What is happening to this country?

Busyness1

I came across two news articles in the past few days that just really angered me, and I think showcases just how diminished our values have become. The first was a surgeon who was speeding in Limerick in order to save the life of someone in a real medical emergency who subsequently died. This surgeon was convicted and fined €200. Article can be found here.

The second is in relation to a taxi driver from Dublin who was caught twice in 12 months, and pleaded guilty to dealing cocaine whilst operating as a taxi driver! He was allowed to pay €1,000 to the poor box by the judge in order to avoid a conviction. He had been convicted previously for taking a sub-optimal route for a passenger resulting in an increased fare.
This man avoided a conviction for admitted drug dealing and is entrusted with the safety of the public. Article can be found here.

What is going on in this country???! People trying to save lives punished, people engaging in criminal behavior that results in lives being lost get the slap on the wrist?!

Losty Dublin

I take it you didn't read either article very well.

Busyness1 wrote: »

I came across two news articles in the past few days that just really angered me, and I think showcases just how diminished our values have become. The first was a surgeon who was speeding in Limerick in order to save the life of someone in a real medical emergency who subsequently died. This surgeon was convicted and fined €200. Article can be found here.

The second is in relation to a taxi driver from Dublin who was caught twice in 12 months, and pleaded guilty to dealing cocaine whilst operating as a taxi driver! He was allowed to pay €1,000 to the poor box by the judge in order to avoid a conviction. He had been convicted previously for taking a sub-optimal route for a passenger resulting in an increased fare.
This man avoided a conviction for admitted drug dealing and is entrusted with the safety of the public. Article can be found here.

What is going on in this country???! People trying to save lives punished, people engaging in criminal behavior that results in lives being lost get the slap on the wrist?!

Busyness1

Care to elaborate?

cruizer101

135 km/h in a 50km/h zone which has a lot of pedestrians, should of got more if you ask me

johnnyskeleton

So if he crashed into a pedestrian or the ambulance that he barely avoided hitting at 135kmph in a 50kmph zone, would you accept that he wasnt responsible for their deaths because he was trying to get to the hospital to perform surgery?

Or what if, in his haste to perform surgery he didnt follow the correct procedures and botched the job?

Professionals are supposed to have a cool head otherwise you cant trust them to do their job properly.

He admitted that he broke the law. A small fine is lenient given how dangerously he was driving, presumably because of the substantial mitigation of him trying to do a good deed.

In relation to the taxi driver, that seems fairly lenient to give someone the probation act for two separate events of possession og reasonable amounts of cocaine.

Busyness1

100km/h apparently, he was never clocked... 12:50am not exactly pedestrian time. I'm not condoning the speeding, its the irony between the two cases I was trying to highlight.

nkav86

While I agree the surgeon had an exceptional circumstance, he was a danger to both pedestrians and other drivers at that speed. Had he caused an accident, his reason for speeding wouldn't have meant much, IMO, especially if there was serious injury. As the article states, he could have asked for a garda escort, which may not have been ideal under the timeframe but would have been safer.

Kimbot

Busyness1 wrote: »

Care to elaborate?

No surgeon is trained to drive in that manner, I understand they were trying to save a persons life but that doesnt entitle the surgeon to speed so a fine is perfectly fine. Whats to stop this guy driving like that all the time using "Oh i need to save a persons life" as a way of avoiding any repercussions.

Denny_Crane

nkav86 wrote: »

While I agree the surgeon had an exceptional circumstance, he was a danger to both pedestrians and other drivers at that speed. Had he caused an accident, his reason for speeding wouldn't have meant much, IMO, especially if there was serious injury. As the article states, he could have asked for a garda escort, which may not have been ideal under the timeframe but would have been safer.

Perfect time for some unlit idiot on a bike or me staggering out of the pub. What's happening to this country is a judical system than considers each case on it's own merits, over a long period of time with all the facts.

Frankly the taxi driver shouldn't be a taxi driver anymore but as for selling a bit of coke, who really cares. Ireland would be a much better place if they decriminalised drugs.

La Haine

What about this poor lad in today's Indo? Can't even put a smoke the right way up in his mouth....

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/man-told-garda-he-would-box-her-head-off-if-she-was-a-man-35337632.html

ohnonotgmail

La Haine wrote: »

What about this poor lad in today's Indo? Can't even put a smoke the right way up in his mouth....

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/man-told-garda-he-would-box-her-head-off-if-she-was-a-man-35337632.html

God bless your eyesight.

marvin80

Very unlucky individual:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/10-000-for-accident-prone-man-in-ninth-personal-injury-claim-1.2881096

Denny_Crane

Thats more like it. Hilarious civil claims are always good for a giggle at work.

TimeToShine

marvin80 wrote: »

Very unlucky individual:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/10-000-for-accident-prone-man-in-ninth-personal-injury-claim-1.2881096

My God.

Denny_Crane

TimeToShine wrote: »

My God.

Some solicitor down in Limerick probably treats him as such at this stage. :pac:

seamus

Busyness1 wrote: »

100km/h apparently, he was never clocked... 12:50am not exactly pedestrian time. I'm not condoning the speeding, its the irony between the two cases I was trying to highlight.

What irony?

Both were brought to court on very serious charges and got away very lightly.

The difference is that the cab driver made no plea for mercy, whereas the doctor tried to justify what he did and apparently even tried blaming the Gardai.

The "speeding to the hospital" argument is nonsense. He lives 5km away. The time difference between driving @ 50km/h or 100km/h is an absolute maximum of 3 minutes. Realistically between lights, roundabouts and corners, he'd be lucky to shave off 60 seconds, at the massive risk to the lives of everyone walking those roads and who live beside those roads.

The ill patient was in hospital, being cared for. While his presence was required quickly, it wasn't required that quickly. She died twelve hours later, so it wasn't quite a "60 seconds will make all the difference" kind of emergency.

Busyness1

The irony that the person attempting to save a life was convicted in court whilst the person who was "trying to make a quick buck" selling class A drugs is free to continue driving the general public around professionally. There was cocaine found in his place of work twice in 12 months. The irony in my opinion that if there were any mitigating circumstances for a donation to the poor box, it should have been in the former case not the latter. There is no plea for mercy when you are dealing drugs, again I don't condone the speeding but the swing in judgments startles me.

1st dalkey dalkey

The Garda escort seems the best option for the doctor. And they do if requested. I know a neighbour who did it when his son had a bad asthma attack.

But I think that is slightly off topic.

The OP's main point is that we don't appear to have any standardisation in our application of justice. Until relatively recently we had people jailed for TV licences and others with 80 odd convictions getting probation.

I know that all cases differ and circumstances can impact the how and why of each case. But there has to be some way of preventing the more silly outcomes. Surely that's not beyond the brains trust in the law business.

seamus

So clearly you didn't really read either article. There's a reason why "save a life" was in quotation marks above the doctor's one. The doctor's actions made him more likely to take lives than save one. What he did has far more potential to cause damage than a small amount of cocaine, but it happens to be more socially acceptable. He still walked away with a small fine though.

You clearly have a bee in your bonnet about drugs, so you probably won't see much reason on that.

ohnonotgmail

1st dalkey dalkey wrote: »

The Garda escort seems the best option for the doctor. And they do if requested. I know a neighbour who did it when his son had a bad asthma attack.

But I think that is slightly off topic.

The OP's main point is that we don't appear to have any standardisation in our application of justice. Until relatively recently we had people jailed for TV licences and others with 80 odd convictions getting probation.

I know that all cases differ and circumstances can impact the how and why of each case. But there has to be some way of preventing the more silly outcomes. Surely that's not beyond the brains trust in the law business.

Nobody has been jailed for not paying for a tv licence.

Busyness1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Nobody has been jailed for not paying for a tv licence.

Well there has been at least 411 people here

1st dalkey dalkey

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Nobody has been jailed for not paying for a tv licence.

Technically correct.

They were fined for not paying the licence and jailed if they failed to pay the fine.

But again, that is slightly off topic.

ohnonotgmail

Busyness1 wrote: »

Well there has been at least 411 people here

they were jailed for not paying a fine imposed for not having a licence. Try to read beyond the headline.

Denny_Crane

1st dalkey dalkey wrote: »

The Garda escort seems the best option for the doctor. And they do if requested. I know a neighbour who did it when his son had a bad asthma attack.

But I think that is slightly off topic.

The OP's main point is that we don't appear to have any standardisation in our application of justice. Until relatively recently we had people jailed for TV licences and others with 80 odd convictions getting probation.

I know that all cases differ and circumstances can impact the how and why of each case. But there has to be some way of preventing the more silly outcomes. Surely that's not beyond the brains trust in the law business.

There are reams of studies, commentaries and jurisprudental musings on the subject. It's not really fair for me to comment as I'm hugely in the camp of, for all it's faults, judicial dicreation in liberal democracies is the way to go. Mandatory sentances create certanity but huge issues with injustice.

The US is aprim example of a jutice system ran by public opinion and it's generally considered to be in a right state.

Busyness1

seamus wrote: »

So clearly you didn't really read either article. There's a reason why "save a life" was in quotation marks above the doctor's one. The doctor's actions made him more likely to take lives than save one. What he did has far more potential to cause damage than a small amount of cocaine, but it happens to be more socially acceptable. He still walked away with a small fine though.

You clearly have a bee in your bonnet about drugs, so you probably won't see much reason on that.

A bee in my bonnet about drugs, it's that "small amount of cocaine" that when all added up is what is fueling drug gangs resulting in deaths, racketeering and violence to name a few. Clearly you don't read too many articles, my point is about the inconsistencies of convictions and rulings. The doctor was trying to help someone, albeit perhaps irrationally and was criminally convicted. Knowingly supply the streets of Dublin and all that comes with it, and get off with no conviction... that in my mind is not right. Passengers were certainly put at risk with the taxi.

Denny_Crane

The only regime effectively waging a war on drugs is the Phillipines. Everyone else has lost the war, it can't be dealt with by the CJS, that's been repaeated globally over and over again.

CaptainInsano

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they were jailed for not paying a fine imposed for not having a licence. Try to read beyond the headline.

Pedantic.

Denny_Crane

CaptainInsano wrote: »

Pedantic.

Not really one is being jailed for one thing, one is being jailed for another.

ShowMeTheCash

Busyness1 wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Nobody has been jailed for not paying for a tv licence.

Well there has been at least 411 people here

I think this says more about the Country we inhabit more so than the F1 Doctor or the Entrepreneurial Taxi driver!
People can be jailed for not paying a licence to a state owned broadcasting company.
We have the technology to stop people viewing it, like Sky or Netflix, RTE could easily have it set up that you pay to watch.... But RTE are too clever to do something as fair as that!

ohnonotgmail

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I think this says more about the Country we inhabit more so than the F1 Doctor or the Entrepreneurial Taxi driver!
People can be jailed for not paying a licence to a state own owned broadcasting company.
We have the technology to stop people viewing it, like Sky or Netflix, RTE could easily have it set up that you pay to watch.... But RTE are too clever to do something as fair as that!

except they werent jailed for not having a licence.

Busyness1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they were jailed for not paying a fine imposed for not having a licence. Try to read beyond the headline.

What caused them to have the fine? No tv licence, a fine was imposed and was unpaid. The fine stemmed from no tv licence. It was a sequence of events. Try to be less pedantic.

CaptainInsano

Denny_Crane wrote: »

Not really one is being jailed for one thing, one is being jailed for another.

I think we all know what everyone means as being jailed as a result of no TV licence. Needlessly pedantic.

ohnonotgmail

Busyness1 wrote: »

What caused them to have the fine? No tv licence, a fine was imposed and was unpaid. The fine stemmed from no tv licence. It was a sequence of events. Try to be less pedantic.

perhaps you might try to be more correct. this is legal discussion not AH.

ShowMeTheCash

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I think this says more about the Country we inhabit more so than the F1 Doctor or the Entrepreneurial Taxi driver!
People can be jailed for not paying a licence to a state own owned broadcasting company.
We have the technology to stop people viewing it, like Sky or Netflix, RTE could easily have it set up that you pay to watch.... But RTE are too clever to do something as fair as that!

except they werent jailed for not having a licence.

last poster was correct you are being pedantic or deliberately obtuse, take your pick!

Denny_Crane

Busyness1 wrote: »

What caused them to have the fine? No tv licence, a fine was imposed and was unpaid. The fine stemmed from no tv licence. It was a sequence of events. Try to be less pedantic.

Again one is jailed for something, the other is being jailed for being in default. Once someone doesn't pay the fine imposed it's a standard mechanism. It's hardly pedantic to correct someone on the punshment given in a discussion about punishments given.

Kimbot

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I think this says more about the Country we inhabit more so than the F1 Doctor or the Entrepreneurial Taxi driver!
People can be jailed for not paying a licence to a state owned broadcasting company.
We have the technology to stop people viewing it, like Sky or Netflix, RTE could easily have it set up that you pay to watch.... But RTE are too clever to do something as fair as that!

No, you mean to say "People can get jailed for not paying the fine for not having a TV licence".
Its simple, you dont pay your license you get fined, dont pay your fine then go to jail. (A judge would hardly hand you another fine since you didnt pay the first one so jail is the only option left)

1st dalkey dalkey

Denny_Crane wrote: »

There are reams of studies, commentaries and jurisprudental musings on the subject. It's not really fair for me to comment as I'm hugely in the camp of, for all it's faults, judicial dicreation in liberal democracies is the way to go. Mandatory sentances create certanity but huge issues with injustice.

The US is aprim example of a jutice system ran by public opinion and it's generally considered to be in a right state.

Agree that the US system has it's flaws.

Don't agree that our current form of judicial discretion can't be improved upon.

Most laws currently outline a range of possible penalties, whether monetary or custodial. Yet even these are regularly flouted by some judges.

In the mentioned case it appears the Judge refrained from imposing a conviction not because of lack of evidence, but because of the impact of the conviction i.e. the taxi driver might lose his licence. If there is legislation passed by government preventing such convicted drivers from having a taxi licence, it is not the place of a Judge to circumvent that legislation.

ShowMeTheCash

jonnycivic wrote: »

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I think this says more about the Country we inhabit more so than the F1 Doctor or the Entrepreneurial Taxi driver!
People can be jailed for not paying a licence to a state owned broadcasting company.
We have the technology to stop people viewing it, like Sky or Netflix, RTE could easily have it set up that you pay to watch.... But RTE are too clever to do something as fair as that!

No, you mean to say "People can get jailed for not paying the fine for not having a TV licence".
Its simple, you dont pay your license you get fined, dont pay your fine then go to jail. (A judge would hardly hand you another fine since you didnt pay the first one so jail is the only option left)

I have no idea what point you are trying to make?

Busyness1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

perhaps you might try to be more correct. this is legal discussion not AH.

This is boards, not the law society. Try to be a bit less pedantic.

ohnonotgmail

We truly are living in a post-truth society.

Kimbot

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I have no idea what point you are trying to make?

The point is it has nothing to do with RTE, these people were locked up for not paying a fine (The courts decided this, RTE are not the judiciary)!

A fine can be occured from numerous sources and failure to pay a court fine will result in jail time.

Denny_Crane

This has got a bit too juniour infants even for me.

Robbo

Busyness1 wrote: »

This is boards, not the law society. Try to be a bit less pedantic.

Moderation: ...and this is Legal Discussion where the charter applies and we expect a higher standard of discourse than on AH.

ShowMeTheCash

jonnycivic wrote: »

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I think this says more about the Country we inhabit more so than the F1 Doctor or the Entrepreneurial Taxi driver!
People can be jailed for not paying a licence to a state owned broadcasting company.
We have the technology to stop people viewing it, like Sky or Netflix, RTE could easily have it set up that you pay to watch.... But RTE are too clever to do something as fair as that!

No, you mean to say "People can get jailed for not paying the fine for not having a TV licence".
Its simple, you dont pay your license you get fined, dont pay your fine then go to jail. (A judge would hardly hand you another fine since you didnt pay the first one so jail is the only option left)

Let me explain the point I was making.
A TV licence is just a another way for the government to tax you on something under the guise of something else.
The idea being, if you own a TV you need to pay the state owned broadcasting company a fee. It used to be the case people would say "Well I do not watch RTE so why should I pay the licence??" Or even in some cases where there there was no signal in an area and again people would ask "Why should I pay the fee??", but there was no way to stop the broadcast so the law was put in place if you owned a device that can pick up on the signal you need to pay the licence regardless if you watch RTE or even regardless if there was a signal in your area.
Point I was making even today, with today's technology, the idea of enforcing a TV licence fine or jail time to enforce the fine is criminal.

ShowMeTheCash

jonnycivic wrote: »

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I have no idea what point you are trying to make?

The point is it has nothing to do with RTE, these people were locked up for not paying a fine (The courts decided this, RTE are not the judiciary)!

A fine can be occured from numerous sources and failure to pay a court fine will result in jail time.

You think RTE have nothing to do with the laws around the licence fee?
Let me take you back to the theme of this thread...

1st dalkey dalkey

Apologies to all for mentioning the TV licence.

Must be more mindful in the future

Busyness1

1st dalkey dalkey wrote: »

Apologies to all for mentioning the TV licence.

Must be more mindful in the future

Yeah, the whole point has been lost in translation by those in the law society.:(

ShowMeTheCash

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

We truly are living in a post-truth society.

Can I ask what is your point? Do you have one?
Jailed for not paying a fine, fined for not paying something that some may argue as dubious... What is your point?

ohnonotgmail

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Can I ask what is your point? Do you have one?
Jailed for not paying a fine, fined for not paying something that some may argue as dubious... What is your point?

My point is that one is not the same as the other. How is that not clear?

ShowMeTheCash

1st dalkey dalkey wrote: »

Apologies to all for mentioning the TV licence.

Must be more mindful in the future

I think the TV licence is actually a better example. The OP I guess was trying to draw attention to the duplicitous nature of your legal system, but upon exception the example given was perhaps a little more gray than black and white. The TV Licence example however I think is something that warrants the question "What is happening to this country?"

1st dalkey dalkey

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

My point is that one is not the same as the other. How is that not clear?

It is quite clearly off topic.