Student set alight in a nightclub, guy who did it gets 5-year sentence

shampoosuicide

An absolutely horrible incident and feel so bad for the student, but does anyone feel a bit weird about the sentence? obviously just an incredibly dumb prank gone horrifically wrong. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/medical-student-describes-being-burnt-to-the-bone-in-galway-nightclub-attack-31363021.html

ArtyC

Harsh but people need to realise their actions have consequences... I hate that "I was drunk" seems to be a valid excuse for people to act like assholes

Beta Canis Majoris

Should of got double the sentence, there's too many f**king pricks in society who don't think of the consequences of their stupidity.

moc moc a moc

The victim went through some of the most horrific physical pain and psychological terror any human can possibly experience, and his entire life is possibly ruined (at least insofar as he had planned it). Five years is nothing in comparison to this, and if it causes even one dumb bastard who was thinking of performing a similar "prank" to think twice about it in the future, it's worth it.

cson

Is it really harsh though? He'll do ~2.5 years. Bear in mind he set someone on FIRE. Methinks if this guy wasn't a graduate but came from a working class area folks would be saying it isn't harsh enough. Which it isn't. There's something fundamentally wrong with our judicial system when skipping tax by purposely mislabelling garlic gets you a harsher sentence than that this case.

Using alcohol as a mitigating factor, as the defence did, is another shocking indictment of this country.

Just goes to show how you can destroy 2 lives in an instant.

Diamond Doll

I think it's quite flippant to write it off as just a prank that went wrong. He set fire to a complete stranger, then fecked off home. If anything the sentence is lenient, considering he pretty much destroyed the victim's life for no reason and with absolutely no provocation.

yabadabado

He got off easy,what a **** thing to do.He set a person on fire and has ruined that fella's life.He

deco nate

ArtyC wrote: »

Harsh but people need to realise their actions have consequences... I hate "I was drunk" seems to be a valid excuse for people to act like assholes

Courts don't allow "I was drunk" as an excuse for a lesser sentence.

shampoosuicide

deco nate wrote: »

Courts don't allow "I was drunk" as an excuse for a lesser sentence.

maybe not on its own but if it's an indication of lack of premeditation...

DEFTLEFTHAND

Guess that's his legal career shagged.

He knowingly and willingly set someone on fire. That's not a damn prank, that's attempted murder. Plain and simple. Five years is far too lenient.

moc moc a moc

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Guess that's his legal career shagged.

Maybe he'll put the fact that he has first-hand experience of it from the other side on his CV.

deco nate

shampoosuicide wrote: »

maybe not on its own but if it's an indication of lack of premeditation...

I served on a case and the judge told us after the statement of the accused, to disregard "I was drunk"
Because in a court of law it doesn't matter if sober or drunk, you are responsible
For your actions.

yabadabado

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Guess that's his legal career shagged.

a "criminal" lawyer .

Jjiipp79

This guy should get 12-15 year for this. 23hr lock down. This was attempted murder. Scum bag

languagenerd

Not sure how approaching a complete stranger and intentionally setting them on fire could possibly be considered a "dumb prank".

Do you seriously think the sentence isn't lenient?! He could very easily have killed him. As it is, he caused him worse injuries than some stab victims or shooting victims get, left him disfigured, ruined his life and cost him never-ending medical bills.

shampoosuicide

languagenerd wrote: »

Not sure how approaching a complete stranger and intentionally setting them on fire could possibly be considered a "dumb prank".

Do you seriously think the sentence isn't lenient?! He could very easily have killed him. As it is, he caused him worse injuries than some stab victims or shooting victims get, left him disfigured, ruined his life and cost him never-ending medical bills.

it's easy to underestimate people's stupidity - i don't think he foresaw him being engulfed in flames, no.

hatrickpatrick

Couldn't be happier about this. About time scumbags started getting more than suspended sentences for their scumbaggery.

This was not some prank that went wrong, this was a malicious and vile act by an utter evil scumbag that is unforgivable. You do not light a stranger on fire for a prank. I'm shocked that he only got 5 years, he should have got triple that if not more. What he did should be considered attempted murder. He could very easily have killed the poor lad and is getting off with what amounts to a slap on the wrist. He'll be out in two and a half years and go back to his comfortable life while his victim will suffer for the rest of his life.

I imagine that were this someone from a not so privileged place that the sentence would be much more severe.

Yurt2

I believe in the Scottish legal system, being intoxicated is an aggravating factor when a judge is considering sentence. Much preferable to it frequently being used as a mitigating factor here. An incredibly sad case.

GLaDOS

The statement from the victim is pretty heartbreaking

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

I imagine that were this someone from a not so privileged place that the sentence would be much more severe.

I really doubt it tbh. Sentencing in Ireland is f*cked regardless of socio-economic background. The big ongoing south Dublin feud is a good example of that - tons of lads, some well off and some from incredibly deprived estates, all with previous convictions in the double digits and all repeatedly getting suspended or almost non-existent sentences in court, before ending up killing or being killed a few years later. Pretty sure the Limerick feud involves the same situation - how often do you hear "Mr Smith, who has 26 previous convictions for burglary and firearms offences, is being charged with the murder of..."

I'd normally be the first person to call for an end to mass incarceration (for non-violent offences such as dealing and posession of drugs, for example) but for people who commit violent acts, the book should be thrown at them in the most severe manner possible. How else are other potential scumbags supposed to be scared out of following through?

Tombi!

Can someone please clear it up.
The fella that had the lighter, it says "he didn't mean to set the costume on fire" but then a little bit later says "he eventually accepted it was deliberate".

So does that mean he plead guilty and said he intended to set the person on fire but it took a while for him to admit it was intentional?

Not a NSA agent

I'm not sure what he expected. He lit someone on fire and wasn't expecting him to get hurt?

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I really doubt it tbh. Sentencing in Ireland is f*cked regardless of socio-economic background. The big ongoing south Dublin feud is a good example of that - tons of lads, some well off and some from incredibly deprived estates, all with previous convictions in the double digits and all repeatedly getting suspended or almost non-existent sentences in court, before ending up killing or being killed a few years later. Pretty sure the Limerick feud involves the same situation - how often do you hear "Mr Smith, who has 26 previous convictions for burglary and firearms offences, is being charged with the murder of..."

I'd normally be the first person to call for an end to mass incarceration (for non-violent offences such as dealing and posession of drugs, for example) but for people who commit violent acts, the book should be thrown at them in the most severe manner possible. How else are other potential scumbags supposed to be scared out of following through?

Dealing is a non violent crime. You are having a giraffe.

Gooners

shampoosuicide wrote: »

An absolutely horrible incident and feel so bad for the student, but does anyone feel a bit weird about the sentence? obviously just an incredibly dumb prank gone horrifically wrong. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/medical-student-describes-being-burnt-to-the-bone-in-galway-nightclub-attack-31363021.html

You feel so bad for a person who was out enjoying himself for the night, who did nothing to provoke this. who suffered agonising pain, who screamed for the attending medics to give him something to help, who smelled his own flesh burning, who had to be put in an induced coma, who was disfigured afterwards, who may not be able to realise his potential career wise BUT someone was just doing a dumb prank ( the prank being taking a naked flame to another person intentionally not caring what grief or pain was caused).

Are you for real OP?

Tombi!

Gooners wrote: »

You feel so bad for a person who was out enjoying himself for the night, who did nothing to provoke this. who suffered agonising pain, who screamed for the attending medics to give him something to help, who smelled his own flesh burning, who had to be put in an induced coma, who was disfigured afterwards, who may not be able to realise his potential career wise BUT someone was just doing a dumb prank ( the prank being taking a naked flame to another person intentionally not caring what grief or pain was caused).

Are you for real OP?

Both of them are students; I assume the poster feels sorry for the victim

martyos121

Punishment definitely does not fit the crime. It's also ridiculous that in the article it says that the possibility of him re-offending is "low". He set a young man on fire intentionally and caused permanent, life changing physical and psychological damage. He should never see the light of day again. Our justice system is laughable at best.

Electric Sheep

Gooners wrote: »

You feel so bad for a person who was out enjoying himself for the night, who did nothing to provoke this. who suffered agonising pain, who screamed for the attending medics to give him something to help, who smelled his own flesh burning, who had to be put in an induced coma, who was disfigured afterwards, who may not be able to realise his potential career wise BUT someone was just doing a dumb prank ( the prank being taking a naked flame to another person intentionally not caring what grief or pain was caused).

Are you for real OP?

Irish logic - sure it was only a bit of craic:rolleyes:

shampoosuicide

shampoosuicide wrote: »

it's easy to underestimate people's stupidity - i don't think he foresaw him being engulfed in flames, no.

He placed a lit flame against something that was VERY OBVIOUSLY flammable, what in the absolute f*ck did he foresee?

Not a NSA agent

Deleted User wrote: »

He placed a lit flame against something that was VERY OBVIOUSLY flammable, what in the absolute f*ck did he foresee?

Thats probably what made him think of doing it. Someone dressed as a sheep would look flammable. Decides to light them on fire. Surprised to see that flammable looking people are quite flammable.

shampoosuicide

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Irish logic - sure it was only a bit of craic:rolleyes:

not really what i'm saying, i've emphasized the stupidity of it throughout the thread. it's possible to feel sympathy for both, idk. it sounds like it's something that's weighed on his conscience. maybe i'm a 'vile scumbag' for thinking that? idk.

Gooners

Tombi! wrote: »

Both of them are students; I assume the poster feels sorry for the victim

Yes he says that BUT .........No buts about it.

The OP says this was a prank gone wrong. As if that makes it less than it would be otherwise. This was an adult who took a lighter to another person's clothes and tries to pass it off as a prank. FFS

This is on a par with a person who gets in a car drunk and hits a pedestrian. Is that a prank? Is that ok?

shampoosuicide

Deleted User wrote: »

He placed a lit flame against something that was VERY OBVIOUSLY flammable, what in the absolute f*ck did he foresee?

ok then, let's say what happened was exactly what he foresaw. why did he do it then? no motive, they were complete strangers. he'd have to be (a) a complete sociopath or (b) mentally ill, i don't really think he's either.

shampoosuicide

shampoosuicide wrote: »

not really what i'm saying, i've emphasized the stupidity of it throughout the thread. it's possible to feel sympathy for both, idk. it sounds like it's something that's weighed on his conscience. maybe i'm a 'vile scumbag' for thinking that? idk.

He doesn't deserve sympathy. He knowingly set someone on fire, causing burns over 75% of his body (just picture that, go on), ran, had to be convinced by his friends to turn himself in, and then denied doing it intentionally for a long time.

How does this not sound like a vile scumbag who should be locked up for the rest of his days?

Electric Sheep

shampoosuicide wrote: »

not really what i'm saying, i've emphasized the stupidity of it throughout the thread. it's possible to feel sympathy for both, idk. it sounds like it's something that's weighed on his conscience. maybe i'm a 'vile scumbag' for thinking that? idk.

If it weighed on his conscience, it does not seem to have affected his academic performance - or his ability to give an apology until the last minute.

Tombi!

Gooners wrote: »

Yes he says that BUT .........No buts about it.

The OP says this was a prank gone wrong. As if that makes it less than it would be otherwise. This was an adult who took a lighter to another person's clothes and tries to pass it off as a prank. FFS

This is on a par with a person who gets in a car drunk and hits a pedestrian. Is that a prank? Is that ok?

Hey, I'm tired; I said "I assume". I'm not agreeing with the OP or anything.

Electric Sheep

shampoosuicide wrote: »

ok then, let's say what happened was exactly what he foresaw. why did he do it then? no motive, they were complete strangers. he'd have to be (a) a complete sociopath or (b) mentally ill, i don't really think he's either.

I think he's definitely one or the other.

shampoosuicide

Gooners wrote: »

Yes he says that BUT .........No buts about it.

The OP says this was a prank gone wrong. As if that makes it less than it would be otherwise. This was an adult who took a lighter to another person's clothes and tries to pass it off as a prank. FFS

This is on a par with a person who gets in a car drunk and hits a pedestrian. Is that a prank? Is that ok?

it's not ok at all but people do it a lot(minus the hitting a pedestrian if they're lucky), so an interesting analogy.

Icemancometh

shampoosuicide wrote: »

not really what i'm saying, i've emphasized the stupidity of it throughout the thread. it's possible to feel sympathy for both, idk. it sounds like it's something that's weighed on his conscience. maybe i'm a 'vile scumbag' for thinking that? idk.

Judging from the incredibly moving victim impact statement, the apparent lack of remorse seemed to be a large part of the victim's suffering. He referenced it several times, and noted the lack of any form of an apology. Also incredibly, the accused waited until the eleventh hour to admit culpability. You's think that if it was a "dumb prank" as has been suggested, then he would have tried to help, or at least done something other than run away. The act was appalling, but his behaviour after was equally reprehensible.

shampoosuicide

Electric Sheep wrote: »

I think he's definitely one or the other.

fair enough

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

Dealing is a non violent crime. You are having a giraffe.

Dealing in and of itself is indeed non violent. IF dealers commit specific violent crimes as well, then those are violent crimes. But many people go to jail for dealing even if they've never laid a hand on someone.

Gooners

shampoosuicide wrote: »

it's not ok at all but people do it a lot(minus the hitting a pedestrian if they're lucky), so an interesting analogy.

So people doing it a lot makes it ok. And if they hit someone and that person screams in agony and is disfigured and is put in a coma and possibly cannot follow their career choice afterwards is it just bad luck because a lot of others did the same thing and nothing happened?

shampoosuicide

Gooners wrote: »

So people doing it a lot makes it ok. And if they hit someone and that person screams in agony and is disfigured and is put in a coma and possibly cannot follow their career choice afterwards is it just bad luck because a lot of others did the same thing and nothing happened?

'it's not ok at all' - literally the first 5 words of the post you're replying to.

RayM

If a person commits a crime when drunk, then their actions should automatically be considered premeditated. If you choose to drink alcohol, in the full knowledge that it makes you behave stupidly, then that decision should be treated as an aggravating factor in any subsequent crimes (whether serious or minor).

jjC123

5 years for BURNING SOMEONE ALIVE is a joke.

And no apology until 3 years later? Fcuk him, 20 years wouldn't be enough, let alone 5.

Gooners

shampoosuicide wrote: »

'it's not ok at all' - literally the first 5 words of the post you're replying to.

The first 5 words followed by the word BUT. When a person uses but in that context it almost always means some mitigating circumstances for what happened. Except in this case a lot of people don't do it. A lot of people so not take a lighter and set someone alight

Allyall

RayM wrote: »

If a person commits a crime when drunk, then their actions should automatically be considered premeditated. If you choose to drink alcohol, in the full knowledge that it makes you behave stupidly, then that decision should be treated as an aggravating factor in any subsequent crimes (whether serious or minor).

Then that would apply to everything, drunk or not.

foggy_lad

shampoosuicide wrote: »

it's easy to underestimate people's stupidity - i don't think he foresaw him being engulfed in flames, no.

Can someone who is brainy explain to me how he would not have foreseen the result of his actions because my dopey mind fails to see it. This guy was intelligent and in the third year of a corporate law degree

Garda McHugh said the accused was a third year student at NUIG at the time, studying corporate law. He had gone on to do his LLB in UCC and
had just finished a Masters in Law in Trinity.

This person should be stripped of all his qualifications and barred for life from practising law or from working in any professional capacity.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Dealing in and of itself is indeed non violent. IF dealers commit specific violent crimes as well, then those are violent crimes. But many people go to jail for dealing even if they've never laid a hand on someone.

So dealing drugs that go on to kill people or are bought by violent people who rob shops and mug people to buy drugs is perfectly ok?

darkpagandeath

only 5 years for attempted murder ?

RayM

Allyall wrote: »

Then that would apply to everything, drunk or not.

Not really. Drink adds an extra layer of premeditation to a crime. The otherwise perfectly law-abiding 'model citizen' is fully aware that alcohol makes them behave badly, but decides to get drunk regardless. By drinking at all, they're effectively making a calculated decision to put their enjoyment ahead of other people's well-being.

Serious crime aside, people are generally far too tolerant of alcohol-related bad behaviour... not only violence and criminal damage, but also less serious offences like littering and noise pollution.