Phoenix Park tragedy

PTH2009

terrible tragedy. thoughts go out to the childs family

5 years not enough IMO.

Isolt

Poor baby girl
I remember when this happened and I was just horrified thinking of what the parents were going through.
Now I am even more horrified that in 5 years this scumbag will be free while these parents still have to face each day without their little baby. Sickening way for the judge to add insult to injury.

El_Duderino 09

dubrov wrote:

I would expect him to express remorse for the pain and suffering that he had caused to that poor girl's family. Instead his statement is all about how it has affected his life

True. If I wanted to express remorse to someone I would do it in a private letter. No need to apologise to the mother through a public media. How would that make anything better?

SnakePlissken wrote:

Ehh.. Maybe because I believe five years is a travesty for the loss he has conflicted, however I don't believe he should be locked away until his end of days as even though it was despicable, it was not a premeditated murder to which I believe warrants the absolute loss of freedom. As for precedent, I do think the judge has just set a godawful one.

Didn't the judge say he was bound by ptecedent in this case?

Do you have any idea how long 5 years is? The fact of having hurt the child would be enough for any normal person to reflect on what thyy had done. Teenagers are stupid and tend to take stupid risks. They don't really care as much about consequences the way fully grown adults do, so the deterrent effect would be minimal on other teenagers. Their brain changes as they grow older so there's no value to locking him up for 15- 20 years for that reason.

You could hope to rehabilitate him but that's not what prison is designed to do and as I said, people become more risk averse as they age. You could lock him up to protect society but that's dependant on knowing the likelihood of him doing something as dangerous, again.

I don't know what his sentence should be. But I know that picking figures out of the air and turning them into years in prison, is silly.

vicwatson

Almost all of these judges live in a bubble, this revolving door and concurrent sentencing has to stop, if we are serious about it they have to stop.

Heartbreaking stuff

Putin

Imo, 15 years in jail would still be too lenient for the c**t.

Deep Six

What an absolute ****, he should have got life.

PressRun

Very lenient, but sadly not surprising. It feels like every other day there's another awful example of the ongoing parody of justice we have in this country. It's getting harder and harder to shake the feeling that the justice system does very little for victims.

El_Duderino 09

lawlolawl wrote:

Nope. His family realize they produced an absolute garbage waste of space and forget about him ever existing now that he has been disposed of like the piece of refuse that he is.

Sure. That's not how families work though. The same bond that ties the parents to the child. The child's behaviour probably has less to do with it than you think. Almost no parent abandons their child no matter how they behave.

In reality your suggestion would lead to ever increasing ripples of murder, turning victims into murderers and murderers families into victims, and so on. Doesn't sound like a great solution.

lawlolawl wrote:

He has no place in society and should just cease to exist. Imagine the mother of that child walking down the street in 3 years time (that's all he'll serve) and seeing this utter piece of dog**** walking the other way.

Sure, but he won't cease to exist. If you're proposing capital punishment, then say so.

lawlolawl wrote:

That's fair, is it?

Nothing about losing a child could be fair. Inflicting murder on the perpetrator's family is not fair either.

Cortina_MK_IV

Isolt wrote: »

Poor baby girl
I remember when this happened and I was just horrified thinking of what the parents were going through.
Now I am even more horrified that in 5 years this scumbag will be free while these parents still have to face each day without their little baby. Sickening way for the judge to add insult to injury.

Out in 3, may have been trained with some skills/Open University course to enable him to get back into society. Head across the water and get a new job all possibly before he hits 29?

El_Duderino 09

PressRun wrote:

Very lenient, but sadly not surprising. It feels like every other day there's another awful example of the ongoing parody of justice we have in this country. It's getting harder and harder to shake the feeling that the justice system does very little for victims.

It's not designed to help victims. There are some systems designed to place the victim's wellbeing at the centre but you wouldn't like them.

Hint, they end up with much lighter sentences because the length of the sentence has no impact on the victim's wellbeing.

vicwatson

Brian Dobbo on Rte news referred to her as a "young girl", will ya feck off Dobbo, she was 22 months young, an infant, a baby FFS, feck off with your "young girl" tag.

Elemonator

The judiciary are a let down, even in the Gardai's minds. I think there is a supply and demand problem in the system though, the jails are full. I think its time we let out the people who didn't pay something on time and throw this lad in and throw away the key.

lawlolawl

Elemonator wrote: »

The judiciary are a let down, even in the Gardai's minds. I think there is a supply and demand problem in the system though, the jails are full. I think its time we let out the people who didn't pay something on time and throw this lad in and throw away the key.

Build more prisons. I'd take a 10% hike in tax to have more cages to lock up the animals that wander this country.

I deal with them every day. A small cell for a long time is all that they are fit for.

ShagNastii

I loathe beyond belief the fact that nine times out of ten with these cases you inevitably get the "he/she was off their heads on drink and drugs". It kills me even more that it clearly gets taken into account when sentencing these scumbags.

Honestly, what you do is what you do. There should be no cop outs. It is a complete insult to the victims. We have all had one too many drinks in our day. Funny thing is I've never felt the need to murder somebody, rape somebody, speed around in my car like an absolute buffoon.

Elemonator

lawlolawl wrote: »

Build more prisons. I'd take a 10% hike in tax to have more cages to lock up the animals that wander this country.

I deal with them every day. A small cell for a long time is all that they are fit for.

110% agree with you. I wouldn't say 10pc tax increase but I would pay a levy.

SEPT 23 1989

Judges hands are tied if he hands down a huge sentence it will be appealed and overturned

WesternZulu

No matter how stupid you are as a teenage you still know that driving around in a car when you're full of vodka and coke is stupid and putting peoples life in danger!!

suicide_circus

I feel physically sick after reading that article.

Worthless scobie bastard.

5 years seems pretty much in line with the sentencing in this area.

10 years ago, it'd probably have been a suspended sentence.

Equating it with murder etc. is nonsense.

KERSPLAT!

[Deleted User] wrote: »

5 years seems pretty much in line with the sentencing in this area.

10 years ago, it'd probably have been a suspended sentence.

Equating it with murder etc. is nonsense.

Do you agree with the sentencing?

SnakePlissken

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Teenagers are stupid and tend to take stupid risks. They don't really care as much about consequences the way fully grown adults do, so the deterrent effect would be minimal on other teenagers. Their brain changes as they grow older so there's no value to locking him up for 15- 20 years for that reason.

Teenager? He was 24 at the time of the hit and run. Please read up on this case before posting nonsense just to be contrary. You're really showing yourself up here

GLaDOS

I take from the article he was changed with 'dangerous driving', I don't see why he shouldn't be charged with manslaughter? Unless I'm missing something.

One eyed Jack

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Do you agree with the sentencing?

I don't think it's fair to ask anyone do they actually agree with the sentencing. I'd have hated to be in the Judge's position because any sentence they handed down would never be 'enough' for some people. It wouldn't matter what sentence was handed down anyway as it's not going to change the tragic circumstances for the family of the infant.

Personally, I don't see how 3, 5, 10, 20 years is going to make any difference. It's pointless trying to give justice to the family when what they lost that day can never be restored.

MarkAnthony

ken wrote: »

In my Ireland any instance where a judge such as the fück nut in this trial gives a p!ss poor sentence will have to serve any increase in sentence alongside the convicted person. No protection on the inside either. If they get out alive they can have their jobs back.

Ya think you might actually free the Judge to give sentences they feel are appropriate first? Judges are required by law to sentence within the bounds of the law. They don't pull figures out of their arses. They sentence within the bounds imposed by the state and ultimately the people by voting for the **** nuts as you so eloquently put it that put the legislature in place.

Seamus is completely correct here, this is a countywide issue with people's attitudes to driving. I'm willing to bet significant amounts of money that there are people going nuts on this thread, which is frankly the right response, that have driven impaired. People need to realise that there but for the grace of God in some cases.

MarkAnthony

ScienceNerd wrote: »

I take from the article he was changed with 'dangerous driving', I don't see why he shouldn't be charged with manslaughter? Unless I'm missing something.

The DPP will always bring the 'most appropriate' case as a matter of course. Legally there is nothing to stop manslaughter being brought but as this involved a car it will generally be prosecuted as dangerous driving etc.

Similarly there is nothing to stop a case where someone is seriously injured by a driver rising to the standard of recklessness to be brought under section 4 of the Non-fatal offences against the person act carrying a potential life sentence.

KERSPLAT!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to ask anyone do they actually agree with the sentencing. I'd have hated to be in the Judge's position because any sentence they handed down would never be 'enough' for some people. It wouldn't matter what sentence was handed down anyway as it's not going to change the tragic circumstances for the family of the infant.

Personally, I don't see how 3, 5, 10, 20 years is going to make any difference. It's pointless trying to give justice to the family when what they lost that day can never be restored.

I don't see the issue with the question. I understand what Conor is saying, I'm asking for his opinion on the sentence itself. I should have phrased it better.

One eyed Jack

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Ya think you might actually free the Judge to give sentences they feel are appropriate first? Judges are required by law to sentence within the bounds of the law. They don't pull figures out of their arses. They sentence within the bounds imposed by the state and ultimately the people by voting for the **** nuts as you so eloquently put it that put the legislature in place.

Seamus is completely correct here, this is a countywide issue with people's attitudes to driving. I'm willing to bet significant amounts of money that there are people going nuts on this thread, which is frankly the right response, that have driven impaired. People need to realise that there but for the grace of God in some cases.

I agree with you with regard to the Judge's position, but a countrywide issue with people's attitudes to driving? Where did either yourself or seamus pull that from? This case certainly wasn't anything remotely like simply a bad attitude and a careless driver. He was reckless in getting behind the wheel. There was nothing there but for the grace of God about his actions. It was an inevitability that someone would at least have been injured by his actions. Unfortunately the Judge was in an extremely difficult position, but that shouldn't mean we put anything down to bad luck as if the man wasn't responsible for causing the death of the infant. Certainly not if we ever hope to change people's attitudes and behaviour and their responsibility towards other people in society.

JustTheOne

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to ask anyone do they actually agree with the sentencing. I'd have hated to be in the Judge's position because any sentence they handed down would never be 'enough' for some people. It wouldn't matter what sentence was handed down anyway as it's not going to change the tragic circumstances for the family of the infant.

Personally, I don't see how 3, 5, 10, 20 years is going to make any difference. It's pointless trying to give justice to the family when what they lost that day can never be restored.

Eh it might deter another idiot from drinking a bottle of vodka and hopping behind the wheel of a car and killing a kid again?

Seriously what message does 5 years send out?

twowheelsonly

ken wrote: »

With remission and good behaviour he could be out in 3 years. I really hope the dpp appeal the sentence.

60 month sentence less 25% = 45 Months / 3 years and 9 months. Good behaviour or bad behaviour while in Jail doesn't matter. They don't lose remission any more except in seriously seriously exceptional cases. Remission isn't earned unfortunately, it's granted.

Elemonator wrote: »

The judiciary are a let down, even in the Gardai's minds. I think there is a supply and demand problem in the system though, the jails are full. I think its time we let out the people who didn't pay something on time and throw this lad in and throw away the key.

99% of them get out the day they come in so it's a myth to say that the jails are full of people that didn't pay their TV Licence etc.

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Judges hands are tied if he hands down a huge sentence it will be appealed and overturned

It might be overturned, then again it might not. It shouldn't be the Judges job to pre-empt this.
In this case it's a hard enough call. IMO he should have gotten longer given his history but it's hard enough to put a number on it. If an 'ordinary' drunk driver (no previous, no cocaine..) killed the child what should they get ?

MarkAnthony

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I agree with you with regard to the Judge's position, but a countrywide issue with people's attitudes to driving? Where did either yourself or seamus pull that from? This case certainly wasn't anything remotely like simply a bad attitude and a careless driver. He was reckless in getting behind the wheel. There was nothing there but for the grace of God about his actions. It was an inevitability that someone would at least have been injured by his actions. Unfortunately the Judge was in an extremely difficult position, but that shouldn't mean we put anything down to bad luck as if the man wasn't responsible for causing the death of the infant. Certainly not if we ever hope to change people's attitudes and behaviour and their responsibility towards other people in society.

Irish drivers (and people driving here for any period of time) have terrible hazard perception and a terrible attitude to driving impaired (be it on the phone, with kids screaming in the back or under the influence of something) purely because of bugger all enforcement. This kid was ran over within sight of the Garda headquarters.

It amazing to me that someone that impaired wasn't picked up driving around an area with some of the densest traffic in Dublin.