Phoenix Park tragedy

RIGHTisRIGHT

Deleted User wrote: »

I suspect FAR more were killed by drink drivers in the 80s and 90s.

I live in South Kerry. All my peers did it. And worse, there'd be 6 and 7 crammed into little Starlets, with the protection of a sardine can. And there were a few horrific incidents with 3 and 4 being wiped out in single car incidents.

Your right I was in my early teens and I remember stories like that and you would see a picture of the wreak in the paper.

OhHiMark

RIGHTisRIGHT wrote: »

Your right I was in my early teens and I remember stories like that and you would see a picture of the wreak in the paper.

Was that because of the liberal agenda?

HensVassal

lawlolawl wrote: »

You should be ashamed of yourself for even attempting to defend this waste of space. Being "sorry " for killing a child by being a complete **** up at life is no defense for anything.

The ideal sentence would be that the victims family get 30 minutes alone with him cuffed with no repercussions.

Would you ever listen to yourself.

Nobody is defending this bollocks. But some of us have cooler and more rational heads, allowing us to think clearly. I don't know what the precedent here is but I'm not going to spew out some of the nonsense like "chop his hands off", "jail him forever in a 4 by 4 cell with rats to eat!" blah blah.

It's not big and it's not clever.

RIGHTisRIGHT

OhHiMark wrote: »

Was that because of the liberal agenda?

Not going to argue that point with you I agree it was what it was I had forgotten how bad it use to be.
I remember the rural pubs throwing their toys out of the pram when smoking ban came in.

Ok did not mean to get off topic.

melissak

God, im sorry I read that except it would make you grateful for small problems. Poor parents. So sad.

12Phase

This thread clearly illustrates why we have a professional justice system and not just public lynchings by angry mobs.

Incidents like this are horrific, saddening and very upsetting but the state isn't there to dole out mob 'justice' and has to take a dispassionate, logical approach to the law.

It's a drunk / drugged driving incident with horrible and very tragic consequences.

The only way to deal with those is thorough constantly improving enforcement.

Drugged driving testing is only kicking off here in recent times. Hopefully it'll have a similar impact to roadside testing for drunk driving.

HensVassal

vicwatson wrote: »

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.

But she was a "young girl"...or do you want language to be used that will tug at heart-strings a little harder. Sounds cynical to me.

HensVassal

Khalil Quaint Light wrote: »

I was about to post the same thing.

I'm reminded of this tragedy daily by the new flowers, teddy and candles.

Poor little angel.

May she rest in peace.

As for the rest, the animal who murdered her, the sentence ~ I'm totally at a loss for words.

He didn't intentionally set out to harm her so you can't call it murder.

HensVassal

bad2dabone wrote: »

Is this a wind up? You hope the child killer gets help? What about the family of the murdered girl?

Who was murdered?

Penny Dreadful

ShagNastii wrote: »

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.

I agree. I think the fact that someone knowingly took any substance that would alter their ability to drive/ be responsible for their actions and then willingly got behind the wheel of a car/ on a motorbike should actually count against them rather than be considered a mitigating factor.

I have a 19 month old little girl who like poor Vanessa has lovely big blue eyes and blonde hair and when I listened to the Last Word yesterday where this was discussed I just sat and cried. To think of what that poor woman and her husband went through and are going through every day since and try to imagine what it would be like was just awful. And that was me just imagining. They have to live that life.

The 5 year sentence seems dreadfully short regardless. Add in the previous 8 convictions and its worse again. Add in the alcohol and drugs taken and its only worse again. I think there should be years for taking of an illegal substance, for drink driving, for drug driving,for leaving the scene of a crime, for dangerous driving (he was well over the speed limit anyway), for killing a child.
Wouldn't any one of those crimes on their own be considered a serious offence never mind all of them together

HensVassal

Eugene Norman wrote: »

If he got 25 years they might actually see it as a deterrent. And it might be an apt punishment.

(Not that it's just teenagers who joyride. That's a red herring.)

Can you give one example of how a stiffer sentence has resulted in providing a successful deterrent? Has the death penalty resulted in eliminating murder? Has 20 years in jail for having a bag of weed eradicated dope consumption?

You're liberal with the use of the word "might" but that's just mindless conjecture.

12Phase

The worst aspect of both drunk and drugged driving is the driver may not have the mental ability to realise how dangerous what they are doing is.

I'm not saying it as a way of excusing behaviour but it does tend to compound stupidity and reckless behaviour by removing normal inhibitions.

Sadly, this kind of thing is largely a consequence of a very serious drug and alcohol problem.

Drug abuse has a lot of indirect impacts.

Omackeral

Everyone calling for this chap to be executed/killed, would you do the killing yourself?

I have no sympathy for the perpetrator here but he's gonna have to live with the fact he killed a 2 year old girl for the rest of his life. That type of sh*t is gonna mess you up every single hour of your life, never mind every day. But that's on him.

Btw, I think 5 years very lenient. It's automatically a quarter off with remission so he'll serve 3 years and 9 months, that's a slap in the face of Vanessa's family and her life's worth.

MajorMax

I am so sick of this. Only in Ireland is it a workable defence to be out of your head on drink and/or drugs.

Penny Dreadful

12Phase wrote: »

The worst aspect of both drunk and drugged driving is the driver may not have the mental ability to realise how dangerous what they are doing is.

I'm not saying it as a way of excusing behaviour but it does tend to compound stupidity and reckless behaviour by removing normal inhibitions.

Sadly, this kind of thing is largely a consequence of a very serious drug and alcohol problem.

Drug abuse has a lot of indirect impacts.

But you do know how dangerous it is before you choose to take the substances. ................
I know you're not excusing what happened, who could? BUT we are (as a society) terribly lenient in accepting the "Oh I was so drunk/stoned..." excuse for any bad behaviour. In fact the way in which people often display their hangovers with pride as though its a war wound is part of this too. If you say you're not drinking on a night out and you're not pregnant people are uncomfortable around you all too often.
Even leaving aside tragic horrific incidents like this particular one, as a society we have a truly messed up relationship with alcohol (and up to a point other drugs) and have allowed its misuse and abuse as an excuse for awful things happening.
Its funny how we are astonished at the messed up relationship the USA has towards gun ownership but accept ours with alcohol.:(

El_Duderino 09

Instead of rotting in prison, being beaten by relatives of the victim or having his head caved in by animals in state custody, what about a serious solution.

How about he spends some of his 5 years being carted off to schools to educate young people about what can happen when you use drugs and drive. Letting them interact with the guy and take with him about how he will have to declare his criminal record to potential employers and explain that he killed a 2 year old whilst on drugs. The effect it has on his family, the nightmares he probably will experience for the rest of his life due to the fact that he killed a child. The fact that he has lost his freedom and will spend that night back in prison with the psychopaths and bullies, being told when to eat, when to sleep etc.

That might have a deterrent effect on those young people and shape the way they approach drugs and driving. More effective than a few inches on a news site that the children probably don't read anyway.

Or you could just bang on about longer punishment in prison.. .

osarusan

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Instead of rotting in prison, being beaten by relatives of the victim or having his head caved in by animals in state custody, what about a serious solution.

How about he spends some of his 5 years being carted off to schools to educate young people about what can happen when you use drugs and drive. Letting them interact with the guy and take with him about how he will have to declare his criminal record to potential employers and explain that he killed a 2 year old whilst on drugs. The effect it has on his family, the nightmares he probably will experience for the rest of his life due to the fact that he killed a child. The fact that he has lost his freedom and will spend that night back in prison with the psychopaths and bullies, being told when to eat, when to sleep etc.

That might have a deterrent effect on those young people and shape the way they approach drugs and driving. More effective than a few inches on a news site that the children probably don't read anyway.

Or you could just bang on about longer punishment in prison.. .

Can we cave his head in after all that? Please?

12Phase

MajorMax wrote: »

I am so sick of this. Only in Ireland is it a workable defence to be out of your head on drink and/or drugs.

It's actually not only in Ireland.
Intoxication defence is actually fairly normal all over the world.

Courts have to look at logic of what happened and the perpetrator's intent.

They will usually look at things like forseeability. For example someone downing several drinks to get the Dutch courage to commit an offence would be anything but a mitigating factor.

With something like you're looking at reckleness, negligent and irresponsible behaviour but there was no intent to kill and the guy seems to be expressing serious remorse. That's why it's not receiving a huge sentence.

He went out to drive a car fast and didn't concern himself with the risks involved.

The drink and drugs are a contributing factor and you could certainly argue that he should have forseen the risks he was creating but to jump from that to accusations of murder is a huge leap of logic.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would be be angry and disgusted at what happened and absolutely feel for the parents and the little girl who was killed.

He's going to have to live with blood on his hands and a criminal conviction for the rest of his days.

I don't think that 20 year driving ban is long enough though. I would go with permanent disqualification.

Penny Dreadful

osarusan wrote: »

Can we cave his head in after all that? Please?

And it will serve what purpose? The family will still be without their little girl. A punishment is required of course and I do think the sentence handed down was too lenient but giving the perpetrator of the crime a beating does not solve anything.

osarusan

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

And it will serve what purpose? The family will still be without their little girl. A punishment is required of course and I do think the sentence handed down was too lenient but giving the perpetrator of the crime a beating does not solve anything.

But I have blood lust. It will solve that.

Until next time.

sbsquarepants

HensVassal wrote: »

He didn't intentionally set out to harm her so you can't call it murder.

True, but there also has to be an element of you have done something that is illegal to begin with but also so reckless and so obviously dangerous that regardless of your "intentions" you have to be held full responsible for any consequences. Who couldn't foresee that drinking a litre of vodka and snorting a pile of coke before driving through a crowded park full of kids could possible lead to knocking someone down? Even the biggest idiot understands that much.

Fair enough he didn't mean to kill a child, but was it an accident in the truest sense of the word? No it absolutely wasn't, it was entirely his fault - 100%. He should be treated accordingly - I didn't mean it just doesn't cut it, that child is dead because of him. He should have to suffer because of his actions- it's not all about deterrent and rehabilitation - there is also just plain good old fashioned punishment and I for one can't think of many acts that deserve more punishment than killing a child.

12Phase

I agree though the sentence seems a bit inadequate. The maximum possible was 10 years.

Boom_Bap

MOD

I completely understand that this is an extremely emotive subject, but we cannot start advocating threats of violence or harm being sought against anyone in the public. That's just not how we do things around here. Please try to be conscious of this when responding on this thread.

Penny Dreadful

sbsquarepants wrote: »

True, but there also has to be an element of you have done something that is illegal to begin with but also so reckless and so obviously dangerous that regardless of your "intentions" you have to be held full responsible for any consequences. Who couldn't foresee that drinking a litre of vodka and snorting a pile of coke before driving through a crowded park full of kids could possible lead to knocking someone down? Even the biggest idiot understands that much.

Fair enough he didn't mean to kill a child, but was it an accident in the truest sense of the word? No it absolutely wasn't, it was entirely his fault - 100%. He should be treated accordingly - I didn't mean it just doesn't cut it, that child is dead because of him. He should have to suffer because of his actions- it's not all about deterrent and rehabilitation - there is also just plain good old fashioned punishment and I for one can't think of many acts that deserve more punishment than killing a child.

I agree totally. Not for one second do I think that man got up that morning and thought "Things to Do Today- #1 off to the Park to knock someone down and kill them".
However every act from drinking 1 litre of vodka (I wouldn't be able to stand after that never mind drive a car), taking 2 grammes of coke, driving the car, driving the car through the Park, driving it so fast, ---they were his choices and choices have consequences.
In this case they were dire, not for him but for the little girl and her family.
He should be held accountable for his actions and choices.

OhHiMark

He has been held accountable. Whether you think his sentence is enough is a different matter.

Neyite

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

But you do know how dangerous it is before you choose to take the substances. ................
I know you're not excusing what happened, who could? BUT we are (as a society) terribly lenient in accepting the "Oh I was so drunk/stoned..." excuse for any bad behaviour. In fact the way in which people often display their hangovers with pride as though its a war wound is part of this too. If you say you're not drinking on a night out and you're not pregnant people are uncomfortable around you all too often.
Even leaving aside tragic horrific incidents like this particular one, as a society we have a truly messed up relationship with alcohol (and up to a point other drugs) and have allowed its misuse and abuse as an excuse for awful things happening.
Its funny how we are astonished at the messed up relationship the USA has towards gun ownership but accept ours with alcohol.:(

In Scotland (I think!), being drunk or high while committing a crime is actually a factor that will increase your sentence, not a mitigating one. So dangerous driving while sober would incur X years custodial sentence, and dangerous driving while drunk /high would add a few years or so onto that. Seems like the right idea to me.

When I first started driving, and got my first ever car I was so proud and excited. I felt my parents were right buzzkills when they congratulated me but told me I now have the potential to kill someone - either passengers or other road users with my behaviour as a driver. I've never forgotten that, or the responsibility I have when I drive.

I've seen attitudes change in this country. Like MarkAnthony says, drink driving was rife in the 80's. People would consider themselves to be fit to drive because they 'only' had 5 pints. When I first started driving I'd be offered a second pint, and when I declined, a short would be pushed on me instead. Now, usually drivers don't even chance one drink. And that is good progress.

I got upset when I read the VIS. I cant begin to imagine the pain this family must be in. How do you ever get over a thing like this?

El_Duderino 09

osarusan wrote:

Can we cave his head in after all that? Please?

You can if that's the kind of thing you like doing. I'll probably not have anything do with the likes someone who wants to do that though.

osarusan

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You can if that's the kind of thing you like doing. I'll probably not have anything do with the likes someone who wants to do that though.

I was being sarcastic.

I'll do better next time.

bad2dabone

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How about he spends some of his 5 years being carted off to schools to educate young people about what can happen when you use drugs and drive. Letting them interact with the guy and take with him about how he will have to declare his criminal record to potential employers and explain that he killed a 2 year old whilst on drugs. The effect it has on his family, the nightmares he probably will experience for the rest of his life due to the fact that he killed a child. The fact that he has lost his freedom and will spend that night back in prison with the psychopaths and bullies, being told when to eat, when to sleep etc.
.

This is a very decent suggestion.

El_Duderino 09

osarusan wrote:

I was being sarcastic.

Apologies it's hard to remember which posters are being ridiculous by accident and which ones are doing it to highlight the ridiculousness