What a sadistic bastar*

Death and Taxes

MagicSean wrote: »

“serious harm” means 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;

I dont think her injuries fall under that category

I would say a fractured eye socketsdoes!
as does a broken arm!

HeyThereDeliah

WileyCoyote wrote: »

I would say a fractured eye socketsdoes!
as does a broken arm!

Does a broken arm not mend?

Reloc8

WileyCoyote wrote: »

I would say a fractured eye socketsdoes!
as does a broken arm!

Read it carefully - if those injuries recover there is no loss of mobility/impairment/loss of function. Equally no substantial risk of death.

clappyhappy

Sickening and horrific story to read, can't even imagine what she went through, but that sentence is an even bigger insult to her and adds more pain and injury to her. How can that entice abused people to come forward.

Myrddin

MagicSean wrote: »

“serious harm” means 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;

I dont think her injuries fall under that category

Yeah I suppose so, fair point. As someone else mentioned then, it'd be ideal to have an offence which bridges the gap between the two sections

Topper Harley

Reloc8 wrote: »

Read it carefully - if those injuries recover there is no loss of mobility/impairment/loss of function. Equally no substantial risk of death.

Yeah, that's what I would make of it. I don't see any mention of the loss of mobility etc. having to be permanent but that's what I'd assume is meant.

But it does leave it open to a judges interpretation, however the DPP would be taking a gamble in going for this charge.

1ZRed

BillyMitchel wrote: »

Scumbag. One could only hope he becomes someone's bitch in prison.

It'd be far too good for him.

Paddycrumlinman

I can't believe what this guy did to this woman, holy schite is all I can say. The sentence is a joke. If this guy did this here in Florida, he would be looking at 25 to life with bubba having him as his bitch! fooking scumbag.

HeyThereDeliah

Paddycrumlinman wrote: »

I can't believe what this guy did to this woman, holy schite is all I can say. The sentence is a joke. If this guy did this here in Florida, he would be looking at 25 to life with bubba having him as his bitch! fooking scumbag.

Have you a link for a similar case in Florida? 25yrs to life seems excessive even for America.

Death and Taxes

Reloc8 wrote: »

Read it carefully - if those injuries recover there is no loss of mobility/impairment/loss of function. Equally no substantial risk of death.

A fractured eyesocke certain could be disfiguring is what I was suggesting and also certainly could lead to impaired use of the organ.
But all that is moot anyway.

Dodge

WileyCoyote wrote: »

A fractured eyesocke certain could be disfiguring is what I was suggesting and also certainly could lead to impaired use of the organ.
But all that is moot anyway.

Presumably the eye socket is healed now though. If her vission was impaired, I'm certain that would be taken into consideration. To clarify, damaging an eyesocket could lead to further problems. But its unlikely in this case given the charge

Odysseus

1ZRed wrote: »

It'd be far too good for him.

To what end? A few people has said that, however, seriously what will that achieve? Not that the State could allow such an event, but really what do people think will be gained from such a thing.

I know personally I have listened to people recount the violence the inflicted on their partner, and of course I have sat there many a time thinking I would love to to just lock my office for a few minutes and show you a few things I know.

However, I keep these thoughts to myself and speak about them in a clinical format when the time is right. I may have those thoughts, and I may be capable of acting them out and giving the guy a taste of his own medcine, however, I glad that the system I live and work in does not allow such things to happen, engaging in such acts is not going to help anybody.

This type of thinking gets us nowhere, some people may not like it, but just because he denied somebody their basic human right to protection does not mean we can do the same to him. We are the people saying we are better than this type of behaviour maybe we try show it a tad more often.

westendgirlie

I would just like to say....

I hope the victim makes a full recovery, both physically and mentally.

You had the strength and courage to see this case through till the end and I would implore any other victims of abuse to take back control in their own lives too.

Capt'n Midnight

Odysseus wrote: »

I'm not sure about the redress aspect, most of the guys I know who end up in custody end up convicted. However, with serious cases it is not uncommon to spend a year or so in custody awaiting trial.

I've heard of plenty of cases where the sentence works out at the time spent in custody so essentially no difference to being found innocent (except perhaps a criminal record)

Why does it take a year ?

There is the whole thing about justice delayed being justice being denied. Also the small chance that someone involved in a case would have died of natural causes.

Pat Mustard

This Pesare got charged with assault causing harm and got sentenced to the ‘maximum’ 5 years, with half of the sentence suspended.

He also threatened the gouge that woman’s eye out with a bread knife, so it would have been nice to see him getting charged with a making a threat to cause serious harm under s.5 of the Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, which offence carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.

It would also be nice if the judge, in deciding to impose the maximum sentence, did not suspend half of it in the apparent absence of mitigating factors on the part of the convicted man.

An issue which arises continuously in Ireland is the sentencing system. There is not enough consistency between sentences. If there were minimum sentences, involving minimum time served in prison, I think that the public might see justice to be done.

It is wholly unrealistic for that judge to characterize that five year sentence as the maximum sentence, when he has suspended half of it. The maximum sentence is 5 years – full stop.

We hear a lot about prisoner’s rights in the media. We don’t hear about punishment very much. People like Pesare should be punished appropriately, and at a minimum cost to the taxpayer.

Maybe it is time that the court’s discretion is reduced in relation to sentencing. Maybe it is time that minimum sentences should introduced, without exception.

There is also a ‘revolving door’ prison system, where a man gets sentenced to 2 months but is released after a few hours, after a cup of tea, and with his day’s prison pay in his pocket. I’d like to see prison services put up to public tender, outsourced to private companies who agree to meet stringent security and basic accommodation and nutritional requirements.

I’d like to see Gheorge Pesare get 10 years for what he did, and to spend it at a minimum cost to the taxpayer.

I’d vote for that.

CB19Kevo

What i find most sadistic in this case is the courts response.

I am ashamed of my country, All these incidents add up and really how can i justify such a place.

tayto lover

Drop him home to his own country from 50 thousand feet minus a parachute.
No cost to state.

ilovesleep

We'll all sleep well tonight knowing the Garlic man, who is clearly a serious threat to society, is locked up for 6 years.

sbsquarepants

MagicSean wrote: »

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.

With respect, i think you're totally wrong.
The threat of a suspended sentence doesn't mean jack shít to people like that - it only deters the type of person who most likely wouldn't do it anyway. Suspended sentences are in most cases a total and utter waste of time.
Also whereas a trial could undoubtedly be hard on the victim, it's not quite in the same league as taking the hiding in the first place - the two do not compare, not even slightly. "Sparing" the victim the trauma of giving evidence should possibly be worth a reduction in sentence in the region of 5% maybe, not 50% or anything like it.
To say that enduring the trial and the actual crime are equally as bad is fúcking ridiculous.

Odysseus wrote: »

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.

Sorry Odysseus - the vague threat of some future sanctions is not as big a deterrent to future violence as being actually locked in a cell is.
The crime is absolutely horrific - it's not "just" an assault. And i believe a sane society would deem decades, or at least a decade as a more appropriate sentence than 2 and a half years and a don't do it again you wee rascal.

Odysseus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I've heard of plenty of cases where the sentence works out at the time spent in custody so essentially no difference to being found innocent (except perhaps a criminal record)

Why does it take a year ?

There is the whole thing about justice delayed being justice being denied. Also the small chance that someone involved in a case would have died of natural causes.

Actually there is a big difference, they have spent that time in prison. With the exception of visits and clothes I don't think there is any difference between remand and convicted. So say you have been on remand for a year, then you are found guilty and it works out that you time served equates the sentense. You have still served that time.

My understanding [and it is only mine] is that it takes this long in serious r the DPP to decide on the exact charge, the availability of judges and court dates, and the investigatory procedures that have to be followed. There may be other reason that I am unaware of.

sbsquarepants

The Mustard wrote: »

This Pesare got charged with assault causing harm and got sentenced to the ‘maximum’ 5 years, with half of the sentence suspended.

He also threatened the gouge that woman’s eye out with a bread knife, so it would have been nice to see him getting charged with a making a threat to cause serious harm under s.5 of the Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, which offence carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.

.

Another ridiculous bit of legislation.

Actually hurting someone - 5 years max
Threatening to hurt them - 10 years max.

Absolute madness

MagicSean

sbsquarepants wrote: »

With respect, i think you're totally wrong.
The threat of a suspended sentence doesn't mean jack shít to people like that - it only deters the type of person who most likely wouldn't do it anyway. Suspended sentences are in most cases a total and utter waste of time.

My dealings with people on suspended sentences have shown me that they are quite effective.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Also whereas a trial could undoubtedly be hard on the victim, it's not quite in the same league as taking the hiding in the first place - the two do not compare, not even slightly. "Sparing" the victim the trauma of giving evidence should possibly be worth a reduction in sentence in the region of 5% maybe, not 50% or anything like it.
To say that enduring the trial and the actual crime are equally as bad is fúcking ridiculous.

Good thing I didn't say that so.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Sorry Odysseus - the vague threat of some future sanctions is not as big a deterrent to future violence as being actually locked in a cell is.

What are you basing this opinion on?

Pat Mustard

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Another ridiculous bit of legislation.

Actually hurting someone - 5 years max
Threatening to hurt them - 10 years max.

Absolute madness

I see what you are saying, but I don't fully agree with the comparison.

S.3 Assault Causing Harm: Max 5 years.
S.4 Assault Causing Serious Harm: Max Life
S.5 Threat to Kill or Cause Serious Harm: Max 10 years

Definitions of 'harm' and 'serious harm' here, in case you are interested.

suicide_circus

It's the aggravated and tortuous nature of this assault that makes the sentence too soft for me.
Suspension of half the sentence is madness in this case, what were the mitagating circumstances?

sbsquarepants

MagicSean wrote: »

My dealings with people on suspended sentences have shown me that they are quite effective.

Mine have shown the opposite!

MagicSean wrote: »

Good thing I didn't say that so.

I didn't mean you, i meant the sentencing judge. 50% of the sentence suspended doesn't make any sense. AFAIK the only mitigating factor was the guilty plea.

MagicSean wrote: »

What are you basing this opinion on?

I'm basing it on the plainly obvious fact that he could hardly assault the woman from a jail cell.

Madam_X

I'm not sure it's true that the government doesn't care about domestic violence against women. To be fair, it cares less about men in this regard. And as said, judges don't just pluck sentences out of the air - they are based on existing legislation, which requires reform.

Curly Judge wrote: »

What's the betting on the victim visiting him in prison and bringing him food parcels?
Perhaps she should be offered the option of accompanying him out of the country?

So you've no proof whatsoever that she'd be keen on getting back with him but you make the above dickish comment and subsequent ones and a bunch of assumptions anyway?
Although in fairness, you might just be trying to wind people up (if you're serious, get help) - what's even more vile is a self proclaimed Christian thanking it.

old hippy wrote: »

An horrific crime and it does deserve a longer sentence but sadly predictable to see the thread degenerate into bringing someone's nationality into it.

In fairness it's barely been mentioned - surely what's worse is the "She'll want to get back with him so fuk her" sh1t? Nothing racist about saying he should be deported either.

RoundyMooney

How much has this lantern jawed prick cost us, since he came here to enhance our culture and diversify our gene pool?

Oranage2

He should be sent back to Romania!

The eu needs sanctions that home countries have to deal with their own scum and not allowed travel to other eu countries if they've been given a custodial sentence.

RoundyMooney

The good old EU and it's idealised notions as to who gets in, and how easily they get to flit about, again...

Even if they don't shape up economically, they can just cook the books and get in anyway! All in the cause of this nonsense ideal that all of Europe is the same, that self impoverished people given free migration will not move to the nation with the most generous or open ended welfare arrangements, or that one currency can be applied to 27 different economies!

Grayson

sbsquarepants wrote: »

With respect, i think you're totally wrong.
The threat of a suspended sentence doesn't mean jack shít to people like that - it only deters the type of person who most likely wouldn't do it anyway. Suspended sentences are in most cases a total and utter waste of time.
Also whereas a trial could undoubtedly be hard on the victim, it's not quite in the same league as taking the hiding in the first place - the two do not compare, not even slightly. "Sparing" the victim the trauma of giving evidence should possibly be worth a reduction in sentence in the region of 5% maybe, not 50% or anything like it.
To say that enduring the trial and the actual crime are equally as bad is fúcking ridiculous.

Why do they have to equate? I don't see what it has to do with anything at all. In fact it seems kind of contradictory. Bigger crimes should go to trial and the victim should have to go through that trauma. Lesser crimes it's ok to suspend a sentance?

The reason they suspend the sentance is because the trial is an ordeal for the victim and no-one wants the victim to suffer. Well, maybe you do.

Plus you're missing out on one big thing. They got a conviction without a trial. It's always possible he might have been able to cobble together some defense that might have gotten him off.