Ethics of beating the ****e outta criminals.

SterlingArcher · 29-08-2016 10:52AM

mansize wrote: »

How do you happen upon this adult attacking the child?

And surely in intervening your best recourse is to remove the child from the situation not leave it there while you give the purputrator a good kicking???

You happen upon the child as you were traversing the rooftops off the city..

The city didn't get the hero it wanted. It got the hero it needed.

rjpf1980 · 29-08-2016 11:31AM

starshine1234 wrote: »

The state has failed in its duty to prosecute serious crime for decades.

No it hasn't. The perpetrators of serious crime are routinely prosecuted and incarcerated.

It is long past the point where it is reasonable to expect change.

Who says?

Violence is morally acceptable in this circumstance, and in fact, violence may be morally required in these circumstances.

Says who?

For example, if you see a man raping a small child, are you morally obliged to intervene to attempt to save the child?

When was the last time you saw a man raping a small child? If members of the public came across a degenerate raping a child in public they would be obliged to intervene and restrain until the Gardai arrived and took him away.
They would not be entitled to lynch him.

I would suggest that you are.
You aren't required to allow yourself to be killed and you aren't required to perform superhuman feats. But, if it is possible to save the child, with little or no risk to yourself, or an acceptable risk, then Id argue that you are morally required to make the attempt.

Citizens are already allowed to apprehend criminals and restrain them until law enforcement officers arrive.

If the state fails to prosecute violent criminals then perhaps people are morally required to take action. It is certain that it is not morally wrong to take action in those circumstances.

Take the example of the Graham Dwyer case ok? If the prosecution failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that Dwyer was guilty he would have walked. Thankfully the evidence was overwhelming and he went down. But suppose it wasn't overwhelming and a jury were not satisfied of his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt? Juries must follow the direction of the judge to make their decision based on the evidence presented and whether the burden of proof has been met. This is not about actual guilt or innocence but rather whether Dwyer was guilty or not guilty based on the evidence presented.

So supposing Dwyer had walked? Do you and a few mates down the pub get a few hurleys and baseball bats and black and decker drills and go over to Dwyer's house and go to work on him? That's your alternative to a judge and jury court?

The state is acting with genuine malice when it refuses to prosecute serious crime. The vigilante is not. This distinction is very important.

All crimes the world over are crimes against the state. This is why a case like the OJ trial was called The People V OJ Simpson. This was not Nicole Simpson/Ron Goldman V OJ Simpson. In Ireland we have victim impact statements but they are not included in the book of evidence at trials.
The prosecution of justice is about finding the defendant guilty or not guilt based on the evidence presented which must meet the burden of proof that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Not guilty beyond all doubt but guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. The public the judge and the jury the prosecution and the defense councils and the cops and experts presenting evidence may know that the defendant is guilt in actual reality but hunches and feelings and emotions must not cloud the process. It must be decided on the evidence presented and the evidence of guilt must meet the burden of proof.
Courts do not release defendants out of malice.
If they are not found guilty then the verdict of not guilty is the result and they must be free to go.

Certainly, in the case of the rape of tens of thousands of children by the Catholic Church, which was ignored and facilitated by the Irish State and the Guards, I'd suggest things would have been better had vigilantes stepped in to fill the breach.

How so?
There have been many cases of men accused of crimes against children who have been found not guilty where false accusations were made against them.
Indeed in one of the worst miscarriages of justice in recent memory a man and a woman were convicted of crimes which the supposed victim later retracted.

Would people complain if vigilantes had stepped in, and by so doing, saved thousands of Irish children from being raped?

A pedophile priest like any other criminal deserves a trial by judge and jury and deserves the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
No ifs buts or maybes.
Isn't also likely that if priests were hanged drawn and quartered in public by vigilantes that other victims by other priests would come under psychological pressure not to come forward with allegations because of the hideous consequences their accusations would have for those they accuse at the hands of the mob? Wouldn't it lead to greater cover ups by law breakers not less?

I would prefer if we had a proper police service but we don't.

What do you mean by a proper police force? You mean a police force where 100% of all crimes are solved 100% of the time and all defendants are convicted 100% of the time?

Do you want railroaded trials and innocent people having their rights trampled because of the public desire for vengence?

If you had your way we would have violent anarchy and the complete break down of civilization.

starshine1234 · 29-08-2016 11:37AM

rjpf1980 wrote: »

No it hasn't. The perpetrators of serious crime are routinely prosecuted and incarcerated.

This is demonstrably false.

Martin Callinan, ex Police Commissioner, is above the law. He has not been prosecuted for his violent criminal acts. In fact, some nameless person has prevented an investigation from even taking place.

This one case disproves your thesis that all serious criminals are prosecuted.

As a result of the failure of the state in this case a victm, Maurice McCabe, who had his family, his career, and his life destroyed, is not able to receive justice.

El_Duderino 09 · 29-08-2016 11:54AM

rjpf1980 wrote:

No it hasn't. The perpetrators of serious crime are routinely prosecuted and incarcerated.

Of course they are. We live in a first world country and I think a lot of people take that security for granted.

starshine1234 wrote:

This one case disproves your thesis that all serious criminals are prosecuted.

This one case demonstrates that the system is imperfect, not that it is ineffective and should be sidelined in exchange for vigilantism. I'll take the police over a bunch of morons in a mob.

Police can be corrupted and we find out due to the auditing processes. The term 'corrupt' or 'audit' don't even apply to the mob. The mob could never be found to be wrong because there is no system for asking whether the mob ever got it right.

martingriff · 29-08-2016 11:58AM

starshine1234 wrote: »

rjpf1980 wrote: »

No it hasn't. The perpetrators of serious crime are routinely prosecuted and incarcerated.

This is demonstrably false.

Martin Callinan, ex Police Commissioner, is above the law. He has not been prosecuted for his violent criminal acts. In fact, some nameless person has prevented an investigation from even taking place.

This one case disproves your thesis that all serious criminals are prosecuted.

As a result of the failure of the state in this case a victm, Maurice McCabe, who had his family, his career, and his life destroyed, is not able to receive justice.

He didn't say 100% of crimes are prosecuted. Show me a country where 100% crimes are prosecuted successful. What would you change to get this

starshine1234 · 29-08-2016 12:04PM

It is a human right to be able to defend yourself. I'd argue that it is a human right to be permitted to seek revenge, if society is failing.

Animals are not criticised for their actions. I fail to see why humans should be held to a higher standard.

People choose to come together into a society for mutual benefit. If it turns out that society is false, or not working, then all bets are off and we're back to the rule of the jungle. Survival of the fittest.

Humans shouldn't apologise for being animals.

Was Liam Neeson wrong to save his daughter in Taken?
Was Liam Neeson correct to shoot the policemans wife in order to obtain information which allowed him to save his daughter?

Is Batman immoral?

The Swedish state is systematically refusing to protect its women. A vigilante group is likely to eventually be formed. That seems reasonable to me.

Musketeer4 · 29-08-2016 12:05PM

Certainly in the case of Graham Dwyer, if some evidence was missing and a conviction could not be secured despite him having done it, I would not hold anything against her family and friends if they went and pulled him from his home and went to town on him there. Its his family I'd feel sorry for though but, given the circumstances, there's hardly much they could say.
A large part of why so many get away with crimes is that in my view the burden of proof seems to be too onerous. There are an awful lot of cases where people have been put on trial for all sorts of crimes only to walk free because it can't be proven beyond doubt or there is some technical irregularity with the evidence. As I said before, no-one knows an accused perpetrator like their community and when the state fails that community in delivering justice I would consider it acceptable for the community to enforce it themselves. In the case of sex crimes against children believe there should be a lower standard of proof, perhaps reasonable suspicion, given what is at stake if someone is allowed to walk free. Character references of people in the community and their experiences with the accused should also be heard by the court. And I'm not suggesting that one man operations are acceptable, they;re not. What I'm suggesting is that there should be consensus amongst a community before a lynching can be justified.

Another case is the Sophie Tuscon du Plantier case in west Cork. Bailey couldn't be convicted due to definciencies in evidence beacause it was deemed biased and was inadmissable. I call bull there on that - evidence is evidence and I wouldn't blame anyone for going after him to do what the justice system could not. I think in that case, the general public opinion is that he done it and I for one find him a shady character from what I've read.

mansize · 29-08-2016 12:07PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

It is a human right to be able to defend yourself. I'd argue that it is a human right to be permitted to seek revenge, if society is failing.

Animals are not criticised for their actions. I fail to see why humans should be held to a higher standard.

People choose to come together into a society for mutual benefit. If it turns out that society is false, or not working, then all bets are off and we're back to the rule of the jungle. Survival of the fittest.

Humans shouldn't apologise for being animals.

Was Liam Neeson wrong to save his daughter in Taken?
Was Liam Neeson correct to shoot the policemans wife in order to obtain information which allowed him to save his daughter?

Is Batman immoral?

The Swedish state is systematically refusing to protect its women. A vigilante group is likely to eventually be formed. That seems reasonable to me.

Animals rape other animals. Should that be allowed???

mansize · 29-08-2016 12:09PM

Wait, is this that really bad movie, The Purge?

OldNotWIse · 29-08-2016 12:10PM

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Certainly in the case of Graham Dwyer, if some evidence was missing and a conviction could not be secured despite him having done it, I would not hold anything against her family and friends if they went and pulled him from his home and went to town on him there. Its his family I'd feel sorry for though but, given the circumstances, there's hardly much they could say.
A large part of why so many get away with crimes is that in my view the burden of proof seems to be too onerous. There are an awful lot of cases where people have been put on trial for all sorts of crimes only to walk free because it can't be proven beyond doubt or there is some technical irregularity with the evidence. As I said before, no-one knows an accused perpetrator like their community and when the state fails that community in delivering justice I would consider it acceptable for the community to enforce it themselves. And I'm not suggesting that one man operations are acceptable, they;re not. What I'm suggesting is that there should be consensus amongst a community before a lynching can be justified.
In the case of sex crimes against children believe there should be a lower standard of proof, perhaps reasonable suspicion, given what is at stake if someone is allowed to walk free. Character references of people in the community and their experiences with the accused should also be heard by the court.

It's beyond a reasonable doubt and the standard is necessarily high to reflect the fact that someone on trial faces the loss of liberty if found guilty. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that someone who is innocent until proven guilty be found guilty because of a reasonable suspicion.

Character evidence is inherently biased and has no place in a courtroom.

rjpf1980 · 29-08-2016 12:11PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

This is demonstrably false.

No it is demonstrably true. Take a visit to the courts sometime?

Martin Callinan, ex Police Commissioner, is above the law.

No he isn't.

He has not been prosecuted for his violent criminal acts.

Neither have I.

In fact, some nameless person has prevented an investigation from even taking place.

A file is sent to the DPP who recommends a prosecution before it goes to court where there is preliminary hearing and the case goes to trial.

This one case disproves your thesis that all serious criminals are prosecuted.

I never said all serious criminals are prosecuted.
There is no jurisdiction in the world where all serious criminals are prosecuted.

starshine1234 · 29-08-2016 12:19PM

Juries aren't required to be certain of the truth before convicting. They only have to be fairly sure.

Therefore, vigilantes can use the same standard.

Many cases fail for procedural reasons. These procedural reasons have nothing to do with the quality of the evidence.

A guy got off recently because his rights had not been read to him in Irish, or something along those lines. The man couldn't speak Irish.

The state failed in that case. The procedural rules are too onerous, or alternatively, the Gardai are too incompetent.

All cavemen raped cavewomen, by modern standards. It's not correct to criticise cavemen for that.

end of the road · 29-08-2016 12:24PM

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Certainly in the case of Graham Dwyer, if some evidence was missing and a conviction could not be secured despite him having done it, I would not hold anything against her family and friends if they went and pulled him from his home and went to town on him there. Its his family I'd feel sorry for though but, given the circumstances, there's hardly much they could say.
A large part of why so many get away with crimes is that in my view the burden of proof seems to be too onerous. There are an awful lot of cases where people have been put on trial for all sorts of crimes only to walk free because it can't be proven beyond doubt or there is some technical irregularity with the evidence. As I said before, no-one knows an accused perpetrator like their community and when the state fails that community in delivering justice I would consider it acceptable for the community to enforce it themselves. In the case of sex crimes against children believe there should be a lower standard of proof, perhaps reasonable suspicion, given what is at stake if someone is allowed to walk free. Character references of people in the community and their experiences with the accused should also be heard by the court. And I'm not suggesting that one man operations are acceptable, they;re not. What I'm suggesting is that there should be consensus amongst a community before a lynching can be justified.

Another case is the Sophie Tuscon du Plantier case in west Cork. Bailey couldn't be convicted due to definciencies in evidence beacause it was deemed biased and was inadmissable. I call bull there on that - evidence is evidence and I wouldn't blame anyone for going after him to do what the justice system could not. I think in that case, the general public opinion is that he done it and I for one find him a shady character from what I've read.

the standard of proof is perfectly fine. lowering it means innocent people get convicted on the basis of nothing. character refferences have no place in a court. the community does not know more then actual evidence, infact it knows nothing.

rjpf1980 · 29-08-2016 12:29PM

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Certainly in the case of Graham Dwyer, if some evidence was missing and a conviction could not be secured despite him having done it, I would not hold anything against her family and friends if they went and pulled him from his home and went to town on him there. Its his family I'd feel sorry for though but, given the circumstances, there's hardly much they could say.

If Graham Dwyer was found not guilty he would be a free man and entitled to the same protection under the law as you or I.
No ifs buts or maybes.

A large part of why so many get away with crimes is that in my view the burden of proof seems to be too onerous. There are an awful lot of cases where people have been put on trial for all sorts of crimes only to walk free because it can't be proven beyond doubt or there is some technical irregularity with the evidence.

Would you prefer horoscopes or seances or psychic visions were used in evidence instead?

As I said before, no-one knows an accused perpetrator like their community and when the state fails that community in delivering justice I would consider it acceptable for the community to enforce it themselves.

Who is the perpetrators community? Graham Dwyer was found guilty by a jury of his peers.

In the case of sex crimes against children believe there should be a lower standard of proof, perhaps reasonable suspicion, given what is at stake if someone is allowed to walk free.

There burden of proof should be on the prosecution.

Character references of people in the community and their experiences with the accused should also be heard by the court.

Character references are not evidence.

And I'm not suggesting that one man operations are acceptable, they;re not. What I'm suggesting is that there should be consensus amongst a community before a lynching can be justified.

How do you establish this consensus?

Another case is the Sophie Tuscon du Plantier case in west Cork. Bailey couldn't be convicted due to definciencies in evidence beacause it was deemed biased and was inadmissable. I call bull there on that - evidence is evidence and I wouldn't blame anyone for going after him to do what the justice system could not. I think in that case, the general public opinion is that he done it and I for one find him a shady character from what I've read.

A shady reputation is not evidence of guilt.

In Africa people are accused of witchcraft and beaten and burned to death by ignorant mobs.

You know no more or no less than anyone else if Tuscon Du Plantier was murdered or not by Ian Bailey.

Until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt Ian Bailey is entitled to the presumption of innocent, his good name and his liberty.

Musketeer4 · 29-08-2016 12:35PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

It's beyond a reasonable doubt and the standard is necessarily high to reflect the fact that someone on trial faces the loss of liberty if found guilty. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that someone who is innocent until proven guilty be found guilty because of a reasonable suspicion.

Character evidence is inherently biased and has no place in a courtroom.

So you're saying that if your child was abused you would rather the accused would walk free if there was some irregularity in the evidence that prevented a conviction despite other evidence pointing to him rather than have justice for fear of his liberty being infriged? Please! Reasonable suspicion + evidence is enough to convict.

What is wrong with character references? Surely the people in a community know the perpetrator better than some jury who never even clapped eyes on him and their views should be heard by the court to increase the conviction rate.

OldNotWIse · 29-08-2016 12:38PM

Musketeer4 wrote: »

So you're saying that if your child was abused you would rather the accused would walk free if there was some irregularity in the evidence that prevented a conviction despite other evidence pointing to him rather than have justice for fear of his liberty being infriged? Please! Reasonable suspicion + evidence is enough to convict.

What is wrong with character references? Surely the people in a community know the perpetrator better than some jury who never even clapped eyes on him and their views should be heard by the court to increase the conviction rate.

Er...yes that's exactly what I said. Good paraphrasing....

Let me re-iterate the point, lest we indulge in hysterical whataboutery and putting words in other people's mouths.

I corrected a post that said the burden of proof was beyond a doubt, expressed an opinion that a "reasonable suspicion" is not grounds for finding an accused guilty and also that bad character evidence is not welcome in a court of law because of the natural tendency of people to reason from bad character to guilt i.e. once guilty always guilty.

I'm not partaking in your hysterical mental gymnastics and dreamed up hypothetical scenarios that shoe-horn your beliefs into the discussion.

rjpf1980 · 29-08-2016 12:39PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

Juries aren't required to be certain of the truth before convicting. They only have to be fairly sure.

They have to be certain beyond all reasonable doubt.

Therefore, vigilantes can use the same standard.

It would be impossible for vigilantes to use the same standard because they ride roughshod over the whole concept of innocence until proven guilt, trial by judge and jury with the case argued over by a prosecution and defense council with the burden of proof on the prosecution.

Many cases fail for procedural reasons. These procedural reasons have nothing to do with the quality of the evidence.

Yes they do.
If the chain of custody of the evidence is broken or the legality of search warrants or if there is a danger that testimony was coerced then that evidence is ruled inadmissible. It is tainted evidence and no conviction based on the evidence would be safe.

A guy got off recently because his rights had not been read to him in Irish, or something along those lines. The man couldn't speak Irish.

The law must be administered correctly. We set these high standards to prevent the law enforcement authorities abusing their powers.

The state failed in that case. The procedural rules are too onerous, or alternatively, the Gardai are too incompetent.

Then the solution is law reform or else better police training.

It does not mean throwing away the law and allowing mob rule.

All cavemen raped cavewomen, by modern standards. It's not correct to criticise cavemen for that.

We don't know if all cavemen raped cavewomen. And yes it is correct to criticise people who lived in the past who did not live by modern standards just as it is correct to criticise people who live in the world today who don't live by modern standards.

Your arguments are getting increasingly unhinged bizarre and hysterical.

starshine1234 · 29-08-2016 12:39PM

There can be no argument for the following case.

Judge Brian Curtin, not convicted for child abuse despite a huge load of child porn images found on his computer.

The reason for the failure in this case?

A procedural problem, where the police failed to execute the search warrant in time so the evidence was ruled inadmissable in court.

A vigilante could choose to ignore the procedural error, and exact appropriate revenge or retribution. A nemesis if you like, like Brick Top from Snatch.

There can be no argument here but that vigilantism is acceptable in this case.

It is appropriate, and morally acceptable, for vigilantes to take action in all cases where silly procedural problems have caused a guilty man to walk free.

mansize · 29-08-2016 12:42PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

There can be no argument for the following case.

Judge Joseph Curtin, not convicted for child abuse despite a huge load of child porn images found on his computer.

The reason for the failure in this case?

A procedural problem, where the police failed to execute the search warrant in time so the evidence was ruled inadmissable in court.

A vigilante could choose to ignore the procedural error, and exact appropriate revenge or retribution. A nemesis if you like, like Brick Top from Snatch.

There can be no argument here but that vigilantism is acceptable in this case.

It is appropriate, and morally acceptable, for vigilantes to take action in all cases where silly procedural problems have caused a guilty man to walk free.

What do you propose to do?

And what does it achieve?

Musketeer4 · 29-08-2016 12:42PM

What you are saying is that it's better that someone who is guilty walks free if the lack of evidence is because they covered their tracks.

I totally disagree on the use of community character references for trials. In the case of sex crimes, someone might be known in the community for being suspicious and might have a string of unusual or concerning occurences behind them that if known to the court, could cement evidence if there is a lack of it and increase the chances of conviction.
I think there should be an equal burden on an accused to prove their innocence as there is on the prosecution to prove guilt.

rjpf1980 · 29-08-2016 12:42PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

There can be no argument for the following case.

Judge Joseph Curtin, not convicted for child abuse despite a huge load of child porn images found on his computer.

The reason for the failure in this case?

A procedural problem, where the police failed to execute the search warrant in time so the evidence was ruled inadmissable in court.

A vigilante could choose to ignore the procedural error, and exact appropriate revenge or retribution. A nemesis if you like, like Brick Top from Snatch.

There can be no argument here but that vigilantism is acceptable in this case.

It is appropriate, and morally acceptable, for vigilantes to take action in all cases where silly procedural problems have caused a guilty man to walk free.

If a search warrant is not executed within the time allowed it calls into question the whole case and no conviction would be safe.

OldNotWIse · 29-08-2016 12:43PM

mansize wrote: »

What do you propose to do?

And what does it achieve?

Because....pitchforks. And you know, screw the Constitution and it's promise of fair procedure and constitutionally obtained evidence and .... pitchforks! Rabble rabble

OldNotWIse · 29-08-2016 12:44PM

Musketeer4 wrote: »

What you are saying is that it's better that someone who is guilty walks free if the lack of evidence is because they covered their tracks.

I totally disagree on the use of community character references for trials. In the case of sex crimes, someone might be known in the community for being suspicious and might have a string of unusual or concerning occurences behind them that if known to the court, could cement evidence if there is a lack of it and increase the chances of conviction.
I think there should be an equal burden on an accused to prove their innocence as there is on the prosecution to prove guilt.

Oh dear.

end of the road · 29-08-2016 12:57PM

Musketeer4 wrote: »

So you're saying that if your child was abused you would rather the accused would walk free if there was some irregularity in the evidence that prevented a conviction despite other evidence pointing to him rather than have justice for fear of his liberty being infriged? Please! Reasonable suspicion + evidence is enough to convict.

What is wrong with character references? Surely the people in a community know the perpetrator better than some jury who never even clapped eyes on him and their views should be heard by the court to increase the conviction rate.

Reasonable suspicion + evidence isn't enough to convict and that is it. no discussion to be had. character references are not evidence and are not proof of jot. the people in a community do not know the perpetrator better than evidence and infact know nothing, they should not be heard. the current system removes byass from the situation insuring a fair trial. your suggestion is the type of nonsense that leads to bogy convictions on bogy evidence, of people who are likely innocent. the current system works apart from sentencing.

starshine1234 · 29-08-2016 01:02PM

rjpf1980 wrote: »

If a search warrant is not executed within the time allowed it calls into question the whole case and no conviction would be safe.

I'm sorry, but this isn't true.

A judge can set aside certain types of error.

If your name is spelt incorrectly for example.

The evidence was obtained from the Judges house in this case. The passage of a few hours of time was not important here. If the warrant had been executed correctly the child porn images would have been found.

I agree that the Gardai were incompetent in this case, but the trial judge should have ruled that the delay in executing the search warrant, of only a few hours, made no material difference. Like a mis-spelled name for example.

You may feel as you do but vigilantes are likely to feel differently.

Judge Brian Curtin is a menace and he shouldn't be free, and receiving a pension, after the public tax payer footed his one million euro legal bill.

Irish people are correct to feel aggrieved in this case.

Musketeer4 · 29-08-2016 01:04PM

The current system does not work! Look at the likes or Larry Murphy, set free despite the fact that he is dangerous and is widely believed to have killed other women. I don't know is it Jacob's or some other one but remember there he had done some work in her grandmother's shop before she disappeared. That should not be disregarded, especialy given that he was previously known for harrassing girls. Personally, I'd like to see a law brough in where someone like this could be imprisoned as a prcautionary measure given the body of opinion and circumstantial evidence and let them be the ones to prove their innocence. A lot of them would not be able to and I think that would speak volumes.

OldNotWIse · 29-08-2016 01:19PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

I'm sorry, but this isn't true.

A judge can set aside certain types of error.

If your name is spelt incorrectly for example.

The evidence was obtained from the Judges house in this case. The passage of a few hours of time was not important here. If the warrant had been executed correctly the child porn images would have been found.

I agree that the Gardai were incompetent in this case, but the trial judge should have ruled that the delay in executing the search warrant, of only a few hours, made no material difference. Like a mis-spelled name for example.

You may feel as you do but vigilantes are likely to feel differently.

Judge Brian Curtin is a menace and he shouldn't be free, and receiving a pension, after the public tax payer footed his one million euro legal bill.

Irish people are correct to feel aggrieved in this case.

Evidence obtained without a valid search warrant has been obtained unconstitutionally. That said, I think heads should have rolled in this instance for the grievous stupidity of the Gardaí in question who allowed the warrant to expire before acting on foot of it.

end of the road · 29-08-2016 01:23PM

Musketeer4 wrote: »

The current system does not work! Look at the likes or Larry Murphy, set free despite the fact that he is dangerous and is widely believed to have killed other women.

the current system works apart from sentencing. no amount of hysterical nonsense will change that.

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Personally, I'd like to see a law brough in where someone like this could be imprisoned as a prcautionary measure given the body of opinion and circumstantial evidence and let them be the ones to prove their innocence. A lot of them would not be able to and I think that would speak volumes.

what opinion? what evidence? who's opinion? the one who makes the claim must be the one to prove it true. the judge can remand people to custidy if they are accused of a serious crime as it is and they do so. not being able to prove innocence doesn't speak volumes. the current way is the only way to guarantee innocence or guilt. your way leads to bogy practices.

rjpf1980 · 29-08-2016 01:25PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

I'm sorry, but this isn't true.

A judge can set aside certain types of error.

If your name is spelt incorrectly for example.

The evidence was obtained from the Judges house in this case. The passage of a few hours of time was not important here. If the warrant had been executed correctly the child porn images would have been found.

I agree that the Gardai were incompetent in this case, but the trial judge should have ruled that the delay in executing the search warrant, of only a few hours, made no material difference. Like a mis-spelled name for example.

You may feel as you do but vigilantes are likely to feel differently.

Judge Brian Curtin is a menace and he shouldn't be free, and receiving a pension, after the public tax payer footed his one million euro legal bill.

Irish people are correct to feel aggrieved in this case.

The letter of the law must be followed. No ifs buts or maybes.

rjpf1980 · 29-08-2016 01:33PM

Musketeer4 wrote: »

The current system does not work! Look at the likes or Larry Murphy, set free despite the fact that he is dangerous and is widely believed to have killed other women.

He is suspected of killing other women but there is no evidence that he did.

I don't know is it Jacob's or some other one but remember there he had done some work in her grandmother's shop before she disappeared.

We don't know what happened to Deirdre Jacob. She may be dead or she may be alive. We don't know.

That should not be disregarded, especialy given that he was previously known for harrassing girls

Again just speculation.

Personally, I'd like to see a law brough in where someone like this could be imprisoned as a prcautionary measure given the body of opinion and circumstantial evidence and let them be the ones to prove their innocence. A lot of them would not be able to and I think that would speak volumes.

You are in favor of imprisoning people on sheer suspicion and feelings and emotions?

Ethics of beating the ****e outta criminals.

Comments