3 lowlifes get life for bashing a man to death.

LordSutch · 10-10-2016 06:41PM

When I read about the story I was reminded of that awful 'Baseball bat scene' in Inglorious basterds!

Capital punishment for the perpetrators?

Harvey Normal · 10-10-2016 06:50PM

Omackeral wrote: »

Bullsh*t. If they got a life sentence then they won't be out in 4-6 years. You have to serve 7 before you're eligible to be in front of the parole board. Nobody gets out after 7. 15 or 16 is probably the earliest they'd walk. Remand has nothing to do with a life sentence either btw.

If nobody gets out until 15 years is up why does the parole board meet after 7?

questionmark? · 10-10-2016 06:50PM

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Wow, it's a bit right wing in here! You'd soon be complaining if this was about Irish in England and message boards saying kill 'em.

It's because people are sick of seen innocent members of the public killed, assaulted, robbed etc.. and done by people who should have been in jail but were not due to to the pathetic irish legal system that gives people a slap on the wrist and asks them to be nicer next time.

moc moc a moc · 10-10-2016 06:52PM

eeguy wrote: »

69 convictions,
7 convictions,
21 convictions.

No doubt most of the "sentences" for these convictions were suspended.

I wonder what their previous judges think about the likelihood that if these scrotes had been in prison as they already should have, this man would still be alive?

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Wow, it's a bit right wing in here!

Well, we're seeing what leftie "justice" gets us here, aren't we.

mzungu · 10-10-2016 06:56PM

LordSutch wrote: »

Capital punishment for the perpetrators?

No, I'd prefer if they were kept in jail until they die of natural causes. If they can't behave properly in a civil society, then the prison system is truly where they belong.

mynamejeff · 10-10-2016 06:58PM

Gatling wrote: »

A certain politician suggested such in the run up to the election ,
People rubbished the idea as* being *too American

what politician was that ?

corner of hells · 10-10-2016 07:03PM

Harvey Normal wrote: »

If nobody gets out until 15 years is up why does the parole board meet after 7?

The parole looks at an individual to see if he is still a threat in society, has engaged with services in prison , would he benefit from release ie is ill, infirm etc. It's doesn't necessarily apply to a life sentence.It's applied to prisoner's serving 14+ years.
There three are unlikely to get out for years.

DrumSteve · 10-10-2016 07:03PM

All the people calling for the death penalty are wrong IMO. Some ridiculous suggestions above.

It costs more to actually administer it, than to keep them in prison. Also I'm not a major fan of state sanctioned murder as I like to think I live in a civilised country.

mynamejeff · 10-10-2016 07:03PM

Omackeral wrote: »

Bullsh*t. If they got a life sentence then they won't be out in 4-6 years. You have to serve 7 before you're eligible to be in front of the parole board. Nobody gets out after 7. 15 or 16 is probably the earliest they'd walk. Remand has nothing to do with a life sentence either btw.

well no not quite ,
if some one goes into custody by consent the day after they commit a murder and they are subsequently convicted of murder and get life say two years after they go into custody. .
when they come before the parole board after 7 years the evidence put forward by the solicitor will be that went in by consent and should be entitled to benefit from that.

the best solution in cases like this it that they are never ever allowed to leave a secure facility as long as they are alive or they are quitly quickly and humanly killed which is more than the gave to that man they killed

DrumSteve · 10-10-2016 07:04PM

mynamejeff wrote: »

well no not quite ,
if some one goes into custody by consent the day after they commit a murder and they are subsequently convicted of murder and get life say two years after they go into custody. .
when they come before the parole board after 7 years the evidence put forward by the solicitor will be that went in by consent and should be entitled to benefit from that.

the best solution in cases like this it that they are never ever allowed to leave a secure facility as long as they are alive or they are humanly killed which is more than the gave to that man they killed

Is there a humane way to murder a person?

mynamejeff · 10-10-2016 07:06PM

DrumSteve wrote: »

Is there a humane way to murder a person?

more so than with baseball bats ?

ya bullet in the brain , gas, hanging catapulting for all i care , animals like thats comfort isnt really a concern of mine

DrumSteve · 10-10-2016 07:08PM

mynamejeff wrote: »

more so than with baseball bats ?

ya bullet in the brain , gas, hanging catapulting for all i care , animals like thats comfort isnt really a concern of mine

Right so.

Gatling · 10-10-2016 07:09PM

mynamejeff wrote: »

what politician was that ?

Lucinda Creighton (former politician) ?.

She wanted a 3 strikes and your out system for people who carry out serious crimes

lawlolawl · 10-10-2016 07:26PM

DrumSteve wrote: »

It costs more to actually administer it, than to keep them in prison. Also I'm not a major fan of state sanctioned murder as I like to think I live in a civilised country.

That's because an increasing left leaning justice system has caused it to be so convoluted and expensive to administer. Make it an unpopular concept through this reason and various others and it's easier to dismiss it.

You live in a civilized country that allows violent criminals with double or triple digit priors walk the streets so that they can beat a pensioner to death.

Surreptitious · 10-10-2016 07:28PM

The worst thing about it is how nice the man was. He willingly left them into his house and was having a beer with them. How was he to know them would turn on him out of the blue? And what about what they did to that woman's house? She would have been killed too most likely if she hadn't gone to bed early. No respect for human life was shown here. They had a massive string of convictions and it was only a matter of time before they got increasingly worse. Such was the case that they were allowed run riot for so long that they lost all sense of the law.

dd972 · 10-10-2016 07:30PM

Not victim blaming and maybe he grew up in more innocent times but I read that the victim frequently had people drinking at his house and coming and going at all hours of the night, why anyone would want those three Neds in their home is beyond me, especially if your in your 60's.

The Wolverine · 10-10-2016 07:37PM

DrumSteve wrote: »

All the people calling for the death penalty are wrong IMO. Some ridiculous suggestions above.

It costs more to actually administer it, than to keep them in prison. Also I'm not a major fan of state sanctioned murder as I like to think I live in a civilised country.

If a "civilised" country is one where criminals can be waking the street with double or even triple digit numbers of convictions then it's a ****in insult to try and claim to have the moral high ground over countries with the death penalty.

DrumSteve · 10-10-2016 07:40PM

The Wolverine wrote: »

If a "civilised" country is one where criminals can be waking the street with double or even triple digit numbers of convictions then it's a ****in insult to try and claim to have the moral high ground over countries with the death penalty.

I never agreed with letting them out, they should have been in prison. It's the executions I don't agree with.

10-10-2016 07:42PM

eeguy wrote: »

69 convictions,
7 convictions,
21 convictions.

.

This sickened me almost more than what they did to that poor elderly man. The guy with the 69 convictions had six convictions for arson and 25 for burglary.

Surely, if nothing else, this is evidence that sentencing is completely ridiculous. Burglary or arson are crimes that deserve jail for the first offence, and multiple offences should mean considerably longer sentences. I wonder how long he actually spent behind bars for these 69 offences.?

Apart from the murder this guy has created misery for the 31 families that were burgled or burnt....

Is it a safe bet that he got multiple suspended sentences and mitigations because he liked drugs and couldnt handle his alcohol (that should be aggravating not mitigating in my book).

lawred2 · 10-10-2016 07:43PM

Depraved inhuman animals.

lawred2 · 10-10-2016 07:46PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This sickened me almost more than what they did to that poor elderly man. The guy with the 69 convictions had six convictions for arson and 25 for burglary.

Surely, if nothing else, this is evidence that sentencing is completely ridiculous. Burglary or arson are crimes that deserve jail for the first offence, and multiple offences should mean considerably longer sentences. I wonder how long he actually spent behind bars for these 69 offences.?

Apart from the murder this guy has created misery for the 31 families that were burgled or burnt....

Is it a safe bet that he got multiple suspended sentences and mitigations because he liked drugs and couldnt handle his alcohol (that should be aggravating not mitigating in my book).

Have never understood the court's obsession with alcohol and drugs as an excuse for lawlessness.

Judges behind tall walls in Foxrock never having the misfortune to share the same streets with these scumbags is half the problem.

The Wolverine · 10-10-2016 07:50PM

One thing I just cannot believe is killing a criminal costs more than keeping them in prison

Select a facility or designate an area of a current prison , bus em there and a firing squad.

Body can be collected from a morgue by the undertaker.

Done

Spanish Eyes · 10-10-2016 07:52PM

Hopefully life means a minimum tariff. Then the parole board keep them in until the next Parole Board hearing. And so on. Look at Malcom McArthur.

Although I am sure other murderers were released after twelve or so years.

Anyway, a life sentence means that. Once released, they still have a life sentence hanging over them, and any misdemeanour and they are back inside again. I think!

Up to the Parole Board after the minimum sentence is served anyway.

DrumSteve · 10-10-2016 07:54PM

The Wolverine wrote: »

One thing I just cannot believe is killing a criminal costs more than keeping them in prison

Select a facility or designate an area of a current prison , bus em there and a firing squad.

Body can be collected from a morgue by the undertaker.

Done

It does cost more, these prisoners are generally housed away from Gen Pop and due to higher security costs and often lengthy appeals, it can come to quite a lot of money to murder someone.

I'd be interested to see the data that confirms introducing the DP reduces crime.

Spanish Eyes · 10-10-2016 07:59PM

The death penalty will not be re introduced here anytime soon, so we may just forget that. Even Garda killers death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment back in the day. And some have already been released by now.

Life? Huh.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/two-garda-killers-who-faced-death-penalty-have-been-freed-from-prison-29657572.html

The flying mouse · 10-10-2016 08:01PM

mynamejeff wrote: »

well no not quite ,
if some one goes into custody by consent the day after they commit a murder and they are subsequently convicted of murder and get life say two years after they go into custody. .
when they come before the parole board after 7 years the evidence put forward by the solicitor will be that went in by consent and should be entitled to benefit from that...

You don't go into custody by consent if your charged with murder, You are remanded in custody automatically,You can only get bail by applying to the high court in which if bail is granted is under strict conditions.

Every seven years you are eligible to apply for parole hearing, Note it's just an application, Most cases nowadays life means 15 to 20 years, and going on your conduct while imprisoned and the crime you were sentenced for, you will then be assessed in whether your eligible for parole.

Once sentenced to life and if you do get parole you can be locked back up if you break any of the rules your released under. That's as far as I remember can be corrected on this

The flying mouse · 10-10-2016 08:02PM

And **** them 3 , hope they do 20 plus

kfallon · 10-10-2016 08:04PM

And the 3 fúcking cúnts turned on each other with their accounts of what happened, "He did it all, I only gave him a tap"

Absolute scum!

Spanish Eyes · 10-10-2016 08:07PM

kfallon wrote: »

And the 3 fúcking cúnts turned on each other with their accounts of what happened, "He did it all, I only gave him a tap"

Absolute scum!

That was when they came down off the substances.

They hopefully won't have drink or drugs in jail. A good punishment sometimes, alongside incarceration for years hopefully.

Haithabu · 10-10-2016 08:12PM

eeguy wrote: »

69 convictions,
7 convictions,
21 convictions.

Scum like that should have been jailed for life long ago.

This should certainly be critically reviewed. Someone had a look at 68 convictions and it was decided that this man can be in freedom. The man was not free because he escaped out of prison but because someone decided that it okay.

This needs to be questioned because someone did not do their job right. I don't know the case so I don't know whether it was a judge, a psychiatrist or a social worker. But someone failed to do their job right because the man did not have a positive prognosis so should not have been out free. Whoever failed to do the job is partially responsible.

3 lowlifes get life for bashing a man to death.

Comments