What a sadistic bastar*

HeyThereDeliah

whatsthetime wrote: »

These Judges seem to have lost all connection with reality

Would you care to explain this comment?
These judges are the ones who have studied law and have experience in dealing with cases every day.
Just because a few emotional people on the Internet are not happy does not make the judges decision wrong.

Stroll

Haven't read the whole thread tbh... but this is sick. Why do the Irish people do fuck all to make a change to these pathetic judges???

Stroll

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Would you care to explain this comment?
These judges are the ones who have studied law and have experience in dealing with cases every day.
Just because a few emotional people on the Internet are not happy does not make the judges decision wrong.

So you agree with the sentence??? You think our judges are fine because they studied law and have experience???

Stroll

Piliger wrote: »

I have no intention of writing gratuitous and ignorant abuse about the judge based on an Irish Independent journalist's report of the case. The Judge heard the whole case, that's why we have judges and not sideline kangaroo courts.

It's not just this case though is it.

MagicSean

Stroll wrote: »

Haven't read the whole thread tbh... but this is sick. Why do the Irish people do fuck all to make a change to these pathetic judges???

It shows that you haven't read the thread

Stroll

MagicSean wrote: »

It shows that you haven't read the thread

How??? I'm sure people were whinging and moaning about it, that's why I didn't read it. I asked why they don't do anything.

galwayrush

What a pathetic sentence , the judge here was pathetic as well, poor woman will suffer for way longer than the sadistic bastard with his light sentence.Why did a judge feel he had to suspend half of it? Shameful.

Madam_X

Stroll: The sentence isn't fine but the judge hardly passed it for the craic. What should Irish people do? What nationality are you?

Pat Mustard

Stroll wrote: »

How??? I'm sure people were whinging and moaning about it, that's why I didn't read it. I asked why they don't do anything.

We are going to whinge and moan on the internet. That's what we're doing now.

What are you going to do about it?

Vote for... Sinn Féin...?

Stroll

Madam_X wrote: »

Stroll: The sentence isn't fine but the judge hardly passed it for the craic. What should Irish people do? What nationality are you?

Why is my nationality relevant??? Did I touch some nerve???

Madam_X

What nerve would you have touched? If you're also Irish it is relevant (because of the irony). If not, maybe you could make suggestions as to what could be done?

Stroll

The Mustard wrote: »

We are going to whinge and moan on the internet. That's what we're doing now.

What are you going to do about it?

Vote for... Sinn Féin...?

I'm going to do fuck all because I decided a few years ago I was sick of listening to people whinging and whinging and doing **** all about anything. So I left.

And no why???

Stroll

Madam_X wrote: »

What nerve would you have touched? If you're also Irish it is relevant (because of the irony). If not, maybe you could make suggestions as to what could be done?

I'm a mix, mostly Irish though but I've lived in various countries.

Mass protests in public would be a nice start. Like real ones not fiddly bullshite ones.

They could also stop voting the same gobshites in because there great grandmother did.

Pat Mustard

Stroll wrote: »

I'm going to do fuck all because I decided a few years ago I was sick of listening to people whinging and whinging and doing **** all about anything. So I left.

And no why???

Good stuff, Stroll, you won't do any more than we will!

There are three things that people can do:
1. Vote out the prevailing government, at any particular time.
2. Run for office.
3. Whinge and moan.

Wompa1

Chris Brown got invited to play at the Grammys

Stroll

The Mustard wrote: »

Good stuff, Stroll, you won't do any more than we will!

There are three things that people can do:
1. Vote out the prevailing government, at any particular time.
2. Run for office.
3. Whinge and moan.

I've done more than most tbh, but decided the majority really don't give a shit they're just willing to run there mouths off. Anything else is to much effort... so I went out and made me some money instead

HeyThereDeliah

Stroll wrote: »

So you agree with the sentence??? You think our judges are fine because they studied law and have experience???

I agree with the sentence yes, some people might think it should be longer but how much longer would be ok in your eyes?

Spiritual

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

I agree with the sentence yes, some people might think it should be longer but how much longer would be ok in your eyes?

If it was my sister I would hope for a very long sentence or a very short one.

Preferably a short one.

Odysseus

Stroll wrote: »

I'm a mix, mostly Irish though but I've lived in various countries.

Mass protests in public would be a nice start. Like real ones not fiddly bullshite ones.

They could also stop voting the same gobshites in because there great grandmother did.

There is an other option, people could educate themselves about the law and the complexities of domestic and sexual violence. Then they could volunteer with organisation that tries to help people who experience such violence.

I personally think that would be the best option put forward so far.

Stroll

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

I agree with the sentence yes, some people might think it should be longer but how much longer would be ok in your eyes?

Assault causing grievous bodily harm, sexual assault, he threatened to take her life... he should at least get the 5 years without the suspended.

Odysseus

Stroll wrote: »

Assault causing grievous bodily harm, sexual assault, he threatened to take her life... he should at least get the 5 years without the suspended.

He was not charged with any of the above though, the DPP goes with what charge they are mostly likely to convict on. The Judge can only sentense on the charge that is issued.

It has been noted already, but with the guts of a year serve in custody he will be out in [a guess] 9 months approx. That is why I see a value in the post release conditions that where part of the sentense.

Stroll

Odysseus wrote: »

He was not charged with any of the above though, the DPP goes with what charge they are mostly likely to convict on. The Judge can only sentense on the charge that is issued.

It has been noted already, but with the guts of a year serve in custody he will be out in [a guess] 9 months approx. That is why I see a value in the post release conditions that where part of the sentense.

Do you like the idea of him being out in 9 months? Do you think that's right???
Yea I completely agree with the release conditions.

HeyThereDeliah

Stroll wrote: »

Assault causing grievous bodily harm, sexual assault, he threatened to take her life... he should at least get the 5 years without the suspended.

Sexual assault ?

This is your opinion of course, you are not looking at it the same way a judge does.

Stroll

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Sexual assault ?

This is your opinion of course, you are not looking at it the same way a judge does.

Obviously.

Odysseus

Stroll wrote: »

Do you like the idea of him being out in 9 months? Do you think that's right???
Yea I completely agree with the release conditions.

Well lets see, I am not outraged at the judge, I think in relation to the options open to him that he did not have much choice. I stated the post-release conditions because they where rubbished by another poster when I posted them today.

The judge has no choice but to suspend part of his time as he pleaded guilty, if he did not it would be grounds for appeal.

I don't know, my own view would be that they where added to balance out the suspended part; as he did not have to add them.

Another thing I do not know is what reports if any did the judge have access to that we are not aware of. All of this resulted in the sentense, maybe even more that were not reported.

If the judge wanted to hand out a cosy term, all he had to do was take the time served as his sentense, and not add the other conditions.

I agree with remission as my personal experience with Irish jails does not see them as being able to deliver the rehab part of a jail term. Also there has to be an insentive to encourage good behaviour whilst locked up, so I can't personally deny him he right to that. Remember jail should include punishment and rehabilitation, one is no use without the other.


I would have liked to see the judge order a full psych assessment and treatment if required.

So where does that leave me, I cannot see many other options that the judge could have taken, I aggree with the concept of remission, so I cannot exclude this guy from access to it. I suppose I do not have many other options but to accept that this guy is due to be get out in less than a year.

iCosmopolis

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Would you care to explain this comment?
These judges are the ones who have studied law and have experience in dealing with cases every day.
Just because a few emotional people on the Internet are not happy does not make the judges decision wrong.

Now, I understand this judge had a limitation of 5 years to give the man. He should have just dished it rather than given credit for a LAST minute admission of guilt. F*ck Suspended sentences
Yes. Irish Judges are hard done by?..it's not them it's us? - now am I going mad or did this stuff happen eg. Judge Martin Nolan
6 yrs in custody for the guy who didn't pay correct the import tax on Garlic, but had started paying back already. sorry I know everyone says don't go there)
4.5 yrs in custody for the guy who defrauded Tesco of 100k
Yet..
Fine & suspended sentence for guy with 4 previous convictions who sexually assualted a 17yr old.
No custodial sentence for car dealer who sexually abused his nieces.
Fine and suspended sentence for thug who beat his neighbour unconcious and threatened to burn her house down.
Scobe breaks into his local publicans house beat him, breaking his nose. Fine and suspended sentence.
They should seriously stick their suspended sentences up their preverbials??

Stroll

Odysseus wrote: »

Well lets see, I am not outraged at the judge, I think in relation to the options open to him that he did not have much choice. I stated the post-release conditions because they where rubbished by another poster when I posted them today.

The judge has no choice but to suspend part of his time as he pleaded guilty, if he did not it would be grounds for appeal.

I don't know, my own view would be that they where added to balance out the suspended part; as he did not have to add them.

Another thing I do not know is what reports if any did the judge have access to that we are not aware of. All of this resulted in the sentense, maybe even more that were not reported.

If the judge wanted to hand out a cosy term, all he had to do was take the time served as his sentense, and not add the other conditions.

I agree with remission as my personal experience with Irish jails does not see them as being able to deliver the rehab part of a jail term. Also there has to be an insentive to encourage good behaviour whilst locked up, so I can't personally deny him he right to that. Remember jail should include punishment and rehabilitation, one is no use without the other.


I would have liked to see the judge order a full psych assessment and treatment if required.

So where does that leave me, I cannot see many other options that the judge could have taken, I aggree with the concept of remission, so I cannot exclude this guy from access to it. I suppose I do not have many other options but to accept that this guy is due to be get out in less than a year.

Do you agree they should have been the only options he had available to the judge?

He did't have to add the release conditions but I feel that conditions like that should be added purely out of common sense in cases like this.

I agree about Irish jails too. But that's a different story.

Odysseus

Stroll wrote: »

Do you agree they should have been the only options he had available to the judge?

He did't have to add the release conditions but I feel that conditions like that should be added purely out of common sense in cases like this.

I agree about Irish jails too. But that's a different story.

Difficult question to be honest, I know a bit criminal behaviour, sexual and domestic violence, all in term of the psycho-therapeutic of such behaviour.

The legal side of it, I have to say my knowledge is very limited; it is outside my scope of experience and interest. I don't have time for off the cuff comment on matters like this, while allowing everybody the right to have their opinion; I do think if you want to discuss matters like this seriously that a person should do their best [what ever that may be] to make their opinion an informed.

So lets say I had the chance right now to change the law I would get a more informed legal mind to do it. However, coming back to reality I would be inclined towards the comments made above about I think it was the differenc between a section 3 this level of violence and section 4 the next one.

The idea was put forward that the gap between section 3 and section which as it it more severe it carries a more severe sentense. Hence, there was a suggestion that this gap be bridge with a other offense with would carry a higher sentense that S 3 and a lower one than S 4.

Based on my limted legal knowledge I would be in favor of exploring that option.

Does that answer your question?

I'm tired now so apologies for any typos.

Stroll

Odysseus wrote: »

Difficult question to be honest, I know a bit criminal behaviour, sexual and domestic violence, all in term of the psycho-therapeutic of such behaviour.

The legal side of it, I have to say my knowledge is very limited; it is outside my scope of experience and interest. I don't have time for off the cuff comment on matters like this, while allowing everybody the right to have their opinion; I do think if you want to discuss matters like this seriously that a person should do their best [what ever that may be] to make their opinion an informed.

So lets say I had the chance right now to change the law I would get a more informed legal mind to do it. However, coming back to reality I would be inclined towards the comments made above about I think it was the differenc between a section 3 this level of violence and section 4 the next one.

The idea was put forward that the gap between section 3 and section which as it it more severe it carries a more severe sentense. Hence, there was a suggestion that this gap be bridge with a other offense with would carry a higher sentense that S 3 and a lower one than S 4.

Based on my limted legal knowledge I would be in favor of exploring that option.

Does that answer your question?

I'm tired now so apologies for any typos.

Perfect. Goodnight.

Kev.OC

I understand that good behaviour in prison should be rewarded with an early release.

I also understand that a confession which saves the victim from reliving the abuse in court should be rewarded with a reduced sentence.

However, I cannot for the life of me understand why a confession should have the term halved. Reducing a prison sentence by 50% to me just seems absolutely ludicrous. One would hope that the conditions to be imposed upon release will protect the woman who was abused, but I'm not sure such a sentence will help in convincing people in similar conditions to come forward.

On a side note, I believe that systematic and sustained abuse like that reported the maximum sentence should be greater than an S3 class crime. Perhaps S4 is a bit too much, but something in the middle wouldn't be entirely unwelcome.