Not justice to me.

caustic 1

Just read of a young man got five and half years for murdering a man with final two suspended.

I know if that was a member of my family I really think I would go and dish out my own justice if I thought that was the only punishment he was going to get. Seems incredibly unfair.

fullstop

caustic 1 wrote: »

Just read of a young man got five and half years for murdering a man with final two suspended.

I know if that was a member of my family I really think I would go and dish out my own justice if I thought that was the only punishment he was going to get. Seems incredibly unfair.

Link??

HondaSami

caustic 1 wrote: »

Just read of a young man got five and half years for murdering a man with final two suspended.

I know if that was a member of my family I really think I would go and dish out my own justice if I thought that was the only punishment he was going to get. Seems incredibly unfair.

Any other details available or is this a random court case?

Marsden

It wasn't murder it was manslaughter. I was listening to this myself earlier and thought the same thing. 3.5 years for killing someone is outrageous, regardless of intent. It's a rubbish system that see's people commit horrible crimes yet walk free after a few years. Is our penal system meant to reform or punish criminals. I can't see it doing either with the soft sentences they receive.

caustic 1

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0702/460161-man-jailed-for-killing-of-journalist/

NoQuarter

caustic 1 wrote: »

Just read of a young man got five and half years for murdering a man with final two suspended.

I know if that was a member of my family I really think I would go and dish out my own justice if I thought that was the only punishment he was going to get. Seems incredibly unfair.

It wasnt murder. Huge difference. Even the family of the deceases said the judge did her best and they were happy with the outcome, considering the deceased cant be brought back obviously.

So dont be so idiotic.

I say let the family get justice and when he gets out kill him

eye for an eye

caustic 1

It wasn't murder it was manslaughter

I am completely ignorant about law, I know he hit him which killed him and to me that is murder.

Marsden

caustic 1 wrote: »

I am completely ignorant about law, I know he hit him which killed him and to me that is murder.

Murder is when you intentionally kill someone, manslaughter is when they die due to your actions.

caustic 1

So dont be so idiotic.

My apologies, we can't all be as mighty as oneself.

HondaSami

The sentence seems appropriate for the crime/how it happened imo, he had no previous convictions and it was manslaughter not murder.

Deleted User wrote: »

I say let the family get justice and when he gets out kill him

eye for an eye

Then they go to prison, what exactly does this do for anyone, it's better to move on with your life and not let revenge consume you.

NoQuarter

caustic 1 wrote: »

I am completely ignorant about law, I know he hit him which killed him and to me that is murder.

I can see that.

Manslaughter is when he didnt intend to actually kill him. Which we can all see happened here. So he got 5 and a half years with 2 suspended for punching someone in the neck basically. Which is a fair sentence considering the man ended up dying. But you can see the difference.

caustic 1

The sentence seems appropriate for the crime/how it happened imo, he had no previous convictions and it was manslaughter not murder.

I couldn't be as forgiving if it were done to any of my children, if because of someones actions they were taken from me. So it makes it ok he wasn't in trouble before?

caustic 1

I can see that.

Manslaughter is when he didnt intend to actually kill him. Which we can all see happened here. So he got 5 and a half years with 2 suspended for punching someone in the neck basically. Which is a fair sentence considering the man ended up dying. But you can see the difference.

NoQuarter is online now Report Post

I stand corrected even if was done in a condescending manner.

techdiver

HondaSami wrote: »

The sentence seems appropriate for the crime/how it happened imo, he had no previous convictions and it was manslaughter not murder.





Then they go to prison, what exactly does this do for anyone, it's better to move on with your life and not let revenge consume you.

You must be joking??? 3.5 years for killing some one by hitting them over the head in an unprovoked attack?

Remorse or not (which is coached to accused these days as gullible judges lap it up), it's a disgrace!

NoQuarter

caustic 1 wrote: »

I couldn't be as forgiving if it were done to any of my children, if because of someones actions they were taken from me. So it makes it ok he wasn't in trouble before?

There is no room for subjectivity in sentencing. If there was I would lock up the bloke who scratched my car for 5 years myself. You can see it doesnt make sense to have the system that way.

HondaSami

caustic 1 wrote: »

I couldn't be as forgiving if it were done to any of my children, if because of someones actions they were taken from me. So it makes it ok he wasn't in trouble before?

Nothing makes it ok but he did not set out to kill the man that night, he hit him and the man died as a consequence of that and he has shown genuine remorse for what he did.
I know it's easy say when it's not my own family but i would hope i could be logical if it did happen.

super_furry

He'll serve at most two years while an innocent man lies in a cold grave. It was an unprovoked violent attack in which he hit a stranger over the head for no reason other than the fact that's he was walking away from him. That unprovoked attack robbed a man of his life and the sentence should reflect this.

Nemeses

I'm sure the judge did what they could by the book.

What would someone suggest as suitable punishment then in this case?

Rayne Wooney

That judge's name seems familiar, I vaguely remember AH being infuriated be some sentence she gave out before?

caustic 1

You can see it doesnt make sense to have the system that way.

Here is what I see. A man walking away was hit for no reason and died, is no more, why? Who knows? However the person responsible will do just a bit over two years. That is not justice in no shape or form in my eyes.

super_furry

Nemeses wrote: »

I'm sure the judge did what they could by the book.

What would someone suggest as suitable punishment then in this case?

Hard to put an arbitary figure on it, but when you consider the outcome of this assault, a ten year sentence should be the minimum. This wasn't an accidental death like a car crash, an innocent man died because another man deliberately set out to cause harm to him and injure him. As a direct result of his unprovoked attack, a man died.

NoQuarter

caustic 1 wrote: »

Here is what I see. A man walking away was hit for no reason and died, is no more, why? Who knows? However the person responsible will do just a bit over two years. That is not justice in no shape or form in my eyes.

Congratulations on going from having no knowledge of the legal system to having a working knowledge of sentence reduction.

The guy got a 5 and a half year sentence, not a 2 year one. If he gets in any trouble when he leaves prison the rest of the sentence will be enacted. Being realistic about it, his life is pretty much ruined now too, which is something the victims family also said on the news just there.

I'm not for one second saying what he did wasn't wrong, but its clear there was no intention to kill the guy. Would serving any more time for someone who's life is ruined already by his own actions, what would it serve? I'd imagine he already regrets it. I think the sentence is in the correct ballpark.

caustic 1

I admit I have no knowledge how though can you justify that two years is a proper sentence for killing someone whether meant or not?

wandatowell

Outside court, Mr Moloney's brother, Sean, expressed disappointment with the length of the sentence.

He said nothing could bring his brother back, but added that the judge had done all that she could.

"When you looked at the other family you realise just what a sorry day it is for both families.

"Insofar as no amount of justice will bring our brother back, the other man's life is ruined," he said.

Fair play to his brother.

caustic 1

I don't know you but I will say your tone whilst trying to get your point is most aggressive Noquarter. Why?

NoQuarter

caustic 1 wrote: »

I don't know you but I will say your tone whilst trying to get your point is most aggressive Noquarter. Why?

Because this whole thread is premised on a knee-jerk reaction about the justice of a sentence when, by your own admission, you havent a clue what you are talking about.

If you had an idea about the difference between murder and manslaughter, the purpose and rationale behind sentencing, the purpose of suspending part of a sentence, the allowances made for guilty pleas, mitigating circumstances such as no previous convictions, the importance of a persons intent among others, you would see that the sentence is certainly not outrageous.

Threads like this give the legal system a worse name than it already has to casual readers who read your original post and think "uh oh, the legal system f*cked up again" when in fact, for people who understand the system (but are not necessarily a part of it) the sentence is actually reasonable.

What I think is that you read the headline, hadn't a breeze what you were talking about but decided to make a thread on AH moaning about something alien to you to try rack up a few "thanks".

Zebra3

Load of bollocks.

Should do seven years min.

caustic 1

I am not intrested in racking up thanks maybe that might be why you post, not me, don't judge me. You don't know me. I do not know anything about the justice system, I admit that and I have no shame in admitting that I am talking about reading a piece and saying my opinion on it. You do know about the justice system. Fair play, but I will say this I would rather not know than be a condescending up on your high horse looking down on those who have lesser understanding than you person. Someone else pointed out to me the difference between murder and manslaughter which I thank them for you did also but you called me idiotic because I didn't know. How dare you.
Am I not allowed to have an opinion or only speak of subjects I am read on?

I still stand by my original opinion. Just over 2 years is not a long enough sentence for taking a life meant or not. if that makes me stupid then so be it Mr NoQuarter.

Irish Guitarist

"I didn't mean to kill him your honour. I just innocently hit him over the head".

Personally I find the best way of avoiding killing people is to not attack random passers by.

If you engage in senseless violence there's a chance your victim will die. In my view that outcome is no accident.

NoQuarter

I have no idea where you keep getting 2 years from. The custodial sentence is 3.5 years. That is almost double 2 years. Of course the sentence is going to seem light if you are knocking most of the time off it yourself. And there is a 2.5 year suspended sentence on top of that too, which is a horrible thing I imagine. And his life is all but ruined too.

So I wonder, if an extra year or two was added on top of that to satisfy you, would it actually achieve anything? The point of prison is to rehabilitate also.

Apologies for using the term idiotic.

caustic 1

Apology accepted.

I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this.
I know if it were my child I would think it appalling that was the only sentence 3.5 years for taking a life. I do try to see both sides and I do know that the young man has destroyed his own life by his actions and that of his family. His family still have him.

NoQuarter

caustic 1 wrote: »

Apology accepted.

I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this.
I know if it were my child I would think it appalling that was the only sentence 3.5 years for taking a life. I do try to see both sides and I do know that the young man has destroyed his own life by his actions and that of his family. His family still have him.

I'd be appalled if it was my child too, but I know you cant look at these decision through a victims eyes or their family, they are too emotionally attached to the case to think reasonably.

Yes his family still have him, but not for the next few years.

We'll agree to disagree then but I'll leave it by asking a rhetorical question. What difference to the accused would an extra year or two in prison have made? Rehabilitated him more or perhaps made him that extra bit more sorry than he already is for his stupid action?

caustic 1

I have no idea what a few more years would make apart from making the victims family and wider circle and general public feel that there is a justice system in operation, now it feels like there is none. You would nearly get more time for traffic offences than for murder/manslaughter these days or that is how it feels.

Marsden

NoQuarter wrote: »

What difference to the accused would an extra year or two in prison have made? Rehabilitated him more or perhaps made him that extra bit more sorry than he already is for his stupid action?

In that case why send him to prison at all. If he really is sorry and poses no risk to society it's no benefit to send him to prison.

c_man

NoQuarter wrote: »

There is no room for subjectivity in sentencing. If there was I would lock up the bloke who scratched my car for 5 years myself. You can see it doesnt make sense to have the system that way.

You know you can think that the sentence given is bollocks AND not be an advocate of some vigilante dominated system.

hatrickpatrick

NoQuarter wrote: »

It wasnt murder. Huge difference. Even the family of the deceases said the judge did her best and they were happy with the outcome, considering the deceased cant be brought back obviously.

So dont be so idiotic.

This is not idiotic. 3 years for killing someone is absolutely outrageous. Doesn't matter if it was accidental, he shouldn't have been punching the guy in the first place and from what I've heard he was just locked and being a jerk for the sake of it, there wasn't even a motive. Absolute thug. Suspending half the sentence is a disgrace.

hatrickpatrick

NoQuarter wrote: »

We'll agree to disagree then but I'll leave it by asking a rhetorical question. What difference to the accused would an extra year or two in prison have made? Rehabilitated him more or perhaps made him that extra bit more sorry than he already is for his stupid action?

Why do people assume the difference to the accused is all that matters? I'm more worried about future would be thugs seeing this laughable sentence and deciding that they too can do something like this and get away with it.
The purpose of a harsh sentence is not to punish the accused, it's to scare the sh!t out of anyone who might be thinking of following them.

super_furry

It wasn't accidental, the killer went out with the intention to cause harm to an innocent man for no reason. He may have caused more harm than he intended too, but it wasn't an accident, it was a deliberate act of violence.

HondaSami

super_furry wrote: »

It wasn't accidental, the killer went out with the intention to cause harm to an innocent man for no reason. He may have caused more harm than he intended too, but it wasn't an accident, it was a deliberate act of violence.

How do you know this? could it not just be a spur of the moment thing on the night of the incident?

StinkyMunkey

The sentencing on these type of crimes is flawed. I see some people are saying the guy who killed that poor man life is ruined.

His life is ruined because he decided to launch an unprovoked vicious assault on a total stranger. While i do agree it was manslaughter, it was wilful manslaughter. To hit someone around the head is dangerous and can inflict serious injury if not death. To me there is a distinct line between wilful manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.

He wilfully set out to inflict pain and damage to that poor man. His intent was to cause damage and pain. Ofc he has shown remorse, so would you if you were going to prison. I suspect he is only remoreful because he was caught and has to pay for his crimes (unless ofc he handed himself in to the guards).

Whether his life i ruined or not, he has through his direct actions taken a life of an innocent man. I hear stories and read about people happy slapping because they think its funny, i think a strong message needs to be sent out to these scum that you will pay and pay dearly if you are caught.

I also suspect he has no previous convictions because he was never caught doing anything that could provide a conviction. You dont wake up one day and become a violent offender.

His sentence is to light. The man in the ground does not have a life to be ruined.

super_furry

HondaSami wrote: »

How do you know this? could it not just be a spur of the moment thing on the night of the incident?

Poor choice of words with 'went out' admittedly. I didn't mean to say that he left his house with the intention of attacking someone, rather then when he decided to do so, his intent was to cause harm.

Artful_Badger

HondaSami wrote: »

How do you know this? could it not just be a spur of the moment thing on the night of the incident?

He still hit him to cause harm, what other reason could someone have without provocation ?

Irish Guitarist

I don't understand why anyone would think that because he didn't plan the attack he's less responsible for the mans death than if he had planned it. If anything the fact that he just suddenly decided to attack someone for no reason should be more of a reason to lock him up for as long as possible so he can't harm the next innocent person that just happens to walk past him.

Artful_Badger

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I don't understand why anyone would think that because he didn't plan the attack he's less responsible for the mans death than if he had planned it. If anything the fact that he just suddenly decided to attack someone for no reason should be more of a reason to lock him up for as long as possible so he can't harm the next innocent person that just happens to walk past him.

Thats just it. Take a guy who kills his postman for riding the missus. Murder and locked up accordingly even though the risk he poses is minimal considering he has no issues with anyone other than the postman.

Then you have a guy who attacks people for no reason and kills someone doing it. Isnt he more of a risk to society ?

NoQuarter

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

The sentencing on these type of crimes is flawed. I see some people are saying the guy who killed that poor man life is ruined.

His life is ruined because he decided to launch an unprovoked vicious assault on a total stranger. While i do agree it was manslaughter, it was wilful manslaughter. To hit someone around the head is dangerous and can inflict serious injury if not death. To me there is a distinct line between wilful manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.

He wilfully set out to inflict pain and damage to that poor man. His intent was to cause damage and pain. Ofc he has shown remorse, so would you if you were going to prison. I suspect he is only remoreful because he was caught and has to pay for his crimes (unless ofc he handed himself in to the guards).

Whether his life i ruined or not, he has through his direct actions taken a life of an innocent man. I hear stories and read about people happy slapping because they think its funny, i think a strong message needs to be sent out to these scum that you will pay and pay dearly if you are caught.

I also suspect he has no previous convictions because he was never caught doing anything that could provide a conviction. You dont wake up one day and become a violent offender.

His sentence is to light. The man in the ground does not have a life to be ruined.

I tried very hard in my original posts to be clear when I said his life is ruined to qualify that by saying and so it should be. He did kill someone after all and everybody here accepts that. But 90% of us have been in a fist fight at some point in our lives and I would imagine 89.99% of us have zero intent to kill the other person when we do it. Yet these strange events can occur.

Now hitting him for no reason was a scumbag thing to do, no question, but I think that is reflected in the sentence. You mention a line drawn between two types of manslaughter, well the law draws that line too namely "assault manslaughter" an "criminal negligence". Both are manslaughter and it is obvious which was considered here.

If it was a negligent car accident, the sentence would have been a lot lighter and even though someone may have been carelessly driving, you have to symphatise with them that no death was intended. Jumping from assault or reckless driving to accusing someone of wilfully killing someone is a huge jump. So allowances must be made for the accused intent.

Let me just reiterate, so I'm not taken up wrong, that I believe he did a disgraceful thing, cowardly and scummy with the worst result possible. But that, in my opinion, is reflected in the 5.5 year sentence. 3.5 years in a prison is a long long time for someone who never actually intended to kill someone. His intent was to assault someone, I doubt he wanted to kill someone with one punch, and for that assault, which of course was wrong, his life is ruined and he is locked up and disgraced for 3.5 years. That's why I think it fits.

caustic 1

I still disagree

NoQuarter

caustic 1 wrote: »

I still disagree

This isn't a dig at you but if you have an interest in this you should do some research on sentencing and the value of it and how the courts work in relation to why time can be knocked off sentences to encourage guilty pleas thereby saving time and money etc etc and research on the differences between offences such as murder and manslaughter and the different categories of manslaughter and especially have a look at "mens rea". It's so so important.

It may just change your mind somewhat.

caustic 1

Thank you I will, it will take a lot to change my mind though. May I ask you don't need to answer if you don't wish to. Does your work involve law?

NoQuarter

caustic 1 wrote: »

Thank you I will, it will take a lot to change my mind though. May I ask you don't need to answer if you don't wish to. Does your work involve law?

Yes, it does. Not criminal law though, but I do have a full understanding of it.

caustic 1

I thought so, that explains your thinking of it because you have studied it whereas I am thinking along more laymans lines so to speak and just think 3.5 is pitiful sentence for ending someones life. I know you have tried to explain to me, but to me that's what it boils down to.