[article] A scumbag sentenced to...

joe_chicken · 13-12-2005 05:24PM

dublindude wrote:

I find it amazing that if I rob a bank (inside job, NO violence) I'd probably get more than 9 years.

It's a crazy world...

sounds like you've been weighing up your options dublindude!?

5 years is too short... but then again he is relatively young

MrJoeSoap · 13-12-2005 05:36PM

Think they were talking about this guy on Gerry Ryan this morning, he is the one who cut the girls back with a stanley knife from from the top of the back down along her spine yeah? 6 years (effectively) for this piece of dirt excuse for a human being is just so insanely wrong I don't know where to begin.

Blisterman · 13-12-2005 05:43PM

Well hopfully he'll encounter lots of prison beatings and sodomy.

the_menace · 13-12-2005 06:26PM

It's only a drop in the ocean this case. Wait and see when there's a proper crack epidemic in Dublin and this kind of sick story will be commonplace. We should probably be addressing the root problem - the supply of crack cocaine. Because it turn otherwise relatively passive junkies into psychotic sadists. Fixed sentences don't work but there's should be a minimum of life for people caught with intent to supply crack. Simple as. We can sit around saying how silly that is for whatever reason while Dublin starts to resemble New York and LA in the late 80's or we can stamp it out. The hardline approach is the only thing that works; just ask any New Yorker. Mind you, judging by the lax "wait until it's too late" attitude towards criminality in this country I fear the worst.

Nuttzz · 13-12-2005 10:05PM

Blisterman wrote:

You're saying people who sell a bit of weed deserve a longer sentance than rapists?

they were only examples tbh

Get judges to review the length of mandatory sentences each year

oh and hire sheriff joe

http://www.mcso.org/submenu.asp?file=aboutsheriff&page=1

muckwarrior · 13-12-2005 11:04PM

Firstly this guy won't be out in 5 years. He will serve 9 full years backdated to last july, so basically 8 1/2 years. He will then be monitered for 5 more years and if he re-offends he'll be thrown back inside. He has already been in prison since the incident almost 3 years ago, but this time counts for other crimes he commited including headbutting a prison officer in court during the trial.

Secondly it was one of the victims intervied that mentioned exams. Phelan dropped out of school aged 12.

I think the sentence was far too lenient. Especially considering that all the sentences added together came to about 60-70 years! But because the sentences are served concurrently this effectively means that he only stays in prison for the duration of the longest sentence, which was 9 years for the sexual assault. This guy is evil. Pure and simple. He will re-offend, and most likely kill or maim someone. If it were up to me I'd have given him life.

And just in case you're wondering how I know so much about it, it's because I was there.

muckwarrior · 13-12-2005 11:20PM

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

The judge can only pass sentence on the crimes he was convicted of.

Yes, but the maximum sentence that he could have imposed was life. Therefore he chose to be lenient.

Airblazer · 14-12-2005 12:36AM

that as we're seeing from both Limerick and Dublin is that the scumbags are killing each other..and the best of luck to them I'd say...the sooner they're all gone the better...I'm sure no decent person mourned that shiitbag that was gunned down in dublin recently..hopefully this guy will get sorted out in jail ie...and fingers crossed it'll be painful for him

MrJoeSoap · 14-12-2005 12:43AM

It is not only "each other" they are affecting though, and they will never "kill each other off".

LORDOFDOOM · 14-12-2005 12:44AM

aidan_walsh wrote:

Are you seriously saying that everyone who dropped out of school is more likely to be a criminal?

Are you for real?
Like...seriously?

passive · 14-12-2005 12:52AM

Are you seriously saying that everyone who dropped out of school is more likely to be a criminal?

Just to take you up on that... What he was actually saying seemed to be that violent criminals and the "scumbags" and "junkies" to which we are referring are far, far, far less likely to have completed their leaving certificate or be involved in third level education than everyone else...

I don't think that's at all unreasonable and is most likely backed up my figures and statistics and all kinds of numbers... so remember.. A is likely to be B does not mean that B is likely to be A.

muckwarrior · 14-12-2005 12:59AM

passive wrote:

A is likely to be B does not mean that B is likely to be A.

Raining => raincoat
Raincoat ¬=> raining

On topic though, this is a slightly more accurate report.

slipss · 14-12-2005 03:38AM

I can't it believe it but I actually knew this guy when we were younger, he always seemed really sound, he was a bit of a scumbag even when I knew him, always got on well with him though. Hadn't seen him in a few years, I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw his name in the paper. What a sick ****er, after reading the sh1t he did I the sentence was too lenient. I wonder why he wasn't facing attempted murder charges, for the guy who's stomack he cut open.

Delboy05 · 14-12-2005 10:16AM

i wonder if the houses ye're man had broken into were on Shrewsbury Road, would the sentence have been longer.....
Judges who live in Ivory towers are well removed from daily life....

should have got around 14 years IMO. Should'nt have been on the streets in the 1st place - he had 30 previous convictions!!! Surely once you pass 5 criminal convictions, in say, 5 years, you should be looking at minimum jail sentences which increase in length on every subsequent offence

Peace · 14-12-2005 10:40AM

Don't the US govt have some system of 3 strikes and life... or was that ever introduced.

Any this lad should have been sent away for a long time. 5 years is a short strech for the trauma he inflicted on his victims.

bohsboy · 14-12-2005 11:23AM

He got 9 years back-dated to July and lose one-quarter of the sentence on remission straight away so that knocks of almost three years of the sentence. 6 years for sexual assault and 12 other people assalulted? Very soft sentence. If he had carried the crimes out over the course of 13 night he would be facing 20 years plus inside. His only good luck was that he carried them all out on the one night.

fly_agaric · 14-12-2005 11:45AM

Delboy05 wrote:

Judges who live in Ivory towers are well removed from daily life....

IMO, at least some of the judges do seem to get more worked up about property crime. Sometimes they hand out pretty stiff sentences (few years) to recidivist shoplifters and burglars who have spent their whole lives robbing. I would have thought the sentence would be stiffer seeing as this man is an extremely dangerous individual. I wonder how the survivors feel knowing he could be out of jail in a 5 or so years if he behaves himself well (big if though)?

muckwarrior · 14-12-2005 02:14PM

bohsboy wrote:

He got 9 years back-dated to July and lose one-quarter of the sentence on remission straight away so that knocks of almost three years of the sentence.

Apparently not. I was told that he will serve the 9 full years.

padser · 14-12-2005 03:13PM

In general i agree with everyone who says that scummers that commit crimes like this should get much stiffer sentences (10-15-20 yrs inside with no remission etc).

However there is something i sometimes think about. You get on a bus and you see a little child of 2/3 yrs of age dressed up in little knacker gear and an earring etc and the mother and father shouting and cursing at him and looking like complete scummers themselves.Most people feel sorry for that kid and say he doesnt have much of a chance.

Fast forward to a couple of yrs and he is causing a bit of minor trouble like throwing stones at cars etc when he is 6/7/8 and people are giving out about him and asking 'what are the parents at'.

Then by the time he is 12/13/14 he is a complete fully feldged knack in his own right and no one has anymore sympathy for him and people say he should be locked up for a few years and have some respect 'knocked into him'.

When he is 20 he is suddenly up in court for exactly what we saw here and he brings up the argument of his childhood etc and at this point everyone suddenly forgets about the little 2 yr old they saw being dragged around the shops by their mother while she was shoppping and they thought 'he never had a proper start in life'. Suddenly its all his fault.

Im not making an excuse and saying in any way that what happened was just not his fault. Im simply saying that there are lots of couples that simply do not make good parents and that children from that type of background have a much higher chance of turning out badly. And when this happens, along with everyone else, when i see a scummer standing up in the dock, I think the country would be better if he was locked up until he was around 60 or so. But its not completely his fault, or at least often it isnt.

muckwarrior · 14-12-2005 03:34PM

Thats a fair point padser. But what about all the people with rough backgrounds that don't end up like this? I can kinda understand your average scummer doin a bit of robbing to fund his addiction or whatever. But this guy wasn't just a robber. The people involved readily handed over everything they had to him and his accomplice. But this wasn't good enough, he was intent on inflicting harm. He took pleasure in beating, stabbing and terrorising the people involved. They could have just grabbed the stuff and left, but in the last house they stayed for an hour and a half doing their best to terrorise and demean their victims. No kind of upbringing could result in the malice and general contempt for human life that this guy possesses.

padser · 14-12-2005 06:05PM

Well research shows that people with violent or abusive childhoods are much more likely to be violent or abusive also. Thats not to say all turn out like that. Many dont.

The bottom line is that if you were born into his family then im guessing you would have (and im only picking figures from the air here) 20-30% higher chance of ending up committing the kind of crime he did. So while it doesnt excuse it in any way it seems to suggest that he is not the only person to blame.

The fact that many people with similar upbringing lead normal productive lives means we can legitimately push the majority of the blame onto the individual sholders and dish out a custodial sentence. BUT this kind of person i believe is unlikely to ever change so the problem must be caught at the source. I can think of some very radical ways to do this but i guess they might be too far to the right to gain general accpetance. What i would certainly advocate would be taking 500 or 1000 kids per year off the most unsuitable of parents (junkies, alcoholics, criminals) and placing them in foster homes.

To make the point that you kinda understand the average scummer robbing etc I think in a way excuses it which im not trying to do at all. What he did was simply an extension (albeit a horrific one) of the average 'scummer' robbing. And all this type of behaviour is completely inexcusable.

fly_agaric · 14-12-2005 06:25PM

muckwarrior wrote:

But this guy wasn't just a robber.

Yes. He needs to be locked up, not for the sake of justice, revenge, or to "knock some sense into him", but for reasons of public safety.
If he does serve the full term, and a very good eye is kept on him after his release, that isn't too bad IMO.

seamus · 14-12-2005 06:44PM

padser wrote:

What i would certainly advocate would be taking 500 or 1000 kids per year off the most unsuitable of parents (junkies, alcoholics, criminals) and placing them in foster homes.

OT. Those convicted of drugs offences and known for having a serious drug abuse problem, sure. Criminals, absolutely. But alcoholics....meh.....yes and no. It would have to be a case-by-case thing. Plenty of alcoholics (like plenty of coke heads, I'm sure) aren't necessarily abusive, neglectful or otherwise bad parents. They just have a problem.

Most of it would be caught up in the two-parent problem - i.e. where one parent is abusive/alcoholic/junkie, and the other isn't. Take away the child and are we punishing the other parent for sticking with their vowed partner?

CiaranC · 14-12-2005 07:11PM

seamus wrote:

OT. Those convicted of drugs offences and known for having a serious drug abuse problem, sure. Criminals, absolutely. But alcoholics....meh.....yes and no.

You obviously are lucky enough to not have any experience with alcoholic parents. Alcohol is a drug, and addiction to it is the cause of more abuse, neglect and hardship than any other drug in this country by a long shot.

AirBlazer wrote:

that as we're seeing from both Limerick and Dublin is that the scumbags are killing each other..and the best of luck to them I'd say...the sooner they're all gone the better

Unfortunately, our society seems capable of producing this underclass way faster than they can kill each other off.

[article] A scumbag sentenced to...

Comments