Ana Kriegel - Boys A & B found guilty [Mod: Do NOT post identifying information]

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

Everything I've heard from the judge leads me to believe he's going to be very lenient. Boy B will be out in time for college. Boy A will be out by 21.

I believe the guideline's for child sentences suggest incarceration should be avoided if at all possible,

In this case we could In theory see a 7 year or less sentence it won't be life

suicide_circus wrote: »

is anyone aware of the legal precedent in Ireland for sentencing in cases like this? ie: murder committed by a child?

It seems to me the sentence margin open to the court will be something between 8 and 14 years. The court has discretion to impose a life sentence however having regard to jurisprudence and the children's act I cannot see the judge imposing that.. Or if he does the court of Appeal would likely overturn it.

Not a chance these are getting a life sentence not even even close to it at most 10yrs max.

Gatling wrote: »

I Totally agree with you ,

But as I've repeatedly said over many years on here our judicial system is a joke ,
There will compassion and protection given to this psycho than we and future victims will ever be given.


Don't be surprised if we hear another Christmas at home with his family again report

I read far less compassion in the judges statement for Ana and her family . Surely to god they are the important ones in this . Their rights and dignity must come first

Road-Hog wrote: »

Is there really a need for a judge to give in-depth reasons and make statements justifying his reasons.....especially when they are about as insensitive as one could imagine for the victims family to be reading and hearing. Could he not just say he was restricting the numbers of media present to show impartiality and leave it at that......or could that be basis for an appeal....does he really have to make almost ‘pleasant statements’ about these two utter degenerates.......?

I agree that it was totally insensitive towards Anas grieving family
I pass the house in which she died twice weekly and each time my first thought is the pain and utter devastation her family must feel . Surely this should have been the main focus in the judges mind ? Not “ preserving the boys dignity “

Hoboo wrote: »

I'm a bit lost. I've read what he said, can't see any issue. Doesn't sit well with me that he said he needs to protect the boys dignity etc but he has a job to do. Am I missing something?

You are as insensitive as the judge so if you see nothing wrong with what he said.... Does he really have to elaborate in an almost sympathic manner towards the ‘degenerates’ / animals why he is limiting media Access to the hearing as if their crimes were accidental and didn’t know what they were doing......but that is the arrogance of the judiciary for you......how would you feel if you were a member of the Kriegel family...?

https://www.gofundme.com/f/together-for-Ana. Great cause for all that support this... Go for it!

Hoboo wrote: »

I wouldn't like the laws that exist to protect juvenile offenders but I wouldn't take issue with the judge because he's following the law! That's ridiculous.

As a judge that's his duty. If you read what he said he answers your question why he did what he did.

It’s the language he used........why did he have to elaborate and show respect and almost sympathy towards these two vicious/degenerate animals..........what I’m referring to is the following .......

1. ‘The considerable toll the court case has
taken’ on the ‘children........
2. ’the boys are under enormous pressure’
3. wanting to ensue.......the ‘least interference to
their dignity and welfare.”.........
4. concerns for ‘ the health, welfare and best
interests of these children who face the most
significant determination to be made in their
lives.”

I can see no justification to use such word as those above.......it’s almost like they are the victims here.

Road-Hog wrote: »

It’s the language he used........why did he have to elaborate and show respect and almost sympathy towards these two vicious/degenerate animals..........what I’m referring to is the following .......

1. ‘The considerable toll the court case has
taken’ on the ‘children........
2. ’the boys are under enormous pressure’
3. wanting to ensue.......the ‘least interference to
their dignity and welfare.”.........
4. concerns for ‘ the health, welfare and best
interests of these children who face the most
significant determination to be made in their
lives.”

I can see no justification to use such word as those above.......it’s almost like they are the victims here.

Because all 4 points are points of fact. He has a duty of care to them regardless of the crime, and a duty to society to fulfill his role professionally. I doubt what they did sits well with him either, but he carried out his duty professionally as we should hope he would. That's why the words are justified. He has applied Human Rights law, and your four points are his reasons for doing so. If he didn't explain why, then there's an issue.

I understand why the wording doesnt sit well, but facts are what courts rely on, and facts they are.

Whether they are victims or not is a debate I'll leave to sociologists and psychologists who are actually working with them, none of us know.

Road-Hog wrote: »

It’s the language/ words that judge used is what the issue is........surely guys of such enormous intellect/IQ as judges could be more careful with the sentiments their words portray.......I have never advocated a mob mentality or Treatment of these two degenerates but they need serious rehab and how that is done is beyond me but one thing for sure their ‘liberty’ should be deprived for a very long time.......let them get treated and assessed etc but more than likely walk out of detention in 5/7 years with claims that ‘they no longer present a risk to society’

I don't understand what language you want him to use - other than the language of the mob mentality that you say you don't advocate. Presumably you'd be happier if he called them "degenerates"?

As for the apparent suggestion that if only he used different language they would be less likely to get out early - well I'm really at a loss as to your thinking there.

Either that or you're making a different point entirely. It all seems rather confused anyway.

pjohnson wrote: »

Protecting this vermin has always been the priority of the court. Must protect the two lil angels. Wouldnt want them facing consequences now would we?

I didn’t know they’d been released and are free to go on with their lives! When did this happen pj?