Woman who robbed homeless man with a scumbag that murdered her boyfriend is given a s

1. Commit crime
2. Get knocked up
3. Avoid prison

Surprised nobody has mentioned 'Garlic man' yet......:P

TallGlass wrote: »

"But Ms Stephens is now the mother of a young child and that's the primary concern."

He should be more phucking concerned that the child is being raised by such a worthless low life scumbag rather than the child being without a mother.

Stupid clueless judge with zero grasp on reality.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Check out the Louis Theroux Heroin Town episode and see who the Zack de la Rocha-looking junkie is hanging out with.

Sweet Jesus that's what I thought when I saw that episode. Thank God I'm not the only one

Sleep now in the fire!

VonZan wrote: »

What a joke of a criminal justice system...

It's actually a fair judgement IMO which considered the circumstances and the crimes which the defendant was found guilty of, and the best interests of the child, and imposed what is in my view a fair sentence, and the judge was right to suspend it because the defendant is no longer a heroin addict, and it wouldn't be in the best interests of the child to be taken into the care of the State where the outcomes for children taken into the care of the State are statistically worse than allowing them to stay with their parents and providing their parents with the support they may need to raise the child.

Sooner the better I get that sex change op.

washman3 wrote: »

I can only despair when I read posts like this..:o
Hard to believe that there are people out there with attitudes like yours.

Why?

This woman can thank her lucky stars she lives in Ireland and not the USA.
We live in a banana republic.

That would be a completely different set of circumstances, I think thanking the Judge in this case though is sufficient.

sexmag wrote: »

The point of custodial sentences is to discourage others breaking the law.

That's only one of the aims of providing for custodial sentences in sentencing guidelines available to Judges in making their deliberations as to an appropriate sentence in each case.

If people see it easy to get away with robbing someone and being an accessory to murder because you got clean and had a baby,they'd all do it and get away it.

Firstly, the sentence was only based on the second charge of the indictment. She was initially charged with murdering her 33 year old boyfriend. She pleaded not guilty and was due to stand trial for murder. However she was successful in having the charges dismissed. So that only leaves the second charge which concerned the robbery of the homeless man. She pleaded guilty to the attack, so this is taken into account in sentencing.

If this was a man hed be locked up

Double standards

It's not double standards as you're not comparing like for like, or even similar situations. The sentencing in this case was fair, and no amount of if she were a man, or if she wasn't a mother, or if she lived in America would change the circumstances as they actually are, and you can't simply change one element of the circumstances without making it a completely different case with it's own particular set of circumstances.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

She was involved in a robbery of a homeless person where he was also killed. Most jurisdictions would make her an accessory even if she didn’t herself murder the guy. That’s the case.

She got a suspended sentence.

The State already went one further than you're suggesting in charging her with murder. I think the term you actually mean is an accomplice, rather than an accessory (an accomplice is present at the time the crime is being committed, an accessory isn't), nothing in Irish law to say she couldn't have been charged as an accomplice either, it can in some cases carry the same sentence as murder, but the charge of murder was dismissed, and so she could only be sentenced for her part in the robbery, to which she pleaded guilty.

The fact that she had completely turned her life around in the three years since the attack and was no longer a homeless heroin addict living on the streets, but was now a mother to a young child and living with her mother and grandparents were factors that the judge took into account in sentencing -

He told her that he would impose a substantial sentence but suspend it, describing this as 'one-last chance'.

However, he said that if she breached any conditions, he would impose the entire sentence.

He then sentenced her to four years in prison for her crime and suspended it for those four years on her own bond of €100.

He said Stephens must keep the peace and be of good behaviour, and continue to engage with treatment.

She said she understood, was willing to comply with the conditions and she entered the bond.

Mr Justice White said the court had been faced with a difficult dilemma.

"The offence was serious enough that it merited a prison sentence," he said.

"But Ms Stephens is now the mother of a young child and that's the primary concern."

It's really easy to understand - justice would not have been served by imposing a custodial sentence.