Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    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 -

    Ok then most jurisdictions would accuse her of being an accomplice to murder. Irish law is unique. She rifled through the belongings of the guy between beatings. She didn’t try stop the beatings. He was supposedly her boyfriend and therefore she must have led the perpetrator to the homesless man. Why should people involved in a murder get away with it because they turned “their life around”?

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

    We actually disagree on that one. Justice would be that someone involved in robbing a man who is beaten to death during that robbery/murder deserves a custodial sentence.


  • #33
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,439 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    Ok then most jurisdictions would accuse her of being an accomplice to murder. Irish law is unique. She rifled through the belongings of the guy between beatings. She didn’t try stop the beatings. He was supposedly her boyfriend and therefore she must have led the perpetrator to the homesless man. Why should people involved in a murder get away with it because they turned “their life around”?


    Again, she was charged with murder, and was due to go on trial for murder, but the charges were dismissed. She didn't get away with anything, and all that remains is the charge in relation to her part in the robbery, and she didn't get away with that either. She was sentenced to four years in prison, suspended on condition that she is bound to keep the peace. If she breaches the conditions of her suspension, she automatically serves a custodial sentence. There's nothing unique in any of that which wouldn't apply in any other Common Law jurisdiction.

    We actually disagree on that one. Justice would be that someone involved in robbing a man who is beaten to death during that robbery/murder deserves a custodial sentence.


    Can you really not see why the judge decided in this case that it wouldn't be in the interests of justice to impose an immediate custodial sentence on the woman in question in this case? It's because the judge decided it wouldn't be in the best interests of the child, and they're right, it wouldn't be, as the child would have suffered in the absence of his mother.


  • #34
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    machiavellianme wrote: »
    Apparently she is from a good family so it's all OK.
    Especially because she's now a mother. That absolves you from all past transgressions.

    I thought being from a bad family (terrible upbringing etc.) was what got you off?


  • #35
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    sexmag wrote: »
    The point of custodial sentences is to discourage others breaking the law.

    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.

    If this was a man hed be locked up

    Double standards

    Aaaah, not really. Threads about bullshit sentences are common on AH and they usually feature men.


  • #36
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,038 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    I don't see the point of her existing in society


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Again, she was charged with murder, and was due to go on trial for murder, but the charges were dismissed. She didn't get away with anything, and all that remains is the charge in relation to her part in the robbery, and she didn't get away with that either. She was sentenced to four years in prison, suspended on condition that she is bound to keep the peace. If she breaches the conditions of her suspension, she automatically serves a custodial sentence. There's nothing unique in any of that which wouldn't apply in any other Common Law jurisdiction.

    I’m fully aware the charges were dismissed. I’m saying the fact that they were dismissed or she wasn’t charged with being an accomplice is what is the issue. In what other jurisdiction would that act just be a robbery?
    Can you really not see why the judge decided in this case that it wouldn't be in the interests of justice to impose an immediate custodial sentence on the woman in question in this case? It's because the judge decided it wouldn't be in the best interests of the child, and they're right, it wouldn't be, as the child would have suffered in the absence of his mother.

    The interests of justice demand that people who are accomplices to the most serious crime, murder, pay some penalty.


  • #38
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,439 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    I’m fully aware the charges were dismissed. I’m saying the fact that they were dismissed or she wasn’t charged with being an accomplice is what is the issue. In what other jurisdiction would that act just be a robbery?


    In any other jurisdiction where the charges of murder are dismissed and the only charges the accused would stand trial for are their part in the robbery. That much would be the same regardless of jurisdiction.

    The interests of justice demand that people who are accomplices to the most serious crime, murder, pay some penalty.


    Unless the charges are dismissed, then they don't stand trial for charges they aren't accused of, only the charges that they are accused of, and they pay an even more severe penalty if they plead not guilty and the case has to go to trial, which didn't happen in this case because she plead guilty, and her guilty plea was taken into account in sentencing.


  • #39
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,325 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Prisoner 6753 wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.




    48?


    Bitch told me she was only 38.




    Please correct your sentence to "current wife 48"


  • #40
    Diversity for Hire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72 ✭✭Diversity for Hire


    Female privilege in action.


  • #41
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Can someone clarify? I thought the victim of the robbery was different to the murder victim. I read it that someone killed her boyfriend and then she went with the killer and robbed a homeless guy.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,439 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    Can someone clarify? I thought the victim of the robbery was different to the murder victim. I read it that someone killed her boyfriend and then she went with the killer and robbed a homeless guy.


    That's exactly what happened. She took part in the robbery of the homeless man, with the man who had murdered her boyfriend the previous night.


  • #43
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    That's exactly what happened. She took part in the robbery of the homeless man, with the man who had murdered her boyfriend the previous night.


    So has this poster got it mixed up or is he referring to something else?

    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.


  • #44
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,439 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    So has this poster got it mixed up or is he referring to something else?


    I can't blame Franz tbh as it's just a very badly written article.


  • #45
    nthclare
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,312 ✭✭✭nthclare


    If you're unattractive and from a bad family, you're considered a sht bag, if you're easy on the eye from a good family you're sound...

    These judges came from a privelaged background, totally detached from modern thinking and empathy.

    I'd have put her away for 40 year's, out after 20

    And she's supposed to be parenting and a responsible adult....

    I call bllsht on this


  • #46
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    nthclare wrote: »

    I'd have put her away for 40 year's, out after 20

    And she's supposed to be parenting and a responsible adult....


    How would she be a parent if you've locked her away for 20 years?


  • #47
    Calhoun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Typical sentence for typical Ireland, it's why our judiciary needs an overhaul .

    Im not asking for fire and brimstone but justice be served.

    Also I would point out that at no stage did the judge think that this woman is probably a danger to her future child.


Advertisement
Advertisement