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, Murder and Hate Crimes

Options
124

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 55,704 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Been saying this years.

    real scum need permanent removal.

    the biggest problem is defining real scum…

    as well as our society allowing real scum back onto the streets to hurt again.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,177 ✭✭✭Fandymo


    So leniency because she was too weak to do what she attempted to do??



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,360 ✭✭✭Jequ0n


    According to the article the motive for the attack is unknown/ uncertain. There is likewise no suggestion that she was “too weak” to cause more damage. You are being dramatic.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,177 ✭✭✭Fandymo


    He and others in the apartment overpowered her and took the knife off her. Did she bring her own knife to his apartment to butter his toast for him??



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,360 ✭✭✭Jequ0n


    Maybe she did. None of us here know. This is hardly a case of a hardened criminal who got away lightly.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    This is typical of this out of her depth minister.

    It is all looking for likes from media and modern social justice and social media types.

    It is in response to recent high profile killing of and attacks on homosexuals.

    If she wanted to do something she would look at the disgrace that is our justice system where you have a rapist and triple murderer's consecutive life murder sentence commuted to a single life sentence.

    The family still want to know which of the three lives was the only one that mattered.

    Or you look at why the likes of Larry Murphy didn't even get a lfie sentence even though he was gulity of kidnapping, false imprisonment and multiple counts of rape on top of attempted murder.

    They just pick one and sentence for that.

    It is a fooking joke.

    And as sure as fook, if she does even get her way with adding some term about hate crimes on top of murder charge, it will make diddly squat in terms of the actual sentence served as it will probably just be added concurrently.

    This spanner that is minister likes to do things for likes not for the benefit of the people.

    The sooner that waste of space is gone the better.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,026 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    A crime is a crime. There is a set maximum sentence for each crime. That should be the minimum per case. Then, and only then, if the crime is motivated by hate or anything else, extend the sentence. Don't give other victims less value because they weren't targeted due to certain terms. But certainly give the criminal more time for using those as a reason to attack. I don't think Johnny or Mary who were randomly attacked to near death would be very happy if their suspect got less time just because they weren't [insert protected term here]. But I don't think they'd care if everyone got the same, and others got more due to their motivation.

    And then, where do we draw the line. Do we stick with the current list of gender, sex, religion, etc, or can we add more as the time goes on? Someone else made the example, what if a ginger is constantly getting bullied by others, and eventually gets beaten to near death by scumbags because of his red hair (it has happened). Can they use this new hate crime legislation? If not, can hair colour be added? And if not, why not? (and yes, there is a hint of personal feelings in that one).

    As I said, the max available sentence for each crime should be the standard minimum, and everything that caused the suspect to attack the victim be added on after that. But they won't do that. And as rightly pointed out by people, we don't have the will, Garda numbers or prison spaces for everyone. And the legal profession wouldn't want it like that anyway. And they seem to make the call somehow.



  • Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭whatchagonnado


    You're advocating for a 3 strike type rule. That's worked well, hasn't it?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]



    re: last paragraph (i cant believe i cant only quote relevant parts of a post on a phone btw, wtf)

    removing antisocial offenders from wider society is an important function, and focusing only on whether we can change them or not is ignoring that- and a lot of aspirational thought on criminal justice also ignores it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    It's worked very well, scumbags in prison are not committing crimes against the general public/



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,177 ✭✭✭Fandymo


    Just finished reading "Inside Parkhurst", very eye opening the changes to the prison service over there over the years. I'd imagine Ireland follows the same track as UK. Prisoners treated as care in the community rather than prisoners. Addressed as Mr etc. Get whatever they want, when they want it, so that figures can be massaged to show that everything is running smoothly.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,026 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    That's it. Prison may have been a deterrent at some point, but now it's like a lockdown hotel. And nothing will be done. The bleeding heart brigade, who live nowhere near these criminals, won't let anything hurt the poor criminals' feelings.



  • Registered Users Posts: 41,066 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    At the moment it only proposes to list the following protected characteristics. If you want to add more then the legislation would need to be amended

     race; colour; nationality; religion, ethnic or national origin; sexual orientation; gender; or disability 

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,026 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    Cool. Treat people differently based on the above. Or are we not supposed to treat people differently based on the above? (rhetorical)

    Inclusion seems to want a lot of exclusion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,440 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    we're not supposed to treat people differently because of the above. Attacking people because of one of the above is treating them differently. It is worrying that an ex-garda cannot understand that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,026 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    But we are treating them differently by saying that an attack on them should carry a higher sentence. But an attack on me for being ginger doesn't (just in case I need to spell it out for people, yes, I have been attacked for just being ginger). That's treating people differently imo, that was telling 15 year old me that I'm not as important as other people. It's telling those who still get attacked that they're not as important. Great lesson to teach. Lovely feeling. Maybe people should deal with their issues like I was, sticks and stones and all that.....

    And assault is an assault to me. A Garda gathers the facts, a court decides the guilt and sentence. The reason is part of the evidence for the court to decide on. Whether it's via normal assault legislation, or through new hate crime legislation, the Garda job doesn't change.



  • Registered Users Posts: 86,528 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    I'm hearing of some killers out on day releases, seriously WTF how is this allowed, our justice system needs to be way tougher especially on serious crime



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,022 ✭✭✭RoTelly


    I don't really understand how you can have harder sentencing for any crime when judges and the legal system is so soft.

    A woman gets badly beaten and the judge decides the man who beat her should give her €10,000, while he gets a 2 year suspended sentence.

    We aren't getting tougher with crime.

    We have soft sentencing.


    ______

    Just one more thing .... when did they return that car

    Yesterday



  • Registered Users Posts: 296 ✭✭Ham_Sandwich


    I see the lock everyone up brigade is out in force again



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,022 ✭✭✭RoTelly


    I see, this is the funny thing because almost all of the non-lock everyone brigade was out on twitter question how someone could beat someone up and getaway with a fine to the victim and serve no time.

    Even if you go down the route of rehabilitation he's getting none. Is a €10,000 fine rehabilitation?

    What are you suggesting should happen in such a case? Do you think €10,000 was too much?


    ______

    Just one more thing .... when did they return that car

    Yesterday



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,503 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    Hold on, if a thug attacks a delivery guy and robs him , the courts can decide this was a hate crime and not merely assault causing harm plus theft if the victim ( who say is black Brazilian) claims the thug was motivated by racism, it’s a serious crime but the thug may not have been motivated by racism yet had the delivery guy been a pasty guy from Mayo , the rap sheet would be lower here

    that’s infusing criminal law with identity politics and it’s a recipe for problems as it values one person who’s a victim of crime as a higher category in the eyes of the law over another even the actions of the offender were identical

    the perception that race was a motivating factor is enough



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,440 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    proof of a hate crime requires a little bit more than "I think it was racially motivated".



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,503 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    Not for a charge to be brought, if the victim of assault and theft merely perceives the motive to be racial ( for example ) that’s enough

    under new proposals of course , not currently the case



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,440 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    there still needs to be a basis for the perception.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,503 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    Then subjective rulings will surely reign ?, can see a circus of appeals stemming from rulings which tried to appease activists



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,440 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Pretty much all eye witness testimony is subjective.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,503 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    So how does an eye witness know if an assault crime was further compounded by the minority status of the victim? , is the witness expected to gauge the true motive of the attacker?



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,440 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    No. You know they're not asked to guess the defendants motive. Don't talk nonsense.



  • Registered Users Posts: 83,093 ✭✭✭✭Overheal




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,503 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    So why bring up witnesses if their opinion of whether the offender was motivated by hate is irrelevant?



Advertisement