What a sadistic bastar*

MagicSean

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Total bollox.
He didn't spare the victim anything - some sleaze bag free legal aid solicitor told him to plead guilty and he'd get out early. The assault was horrific and very sadistic - attempted murder imo and definitely the work of a dangerous individual not fit to be in open society. The guy should be looking at decades inside not months. Restrictions on his release?? Like what - don't torture and beat women half to death you naughty boy, or i'll be very very cross with you? That'll teach him eh:rolleyes:

The poster is correct and not talking "total bollox". A trial can be very hard on a victim, especially when being cross examined by the defence. There is always the potential for a not guilty result too. He is also bound to the peace for five years once he gets out and has a suspended sentence hanging over him. This is a very strong behaviour modifier for people.

humanji

Curly Judge wrote: »

Maybe it doesn't apply in this case but I have seen enough of these "ring a rosey" abusive relationships to realise how much police time is wasted in these "domestics".
Drink seems to have played a very important part in this trailer trash "Romeo and Juliet".

Don't post in this thread again.

Odysseus

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Total bollox.
He didn't spare the victim anything - some sleaze bag free legal aid solicitor told him to plead guilty and he'd get out early. The assault was horrific and very sadistic - attempted murder imo and definitely the work of a dangerous individual not fit to be in open society. The guy should be looking at decades inside not months. Restrictions on his release?? Like what - don't torture and beat women half to death you naughty boy, or i'll be very very cross with you? That'll teach him eh:rolleyes:

Firstly have you read the report? I am glad the following are part of the deal.

"Judge Griffin backdated the sentence to December 13 last, when the accused was taken into custody and he suspended the final half of the sentence on condition Pasare keep the peace for five years, have no contact whatsoever with the victim, not come within 500 metres of her and provide an address to gardai on his release from prison."


No he sould not be looking at decades, nasty as the crime was we can only respond within the law. Next you will be supporting mob justice. The thing I would have like to have seen would be a full psych assessment because as you state the man is dangerous, and is capable of some very nasty deeds.

I get to spend a fair bit of time with victims of domestic violence as well as their violence partners. From my experience not having to re-live the event in open court is usually [no always] a good thing for the person, and those conditions are important, because if they are not there he can start the whole thing over again as soon as he is relased.

Odysseus

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

I agree lots of time is wasted on some domestics because the victim will return to the abuser no matter how much help is offered and yes alcohol is usually a big factor in these incidents.

if she goes back to him on his release then she only has herself to blame for the next beating.

The happens a lot, it really is a very complex situation, saying the above is not really helpful and misses the mark [not having a person dig at you]. It can be horrible watching someone keep going back to such a situation, but it regularily happens. Or they move on to another relationship, but it is another abusive one.

I really don't think people take on board how complex the issue is, it does not seem rational to stay in such a relationship for years, but it is all some people know.

Tombo2001

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

she has to accept some responsibility if he has done this before to her, getting away might not be easy but staying and accepting his behaviour is her choice.

I dont agree. You cant put yourself in her shoes unless you've been in this position before.

Fortunately, I havent. So I wont presume to know what she should or shouldnt do.

I'm glad that she had the courage to go the police and that this guy got a conviction, whether it be of the magnitude he deserves or not.

However, if she hadnt gone to the police, I wouldnt be sitting her saying "its her fault because she could have gone to the police and she didnt".

I see a lot of kneejerking on this thread.

HeyThereDeliah

Odysseus wrote: »

The happens a lot, it really is a very complex situation, saying the above is not really helpful and misses the mark [not having a person dig at you]. It can be horrible watching someone keep going back to such a situation, but it regularily happens. Or they move on to another relationship, but it is another abusive one.

I really don't think people take on board how complex the issue is, it does not seem rational to stay in such a relationship for years, but it is all some people know.

I know and sorry for my comment,it is frustrating sometimes when you think you have got through to someone but a few days later he will have talked her round and all is rosy for another while.

Curly Judge

Tombo2001 wrote: »

What do you mean, "you've seen enough of them".....

I really think that alcohol is never ever a mitigating factor....and is never an excuse.

"It wouldnt have happened if I wasnt drunk"

You were drunk and it did happen.

And to say that she is responsible for any reason at all is wrong. She may be dumb, she may be naive, but that doesnt mean its her own fault.

Fair enough! Fair enough!
If she straightens up and flies right from now on she deserves all the help and support we can give her.
However if she's a high wire artist, SIZE=1]as I suspect she is[/SIZE and expects society to run around underneath he with a safety net she can whistle Dixie, as far as I'm concerned, the next time she gets herself in a bit of a corpán diabhil

Tombo2001

Curly Judge wrote: »

Fair enough! Fair enough!
If she straightens up and flies right from now on she deserves all the help and support we can give her.
However if she's a high wire artist, SIZE=1]as I suspect she is[/SIZE and expects society to run around underneath he with a safety net she can whistle Dixie, as far as I'm concerned, the next time she gets herself in a bit of a corpán diabhil

Best read the comments above.

Odysseus

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

I know and sorry for my comment,it is frustrating sometimes when you think you have got through to someone but a few days later he will have talked her round and all is rosy for another while.

Yeah I know, I worked with one person for over six years before they felt they where in a position to move out. As I siad I wasn't having a go at you, more just that statement in general as it is a popular enough one.

Myrddin

Tombo2001 wrote:

By saying this is a particularly bad case, you are also passing comment on other abuse / assault cases, saying that they are less bad. Are you comfortable saying that? Do you see the other cases that go before the court?

What sort of language are you talking here? It appears to be bollox...

Tombo2001

EnterNow wrote: »

What sort of language are you talking here? It appears to be bollox...

Wow.

No comment.

Except....

Wow.

And also.....you are quoting me......not that other chap you say you are quoting.

Dodge

Its a bit odd that so many here seem to have full knowledge of the case based on a few paragraphs in the Irish Indo, and are full confident making all sorts of judgements on everybody involved with the case

Tombo2001

Dodge wrote: »

Its a bit odd that so many here seem to have full knowledge of the case based on a few paragraphs in the Irish Indo, and are full confident making all sorts of judgements on everybody involved with the case

Not odd......I would call it "the norm".

Reloc8

Cian92 wrote: »

I think a petition needs to be set up calling for harsher sentences and handed to that judge.

The man is an animal, he should be locked up for a minimum 20 years.

It may have been said but is worth repeating. The charge of which he has been convicted carries a maximum sentence of 5 years (s. 3 Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997).

S. 4 of that Act is the offence of assault causing serious harm. That carries a potential life sentence. 'Serious Harm' is defined in the Act as "injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious disfigurement or substantial loss or impairment of the mobility of the body as a whole or of the function of any particular bodily member or organ"

Fractures which recover will ordinarily not come with those parameters - as they do not cause substantial loss or impairment of mobility etc and don't necessarily create a substantial risk of death. The threat to injury by removing an eye was not acted upon and hence doesn't come within S. 4 either.

It has often been said, correctly in my view, that there needs to be an offence in between a s. 3 and a s. 4 which carries a substantially higher potential maximum than 5 years. That's the real problem in this case. Its one for our political masters to address by legislation.

HeyThereDeliah

Odysseus wrote: »

Yeah I know, I worked with one person for over six years before they felt they where in a position to move out. As I siad I wasn't having a go at you, more just that statement in general as it is a popular enough one.

Every relationship is different and it takes time and courage to leave your home and of course other people's opinions come into play as well, some outside influences are not always in favour of the victim.
it's a scary world on your own especially if there are children involved and no family support.

I know you were not having a go at me.

EnterNow

EnterNow wrote: »

What sort of language are you talking here? It appears to be bollox...

I didn't post whatever you are quoting me as having posted.

shedweller

We need to change the law with respect to this kind of thing. And introduce hard labour too. Work the ****ers till they are old men.
We can and should change the law. We just need enough of us to speak up about it.

We can change the law, can't we?

Wacker The Attacker

johnwest288 wrote: »

ah heyorrrrrrrrr leave it bleedin out Judge ...leave it owww

Nice Romanian Accent

Reloc8

shedweller wrote: »

We need to change the law with respect to this kind of thing. And introduce hard labour too. Work the ****ers till they are old men.
We can and should change the law. We just need enough of us to speak up about it.

We can change the law, can't we?

Be sure and raise it with your elected representatives at the earliest opportunity.

Myrddin

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Wow.

No comment.

Except....

Wow.

And also.....you are quoting me......not that other chap you say you are quoting.

Wow man...wow...far out...awesome. Anyway...

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't post whatever you are quoting me as having posted.

Sorry man, no idea how that happened...I could have one of your posts multi-quoted or something. Fixed now

Death and Taxes

Reloc8 wrote: »

Be sure and raise it with your elected representatives at the earliest opportunity.

Maybe if Judges actually enforced the penalties available to them we wouldn't need to change the laws!

Topper Harley

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Every time you read some judgement from these useless kunts in our judiciary, you always read something like this....

Why would the useless fúcker suspend part of the sentence on this animal? If you ask me, the only thing that should have been 'suspended' was the bástards life.

The judge can't impose a sentence longer than the maximum allowed by the relevant legislation. Then there has to be some reduction in the sentence for a guilty plea, otherwise there is no incentive for him or future scumbags to admit guilt.

The issue is with the legislation, as has been suggested above, and amending that is the only way to fix the situation. And that is not the judiciary's job.

If the judge decides that this scumbag deserves life and sentences him over the maximum allowed, it will be successfully overturned on appeal. This system ensures that no one is ever at the mercy of the whim of just one person.

MagicSean

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Maybe if Judges actually enforced the penalties available to them we wouldn't need to change the laws!

He gave him the maximum

Death and Taxes

MagicSean wrote: »

He gave him the maximum

Actually he didn't because he suspended half of it without what many people would consider good reason, after the guilty plea was only entered at the last minute when it became clear that the victim was determined to proceed, and in and of itself hardly deserves a sentence suspension of 50%.
One also has to question why he was not charged with more serious crimes since the evidence as reported would indicate false imprisonment as well.

mel1

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Every time you read some judgement from these useless kunts in our judiciary, you always read something like this....



Why would the useless fúcker suspend part of the sentence on this animal? If you ask me, the only thing that should have been 'suspended' was the bástards life.

And the mornic Judges who are giveing out these kind of S**t Sentences!

CrackisWhack

Are these lenient sentences that seem to be coming more common place anything to do with our economic situation does anybody reckon? I know each prisoner costs roughly 100k a year, there does seem to be a spike in crime at the moment too.

Leftist

Zulu wrote: »

Bull****! Don't be so trite making this into a gender thing, it's not. The state equally doesn't care about men.



We see similar sentences when the victim is male.

I didn't say they didn't (for men), I just said that he state doesn't care much about (sex) assaults on women (who are obviously the primary victims in such a crime.

Odd that you would need to jump to the defence of men. Very telling imo.

MagicSean wrote: »

You can try make a joke of it if you wish. It just tells me you know sweet **** all about it. Many victims of domestic abuse will not accept help offered to them.

many will. but...

The woman complained to gardai on December 7

Some will & not all that don't, won't because they 'forgive the man'. Some of them are scared for their wellbeing if they do infact, report it.

Some are battered more when they report it. The Police can do something when it reaches this obviously brutal level, but more subtle physical abuse can be difficult to prove, leaving the accused free to walk and free to batter the woman again.

How can you not get that through your skull?

I'm sick of suspended parts of sentences being counted as part of the sentence, it's a bull****. Aside from anything else the suspended part isn't even automatically triggered in future and different judges and different rules (which they'll change their minds about when they feel like it) as to what's necessary to trigger the suspended part.

As for "the state doesn't care about assaults on women", true, but they equally don't care about assaults on men so let's not turn this into a gender issue when it isn't.

MagicSean

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Actually he didn't because he suspended half of it without what many people would consider good reason, after the guilty plea was only entered at the last minute when it became clear that the victim was determined to proceed, and in and of itself hardly deserves a sentence suspension of 50%.
One also has to question why he was not charged with more serious crimes since the evidence as reported would indicate false imprisonment as well.

He actually did. He gave the full five year sentence allowable by law. He had to allow for mitigation because the man pleaded guilty. If he didn't the sentence would have been appealed and won. To make up for the mitigation he bound the man to the peace for five years following his release. And as I've laready mentioned, having a 2 and a half year sentence hanging over a persons head seriously alters their behaviour.

mel1 wrote: »

And the mornic Judges who are giveing out these kind of S**t Sentences!

You mean maximum sentences?

CrackisWhack wrote: »

Are these lenient sentences that seem to be coming more common place anything to do with our economic situation does anybody reckon? I know each prisoner costs roughly 100k a year, there does seem to be a spike in crime at the moment too.

maximum sentence is not lenient.

Leftist wrote: »

many will. but...

Some will & not all that don't, won't because they 'forgive the man'. Some of them are scared for their wellbeing if they do infact, report it.

Some are battered more when they report it. The Police can do something when it reaches this obviously brutal level, but more subtle physical abuse can be difficult to prove, leaving the accused free to walk and free to batter the woman again.

How can you not get that through your skull?

And when she went to the police did she make a statement of complaint? Did she also go to the court house and get a protection order? The police cant do this for her. She must take that step. Have you ever actually seen a case of serious assault be prosecuted where the victim will not cooperate? The ones I've seen have been thrown out of court.

In many cases where a victim obtains a domestic violence order they do not get battered more. They are extremely effective. And in the cases where they break the order the gardaí have many more powers and the sentences are much harsher.

Grayson

I haven't read the whole thread. But does anyone know what the maximum sentancing for this is?

He got 5 and have 2 1/2 removed for pleading guilty. which left 2 1/2 years.

I have no problem with a judge lessening a sentance because someone pleaded guilty. It means the victim doesn't have to go through the ordeal of a trial with cross examination etc... It also means cases are processed quickly.
But that does mean he only got 2 1/2 years which seems quite small. I was wondering if anyone know what the maximum sentancing is assaulyt.