Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sentencing in case of taking law into one's own hands.

Options
  • 31-05-2018 2:27pm
    #1
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,471 ✭✭✭


    In 2004, a Limerick mother-of-six was sentence to four years imprisonment for killing a man who had bitten her husband in the face.


    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/motherofsix-gets-four-years-for-fatal-stabbing-26016319.html

    Before imposing sentence Judge Carroll Moran said he accepted that Mrs Craig was a dedicated mother but he had to respect the verdict of the jury.
    The judge said it was not self-defence as Mrs Craig had time to go and get the knife which "she must have thrust into the chest of the deceased with force" given the depth of the fatal wound.


    My questions are:


    Why would the judge think that the sentence he was going to impose had anything to do with respect for the jury's verdict? After all, there is no mandatory minimum sentence for manslaughter.


    What might have stopped jurors from acquitting the defendant because of the thought that the deceased "deserved it"?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,645 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    You should probably take it to legal discussion to be honest

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=633


  • Options
    #3
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,471 ✭✭✭political analyst


    riffmongous wrote: »
    You should probably take it to legal discussion to be honest

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=633


    Apologies.


    Previously, a thread that I had started in Legal Discussion was shut down after a few posts. But I shouldn't have let that put me off. Is it possible to have this thread moved to that forum?


  • Options
    #4
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,645 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    political analyst wrote: »
    Apologies.


    Previously, a thread that I had started in Legal Discussion was shut down after a few posts. But I shouldn't have let that put me off. Is it possible to have this thread moved to that forum?

    You could report your first post and ask it to be moved, or PM one of the online mods directly, might be handier


  • Options
    #5
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    political analyst wrote: »
    Why would the judge think that the sentence he was going to impose had anything to do with respect for the jury's verdict? After all, there is no mandatory minimum sentence for manslaughter.
    Manslaughter is a serious conviction. His implication is that allowing for a lenient sentence because she is a "dedicated mother", would be disrespectful of the jury's unanimous finding of guilt. That is, they have found her guilty of a very serious crime, if the judge were to impose a nothing sentence then it would erode the importance and authority of the jury.
    What might have stopped jurors from acquitting the defendant because of the thought that the deceased "deserved it"?
    The fact that it's not a defence to killing someone.

    Aside, googling that case you find the whole thing is a mess, and seems like a case of feuding Limerick families. One man was jailed for sending her death threats while she awaited trial.
    10 days after she was found guilty, her brother was stabbed to death, and another man went to jail for murder.

    A lot of ruined families over petty nonsense.


  • Options
    #6
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    seamus wrote: »
    Manslaughter is a serious conviction. His implication is that allowing for a lenient sentence because she is a "dedicated mother", would be disrespectful of the jury's unanimous finding of guilt. That is, they have found her guilty of a very serious crime, if the judge were to impose a nothing sentence then it would erode the importance and authority of the jury.

    The fact that it's not a defence to killing someone.

    Aside, googling that case you find the whole thing is a mess, and seems like a case of feuding Limerick families. One man was jailed for sending her death threats while she awaited trial.
    10 days after she was found guilty, her brother was stabbed to death, and another man went to jail for murder.

    A lot of ruined families over petty nonsense.

    OT, Seamus, but your new avatar is disturbing


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,471 ✭✭✭political analyst


    seamus wrote: »

    The fact that it's not a defence to killing someone.

    Aside, googling that case you find the whole thing is a mess, and seems like a case of feuding Limerick families. One man was jailed for sending her death threats while she awaited trial.
    10 days after she was found guilty, her brother was stabbed to death, and another man went to jail for murder.

    A lot of ruined families over petty nonsense.


    The reason I mentioned the idea of thinking that a person stabbed to death "deserved it" is that the deceased had bitten the defendant's husband in the face.



    I'm aware that there is such a thing as "jury nullification" - that's what I was driving at.


  • Options
    #8
    YFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 9,717 ✭✭✭YFlyer


    Batman?


  • Options
    #9
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    political analyst wrote: »
    The reason I mentioned the idea of thinking that a person stabbed to death "deserved it" is that the deceased had bitten the defendant's husband in the face.

    I'm aware that there is such a thing as "jury nullification" - that's what I was driving at.
    Sure, but that is slightly different.
    Jury nullification really comes into play when a jury disagrees with the application of the law, or the sentence that comes with a guilty verdict.

    It's not really the same thing when the jury decides that an particular argument is a defence, even though the law says it's not. That's the jury rewriting law as opposed to nullifying it.

    That said, there's no practical difference; a jury could in theory return a not guilty verdict.


  • Options
    #10
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,171 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    seamus wrote: »
    Aside, googling that case you find the whole thing is a mess, and seems like a case of feuding Limerick families. One man was jailed for sending her death threats while she awaited trial.
    10 days after she was found guilty, her brother was stabbed to death, and another man went to jail for murder.




    Did he also get a 4-year sentence and a kind word from the judge for being a good father?


    BTW, OP, how are you only receiving news from 2004 now? You living in Athlone or something? Wait til you get a load of this new Facebook thing in a few years


  • Options
    #11
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,471 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Did he also get a 4-year sentence and a kind word from the judge for being a good father?


    BTW, OP, how are you only receiving news from 2004 now? You living in Athlone or something? Wait til you get a load of this new Facebook thing in a few years


    I remember reading about it at the time. It's only now that I've thought of starting a thread on it.



    I know it's a random OP. But isn't that what After Hours is for?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement