Woman stabbed near IFSC

weldoninhio

WrenBoy wrote: »

Playstation 4 or 5 ?

I believe lags are only allowed PS2s as they have no internet accessibility.

Allinall

Mimon wrote: »

You stab someone in the neck of course there is a good chance of the person dying. He was using a deadly weapon. Hopefully just an initial charge and they get the little ****er on attempted murder.

You need to understand the charge of murder.

There must be intent to kill.

They are obviously of the view that there wasn’t intent to kill.

Witcher

Deleted User wrote: »

I think they are charging him with assault causing harm. The most lenient charge they can apply i'd imagine. Not sure why they give these scumbags the benefit of the doubt. Why not push for attempted murder.

The DPP has to direct that charge, the Gardai don't decide on murder charges.

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

Would that be the same charge if he’d say broken her arm? I get that he probably didn’t plan on killing her - although who knows for sure - but it’s pure good fortune she didn’t die. Is there any legal distinction between assault that causes life threatening injuries and those that don’t?

Section 4, non fatal offences against the person act, 'causing serious harm'

But the DPP would have to read a file first before they would decide on this charge. They can still charge him with whatever the DPP sees fit.

Mimon

Allinall wrote: »

You need to understand the charge of murder.

There must be intent to kill.

They are obviously of the view that there wasn’t intent to kill.

I do understand it.

Anyone who takes a knife and puts it into another human being in an area that has major blood vessels near the surface was trying to kill that person.

Whether they can get a conviction is relevant alright but he was trying to murder her.

Mimon

Definitely a case for attempted murder under these definitions. Bolded bit explains intent here.

From https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rMurderandInvoluntaryMS.pdf

"Murder in Ireland
2.02 In Ireland the mental element for murder is laid down by section 4
of the Criminal Justice Act 1964, which provides:
“4(1) Where a person kills another unlawfully the killing shall not
be murder unless the accused person intended to kill, or cause
serious injury to, some person, whether the person actually killed or
not.
(2) The accused person shall be presumed to have intended the
natural and probable consequences of his conduct; but this
presumption may be rebutted.”"

2.06 Intention may, however, bear a wider meaning in Irish law than it
does in England.5
A major problem with the law governing “intention” is
that the legal meaning of the word is so uncertain. It is not clear what
exactly “intention” means in Ireland. As well as conscious object or
purpose, “intention” may extend to foresight of a probability of death,6
or it may be confined to foresight of a virtual certainty.

Allinall

Mimon wrote: »

I

Whether they can get a conviction is relevant alright but he was trying to murder her.

You don’t know that.

Mimon

Allinall wrote: »

You don’t know that.

Look at my post above. Intent to cause serious harm can be enough for a murder conviction under Irish law.

givyjoe

Allinall wrote: »

You don’t know that.

What does someone thrusting a knife into someone's kneck intend to do? If you stick a knife in someone's kneck, what do you think will happen?

AndrewJRenko

Mimon wrote: »

I guarantee you little scummers wouldn't have free reign in a lot of countries.

Try throwing bangers at someone in the middle of the day in Singapore.

What is happening here is not working. When you have people with over 100 convictions out walking the streets what we have is not working.

Perhaps you missed my question, which was;


Have any of these hard-nosed policies actually worked anywhere in the world?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Perhaps you missed my question, which was;


Have any of these hard-nosed policies actually worked anywhere in the world?

Singapore.

Full enforcement of their laws deters people from committing crimes.

https://medium.com/@xreasons/7-reasons-why-singapores-crime-rate-is-so-low-d695a030426c

In 2019, the crime rate in Singapore increased by 16.3% to 35,209 reported cases, up from 32,126 reported incidents in 2018. ... If scams were excluded, the total number of reported crimes would have decreased by 4.6% to 25,707 cases in 2019, from 26, 937 in 2018.

Singapore was proud to announce a period of 179 crime-free days in 2019 without any reports of snatch theft, robbery, or burglary.

https://www.osac.gov/Country/Singapore/Content/Detail/Report/7f0cc2bc-ba9b-4485-b58b-1861aa0f8fc3

FreudianSlippers

Mimon wrote: »

Judges also have no clue what it is like on the ground. They should have to live half the year in some of the roughest parts of Ireland as part of the job.

This is honestly so bloody silly that it's almost funny. Most judges working criminal courts are there because they have worked their entire careers as criminal law practitioners of some description and mainly, I'd suggest, as solicitors for defendants. To suggest they're disconnected from reality would go against countless examples of under-sentencing for even repeat offenders - if anything this country has a severe issue with lack of accountability for offences because of the pro-defendant nature of criminal judges.

I'm not proposing a US-style jails system, but it's clear that the current incarceration system is in no way a sufficient deterrent.

FreudianSlippers

Mimon wrote: »

Definitely a case for attempted murder under these definitions. Bolded bit explains intent here.

From https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rMurderandInvoluntaryMS.pdf

"Murder in Ireland
2.02 In Ireland the mental element for murder is laid down by section 4
of the Criminal Justice Act 1964, which provides:
“4(1) Where a person kills another unlawfully the killing shall not
be murder unless the accused person intended to kill, or cause
serious injury to, some person, whether the person actually killed or
not.
(2) The accused person shall be presumed to have intended the
natural and probable consequences of his conduct; but this
presumption may be rebutted.”"

2.06 Intention may, however, bear a wider meaning in Irish law than it
does in England.5
A major problem with the law governing “intention” is
that the legal meaning of the word is so uncertain. It is not clear what
exactly “intention” means in Ireland. As well as conscious object or
purpose, “intention” may extend to foresight of a probability of death,6
or it may be confined to foresight of a virtual certainty.

Quoting from the LRC and then failing to actually post the whole quote is rather misleading (intentionally or otherwise), particularly when literally the next sentence is "The lack of clarity is unsatisfactory" and it goes on to say "clarity on the meaning of the necessary mental element is of paramount importance. In the Consultation Paper on Homicide: The Mental Element in Murder the Commission recommended that the term “intention” be defined by statute in order to introduce clarity and certainty into this area of the law."

In other words, they are very clearly making a point contrary to what you're suggesting that they are.

Thelonious Monk

I don't think you can compare Singapore to Ireland at any level. They follow rules there regardless of sentencing for crimes. This is why Covid outbreaks have been dealt with a lot better in Asia. They wont even cross a road without a green man. Systems like that are just not applicable to Irish people or probably anywhere in Europe.

Galwayhurl

Is there a chance that he will be put in the Juvenile Diversion programme? I presume it's too serious for that?

suicide_circus

Does this Juvenile Diversion Programme involve breaking rocks and wearing an orange jumpsuit with ankle manacle accessories?

AndrewJRenko

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Singapore.

https://medium.com/@xreasons/7-reasons-why-singapores-crime-rate-is-so-low-d695a030426c

https://www.osac.gov/Country/Singapore/Content/Detail/Report/7f0cc2bc-ba9b-4485-b58b-1861aa0f8fc3

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I don't think you can compare Singapore to Ireland at any level. They follow rules there regardless of sentencing for crimes. This is why Covid outbreaks have been dealt with a lot better in Asia. They wont even cross a road without a green man. Systems like that are just not applicable to Irish people or probably anywhere in Europe.

Singapore is a very, very different culture - basically a culture of deference and non-questioning of any kind of authority. We're a very long way off that.

They also have the death penalty and very heavy CCTV coverage, so I can't see either of those initiatives getting majority support here.

They are supported by the near-slave labour treatment of immigrant workers, subsidising the high salaries of their own people. The high salaries do act as a deterrent to petty crime, so maybe you'd be in favour of significant increases in the minimum wage here to take the same approach?

BTW, their crime levels for 2019 were a nine year high, and they got LEAST happy country in a Gallup poll, so I'm not sure they'd be a great role model for us.

Mimon

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Quoting from the LRC and then failing to actually post the whole quote is rather misleading (intentionally or otherwise), particularly when literally the next sentence is "The lack of clarity is unsatisfactory" and it goes on to say "clarity on the meaning of the necessary mental element is of paramount importance. In the Consultation Paper on Homicide: The Mental Element in Murder the Commission recommended that the term “intention” be defined by statute in order to introduce clarity and certainty into this area of the law."

In other words, they are very clearly making a point contrary to what you're suggesting that they are.

I'm talking about the reality of how it is interpreted in Irish law. Whether the LRC thinks it's right or wrong is irrelevant. What do you want me to do, copy and paste the whole thing?

Mimon

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is honestly so bloody silly that it's almost funny. Most judges working criminal courts are there because they have worked their entire careers as criminal law practitioners of some description and mainly, I'd suggest, as solicitors for defendants. To suggest they're disconnected from reality would go against countless examples of under-sentencing for even repeat offenders - if anything this country has a severe issue with lack of accountability for offences because of the pro-defendant nature of criminal judges.

I'm not proposing a US-style jails system, but it's clear that the current incarceration system is in no way a sufficient deterrent.

I wasn't entirely being serious in it being a suggestion that would happen in the real world ffs :rolleyes:

My point stands that they are clueless about anything outside their own ivory tower bubbles. You just made my point for me as the reason I suggested they get a taste of real life would mean they would likely be a victim of the scumbags/see people be victims of scumbags and would be less pro defendant. You're all over the place with your really silly reply.

Rocking up to court as a barrister and being involved in cases is nothing like actually being around criminals/scumbags in everyday life.

Galwayhurl

Galwayhurl wrote: »

Is there a chance that he will be put in the Juvenile Diversion programme? I presume it's too serious for that?

With our judicial system yes its a possibility.

He should be going away for 15 years imo.

Lollipops23

Deleted User wrote: »

With our judicial system yes its a possibility.

He should be going away for 15 years imo.

Agreed- I'm all for intervention programs for less serious/non violent crimes, but he very nearly murdered that woman. Any kid capable of that is not safe to have on the streets and needs to be in a secure unit.

marieholmfan

Mimon wrote: »

I wasn't entirely being serious in it being a suggestion that would happen in the real world ffs :rolleyes:

My point stands that they are clueless about anything outside their own ivory tower bubbles. You just made my point for me as the reason I suggested they get a taste of real life would mean they would likely be a victim of the scumbags/see people be victims of scumbags and would be less pro defendant. You're all over the place with your really silly reply.

Rocking up to court as a barrister and being involved in cases is nothing like actually being around criminals/scumbags in everyday life.

No matter how appalling someone is ; if they hand you €750 a day alot can be forgiven.


At the same time while I agree that we MUST reintroduce the death penalty and use it extensively it must NEVER be used against juveniles.

People saying it's not attempted murder because he may not have intended to kill her - stabbing someone in the neck is tantamount to attempted murder, you know very well there's a very high chance of hitting a major blood vessel causing death...
"Yeah I shot him in the head but I didn't mean to kill him!" - get lost

Mimon

Batrachotox wrote: »

People saying it's not attempted murder because he may not have intended to kill her - stabbing someone in the neck is tantamount to attempted murder, you know very well there's a very high chance of hitting a major blood vessel causing death...
"Yeah I shot him in the head but I didn't mean to kill him!" - get lost

Yes. Irish law allows for someone to be done for murder/attempted murder if they carry out an act that could be seen to have a strong probability of killing someone i.e. Doing something deliberately that seriously endangers someone's life is classified as intent to murder in Ireland.

In England I've seen the aftermath of someone getting stabbed in the neck and the amount of blood gushing out was unreal. Blood was in a flow like you would get from a hose.

AndrewJRenko

marieholmfan wrote: »

At the same time while I agree that we MUST reintroduce the death penalty and use it extensively it must NEVER be used against juveniles.

Who are you agreeing with? I don't think anyone suggested 'extensive use of the death penalty' for you to be agreeing with.

The chances of getting public support for extensive barbaric punishment is negligible.

Fred Cryton

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They also have the death penalty and very heavy CCTV coverage, so I can't see either of those initiatives getting majority support here.

We need very heavy CCTV in problem areas of Dublin. No excuse not to. If you're doing nothing wrong then you won't have anything to worry about.


Of course the locals don't want it because it's set up to catch them in the act.

Thelonious Monk

marieholmfan wrote: »

At the same time while I agree that we MUST reintroduce the death penalty and use it extensively it must NEVER be used against juveniles.

What planet are you living on?

Chinasea

Fred Cryton wrote: »

We need very heavy CCTV in problem areas of Dublin. No excuse not to. If you're doing nothing wrong then you won't have anything to worry about.


Of course the locals don't want it because it's set up to catch them in the act.

Seems like most of the time there is some flaky banana republic reason as to why CCTV evidence cannot be used / shared.

So although I fully agree it ends up often being futile.

Standman

Tyrone212 wrote: »

You'd really want to educate yourself about crime in Mexico. There's kids there who are hit men. Gang crime involving youngsters is off the scale. To imply Ireland is worse is just staggering. Such a naive comment. Don't see what this has to do with far left either but sure get your wee nonsensical rant in.

On a similar note, I've talked to Brazilians who live in Dublin and while they acknowledge the harassment from inner-city teenagers is an issue, they say it's nowhere near the same league as the danger they face in their cities.

One woman told me how much she appreciated the sense of safety there is walking around at night in Dublin compared to her city in Brazil. Completely different world.

Feisar

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Who are you agreeing with? I don't think anyone suggested 'extensive use of the death penalty' for you to be agreeing with.

The chances of getting public support for extensive barbaric punishment is negligible.

We want the problem solved however we haven't the stomach for the solution.