judge knows much, much more about the case than any of us, he'll know exactly why this man got the sentence that he did.

If you're not happy with the sentence given out, why not actually do something like contacting the justice department, your local TD or perhaps Judge Nolan himself?

From reading the report, he got a light sentence because; he plead guilty, this is his first offence, and he is a low risk of ever re offending.

He committed his "first offense" on 3 separate occasions.

ResearchWill

Blazer wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/the-increasingly-puzzling-case-of-judge-brian-curtin-164415.html

only for the fact that the cops doing the search was frakking retards who didn't notice the warrant has expired he might have actually done some jailtime.

I'd link the fbi report later on...in work and don't really want to google "paedo" etc in an office full of people

The Curtin article I know about its the link to any evidence that "high numbers" of judges are in fact on that list I would like to see. There are less than 100 judges in Ireland, a very small number, defamation of such a small class is very likely unless you have hard evidence to back up your asseration.

This link names 1 judge Mr. Brian Curtain as having been named in operation Amethyst, http://irish.typepad.com/irisheyes/2004/07/child_porn_in_i.html

mitosis

Boombastic wrote: »

I haven't seen it yet, can't find it online but will have a look when I'm down at the shops later. I find it odd that neither the independent nor the examiner printed his picture, when this was his punishment (publicity)



No, am I safe?

I'd say so, so.

ResearchWill

Mr. Anderson wrote: »

1. I didn't say adult.
2. I didn't say it was my opinion.
3. Punctuation is nice.

This case is about adult case. you only said sex offenders you did not child or adult cases. You said it was your parents opinion that you are repeating showing you at least agree with it.

Sorry for not using punctuation, was on iPhone, did not know it was a capital offence.

Holsten

davet82 wrote: »

So judges cant be wrong?

A previous poster has already contacted a TD about a another similar light sentenced case in this thread and is suggesting people should do the same so you'd be surprised how many people actually do something about it.

I think a first offence is enough to warrant a custodial sentence when it comes to these type of sex crimes imo regardless of risk (which is a guessing game really)

Of course they can be wrong, anyone can be wrong. But keep in mind that he has probably dealt with hundreds of cases similar to this, all with different mitigation and aggravating factors. He'll more often than not get it spot on.

Brilliant that people actually do that, as it is the only way things might change.

I don't think so at all. Risk is a huge factor in sentencing, it's not a guessing game at all. What will a custodial sentence do? Just "punish" him for what? A year? Probably less. He needs to get some form of treatment.

MagicMarker wrote:

He committed his "first offense" on 3 separate occasions.

First offense in front of the court. Simply he has no prior convictions for this or any other crime.

curlzy

Holsten wrote: »

WHAT! What a stupid, stupid post. I have to assume you're joking. Thank GOD we don't have vigilantes. Jesus christ.

You're not looking for justice here, you're looking for revenge. That's not the way the judicial system works thankfully.

Calm down there, you delicate little flower :rolleyes:

Boombastic

In May 2002, the Garda Síochána launched Operation Amethyst, a major investigation based on details received from Interpol in August 2001 of Irish credit card transactions made in 1999 to a child-pornography website in Texas.[5] The operation led to numerous arrests and convictions. Detectives executed a search warrant on Curtin's private residence, seized his computer and reported finding 273 child pornographic images on the hard disk. Curtin was charged in January 2003. Following delays due to the judge's ill-health, the trial took place in April 2004. At the trial, Curtin claimed that the search was illegal because it had taken place outside the limit of the 7-day warrant. The Gardaí claimed that the delay was due to Curtin's extended absence from his home and that when it took place at 2:20pm on 27 May 2002, it was still within the 7-day limit.[6][7] The trial judge ruled that the search was illegal. As a result the computer evidence found could not be used. Without that evidence Curtin was found not guilty, the judge declaring that the case was "crystal clear

davet82

Holsten wrote: »

Of course they can be wrong, anyone can be wrong. But keep in mind that he has probably dealt with hundreds of cases similar to this, all with different mitigation and aggravating factors. He'll more often than not get it spot on.

Brilliant that people actually do that, as it is the only way things might change.

I don't think so at all. Risk is a huge factor in sentencing, it's not a guessing game at all. What will a custodial sentence do? Just "punish" him for what? A year? Probably less. He needs to get some form of treatment.

I do recognise the point you are making about him dealing with similar cases. I feel he got it wrong in this case and I feel sexual crimes like these regardless need to be punished properly i.e jail time

I'll concede that maybe its the guidelines are wrong in sentencing

People need to see perpetrators are punished for a sense of justice for victims and for a deterent (however so small) for offenders. They also offer treatments in the likes of Arbour Hill if i'm not mistaken but its voluntary (open to correction on this btw)

How many times have we seen 'low risk offenders' come before the courts again? i dont have any figures on it but i'm betting its more often than not when it comes to crime (open to correction on this too)