Meanwhile in Ireland

kupus

this guy get gets off
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/d4-man-spared-jail-for-possessing-child-porn-29577431.html

............has pleaded guilty at Dublin District Court to a charge of knowingly having child pornography in his possession at his home address, between June 1, 2006 and June 24, 2009.

The court heard that he had images of boys and girls aged as young as nine years.

I dont know what world judges live in but its not based on reality whatsoever.....judging the judges. Any suggestions?

MadsL

Got off?

The judge sentenced him to 24 months' probation and he was was also placed on the Sex Offenders Register for five years.

Howard Juneau

It was in a district court, so it was a low end offence.
He's on probation & is now a registered sex offender, he hasn't gotten off at all.

kupus

MadsL wrote: »

Got off?

"D4 man spared jail for possessing child porn"
Wheres the confusion??? He got off.

meanwhile pensioners may get prison for not paying a fin tv licence
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/struggling-oaps-face-prison-over-tv-licence-fine-29499019.html


Judges are becoming more and more erratic in their own blinkered little world. I can go back and find 30 more instances in the past year alone of sentences not based in reality,
One being a guy who abuses a women and gets off when he pays her a bit of money.
As far as im concerned the law is an ass in ireland.

mikemac1

kupus wrote: »

meanwhile pensioners may get prison for not paying a fin tv licence
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/struggling-oaps-face-prison-over-tv-licence-fine-29499019.html

That is a ridiculous article, the sort of standard you'd expect from the Indo :rolleyes:

Nobody goes to jail for not paying the TV licence, you go to jail for ignoring the court.

I've been in court for this and got a fine, fair 'nuff. If you wish to say something you can say it to the judge, he let a few people off with no fine.

They claim the 1,200 euro notice of the fine is the first notice they've gotten of this. That's not true as summons to District Court are sent by registered post.

Even if the clerks and administrators messed this up it's still not a 1,200 euro fine for no TV licence.

Fearing a knock on the door and a trip to Mountjoy. Lol, hysterics from the Indo

hansfrei

Howard Juneau wrote: »

....... it was a low end offence.

Made me lol.

MadsL

kupus wrote: »

"D4 man spared jail for possessing child porn"
Wheres the confusion??? He got off.

He pleaded guilty.
He just didn't get the sentence you wanted.

kupus

ok mike and madsl..........what about the judge who passed this sentence..........

O’Malley-Dunlop said that “a lot of people are calling the 24-hour helpline very upset” by yesterday’s sentencing of a 29-year-old man for a sexual attack on a 17-year-old girl.
He pleaded guilty and the Irish Times reports that Judge Martin Nolan imposed a four-year sentence which was suspended in full on a number of conditions, including that he pay €15,000 to his victim within one year.....

A guy caught with porno material of minors...
another guy who sexual assulted a minor...

They both get a slap on the wrist, if that sits fine with you, then thats your outlook on the world, not mine.
There is either law and consequences or there isnt.

Cody Pomeray

The judge had little choice.

He was constrained by the law, by the decision of the DPP, and by a previous judgement of the High Court which restricts this kind of offence to the extreme lower end of the scale.

We don't know the circumstances, but even in the most extreme of circumstances, where the accused had been cooly and deliberately downloading thousands of images over a long period of time, he might only have 9 months in prison. That might even be 'tough' by some district court standards.

There was a big brouhaha when Darina Allan's husband got off 'lightly', the media should point out (more often) that these 'light' punishments are commonplace.

The law doesn't punish this sort of offence rigorously. That's the law that politicians create, by the way, not judge-made law.

Howard Juneau

Interesting Case

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057039029/1/#post86516277

Mammanabammana

I'm not a legal expert by any means so this is just my point of view but it strikes me that these so-called lenient sentences are the fault of the legal system. The judges are bound by the law in terms of the sentences they can hand out, or am I wrong about that? No matter how much we'd like to see somebody strung up by the balls for something like this, if the judge doesn't have the option to administer that as a sentence then he simply can't do it.

The alternative is that he overrules the law and bangs yer man up for 20 years cos he feels like it. Which may be all well and good in a case where everybody feels that's what the offender deserved, but what about somebody caught doing a minor crime with no real victim, such as for example shoplifting? What happens if the judge is on a moral crusade and sends the shoplifter down for 20 years? If he's allowed have leeway of sentencing based on his own moral compass in one case, then there's no ground for protest if he does the same again. And that's a step towards anarchy.

Fwiw, I'm not convinced 24 months' probation and 5 years on the sex offenders register is as minor a sentence as is being made out. I think anybody with that hung around their neck so all their friends, family, drinking buddies etc knew not only about the sentence but the reason for it and the conviction would not be inclined to call it a mild punishment.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

kupus wrote: »

this guy get gets off
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/d4-man-spared-jail-for-possessing-child-porn-29577431.html

............has pleaded guilty at Dublin District Court to a charge of knowingly having child pornography in his possession at his home address, between June 1, 2006 and June 24, 2009.
 
The court heard that he had images of boys and girls aged as young as nine years.

I dont know what world judges live in but its not based on reality whatsoever.....judging the judges. Any suggestions?

Ihate misleading thread titles, the guy did not get off as the OP suggests!
Feigned outrage is nearly as bad as misleading thread titles.:mad:

personally, I think any dirtbag who has child pornography, should get a long prison sentence.
I could give two ****s if its first offence or not.
If these people were not using child porn, surely there wouldnt be a demand for it. But people who use child porn, by looking at it, are just as responsible as those who actually photograph, video these children .

No doubt some on will be by shortly to tell me how wrong I am.:rolleyes:

BognarRegis

Jake1 wrote: »

If these people were not using child porn, surely there wouldnt be a demand for it. But people who use child porn, by looking at it, are just as responsible as those who actually photograph, video these children

It's a question of intent and degree of culpability. Or, to put it bluntly, 'how bad you are'.

For example, people who break speed limits on the road can be said to be creating an environment that encourages others to speed and kill people. Should we say that speeders are as guilty as those directly involved in a dangerous driving incident that kills a child?

UCDVet

Jake1 wrote: »

personally, I think any dirtbag who has child pornography, should get a long prison sentence.
I could give two ****s if its first offence or not.
If these people were not using child porn, surely there wouldnt be a demand for it. But people who use child porn, by looking at it, are just as responsible as those who actually photograph, video these children .

No doubt some on will be by shortly to tell me how wrong I am.:rolleyes:

Respectfully, I think you are wrong...

Augmerson

Indo is a ****ing rag.

returnNull

OP you're code doesnt run,gives a compiler error 'unknown variable'....

UCDVet

UCDVet wrote: »

Respectfully, I think you are wrong...

You are entitled to feel so, respectfully

BognarRegis

Jake1 wrote: »

You are entitled to feel so, respectfully

With logic like yours, we could save judges a lot of work by handing down life sentences for all crimes from littering, to illegal parking to murder.

BognarRegis

BognarRegis wrote: »

With logic like yours, we could save judges a lot of work by handing down life sentences for all crimes from littering, to illegal parking to murder.

Did I mention a life sentence? No. I did not.
Big difference in littering, illegal parking and the abduction and rape of children so people can download it to their computers. Is anyone hurt physically by littering??

Grayson

Jake1 wrote: »

You are entitled to feel so, respectfully

You're wrong in one very important fact.

The guy didn't pay for it.

He went to some site and downloaded it freely. It says so in the article. I'd agree with you if he'd paid for them, but he didn't.

BognarRegis

Jake1 wrote: »

Is anyone hurt physically by littering??

Yes. That is why it is illegal.

I note you dodged the example of speeding. Unsafe driving harms children too. It is, by your logic: child abuse.

The question you raise is one of culpability. One way of measuring this is by determining the proximity or involvement of the accused with the harm caused. The more direct the involvement, the more culpable the person.

That is why sentences vary from offence to offence.

anncoates

BognarRegis wrote: »

.

I hate being a pedant but it's Bognor Regis.