Ex TCD student caught importing €29m cocaine, but sure consider his "background"

DaveDaRave

if only crime was legal

mathie

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

You can get a PhD in prison??!

I have a PhD in Pain.

CruelCoin

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

People want drugs. People enjoy taking drugs. Nobody wants to be killed.

Perspective.

Knackers want violence, knackers are violent. Nobody in limerick wants to be killed.

Whats you point? You can't fob off the effects of their behaviour on the basis that they enjoy it.

CruelCoin

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

Not very good perspective.

To what extent would the families be ruined if someone was murdered?

Also, one family ruined if you kill someone? I'd say a lot of people would be ruined if someone close to them was murdered.

Someone murdered has their own life ruined, their family and close friends.

Someone dealing drugs, ruins their own life due to inevitable gangland murder/jailing, their own families lives due to social stigma, the lives of all their junkie customers and all their families when said junkie resorts to theft and violence to fuel the fix, society at large due to lost productivity for each and every junkie, as opposed to only 1 loss of productivity for murdered person and murderer.

On Balance, the dealer does more damage and loss to society, hence why they deserve higher sentences.

Seachmall

CruelCoin wrote: »

Someone dealing drugs, ruins their own life due to inevitable gangland murder/jailing, their own families lives due to social stigma, the lives of all their junkie customers and all their families when said junkie resorts to theft and violence to fuel the fix, society at large due to lost productivity for each and every junkie, as opposed to only 1 loss of productivity for murdered person and murderer.

What?

Do you hold your local pub to the same criticisms? That the drug they're supplying is destroying society and they are a menace?

MadsL

DaveDaRave wrote: »

if only crime cocaine was legal

FYP

Karl Stein

CruelCoin wrote: »

Whats you point?

It's your point that's obscure. You tried to draw a comparison between drug use (which is voluntary) and murder (which is never voluntary).

I was simply exposing your point for the gibberish that it is.

You can't fob off the effects of their behaviour on the basis that they enjoy it.

What effects? That they have a good time?

blue note

I did a tour of trinity today. The guide told us a story of a group of students who threw rocks at a particularly mean lecturer's window about 200 years ago. He got annoyed so took out his pistol and shot at them. They ran off, got their guns and fired back mortally wounding the mean lecturer. It was judged to be a college prank gone wrong and the case was thrown out. They were expelled however.

Karl Stein

CruelCoin wrote: »

the lives of all their junkie customers and all their families when said junkie resorts to theft and violence to fuel the fix, society at large due to lost productivity for each and every junkie.

Vivid caricatures. Drug use does not automatically mean the user is a 'junkie'. Hundreds of thousands of people use drugs (alcohol being the most used) and have perfectly productive lives.

steddyeddy

WellI don't have a problem with his background being brought up in court but I don't think his background should be a factor in getting a more lenient sentence. He had every chance in life and blew it. There are many people inlife who would love to be as lucky as he was in getting an education. That said I think the sentence was quite harsh considering the sentences rapists and murders seem to get here

CruelCoin

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Vivid caricatures. Drug use does not automatically mean the user is a 'junkie'. Hundreds of thousands of people use drugs (alcohol being the most used) and have perfectly productive lives.

Junkies, a grand bunch of lads.

That's what you're saying?

Karl Stein

CruelCoin wrote: »

Junkies, a grand bunch of lads.

That's what you're saying?

Oh I see. I thought you were interested in having a mature discussion.

Silly me.

CruelCoin

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

It's your point that's obscure. You tried to draw a comparison between drug use (which is voluntary) and murder (which is never voluntary).

I was simply exposing your point for the gibberish that it is.



What effects? That they have a good time?

Effects like choosing between feeding your kids or getting high, theft to fuel the addiction.
I'm not denying people have a good time, they do, but stop trying to say its the only effect.

CruelCoin

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Oh I see. I thought you were interested in having a mature discussion.

Silly me.

I think you're going to do your utmost to paint drug-users as being perfectly normal, happy-go-lucky individuals, when its very often far from the case.
I think you're going to resort to character assassination every time someone opposes your view.

Are we going to have a mature discussion? Not likely if you keep up the snide put-downs.

Turtwig

Pretty sure there was a case a few years back where the defendants team claimed the something similar and the judge basically told them well, if he had such a model upbringing then he should clearly have known better!

I agree with steadyeddy, people from harsher backgrounds deserve leeway but people who've come from the model pillars of society shouldn't get anything unless they were forced into crime by external circumstances. The argument "but he's an angel" doesn't wash.

kjl

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

Reminds me of when a TCD girl from a well-off background glassed a bartender and assaulted him and got away with a small fine.

Background and gender coming to her rescue there. If a man from a not so well off family of North Dublin smashed a glass against a female bartender's face and nearly beat her to death, well that would have been a different story.

That one is a mixture between gender and background.

Karl Stein

CruelCoin wrote: »

Effects like choosing between feeding your kids or getting high, theft to fuel the addiction.
I'm not denying people have a good time, they do, but stop trying to say its the only effect.

You're highlighting drug abuse and poverty. Not every person who takes drugs is a destitute addict. Drug abuse is a bad thing and ruins people's lives, no doubt, but again, the vast majority of people who use drugs do not become destitute abusers.

Here's the thing. People have taken drugs for tens of thousands of years - it's a very human thing to do. Just because a bunch puritans, and others, decided to make certain drugs illegal a few decades ago will not change that fact. The tide is turning as regards prohibition. Many states in the US are moving to legalise marijuana. When legitimate companies start to make a profit, from once illegal drugs, and get into the lobbying game, begin to watch the dominoes fall.

EyeSight

regardless of whether you had a great or harsh upbringing, in the law you should be treated the same. with no special treatment.
This is not the case in Ireland. Most scumbags with tens of convictions get let off due to troubled upbringing

McCrack

This is a non-thread really. All this guy's defence team was pointing out to the Court at sentence a number of mitigating factors to consider which include his previous good character and education and his family background. That indicates to the Court that the likelihood of him re-offending is low.

There is nothing sinister in that and in fact if his defence team didn't put those pleadings to the Court they would probably be negligent themselves.

McCrack

EyeSight wrote: »

regardless of whether you had a great or harsh upbringing, in the law you should be treated the same. with no special treatment.
This is not the case in Ireland. Most scumbags with tens of convictions get let off due to troubled upbringing

No, not when a Court is deciding sentence because no two defendants are the same and consequently sentences given should not always be the same.

Itwasntme.

McCrack wrote: »

This is a non-thread really. All this guy's defence team was pointing out to the Court at sentence a number of mitigating factors to consider which include his previous good character and education and his family background. That indicates to the Court that the likelihood of him re-offending is low.

There is nothing sinister in that and in fact if his defence team didn't put those pleadings to the Court they would probably be negligent themselves.

McCrack wrote: »

No, not when a Court is deciding sentence because no two defendants are the same and consequently sentences given should not always be the same.

Last post by McCrack in a thread about cocaine - I couldn't click on the thread fast enough. I was sure it was going to be gooooood. I'm disappoint .

Cody Pomeray

EyeSight wrote: »

Most scumbags with tens of convictions get let off due to troubled upbringing

You can demonstrate examples of this, can you, seeing as how you're stating that it's quite common?

dd972

Jesus, cut the Trinity boy a bit of slack.

What about that scumbag who repeatedly (whilst prone on the ground) head butted the shoes of those nice, middle class boys outside Club Annabels some years ago, those poor potential publicans and solicitors had to endure the stress of a trial, at least we had the Indo to remind us all their glittering futures were at stake.

Tigger

dd972 wrote: »

Jesus, cut the Trinity boy a bit of slack.

What about that scumbag who repeatedly (whilst prone on the ground) head butted the shoes of those nice, middle class boys outside Club Annabels some years ago, those poor potential publicans and solicitors had to endure the stress of a trial, at least we had the Indo to remind us all their glittering futures were at stake.

they were blackrock iirc which is a school costing thousands a year
trinity is free to anyone who qualifies and cant afford

JD DABA

Its a hint to the judge.

Young Oisinn wouldn't quite fit in, in mountjoy, with his podgy little figure, clear skin and boyish ass. Innocence to life outside D4 and with a preference for charred Sicilian monkfish on a hammock of Peruvian salad, over porridge and chips.

For certain types such a spell could constitute a death sentence. (and/or bum aids)

Jumboman

steddyeddy wrote: »

That said I think the sentence was quite harsh considering the sentences rapists and murders seem to get here

Hes involved in a "business" which will lead to people getting murdered so hes not much different to a murderer.

If people like him didnt bring in the drugs their would be no gang land murders over drugs.

Tusky

ninjabox wrote: »

Just the general attitude that people from their own background, i.e. the same background as the solicitors etc deserve to get special treatment.

If he was from a disadvantaged background that would be used to provide context for his actions, and probably more effectively too. Peoples backgrounds are always used by defence counsel in these situations.

Anyway, it looks like the judge paid little attention to the argument as that is an incredibly long sentence he got.

Jumboman

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

has worked hard to get where he is in life,

Yeah he worked hard to become a major drug dealer.

EyeSight

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You can demonstrate examples of this, can you, seeing as how you're stating that it's quite common?

Funnily enough when i read the newspaper i don't cut out clippings in case someone on boards needs proof. I see them on a weekly basis in the news as i am sure others do too

Cody Pomeray

JD DABA wrote: »

Its a hint to the judge.

Young Oisinn wouldn't quite fit in, in mountjoy, with his podgy little figure, clear skin and boyish ass. Innocence to life outside D4 and with a preference for charred Sicilian monkfish on a hammock of Peruvian salad, over porridge and chips.

For certain types such a spell could constitute a death sentence. (and/or bum aids)

What an ignorant comment.

Did you even read the article the OP linked to?

You're making assumptions about someone because of their education. He's not from Dublin 4. He is from a working class area (Cabra) and worked his way through college.