Crap Sentencing Thread

DrumSteve

This weeks crap sentencing is brought to you by Judge Melanie Greally:

http://www.thejournal.ie/prison-cyclist-review-extension-3254296-Feb2017/

AN UNLICENSED DRIVER who “ploughed into” a 62-year-old cyclist – killing him – and drove away has been given an extra nine months in jail following an appeal by prosecutors.
Christopher Coleman (27), of Reuben Street, in the capital, had pleaded guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to dangerous driving causing the death of Eugene Maher (62) at Clontarf Road, Dublin on 30 June 2015. Coleman also admitted leaving the scene of the crash and driving without insurance.
He was sentenced to two-and-a-half years imprisonment by Judge Melanie Greally on 23 June last and was also disqualified from driving for 15 years.

But wait, there's more!

The DPP successfully sought a review of Coleman’s sentence on grounds that it was “unduly lenient”.

The Court of Appeal resentenced Coleman today to six years imprisonment with the final two years and nine months suspended. The three-judge court effectively increased his jail time by nine months.

An extra nine months! That'll learn him wont it.

She said the car crashed into Maher, somebody “popped out”, took a look at the man on the ground, got back into the car and the car drove away. Bystanders, in response to this, were saying “don’t drive off” and other drivers were flashing their lights, Brennan said.

This mans life is worth less than 4 years in prison. This country is a ****show.

johnnyskeleton

She should have sentenced him to go back in time and not knock the cyclist off his bike. That's the only fair sentence. Everything else is going to be inferior.

Gatling

Increased but suspended most of the increase bit of a pointless exercise love to know why they suspended 2 years and 9 months of the increase on the leaniant sentence

DrumSteve

Gatling wrote: »

Increased but suspended most of the increase bit of a pointless exercise love to know why they suspended 2 years and 9 months of the increase on the leaniant sentence

Can't figure that out myself.

He was already disqualified from driving.

Gatling

DrumSteve wrote: »

Can't figure that out myself.

He was already disqualified from driving.

Apparently he was from Fatima mansions and was in a 12 year relationship mitigating circumstances

The sentencing judge noted that Coleman had been raised under very challenging circumstances in Fatima Mansions. “Against the odds,” she noted, Coleman did not succumb to a life of drugs or alcoholic abus and, apart from the road traffic matters, had not led a life characterised by criminality, the sentencing judge noted.

"He was in full time employment and had been in a stable relationship for 12 years at the time of the offence.

In view of the mitigation, the court suspended the final two years and nine months. The 15 year disqualification remained in place."

Link


http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/its-as-bad-as-going-out-and-killing-somebody-by-the-hand-of-a-gun-or-by-your-fist-unlicensed-driver-who-killed-cyclist-62-in-hit-and-run-given-extra-jail-time-35476155.html

flatface

surely the sentence length is increased by the crime of fleeing the scene? If he had stayed at the scene what would he have got? 6 months suspended? The system is loco.

infogiver

DrumSteve wrote: »

Can't figure that out myself.

He was already disqualified from driving.

But he had a disadvantaged upbringing in Fatima Mansions.
When that happens you get a certificate when your 18 which you produce every time you make a "mistake" so all the woolly handwringing left wing **** who run the country can pat you on the head and apologise to you for inconveniencing you by making you get out of bed to appear in court.

DrumSteve

Gatling wrote: »

Apparently he was from Fatima mansions and was in a 12 year relationship mitigating circumstances

The sentencing judge noted that Coleman had been raised under very challenging circumstances in Fatima Mansions. “Against the odds,” she noted, Coleman did not succumb to a life of drugs or alcoholic abus and, apart from the road traffic matters, had not led a life characterised by criminality, the sentencing judge noted.

"He was in full time employment and had been in a stable relationship for 12 years at the time of the offence.

In view of the mitigation, the court suspended the final two years and nine months. The 15 year disqualification remained in place."

Link


http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/its-as-bad-as-going-out-and-killing-somebody-by-the-hand-of-a-gun-or-by-your-fist-unlicensed-driver-who-killed-cyclist-62-in-hit-and-run-given-extra-jail-time-35476155.html

The thing is they disqualifed him the last time too, if he had of heeded this ban, the cyclist in question would still be alive.

While not being involved in criminality is all well and good, he showed how much respect he has for the law by driving that car.

Gatling

DrumSteve wrote: »

The thing is they disqualifed him the last time too, if he had of heeded this ban, the cyclist in question would still be alive.

He's actually never held a license and had 10 previous motor convictions out of 15 so banning him had zero effect on him

tomofson

While I agree with your sentiment, it is important you take in the fact this was not murder and was a genuine accident.

stimpson

tomofson wrote: »

While I agree with your sentiment, it is important you take in the fact this was not murder and was a genuine accident.

Did he accidentally leave the scene?

tomofson

stimpson wrote: »

Did he accidentally leave the scene?

If I was to hazard a guess I'd say not that wasn't an accident, but maybe a moment of panic.

eamonnq

tomofson wrote: »

While I agree with your sentiment, it is important you take in the fact this was not murder and was a genuine accident.

A genuine accident ??!!!

"The car had been seen driving dangerously, at speed and on the wrong side of the road. Witnesses said people were hanging out of the window interacting with another car.

Ms Brennan said the car was gauged to be travelling at speeds between 72 and 79 km/hr in a 50km/hr zone.
She said the car crashed into Mr Maher, somebody “popped out”, took a look at the man on the ground, got back into the car and the car drove away. Bystanders, in response to this, were saying “don't drive off” and other drivers were flashing their lights, Ms Brennan said."

Gatling

tomofson wrote: »

If I was to hazard a guess I'd say not that wasn't an accident, but maybe a moment of panic.

Seen to be speeding , driving erratically and driving on the wrong side of the road and highly likely alcohol involved

r93kaey5p2izun

How is being in a LTR a mitigating factor? That's disgraceful.

GritBiscuit

While I often disagree with it, I can usually follow the general logic of the Irish legal system - but the sentencing around driving crimes just baffles me, particularly those involving fatalities vs cars or drivers that have no right to be on the road...that's not an accident, that's wanton disregard for both the law and everybody else on the road.

Drivers are licenced because their vehicles turn into deadly weapons in the wrong hands. While I appreciate guns only have one function, Mr Maher's family have a point. If I recklessly shoot a gun that I've no licence for - especially having previously been banned from ownership - and killed someone, I'd quite rightly be looking at a lengthy stretch regardless of "mitigating circumstances"...but somehow drive a 2 ton lump of metal at speed/dangerously/unlicenced and uninsured and it's all just an unfortunate accident, here's a slap on the wrist.

I'd love to see a fixed X-year jail-time penalty addition for driving without a licence and/or insurance/NCT (or whatever else a vehicle or its driver requires to legally be allowed on the road) in death by dangerous/reckless driving cases - and all to run consecutively...none of this concurrent nonsense. If new prisons need to be built, so be it. Something has to change this prevailing laissez-faire attitude by career criminals, the judiciary and legislatures alike towards behaviour that endangers, destroys or ends the lives of innocent law-abiding citizens.

Noveight

Incredibly lenient.

It was a good idea to make a thread for all arguably lenient sentences. I see it being a busy one, unfortunately.

Lackey

tomofson wrote: »

While I agree with your sentiment, it is important you take in the fact this was not murder and was a genuine accident.

I call bulls@&t on every this every time.

'I stabbed him but didn't mean to kill him'
'I jumped on his head, but I didn't mean to kill him'
'I drove like a psycho, but didn't mean to kill him'

Everyone knows 'if I do this...x could happen' wipes out the any excuse of 'accident' when it involves crimes like this.

Noveight

Noveight wrote: »

Incredibly lenient.

It was a good idea to make a thread for all arguably lenient sentences. I see it being a busy one, unfortunately.

But posters should, be reference to other decisions and sentencing precedents, cogently argue why the Courts - or in this case 2 Courts - are wrong. And it should be more than "well...it just sounds outrageous".

DrumSteve

Deleted User wrote: »

But posters should, be reference to other decisions and sentencing precedents, cogently argue why the Courts - or in this case 2 Courts - are wrong. And it should be more than "well...it just sounds outrageous".

A man kills another man while driving.

The killer is unlicensed and already banned from driving. Fled the scene of the crime also.

That merits a lot more than the time he will spend in prison.

GritBiscuit

Deleted User wrote: »

But posters should, be reference to other decisions and sentencing precedents, cogently argue why the Courts - or in this case 2 Courts - are wrong. And it should be more than "well...it just sounds outrageous".

Does it tho? As I'm sure you'll be well aware it was only back in 1990 that the marital rape exemption was removed from Irish statute and thus the judiciary would no longer consider these perfectly lawful attacks, even when perpetrated against a partner who had left the marriage! Sometimes laws and sentencing ARE just "outrageous" and need to be changed in line with the changing habits and outrage towards particular crimes in society...

r93kaey5p2izun

Deleted User wrote: »

But posters should, be reference to other decisions and sentencing precedents, cogently argue why the Courts - or in this case 2 Courts - are wrong. And it should be more than "well...it just sounds outrageous".

I understand your point I think Conor - that the sentence is legally correct given reference to precedent - but I don't think that's the aim of the thread. It might depend on your terms of reference for leniency though - you may enjoy arguing the legal precedents (and undoubtedly you are correct and will win the argument), but others are surely thinking about ordinary joe soap's feelings on what constitutes justice and fair punishment in our society.

Many people feel the precedent is wrong and that sentences are frequently inadequate, not that judges are necessarily imposing lenient sentences wrongly. I trust that judges are, for the most part, correctly applying the law and precedent etc when they decide on sentences, and that the appeals process takes care of errors. But how do these sentencing norms and precedents come about and how can they be changed if the majority of people feel they are inadequate? Who first decided growing up in Fatima Mansions or similar constitutes mitigating circumstances? If most people in our society feel tougher sentencing is needed then how do we work to achieve that? Genuine question because I'm sick and tired of having my life blighted by people with a long rap sheet of violent crimes who spend very little time in jail and are free to ruin people's lives then cry "but Neilstown" and get a suspended sentence.

Winterlong

We need more prisons.
Harsher sentences in fairer courts.
Better policing.
Better sense of justice for ordinary decent people who manage to get thru life without harming other people or their property.

I would be happy to take a tax hike to pay for this.

CIARAN_BOYLE

There was a request recently from the deposit to the courts of criminal appeal to issue sentencing guidelines for dangerous driving offenses. The courts refused.

DrumSteve

DrumSteve wrote: »

A man kills another man while driving

It can also be put as "a man kills another man but did not intend to".

Both are correct. Either way, it should not be considered next or near the category where intent is involved.

Yourself isit

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But posters should, be reference to other decisions and sentencing precedents, cogently argue why the Courts - or in this case 2 Courts - are wrong. And it should be more than "well...it just sounds outrageous".

Why can't we point to other jurisdictions?

Two men got ten years recently on England for not servicing a vehicle properly. Not driving it incorrectly.

The argument that we have to reference other decisions by a court system we consider defective makes little sense.

Noveight

Deleted User wrote: »

But posters should, be reference to other decisions and sentencing precedents, cogently argue why the Courts - or in this case 2 Courts - are wrong. And it should be more than "well...it just sounds outrageous".

Indeed, absolutely. It would certainly make for an interesting thread, a comparison-based approach.

Yourself isit

Noveight wrote: »

Indeed, absolutely. It would certainly make for an interesting thread, a comparison-based approach.

A comparison based approach within Ireland would be pointless.

Samuel T. Cogley

I'm the first to jump on these threads to essentially agree with pleas of mitigation. Being from Fatima mansions has absolutely nothing, not one thing with one's driving. The current ten year maximum sentence for dangerous driving is a joke in of it self. This lad should have been looking at ten years minimum.

Kitsunegari

GritBiscuit wrote: »

While I often disagree with it, I can usually follow the general logic of the Irish legal system - but the sentencing around driving crimes just baffles me, particularly those involving fatalities vs cars or drivers that have no right to be on the road...that's not an accident, that's wanton disregard for both the law and everybody else on the road.

Drivers are licenced because their vehicles turn into deadly weapons in the wrong hands. While I appreciate guns only have one function, Mr Maher's family have a point. If I recklessly shoot a gun that I've no licence for - especially having previously been banned from ownership - and killed someone, I'd quite rightly be looking at a lengthy stretch regardless of "mitigating circumstances"...but somehow drive a 2 ton lump of metal at speed/dangerously/unlicenced and uninsured and it's all just an unfortunate accident, here's a slap on the wrist.

I'd love to see a fixed X-year jail-time penalty addition for driving without a licence and/or insurance/NCT (or whatever else a vehicle or its driver requires to legally be allowed on the road) in death by dangerous/reckless driving cases - and all to run consecutively...none of this concurrent nonsense. If new prisons need to be built, so be it. Something has to change this prevailing laissez-faire attitude by career criminals, the judiciary and legislatures alike towards behaviour that endangers, destroys or ends the lives of innocent law-abiding citizens.

You follow the logic of continually releasing re-offenders back into society? I really find it hard to understand the logic of our criminal justice system. We need to introduced mandatory sentences for repeat offenders and introduce longer sentancing across the board. We're crap at deterring crime and rehabilitating prisoners.

Samuel T. Cogley

Kitsunegari wrote: »

You follow the logic of continually releasing re-offenders back into society? I really find it hard to understand the logic of our criminal justice system. We need to introduced mandatory sentences for repeat offenders and introduce longer sentancing across the board. We're crap at deterring crime and rehabilitating prisoners.

Yeah, see the problem is that doesn't work.

You need to rehabilitate - which to be fair you did call for. Longer sentences do nothing to reduce crime, expect in very certain circumstances.

Grayson

There was a thread on here a few years ago and someone provided an article in which judges had said that most cases end up before the court of appeal so they tend to sentence lightly in cases where there's any kind of fuzziness. They do this knowing that it will be appealed by the prosecution and the sentence will be increased on appeal. It's considered safer than imposing a lengthy sentence and having it shortened on appeal.

(BTW, that doesn't explain the stuff about a long term relationship. It just explains why the initial sentences are sometimes lower).

Samuel T. Cogley

Grayson wrote: »

There was a thread on here a few years ago and someone provided an article in which judges had said that most cases end up before the court of appeal so they tend to sentence lightly in cases where there's any kind of fuzziness. They do this knowing that it will be appealed by the prosecution and the sentence will be increased on appeal. It's considered safer than imposing a lengthy sentence and having it shortened on appeal.

(BTW, that doesn't explain the stuff about a long term relationship. It just explains why the initial sentences are sometimes lower).

If that's true it may have also been a way of reducing the CoA case load. Seems unlikely to me but I take you at your word there was an article about it.

GritBiscuit

Kitsunegari wrote: »

You follow the logic of continually releasing re-offenders back into society? I really find it hard to understand the logic of our criminal justice system.

I can follow the very logical approach the legal system takes to convictions and sentencing with strict court hierarchy setting precedent which lower courts are then bound to follow - that's not to say I agree or wouldn't like to see significant changes...there's a fine line between justice and retribution, I wouldn't like to see the pendulum swing too far the other way, either.

learn_more

This one has me fuming to be honest not least because of the judges logic that seems to be applied in many if not all cases where the accused is from a lower non-working class demographic.

The comments from the judge implies that ppl from said demographic will get lighter sentences than everyone else by default. It is naive to think that these people are not totally aware of this and act accordingly, which has the net effect of them having less of a deterrent than everyone else. I am in no doubt whatsoever that Coleman operates with this attitude and drove as he did precisely because he felt he is somewhat immune from the law. And he would be right too, because he is.

It was horrible seeing the parents speak outside the court today because you can see the extra pain the circumstances of this case and the sentence has caused them. We've head of lenient sentences before but this one is on a differently level of craziness altogether imo.

Puting this guy in prison for much longer probably won't do much to rehabilitate him in any way cause he's prolly too far gone. But it would have alleviated some of the deceases families frustration and grief and more importantly it would sent out a message to people of his ilk that they won't be treated like children when they break the law and the next time they feel like rally driving on the road they might think twice about doing so.

How many years do i need to be in a relationship for before i get a free pass to kill people?
Do i get a badge?

Samuel T. Cogley

bluewolf wrote: »

How many years do i need to be in a relationship for before i get a free pass to kill people?
Do i get a badge?

My experience it's about 6 months.

Sorry Her experience it's about 6 months.

fullstop

Here's another one - disqualified driver, drunk and intentionally knocks down then tries to assault a guard and avoids jail :rolleyes:

Oh, and he had 84 previous convictions.

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/disqualified-driver-84-previous-convictions-10363574

greencap

Noveight wrote: »

Incredibly lenient.

It was a good idea to make a thread for all arguably lenient sentences. I see it being a busy one, unfortunately.

Hoping it gets made a sticky/regular thread.

A little public highlighting of our more comedic sentencings might be a good thing.

learn_more

fullstop wrote: »

Here's another one - disqualified driver, drunk and intentionally knocks down then tries to assault a guard and avoids jail :rolleyes:

Oh, and he had 84 previous convictions.

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/disqualified-driver-84-previous-convictions-10363574

Can't get my head around this at all. There is something really odd going on here and don't know what. It's almost like a decision has been made to not jail your average thicko and focus more on jailing other sorts of ppl for other sorts of crimes.

Samuel T. Cogley

learn_more wrote: »

Can't get my head around this at all. There is something really odd going on here and don't know what. It's almost like a decision has been made to not jail your average thicko and focus more on jailing other sorts of ppl for other sorts of crimes.

It's not overly complicated in fairness but perhaps some context. Irish scumbags almost uniformly get married, have kids and settle down in their 30's. I believe it's UCD's law school that have a problem with this and jump up and down given the opportunity to say it isn't so, so that's not an uncontroversial statement.

However the Judge is looking at jailing this guy for five years, that's a cost to the tax payer of €380,000 (Well more like half that as he'd do more like 30 months) vs. giving him another chance based on his previous 'good' behaviour and job etc. etc. He still has a suspended sentence, and a guilty plea that he got credit for.

The guard can sue him (through MIBI or his insurance) for his injuries. (Unless guards are precluded from doing that while on the job - no pun involving Irish porn intended.)

learn_more

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It's not overly complicated in fairness but perhaps some context. Irish scumbags almost uniformly get married, have kids and settle down in their 30's. I believe it's UCD's law school that have a problem with this and jump up and down given the opportunity to say it isn't so, so that's not an uncontroversial statement.

However the Judge is looking at jailing this guy for five years, that's a cost to the tax payer of €380,000 (Well more like half that as he'd do more like 30 months) vs. giving him another chance based on his previous 'good' behaviour and job etc. etc. He still has a suspended sentence, and a guilty plea that he got credit for.

The guard can sue him (through MIBI or his insurance) for his injuries. (Unless guards are precluded from doing that while on the job - no pun involving Irish porn intended.)

Okay, well just for arguments sake, where is the deterrent? It is said that laws are in place to not just punish but to deter, and make examples of people. In this case there is no punishment and no deterrent as this guy is seen to get off scott free, more or less.

I think assaulting anyone is a very serious crime and is too many times underestimated. I have read some cases where during a pub brawl a person dies. Unintentional yes but the point is thickos need to get into their head that physical assaults could result in totally destroying a persons life. Not much crimes worst than that imo.

As for your profiling of this thicko demographic where you say they invariable end up getting it together, you could apply that to a multitudes of non-ticko crimes, like serious tax evasion or whatever. I would be more inclined to apply this lenient policy to those sorts of crime because assaulting someone is a more serious crime imo.

I don't take your point about the cost. If he have laws then we have to pay to implement them. If we don't want the cost then we might as well not have the laws at all. It's seem odd to go through the motions and then fail to follow through on them at the last minute because of cost.

If we are really going to take a whole new approach to dealing with crimes, punishment and prision etc that's fine but I don't think that's for a Judge to decide. Their job is to implement the law according to predefined rules. Not just make it up as they go along.

Samuel T. Cogley

learn_more wrote: »

Okay, well just for arguments sake, where is the deterrent? It is said that laws are in place to not just punish but to deter, and make examples of people. In this case there is no punishment and no deterrent as this guy is seen to get off scott free, more or less.

I think assaulting anyone is a very serious crime and is too many times underestimated. I have read some cases where during a pub brawl a person dies. Unintentional yes but the point is thickos need to get into their head that physical assaults could result in totally destroying a persons life. Not much crimes worst than that imo.

Problem there is - thickos be thick.

learn_more wrote: »

As for your profiling of this thicko demographic where you say they invariable end up getting it together, you could apply that to a multitudes of non-ticko crimes, like serious tax evasion or whatever. I would be more inclined to apply this lenient policy to those sorts of crime because assaulting someone is a more serious crime imo.

Intelligent people who commit white collar crime are deterred by long sentences.

learn_more wrote: »

I don't take your point about the cost. If he have laws then we have to pay to implement them. If we don't want the cost then we might as well not have the laws at all. It's seem odd to go through the motions and then fail to follow through on them at the last minute because of cost.

It's not my point on cost. If it was up to me I'd happily increase income tax to 75% build 5 new prisons, double the salary and staff numbers of prison officers and rival Norway's prison system drastically cutting crime in the process. Well apart from tax evasion but we have a deterrent there.

learn_more wrote: »

If we are really going to take a whole new approach to dealing with crimes, punishment and prision etc that's fine but I don't think that's for a Judge to decide. Their job is to implement the law according to predefined rules. Not just make it up as they go along.

It really isn't - a Judges job is to Judge on individual cases and people and always has been. Otherwise we could just have Landru do it.

Most of our law comes from Judges making it up as they go along, although lots of it, especially on the criminal side has been codified into legislation. Also in Ireland there is a Constitutional provision severely curtailing Judges ability to continue to make 'common law'.

However, personally, I tend at agree that we should move on from Judges imposing sentences and move that function to a unit in the new prison system. A person only gets out once rehabilitation is complete. We might need to increase income tax a bit more though.

learn_more

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Problem there is - thickos be thick.

Rapists be rapists so ? Just asking.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Intelligent people who commit white collar crime are deterred by long sentences.

So some ppl are deterred through their knowledge of the law. Do we punish ppl more because they are intelligent and are knowledgeable of the law? Again, just askin.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It's not my point on cost. If it was up to me I'd happily increase income tax to 75% build 5 new prisons, double the salary and staff numbers of prison officers and rival Norway's prison system drastically cutting crime in the process. Well apart from tax evasion but we have a deterrent there.

Well I don't see what your point on it is then because you haven't explained it. Your the one that suggested that the judge decided not to jail him on cost grounds. You at least suggested that anyway.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It really isn't - a Judges job is to Judge on individual cases and people and always has been. Otherwise we could just have Landru do it.

Most of our law comes from Judges making it up as they go along, although lots of it, especially on the criminal side has been codified into legislation. Also in Ireland there is a Constitutional provision severely curtailing Judges ability to continue to make 'common law'.

Thank you for your input on that. I stand corrected and I had no idea that that is how it works.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

However, personally, I tend at agree that we should move on from Judges imposing sentences and move that function to a unit in the new prison system. A person only gets out once rehabilitation is complete. We might need to increase income tax a bit more though.

Okay, what your suggesting there is that there is a better way but it is prohibitive because of cost. That's interesting because I don't think cost is stopping anyone from coming up with better ideas as to how to deal will all kinds of crimes even if it can't be done. I'm not really convinced cost is the issue anyway.

Maybe, just my random thoughts, is that punishment isn't really a great idea. In a lot of cases it amounts to retribution, which gives a satisfaction to the victim of crime, but is that really right? Just wandering thoughts. Open to arguments on this.

By the way @Samual T Cogley, I'm really impressed by your knowledge of Star Trek episodes

casscass4444

Every county should have a local goon squad payed for by the tax payer.goon squad are then supplied with one of the blue plastic barrels and allow it to fill with rain water to reduce costs.anybody who reoffends,breaks the law or is generally a nuisance to hard working tax payers should then be gathered up by said goon squad and drowned in the barrel saving taxpayers money by not having to jail them and feed them.dead pond scum could then be used as feed for zoo animals making them some way beneficial.

ED E

Driving a car at a gard? I'm no fan of AGS but that should really really be an instant life sentence. The scrotes lucky, any other state and he'd have been shot through the windscreen.

the_syco

tomofson wrote: »

While I agree with your sentiment, it is important you take in the fact this was not murder and was a genuine accident.

Genuine accident? What the funk?

Driving at high speed.
On the wrong side of the road.
Left the scene of the crime.
No driving license.
Did he even own the car that he had later abandoned?

As for banning him off the road more; how will this magically stop him from doing it again? This only stops law abiding people from driving again!

Winterlong wrote: »

We need more prisons.
Harsher sentences in fairer courts.
Better policing.

The top two get the 3rd, IMO, as currently a lot of the scum will get out same day.

Deleted User wrote: »

It can also be put as "a man kills another man but did not intend to".

Both are correct. Either way, it should not be considered next or near the category where intent is involved.

Running into a crowd whilst swinging a chainsaw that is set to be permanently on; should someone accidentally get injured/killed, should it be seen as an accident if the attacker claims it was not their intent?

casscass4444 wrote: »

dead pond scum could then be used as feed for zoo animals making them some way beneficial.

Could poison the poor animals, though. Fcuk knows what drugs they took.

Minderbinder

I don't understand how people without a licence can purchase a car in the first place. There should be more done to prevent it, including fines for people who sell cars to people without a valid licence, but also a way for them to check the validity of the buyer.

Samuel T. Cogley

learn_more wrote: »

Rapists be rapists so ? Just asking.

Yes generally and peados be peados. There is very little out there (other than the crime it self of course) in terms of punishment that compares to being locked up as a nonce. There are also a group of people predisposed to violent crime. The above groups should be dealt with medically and thoroughly risk assessed before being released and closely monitored. The first group thankfully are monitored but we still release them at some arbitrary time decided by a Judge. Not ideal.

learn_more wrote: »

So some ppl are deterred through their knowledge of the law. Do we punish ppl more because they are intelligent and are knowledgeable of the law? Again, just askin.

Exactly - and this is ultimately a cost saving measure. On the motor crime point though this is another group that can be deterred and the ones that can't deserve what they get. There should be a whole scale crack down on careless, dangerous and driving while banned. The latter attracting a prison sentance for the reminder of the ban. The issue there is expect more car chases as people flee with 'nothing to lose'.

learn_more wrote: »

Well I don't see what your point on it is then because you haven't explained it. Your the one that suggested that the judge decided not to jail him on cost grounds. You at least suggested that anyway.

As a general point we're seeing a reluctance to jail people if it can be helped on, ultimately, cost grounds. This guy - really in two mind to be honest. Suspended sentences are not getting away with it and serve a purpose where someone is genuinely trying.

[People are rather conflating drove at the guard and the injuries btw. He drove at the guard and stopped, then accidentally - which brings in an element of state of mind that is key in criminal law - hit the guy. Recklessness does attract culpability - and rightly so - but it's important to consider all the facts]

learn_more wrote: »

Thank you for your input on that. I stand corrected and I had no idea that that is how it works.

It's important to note, it's not really how it works anymore and rightly so. Even where an offence is purely common law Judges in Ireland can't rewrite that with as much ease as their English counterparts - although it's not easy for them either but the law has to be fluid to allow for new situations. This tends to get done through interpreting legislation now.

However I agree that Judges should be confined to what they do best - the law. It really is making it up - albeit with experience and care - as they go along here. This goes back to the penal nature of our prison system. Serious assault 7 years, then we apply a formula for good behaviour, then we lock people up and then what? Nothing, they just get out and do it again. Now we can say We'll lock them up for ten years but that really is just papering over the cracks with money.

learn_more wrote: »

Okay, what your suggesting there is that there is a better way but it is prohibitive because of cost. That's interesting because I don't think cost is stopping anyone from coming up with better ideas as to how to deal will all kinds of crimes even if it can't be done. I'm not really convinced cost is the issue anyway.

Cost is a massive issue. Conservatively it 76K a year to keep someone in jail. However you're both wrong and right. You're wrong on the cost element. All societies make a decision on the rate of crime they're happy with (relatively low in Ireland) and the cost of their Criminal Justice System (CJS). Increase the cost decrease crime, right? Well there is a third issue.

People want revenge! Sweet revenge - lock them up and throw away the key! So if taken to extremes you end up with the US system which is massive cost and highly ineffective. Although the crime rates in the US are not as bad as people think, and issues tend to be very localized.

So a final (wrong IMHO) option is the low cost, harsh prisons, essentially Kangaroo courts and public lynchings ala certain South American states. Huge crime rates.

Norway and the Scandinavian countries have a holistic prison approach and very little recidivism. This is the model I'd like to see adopted but it's bloody expensive. It's also not the crime free utopia people like me make out when trying to make a point either. They have their fair share of crime and re-offending and if one was on the receiving end I'm sure they'd want the bastard locked up and the crap kicked out of them.

Maybe, just my random thoughts, is that punishment isn't really a great idea. In a lot of cases it amounts to retribution, which gives a satisfaction to the victim of crime, but is that really right? Just wandering thoughts. Open to arguments on this.

Where you're right - if you've managed to not nod off through my waffle - is there is a lack of imagination on how to fix this. Diversion programs, probation, community service, it's all driven my the guards and the courts. There isn't a proper government led approach to this. Now I don't really follow politics but say what you want about Shatter, he was trying to fix it. There have been moves made but there is so much we could do to divert people from prisons - but it's almost uniformly seen as 'a soft touch'.

Of course what we really need is to deal with the issue at it's source and invest in sorting out social issues, but again it's massively expensive.

learn_more wrote: »

By the way @Samual T Cogley, I'm really impressed by your knowledge of Star Trek episodes

Samuel T. Cogley :pac:

the_syco

the_syco wrote: »

Running into a crowd whilst swinging a chainsaw that is set to be permanently on; should someone accidentally get injured/killed, should it be seen as an accident if the attacker claims it was not their intent?

Um...I never said "accident".

And the choices are certainly not "it was either intended or it was an accident".

Noveight

Link - Kicked a Garda in the head and avoided jail? Everything considered I'll admit it's not nearly the worst example of crap sentencing but he's a lucky, lucky boy.

A Ballybofey man who attacked a stranger’s car with a paling post at an agricultural show and then kicked a Garda in the head has avoided going to jail.

John Callaghan, 23, went berserk at the Finn Valley Show in June, 2016.

He was drinking with friends but suddenly picked up a paling post and smashed it through the back windscreen of a stranger’s car causing €1,500 of damage.

Garda Michael Kilcoyne arrived on the scene and had his glasses smashed and received a kick in the head from Callaghan as a struggle ensued.

Callaghan appeared at Letterkenny District Court yesterday charged with a number of offences arising out of the incident at Kilcadden Crossroads on June 25th, 2016.