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

splinter65 · 27-10-2019 08:52AM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

No one said they were ? People are discussing the protection of their "dignity" .While I understand the rights of minors those particular words have irritated many who read it . My first thought was " as if these two murderers have any dignity left to protect "

No. You need to read the posts that I’m responding to.
pjjohnson insists that they’re not going to face the consequences of their actions.
They are.

iamwhoiam · 27-10-2019 08:57AM

splinter65 wrote: »

No. You need to read the posts that I’m responding to.
pjjohnson insists that they’re not going to face the consequences of their actions.
They are.

I hope they face enough years so . Personally I think the punishment has to fit the crime even for 13 year olds .

Hannibal_Smith · 27-10-2019 09:51AM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Personally I see no harm in discussing it and how we feel I dont think a judge is above criticism ..Not that it matters how we feel really , it only matters how Anas family feel .

It's not being 'discussed' though. It's looking for any reason to be outraged.

The judge has had no part in any of the hurt caused to the Kriegel family, he is not part of the crime and he's not trying to deepen any wounds.

Hannibal_Smith · 27-10-2019 09:52AM

monty_python wrote: »

So they are being sentenced Tuesday??

Yes, Tuesday.

iamwhoiam · 27-10-2019 09:59AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

It's not being 'discussed' though. It's looking for any reason to be outraged.

The judge has had no part in any of the hurt caused to the Kriegel family, he is not part of the crime and he's not trying to deepen any wounds.

I know he had no part in it . My one criticism of him is the choice of words . Personally I think “ protecting their dignity “ was a poor choice of words
I don’t think that shows outrage at all , its simply a point I made . I don’t think he is beyond criticism for it . I think he did a great job in extremely difficult circumstances , but still found his choice of words strange

Road-Hog · 27-10-2019 10:02AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

It's not being 'discussed' though. It's looking for any reason to be outraged.

The judge has had no part in any of the hurt caused to the Kriegel family, he is not part of the crime and he's not trying to deepen any wounds.

Well if I was the kreigels I’d be fairly pissed off with his ‘kind words and sentiments’ that he has used towards the ‘2 x vermin’ involved here....I never once suggested that his ‘words’ would result in a more lenient sentence but he should be able to be more sensitive in his statements with His enormous IQ and life experience etc......but a lot of the judiciary are not in touch with reality.....!

pjohnson · 27-10-2019 10:04AM

splinter65 wrote: »

No. You need to read the posts that I’m responding to.
pjjohnson insists that they’re not going to face the consequences of their actions.
They are.

I didnt know they were getting an actual life sentence! When did that happen splinter?

banie01 · 27-10-2019 10:14AM

I can certainly understand the anger many feel that these boys are now being treated with a degree of fairness and compassion that is far and away in excess of anything they showed Ana in her life, or her family after their death.

However, in Ireland the whole aim of the judicial process is to impose a punitive sentence whilst still allowing the criminal to be treated humanely, and lawfully.
That they have commited heinous acts, does not mean we as a society get to reciprocate in kind.
Indeed if we did, would it not make us as a society akin to them?

The courts impose a sentence, hopefully it will be the maximum the guidelines allow.
Then the boys will enter the penal system.
That system is geared towards the reform of convicts, not solely the punishment of them.

If we want to start imposing sentences of indefinite duration, corporal or capital punishment or any other fashion of restorative or indeed solely punitive rather than rehabilitive sentencing?
That to me would point more towards a failure of society, than the abberation the awful crime commited by these 2 represents.

The judge's responsibility here is a delicate one.
Justice must be served, but justice is not solely served by retribution.

nannerby · 27-10-2019 10:25AM

tuxy wrote: »

But aren't you contradicting yourself since a life sentence can be less than 10 years depending on the parole boards decision which is done on a case by case basis.

Case by case maybe but average lifer does 20yrs now no one has done less than 10yrs this century but watch these guys walk after 7 or 8 yrs.

Skylinehead · 27-10-2019 01:04PM

pjohnson wrote: »

I didnt know they were getting an actual life sentence! When did that happen splinter?

You said the judge doesn't want them to face any consequences whatsoever. Not sure how you can come out with such bullshit.

forumdedum · 27-10-2019 01:59PM

abff wrote: »

I think you're probably right, but it's still hard to take the level of consideration that is being expressed for those two *******s.

Hard to take indeed. I don't know how Ana's family copes.

Garibaldi? · 27-10-2019 03:58PM

Mob reaction has to be curtailed. It has nothing to do with justice for a victim. There is nothing whatsoever noble or wholesome about it. It reflects the worst tendencies in human nature. It is espoused by the lowest common denominator in society.

KWAG2019 · 27-10-2019 04:10PM

Garibaldi? wrote: »

Mob reaction has to be curtailed. It has nothing to do with justice for a victim. There is nothing whatsoever noble or wholesome about it. It reflects the worst tendencies in human nature. It is espoused by the lowest common denominator in society.

I saw today that a man who murdered 3 soldiers in the Lebanon served 27 years and was released in 2010. 9 years a life. I think you're very confused about who the mob is; the worst tendencies in human nature are to condone savagery by excusing it.

iamwhoiam · 27-10-2019 04:34PM

Garibaldi? wrote: »

Mob reaction has to be curtailed. It has nothing to do with justice for a victim. There is nothing whatsoever noble or wholesome about it. It reflects the worst tendencies in human nature. It is espoused by the lowest common denominator in society.

Discussion is a healthy thing .,We do not always have to accept things as they are. We can question a decision made by a court without it being mob reaction .

padd b1975 · 27-10-2019 04:40PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Yes, Tuesday.

What odds on the psychological reports etc not being completed in time?

McCrack · 27-10-2019 04:41PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I know he had no part in it . My one criticism of him is the choice of words . Personally I think “ protecting their dignity “ was a poor choice of words
I don’t think that shows outrage at all , its simply a point I made . I don’t think he is beyond criticism for it . I think he did a great job in extremely difficult circumstances , but still found his choice of words strange

Dignity in the context of your understanding is not what the judge means. There are certain constitutional and human rights that every person has regardless of how bad they are or the terrible things acts they have committed. It's part of the rule of law we abide by as a civilised and democratic society.. And if you don't like that you can move to north Korea or somewhere

..... Article 1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights states that: 'Human dignity is inviolable. ... The Irish Constitution is also based on the notion of 'the dignity and freedom of the individual'. Similarly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is founded on the principle of the 'dignity and worth of the human person'.

iamwhoiam · 27-10-2019 04:46PM

McCrack wrote: »

Dignity in the context of your understanding is not what the judge means. There are certain constitutional and human rights that every person has regardless of how bad they are or the terrible things acts they have committed. It's part of the rule of law we abide by as a civilised and democratic society.. And if you don't like that you can move to north Korea or somewhere

..... Article 1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights states that: 'Human dignity is inviolable. ... The Irish Constitution is also based on the notion of 'the dignity and freedom of the individual'. Similarly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is founded on the principle of the 'dignity and worth of the human person'.

Thanks for the article it does go someway in explaining the choice of wards , ( though I dont really think it helps to be sarcastic about it )

Gadgetman496 · 27-10-2019 04:46PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

What odds on the psychological reports etc not being completed in time?

They are complete & the Judge is in possession of them.

KWAG2019 · 27-10-2019 05:24PM

McCrack wrote: »

Dignity in the context of your understanding is not what the judge means. There are certain constitutional and human rights that every person has regardless of how bad they are or the terrible things acts they have committed. It's part of the rule of law we abide by as a civilised and democratic society.. And if you don't like that you can move to north Korea or somewhere

..... Article 1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights states that: 'Human dignity is inviolable. ... The Irish Constitution is also based on the notion of 'the dignity and freedom of the individual'. Similarly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is founded on the principle of the 'dignity and worth of the human person'.

It’s always worth repeating that human rights are an invented entity. They can be amended and added to or altered by that which brought them into existence, human reason. There is a semi theological reverence for the concept nowadays that simply ignores their origin and development.

As an Interesting aside, Trump and his sidekick Pence want to move all this back to “natural law” basis which to them is based in Christian belief. The argument that the US constitution was founded in such and as such, interpretation of the constitution should be based there too. Religious loons haven’t gone away you know.

In the Ana case and the convicted criminals, the judge wants to preserve the legal construct of their dignity. True. But his role and the balance of his role in the eyes of any sane society is to take serious account of the violation of Ana Kriegel’s dignity, both as legal construct and actual reality, a permanent and irreversible violation as it involved the destruction of her life.

Hoboo · 27-10-2019 07:17PM

KWAG2019 wrote: »

It’s always worth repeating that human rights are an invented entity. They can be amended and added to or altered by that which brought them into existence, human reason. There is a semi theological reverence for the concept nowadays that simply ignores their origin and development.

As an Interesting aside, Trump and his sidekick Pence want to move all this back to “natural law” basis which to them is based in Christian belief. The argument that the US constitution was founded in such and as such, interpretation of the constitution should be based there too. Religious loons haven’t gone away you know.

In the Ana case and the convicted criminals, the judge wants to preserve the legal construct of their dignity. True. But his role and the balance of his role in the eyes of any sane society is to take serious account of the violation of Ana Kriegel’s dignity, both as legal construct and actual reality, a permanent and irreversible violation as it involved the destruction of her life.

His role is to pass sentence and he will use that opportunity to reflect the seriousness of the crime, his role is not to ignore the law or apply the law in an impartial manner. A society that fails to recognise that may be sane, but completely ignorant. How random jury's still exist is beyond me.

KWAG2019 · 27-10-2019 07:50PM

Hoboo wrote: »

his role is not to ignore the law or apply the law in an impartial manner.

I haven’t seen anyone call for the law to be ignored. Changed perhaps. The place the law was ignored in this case was when two criminals lured an innocent young child to a deserted house bear her sexually assaulted her and then beat her to death.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt about “Impartial” and assume you meant the opposite.

Random juries are there to ensure that the common sense of ordinary people is applied to determine guilt or innocence. They have judges to direct and guide about the law. If you hold ordinary people in contempt then juries are to be derided.

tayto lover · 27-10-2019 08:59PM

volchitsa wrote: »

That's not really the point. Courts don't base treatment of criminals on "an eye for an eye" any more. There's a rule of law, and if the courts don't follow it how can we expect anyone else to do so.

Anyway by that logic, we wouldn't be worrying about not respecting their dignity, we'd be beating them to death somewhere. i know it's what some people want, but as a society we've agreed not to do that. Even to murderers.

Nobody’s talking about an eye for an eye.
They stole any dignity Ana had and brutally murdered her.
They left her body lying in a derelict house, sexually assaulted, battered and bruised.
Boy B even denigrated her in his statements and in court in front of her parents.

Yet their dignity I’d first and foremost in your mind.
Sad.
And we wound beating them to death, where did anyone say that?

volchitsa · 27-10-2019 09:44PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Nobody’s talking about an eye for an eye.
They stole any dignity Ana had and brutally murdered her.
They left her body lying in a derelict house, sexually assaulted, battered and bruised.
Boy B even denigrated her in his statements and in court in front of her parents.

Yet their dignity I’d first and foremost in your mind.
Sad.
And we wound beating them to death, where did anyone say that?

Try to reply to what I said please, not to what you imagine I said. Never mind what you imagine is in my mind.

Then you might even get a reply in turn.

Rodin · 27-10-2019 09:48PM

Whatever sentence they get won't be enough.

F..k rehabilitation.

Prison should be there to protect decent people from the scum of society.

Hal3000 · 27-10-2019 09:59PM

Don’t be expecting any proper justice in this case. Sure we live in a country that lets people view child abuse material without any sentence ? Seriously, I can’t see these boys getting any sort of stiff sentence.

tayto lover · 27-10-2019 10:08PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Try to reply to what I said please, not to what you imagine I said. Never mind what you imagine is in my mind.

Then you might even get a reply in turn.

Then you shouldn’t twist what people said either.
Anyway there are many who see the decisions of judges from time to time as bafflingly lenient. Judges following the rule of law is often questionable.

volchitsa · 27-10-2019 10:46PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Then you shouldn’t twist what people said either.

I didn't say they said it though. I said that was the same logic - because it is: if you refuse to treat someone with dignity because they didn't treat their victim with dignity, that is an eye for an eye. Only in this case it's the stupid version, because it's picking one part of their crime to punish them by, while not punishing them according to the most significant aspect of their crime, the actual murder.

You OTOH decided you know what's first and foremost in my mind, and yet I can assure you you are entirely wrong. And I think I should know shouldn't I?

tayto lover wrote: »

Anyway there are many who see the decisions of judges from time to time as bafflingly lenient. Judges following the rule of law is often questionable.

The first part is a completely different point, and without evidence that those "many" are right, it's just bluster. I don't know what the second sentence means - that judges probably don't follow the rule of law? Or that they do but shouldn't, as results are questionable?

nannerby · 27-10-2019 10:50PM

Hal3000 wrote: »

Don’t be expecting any proper justice in this case. Sure we live in a country that lets people view child abuse material without any sentence ? Seriously, I can’t see these boys getting any sort of stiff sentence.

They wont and more than likely will never see the inside of Arbour hill/wheatfield/mountjoy.

Hannibal_Smith · 27-10-2019 10:52PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Then you shouldn’t twist what people said either.
Anyway there are many who see the decisions of judges from time to time as bafflingly lenient. Judges following the rule of law is often questionable.

The judge hasn't even passed a sentence yet....

tayto lover · 27-10-2019 11:40PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

The judge hasn't even passed a sentence yet....

I never said he did. I was talking about many judicial decisions that seem very lenient for the seriousness of the crimes.

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

Comments