Judge says role of the court is not revenge

lightspeed · 22-10-2018 11:16PM #1

im troubled by the remarks of the judge in the recent sexual abuse conviction of an old man upon his now grown up niece/nephew.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/1022/1005863-john-joe-kiernan-courts/

So a suspended sentence was given which im not surprised given his aged and medical conditions. However, the below comment from the judge troubles me.

"But he said the court's function was not to extract revenge but to protect society, deal with victims and rehabilitation".

So from that sentence how do you define justice? Is justice not revenge?

If a rape occurs, can the victim not rely on the courts to enforce prison as punishment to provide justice?

By such logic if the guilty party was not of old age with medical issues etc and was deemed unlikely to reoffend a suspended sentence should be given each time.

This to me seems shocking and wrong for a crime as serious as rape.

22-10-2018 11:19PM

I guess it could be look on as “revenge”. Really it’s meant to punish and rehabilitate the offender. The judge in this instance decided neither would be beneficial to this individual given his age etc. I don’t think anyone should look At imprisonment as revenge.

lightspeed · 22-10-2018 11:55PM

Augustine Rhythmic BluebirdMGS wrote: »

I guess it could be look on as “revenge”. Really it’s meant to punish and rehabilitate the offender. The judge in this instance decided neither would be beneficial to this individual given his age etc. I don’t think anyone should look At imprisonment as revenge.

So what remedy should the victim look for vengeance?
is revenge not really the same as justice?

The argument against vigilante justice is often that people should rely on the justice of the courts but this is clearly void of credibility when the courts sole purpose is only to try gain assurance that the offender wont reoffend.

if a young male commits such a crime say under the influence of drugs. A team of physiologists assess his state of mind and conclude he is genuinely remorseful and unlikely to re offend, there is no reason the courts should not give a suspended sentence based on the same logic as the above courts.

I cant see the justice in that and i dont think its inappropriate for the victim to want vengeance. It would be better for society if that came from the courts rather than vigilante justice.

23-10-2018 12:12AM

The fact someone will be left sitting in a cell for several years is their vengeance I suppose. If that’s how they wish to look upon it. But as far as the justice system is concerned it’s not a revenge thing on their behalf. I mean the crime wasn’t against the judge or jury so how could it be revenge for them.

Samuel T. Cogley · 23-10-2018 11:02AM

The function of the courts does include an element of retribution, this might only rise to the standard of vindication of the victims rights, and perhaps the Judge is right, not revenge but it was a rather ill-advised comment IMHO.

Judge says role of the court is not revenge

Comments