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

tuxy · 28-10-2019 04:47PM

Hal3000 wrote: »

So it comes down to money not justice. Thank you for proving my point.

Yes, bankrupting the country is not the solution and could cause a crime epidemic.

KWAG2019 · 28-10-2019 05:03PM

Hoboo wrote: »

We all know the story, no need for the emotion.

I simply recounted the facts and who was guilty of the crime. You seem to be reading emotion into that which is a defensive and fearful reaction. But that's of no interest to me.

People are saying he shouldn't be concerned with the boys dignity nor offer them the protection of their dignity that the law affords them. That's ignoring the law. And the fact he explained this has the mob out.

I have seen people on the thread ask about the apparent injustice of being concerned about their dignity instead of the murdered child's. I saw you offer an explanation that he was legally obliged under human rights law to do that. I think people may not have understood the legal dignity that was involved which is a normal layman's response. The judge's interpretation of what he must do to uphold the legal right to dignity is his interpretation i.e. number of reporters etc. Others may differ.

I meant impartial. When applying law a judge must be impartial to all concerned. Can't see the confusion.

The confusion was caused by what you typed. "his role is not to ignore the law or apply the law in an impartial manner". What you typed states that his role is not to apply the law in an impartial manner. I assumed it was a mistake. You're welcome.

Jury's are not used to ensure common sense prevails, it's to ensure democracy prevails. This thread alone reflects how peoples minds work, and their inability to understand the system let alone comprehend or apply law. And far too emotional.

I beg to differ m'lud. I repeat juries rely on the judge to deal with law; they apply their common sense and humanity and emotion and reach a verdict. A human being devoid of emotions is an interesting proposition. A mature human being should be able to have them, recognise them and not be governed by them if inappropriate.

I don't know what Tuesday will bring. I will watch with sadness.

splinter65 · 28-10-2019 05:06PM

pjohnson wrote: »

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

So no other sentence apart from a life sentence will count as “facing the consequences” for you.
I assume you don’t consider their current incarceration as “facing the consequences”?

KWAG2019 · 28-10-2019 05:11PM

tuxy wrote: »

That would involve diverting large amounts of money that is currently going to one area being pumped into the prisons systems instead. Prisons are currently full so we would need to build more and it consts €100,000 a year on average to house one prisoner.
Increasing prisoner population size has not worked in other countries, if Ireland can come up with a new system where it does work then it may be worth funnelling more money into the prison system but even the research for that won't be cheap.

And at last we begin looking at the reality. An excellent post as a starting point. Who should be in prison? Why does it cost so much? What are the crimes etc etc. Why are legal costs so high? Western societies are reaching a point where they have to stop and look at the reality of costs, taxation, parenting, education, drug taking etc etc and begin devising new ways of responding. There is an awful lot of chat about disrupting business to find new ways: our whole legal and judicial system is crying out for disruption. The blank canvas rather than the legacy system patched and repatched may be the way to go.

tuxy · 28-10-2019 05:12PM

Doesn't the fact that Darren Goodwin received a life sentence increase the possibility that the judge will hand down a life sentence for these boys?
I think it makes it highly likely that he will for boy A, I wouldn't be as confident about boy B but still hope he does.

iamwhoiam · 28-10-2019 05:19PM

Hoboo wrote: »

We all know the story, no need for the emotion.

People are saying he shouldn't be concerned with the boys dignity nor offer them the protection of their dignity that the law affords them. That's ignoring the law. And the fact he explained this has the mob out.

I meant impartial. When applying law a judge must be impartial to all concerned. Can't see the confusion.

Jury's are not used to ensure common sense prevails, it's to ensure democracy prevails. This thread alone reflects how peoples minds work, and their inability to understand the system let alone comprehend or apply law. And far too emotional.

How exactly do you expect the normal citizen to understand the justice system or comprehend law ?
It would be like me expecting ordinary people to understand the intricacies of the human endocrine system .
If you have a point about the justice system that you understand would not be a good idea to explain it rather that expect others to aware of it

iamwhoiam · 28-10-2019 05:25PM

tuxy wrote: »

Doesn't the fact that Darren Goodwin received a life sentence increase the possibility that the judge will hand down a life sentence for these boys?
I think it makes it highly likely that he will for boy A, I wouldn't be as confident about boy B but still hope he does.

I would hope that their complete lack of remorse and their continued efforts to put Ana down and disrespect her would count against them .

spurious · 28-10-2019 05:27PM

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'.

This, plus, whether we like it or not, the judge is not there for Ana's family. He is there to make sure the law is followed.
Like it or not, our legal system allows for the possibility of behaviour reform and does not have punishment as its sole focus.

KWAG2019 · 28-10-2019 05:48PM

spurious wrote: »

This, plus, whether we like it or not, the judge is not there for Ana's family. He is there to make sure the law is followed.
Like it or not, our legal system allows for the possibility of behaviour reform and does not have punishment as its sole focus.

Focusing on a judge is missing the point alright. The law as it currently stands enables judicial outcomes at variance with what society might see as appropriate. There can be a legal snobbery about ordinary people (which is ultimately dangerous to the rule of law itself) and a dismissive “we know best” delusion. This is a confusion between knowledge of the law and understanding the origin and purpose of law itself.

And there is the whole notion of rehabilitation: what actually works? What sort of cases does it work with. And with some criminals so dangerous is the risk of re-offending however slight to some eyes too much for society to gamble with. Because the gamble is on another’s persons life without which talk of dignity is empty.

28-10-2019 10:13PM

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Focusing on a judge is missing the point alright. The law as it currently stands enables judicial outcomes at variance with what society might see as appropriate. There can be a legal snobbery about ordinary people (which is ultimately dangerous to the rule of law itself) and a dismissive “we know best” delusion. This is a confusion between knowledge of the law and understanding the origin and purpose of law itself.

And there is the whole notion of rehabilitation: what actually works? What sort of cases does it work with. And with some criminals so dangerous is the risk of re-offending however slight to some eyes too much for society to gamble with. Because the gamble is on another’s persons life without which talk of dignity is empty.

I always though Judges were there to protect us from to much 'common law' and mob rule its impossible to both alow the mob rule impulse and do what is probably best for sociey.

fritzelly · 28-10-2019 10:57PM

tuxy wrote: »

That would involve diverting large amounts of money that is currently going to one area being pumped into the prisons systems instead. Prisons are currently full so we would need to build more and it consts €100,000 a year on average to house one prisoner.
Increasing prisoner population size has not worked in other countries, if Ireland can come up with a new system where it does work then it may be worth funnelling more money into the prison system but even the research for that won't be cheap.

Why does it cost 100k a year to house a prisoner? Seriously?
As for legal aid - a joke, us fools are paying multiple times for the same person to appear before a judge (Nolan) to get let off (for multiple serious offences) only to go and do the same thing again. Nothing to do with the thread, just a rant

Anyway what time is the judgement expected tomorrow?

SirChenjin · 28-10-2019 11:25PM

My heart goes out to Ana's parents and her family as they face yet another ordeal tomorrow.

amadangomor · 28-10-2019 11:56PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

There has been no suggestion that either of the boys are mentally ill as far as I know ?

Maybe not mentally ill but must be on the spectrum of psychopathy/sociopathy which has been manifested in a premeditated horrific predatory murder.

Society needs to be protected from them so they should never be free again.

wakka12 · 29-10-2019 12:55AM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

There has been no suggestion that either of the boys are mentally ill as far as I know ?

I dont know, but a mentally normal or adjusted person isnt capable of the premeditate rape, torture ,humiliation and murder with their bare hands of an innocent child who has done them no wrong and then lacking the remorse to confess. There is something wrong with those boys minds, obviously

If they are let out into normal society during their lifetime its only a matter of time before another innocent person meets the same fate as that poor girl because of them

Hoboo · 29-10-2019 01:03AM

Hal3000 wrote: »

You really think judges in this country are impartial?

Let me just throw these nuggets of Irish judicial wisdom out there.

Quite recently a man who downloaded large amounts of child abuse material was given a suspended sentence because the judge ruled he had already felt enough shame by losing his family and position in the community. Here’s another, a man who assaulted his partner was let go free because English was not his first language and this would make prison difficult for him... I just love how people here try to quote the workings of the judicial system and somehow think that judges apply any of its rational here in Ireland. Our judicial system is a farce, we all know it and I suspect this case won’t be any different in how it’s sentenced.

I never once said I think judges ARE impartial.

I never once quoted anything. Id use quotations if I did. One of the roles of a judge is to apply law impartially. That's a fact. No one said that happens all the time.

donkeykong5 · 29-10-2019 01:04AM

SirChenjin wrote: »

My heart goes out to Ana's parents and her family as they face yet another ordeal tomorrow.

Really hope they get justice for what happened to their child.

Hoboo · 29-10-2019 02:27AM

KWAG2019 wrote: »

I simply recounted the facts and who was guilty of the crime. You seem to be reading emotion into that which is a defensive and fearful reaction. But that's of no interest to me.

We all know the story. I'm not reading emotion, you brought emotion into it. By recounting the story your attempt to stir emotion is a defensive reaction, to deflect from debate in which you have little other fact to offer......to highlight you doing so is not "fear", it's someone calling you out, and you don't seem to like it.

KWAG2019 wrote: »

I have seen people on the thread ask about the apparent injustice of being concerned about their dignity instead of the murdered child's. I saw you offer an explanation that he was legally obliged under human rights law to do that. I think people may not have understood the legal dignity that was involved which is a normal layman's response. The judge's interpretation of what he must do to uphold the legal right to dignity is his interpretation i.e. number of reporters etc. Others may differ.

It was explained in black and white in the report and these laymen couldn't comprehend it. Yet you expect they would have the ability to apply common sense if part of a jury.

KWAG2019 wrote: »

The confusion was caused by what you typed. "his role is not to ignore the law or apply the law in an impartial manner". What you typed states that his role is not to apply the law in an impartial manner. I assumed it was a mistake. You're welcome.

Correct. I should have said 'or rather apply'. Thanks for that.

KWAG2019 wrote: »

I beg to differ m'lud. I repeat juries rely on the judge to deal with law; they apply their common sense and humanity and emotion and reach a verdict. A human being devoid of emotions is an interesting proposition. A mature human being should be able to have them, recognise them and not be governed by them if inappropriate.

You can beg as much as you like, you'll still be wrong. I'll repeat what you actually said...

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Random juries are there to ensure that the common sense of ordinary people is applied to determine guilt or innocence.

The random jury system is in place to ensure democracy prevails, the role of the jury is as you stated above. A subtle but poorly executed attempt to yet again deflect your inaccuracies.

I'm now done, too emotional, confused and devoid of fact for me.

Brock Turnpike · 29-10-2019 09:49AM

Think a lot of people are going to be disappointed / outraged by the verdict today. Awful day for the family

howamidifferent · 29-10-2019 09:49AM

tuxy wrote: »

Doesn't the fact that Darren Goodwin received a life sentence increase the possibility that the judge will hand down a life sentence for these boys?
I think it makes it highly likely that he will for boy A, I wouldn't be as confident about boy B but still hope he does.

He was released after only 13 years, free at 28.

And still no remorse.

ohnonotgmail · 29-10-2019 09:52AM

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

Think a lot of people are going to be disappointed / outraged by the verdict today. Awful day for the family

There is no guarantee that the sentence will be passed today.

LollipopJimmy · 29-10-2019 09:56AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

There is no guarantee that the sentence will be passed today.

I'd have thought a sentence would be unlikely today, hearing of evidence and reading of victim impact statements

ohnonotgmail · 29-10-2019 09:59AM

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

I'd have thought a sentence would be unlikely today, hearing of evidence and reading of victim impact statements

Yeah i was probably overstating the possibility of a sentence being passed today.

Gadgetman496 · 29-10-2019 10:06AM

They will not be sentenced today.

tuxy · 29-10-2019 11:40AM

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

They will not be sentenced today.

Yes, a full hearing to be held today but sentencing postponed until a later date with no date given yet.

tayto lover · 29-10-2019 11:43AM

Will we even be told what’s in the psychiatric reports?

smelly sock · 29-10-2019 11:44AM

Knowing the Irish Legal system this evil will be back lurking among us before Anna would have reached 25 or 30. A sad state of affairs indeed. Hopefully life will mean life in this case but it never does over here in most cases. Not sure why. Martin Nolan would probably hand down a suspended sentence amd coomend them for being brave.

Thoie · 29-10-2019 11:50AM

From the Irish Times:

"today’s hearing will include a summary of the evidence by a garda detective inspector and a statement by Ana’s parents and is likely to take a full day."

Ulysses Gaze · 29-10-2019 12:04PM

Let’s hope that wanker of a father of Boy B keeps his ****ing mouth shut this time.

If not, throw him in jail for contempt.

tuxy · 29-10-2019 12:06PM

Can we leave the anger or lack of until we finally hear the sentence?

smelly sock · 29-10-2019 12:08PM

tuxy wrote: »

Can we leave the anger or lack of until we finally hear the sentence?

Id agree normally but I think we are just pre-empting the obvious.

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

Comments