Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

A fine example of crime and punishment

«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,905 ✭✭✭User45701


    Ye, very odd but we live in a ****ed up country where they dont know how to punish people correctly. a 50 year prison sentence would stop some people but then that will cost you and me money in tax's to feed them even tho they where in the wrong, There is soemthing to be said for the death penalty. Its better for the state and for the loyal working citizans of said state


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Can I ask a favour? If you are going to start a thread by linking to a story, can you at least quote the first paragraph or something?

    "Three teenagers have been given prison sentences for their part in a petrol bomb attack in Moyross last year, which left two children with serious injuries.

    Jonathan O'Donoghue has been given an eight-year jail term with the final two years suspended.

    The 18-year-old was described as the main mover behind the petrol bomb attack."


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    tbh wrote: »
    Can I ask a favour? If you are going to start a thread by linking to a story, can you at least quote the first paragraph or something?
    +1 It's good with an inkling what the post is about instead of just a seller headline and a linky.

    Link won't open for me. Did it say what triggered the attack?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,994 ✭✭✭ambro25


    Not many people enamoured of the "bearded tanned guys" these days, but there's something to be said (at times) for their rather...mmm..."more primitive" criminal justice system.

    My thoughts go to the father, in the face of the 'public order' matter.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,563 ✭✭✭connundrum


    Apparently they were unaware that there were children inside the car. Had there been no children in the car at the time they had set it on fire, all three lads probably would have been given 6 months suspended sentences.

    What would have been an appropriate sentence?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    I believe they asked hes for a lift somewhere and she refused. Asking for it tbh*p


    *that was a joke


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,994 ✭✭✭ambro25


    I believe they asked hes for a lift somewhere and she refused. Asking for it tbh*p


    *that was a joke

    Considering kids were 'seriously injured' and it was a petrol bomb attack, therefore surmising that the kids were burned to some extent, I don't find that remotely funny.

    Appropriate sentence? At least double-digits, no parole.

    In case of 3rd degree burns and scarring for life of the kids, add reparation for life (set amount, monthly or yearly) to the kids - payable into trust fund, tied to perps' PPS number and collected at source whenever any income is taxed.

    If 17/18 year olds don't want to know about being responsible, it'll be drummed into them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    ambro25 wrote: »
    Considering kids were 'seriously injured' and it was a petrol bomb attack, therefore surmising that the kids were burned to some extent, I don't find that remotely funny.

    You need to retune from "humanities" to "AH".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,994 ✭✭✭ambro25


    Context well understood. All the same, am I prevented from posting my opinion, or is it an AH Forum Rule that the p1ss must be taken of everything? ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Slow Motion


    tbh wrote: »
    Can I ask a favour? If you are going to start a thread by linking to a story, can you at least quote the first paragraph or something?

    You are quite correct and I apologise I should have quoted some text. Pop into YORE MAs later and I'll give you a pint on the house:)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    connundrum wrote: »
    Apparently they were unaware that there were children inside the car. Had there been no children in the car at the time they had set it on fire, all three lads probably would have been given 6 months suspended sentences.

    What would have been an appropriate sentence?
    I would of thought life in prison would be good enough. Someone who firebombs a car simply because the owner refused to give a lift, would not be missed by society.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    You are quite correct and I apologise I should have quoted some text. Pop into YORE MAs later and I'll give you a pint on the house:)

    done and done!

    (and I mean done!)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,563 ✭✭✭connundrum


    ambro25 wrote: »
    is it an AH Forum Rule that the p1ss must be taken of everything? ;)

    Its not a requirement, but it generally follows with any 'serious' subject.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    ambro25 wrote: »
    Considering kids were 'seriously injured' and it was a petrol bomb attack, therefore surmising that the kids were burned to some extent, I don't find that remotely funny.

    Appropriate sentence? At least double-digits, no parole.

    In case of 3rd degree burns and scarring for life of the kids, add reparation for life (set amount, monthly or yearly) to the kids - payable into trust fund, tied to perps' PPS number and collected at source whenever any income is taxed.

    If 17/18 year olds don't want to know about being responsible, it'll be drummed into them.
    Prison is the best place to learn responsibility, isnt it?

    Do you think they would have set fire to the car had they known the kids were in it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    biko wrote: »
    +1 It's good with an inkling what the post is about instead of just a seller headline and a linky.

    Link won't open for me. Did it say what triggered the attack?
    Three teenagers have been given prison sentences for their part in a petrol bomb attack in Moyross last year, which left two children with serious injuries.

    Jonathan O'Donoghue has been given an eight-year jail term with the final two years suspended.

    The 18-year-old was described as the main mover behind the petrol bomb attack.
    Advertisement

    18-year-old John Mitchell was given a seven-year sentence also with the final two years suspended.

    And 17-year-old Robert Sheehan was given two years' detention.

    The judge said Mr Sheehan's involvement in the petrol bomb attack was considerably less than the others and he tried to rescue the children from the burning car.

    The two injured children were seven-year-old Millie Murray-McNamara and her brother Gavin, who was four at the time of the incident.

    Niall McNamara, the father of the two children, was arrested for a public order offence in the precincts of the court during the hearing.

    He was detained after he abruptly left the sentencing and shouted during the court proceedings.
    There you go.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,256 ✭✭✭metaoblivia


    http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/1012/breaking32.htm

    According to this article, the children have undergone extensive surgery and skin grafts and will be scarred for life.
    I agree with with ambro25 - a longer prison term and reparation for life for these scumbags.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,200 ✭✭✭muppetkiller


    Am I the only one who actually thinks that it's a pretty good outcome considering how normally scumbags who rape and knife people get out in a few months ,not years...

    EDIT not saying that I think it's enough years but it's good considering normal punishments handed out...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Slow Motion


    Am I the only one who actually thinks that it's a pretty good outcome considering how normally scumbags who rape and knife people get out in a few months ,not years...

    I believe you may be, just because the standard of punishment for other crimes is way too low does not mean we should not be incensed when we see these guys get off lightly (and I do mean that) for what they have done. The fact that they may not have been aware that the kids were in the car does not excuse them in the slightest IMO and I would happily see them sent down for 20+ years each.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,564 ✭✭✭✭whiskeyman


    and will be scarred for life.

    They were on The Late Late show twice in fairness*...










    *joke. kinda...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,994 ✭✭✭ambro25


    DaveMcG wrote:
    Prison is the best place to learn responsibility, isnt it?

    Probably not for most, but my comment about learning responsibility is based upon the idea of the perps compensating the victims in proportion to the harm done: scar for life = pay for life.

    And TBH, should be the same for any kind of criminal sanction: torch a car, pay for it in full (at OMSP, no kidding :D) and none of that 'debt paid by doing time'. Perps do the time and pay out. Should bring the insurance down a fair bit and get 'occasional perps' to think twice. Especially under-agers, when it's mammy's LCD or daddy's Beemer which would be carted off by bailiffs to pay the compensation.

    "King Solomonesque" as it may be (and no doubt perceived as reactionary), a bit more common sense and a bit less PC/liberal bleeting.
    DaveMcG wrote:
    Do you think they would have set fire to the car had they known the kids were in it?

    I will direct you back to Slow Motion's post, two posts above, which absolutely sums up my reply to that: so what if there were or weren't any kids in the car? Having no kids in the car makes it any more acceptable, does it :rolleyes:

    Anyhow. This is AH indeed. Rant off, on with the jokes, please...


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    ambro25 wrote: »



    I will direct you back to Slow Motion's post, two posts above, which absolutely sums up my reply to that: so what if there were or weren't any kids in the car? Having no kids in the car makes it any more acceptable, does it :rolleyes:
    Yes, trying to murder children is somewhat different to trying to scare someone by damaging their material possessions...

    Slow Motion -- 20+ years for setting fire to a car? Bit much, no?

    I mentioned in another post 20+ years for firearms offenses to tackle gangland crime... what the hell would you give for firearms?! :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    DaveMcG wrote: »
    I mentioned in another post 20+ years for firearms offenses to tackle gangland crime... what the hell would you give for firearms?! :D

    Bullets?

    <Bad-um-tish> Thanks folks, I'm here all week....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20 x_Laura_x


    I believe they asked hes for a lift somewhere and she refused. Asking for it tbh*p


    *that was a joke


    thats not the reason

    i am not condoning it and think they got what they deserved completly but that is not the reason it was done


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,994 ✭✭✭ambro25


    DaveMcG wrote:
    Yes, trying to murder children is somewhat different to trying to scare someone by damaging their material possessions...

    I thought your point was that the perps didn't know that there were kids in the car? Hardly "trying to murder", therefore. I'd call it a much-aggravating circumstance.
    DaveMcG wrote:
    I mentioned in another post 20+ years for firearms offenses to tackle gangland crime... what the hell would you give for firearms?! :D

    Well, now - don't want to speak out of turn for SlowMotion - but please qualify 'firearms offenses': was 20 years proposed for possession? or use (attempted/actual murder)? or... then we can talk about proportionality :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    x_Laura_x wrote: »
    thats not the reason

    i am not condoning it and think they got what they deserved completly but that is not the reason it was done
    What's the reason then? I'm sure I read that as well... think they were looking for a lift to court actually.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    ambro25 wrote: »
    I thought your point was that the perps didn't know that there were kids in the car? Hardly "trying to murder", therefore. I'd call it a much-aggravating circumstance.

    My point was that they didnt know the kids were in the car... if they did know, then they were trying to kill the kids. If they didn't know, then they were merely trying to destroy a car. There's quite a difference between the two in my mind, even if the perps are scum in both cases.
    ambro25 wrote: »
    Well, now - don't want to speak out of turn for SlowMotion - but please qualify 'firearms offenses': was 20 years proposed for possession? or use (attempted/actual murder)? or... then we can talk about proportionality :)

    Use in the commission of specified crimes (I'm sure the Gardai could provide suggestions there, but eg. armed robbery, attempted murder), as a targetted approach to discouraging the use of firearms by gangs.

    I'm not sure 20 years for arson is proportional at all. If they knew the kids were there, that's a different story...

    BTW, what were they charged with in the end?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20 x_Laura_x


    DaveMcG wrote: »
    What's the reason then? I'm sure I read that as well... think they were looking for a lift to court actually.

    no no it would make it a better story if they were and everyone could be extra shocked that that is the reason they did it....but its not the reason


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    x_Laura_x wrote: »
    no no it would make it a better story if they were and everyone could be extra shocked that that is the reason they did it....but its not the reason
    Are you going to share the reason, or do we have to guess as part of a game?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    x_Laura_x wrote: »
    no no it would make it a better story if they were and everyone could be extra shocked that that is the reason they did it....but its not the reason
    Then what was the reason?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20 x_Laura_x


    DaveMcG wrote: »
    Are you going to share the reason, or do we have to guess as part of a game?


    well i didnt do it so i dont know the whole truth of it but what i heard i def believe!!

    but again i do think they got what they deserved


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    Am I the only one who actually thinks that it's a pretty good outcome considering how normally scumbags who rape and knife people get out in a few months ,not years...

    EDIT not saying that I think it's enough years but it's good considering normal punishments handed out...


    Not at all. While a few more years would be ideal, I wouldn't have been surprised to have opened the link to read '3 years with one suspended, he came from a bad family, lots of pressure at home, taken into account etc etc yadda yadda'

    I even read one lately where a teenager who had several previous convictions for assault and robbery, and was then before court after having viciously raped and attacked a woman had the judge take into account that as a youngster witnessing a friend trying to hang himself, it was a significant reason for his behavoiur. If that were the case then 50% of the population would be savage thugs.

    To be honest sometimes I think a good old fashioned beating is necessary. I would definitely not believe in the death penalty, but maybe if that fella was tied down, beaten, and raped us the ass with a dildo he'd be more inclined to realise his mistake.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,994 ✭✭✭ambro25


    DaveMcG wrote:
    I'm not sure 20 years for arson is proportional at all. If they knew the kids were there, that's a different story...

    I didn't propose 20 years for arson, btw ;)

    We don't know if they knew or not that kids were in the car. The point to start from, therefore, is that they were going to torch a car (supposedly for being refused a lift, but that looks like it may change).

    I'd sentence payment for the value of the car on conviction and maybe a year to reflect on the error of their ways, more if they can't pay (though they would eventually pay, increased sentence or not).

    Ah but wait, now... there were kids in the car :eek:

    Were they harmed? N = 3 years + car compo
    Were they harmed? Y = 4/5 years + car compo
    Were they seriously harmed? Y = 6/7 years + car compo
    Were they seriously harmed and scarred for life? Y = 10 years + car compo + kids compo
    Was there intent to harm? N = no change
    Was there intent to harm? Y = + 2 years or more

    Looks perhaps too clinical that way. Perhaps there's something to be said for civil law jurisdictions ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,496 ✭✭✭Mr. Presentable


    The best sentence would be to hand them to the victim's family and let them mete out appropriately


  • Registered Users Posts: 541 ✭✭✭hopalong85


    x_Laura_x wrote: »
    well i didnt do it so i dont know the whole truth of it but what i heard i def believe!!

    but again i do think they got what they deserved

    Why imply that you know the reason and then refuse to share it?!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20 x_Laura_x


    hopalong85 wrote: »
    Why imply that you know the reason and then refuse to share it?!


    fine i heard that it was as a warning to the mother (drugs related ) and they did not know the kids were in the car....hense them tryin to get them out!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭indough


    Was the mother in the car with the kids at the time?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20 x_Laura_x


    indough wrote: »
    Was the mother in the car with the kids at the time?


    no she was in the house...i think!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    ambro25 wrote: »
    I didn't propose 20 years for arson, btw ;)

    We don't know if they knew or not that kids were in the car. The point to start from, therefore, is that they were going to torch a car (supposedly for being refused a lift, but that looks like it may change).

    I'd sentence payment for the value of the car on conviction and maybe a year to reflect on the error of their ways, more if they can't pay (though they would eventually pay, increased sentence or not).

    Ah but wait, now... there were kids in the car :eek:

    Were they harmed? N = 3 years + car compo
    Were they harmed? Y = 4/5 years + car compo
    Were they seriously harmed? Y = 6/7 years + car compo
    Were they seriously harmed and scarred for life? Y = 10 years + car compo + kids compo
    Was there intent to harm? N = no change
    Was there intent to harm? Y = + 2 years or more

    Looks perhaps too clinical that way. Perhaps there's something to be said for civil law jurisdictions ;)

    Let's take your 10 years for now... A news article says the following:

    "Judge Moran said, without the guilty pleas, their admissions to Gardai, the fact that the State accepts they did not know the children were in the car and their immature ages at the time, they would be facing sentences of 12 to 14 years."

    So they admitted what they did to the Gardai, they pleaded guilty, they were immature at the time (although still >18), and they didn't know that the kids were in the car (one of them actually tried to rescue the kids when they discovered them).

    Makes me think that the sentence was quite appropriate.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,057 ✭✭✭Wacker


    As Havok posted above, I was expecting to see something along the lines of suspended sentences being dished out. The jail terms sound about right to me, in this instance.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 490 ✭✭delop


    Well in Morocco the general public believe you hand should be cut off for stealing...

    Im happy to leave the sentencing to those who have the experence and training to do so...

    I think its understandable thats ppl show an interest in hi profile cases, but a little perspective is no harm either...


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 258 ✭✭Outer Bongolia


    It actually was a fine example of crime and punishment. The sentences are about right, given all the circumstances. There was a danger of sentences that were too lenient but the judge did well.

    Furthermore, in response to some of the posts above, I think the majority of judges do a good job. We only ever hear about the bad judgments.
    It is very difficult to be a judge, to rise above the baying mob. The mob roams the land in plastic clown faces, seeking death sentences and castration, all the while led by their leader and Lord of the Underworld Joe Duffy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭hshortt


    I'm happy to see that they got sentencing, and will actually serve time. For the victims families the amount of time will never be enough, and my initial thoughts were that they should be getting a much longer period locked up. Is there evidence to say that the culprits didn't know the kids were in the car? Or are we generally assuming that wouldn't do harm to little kids?

    On a related note, why do people commiting crimes get x amount of years with a certain amount suspended?

    I do hope they are made complete the full term and not get time off for being good young fellas.

    Time will tell.
    Cheerio
    Howard


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 490 ✭✭delop


    hshortt wrote: »

    On a related note, why do people commiting crimes get x amount of years with a certain amount suspended?

    Time they have served while waiting for trial
    hshortt wrote: »
    I do hope they are made complete the full term and not get time off for being good young fellas.

    You dont think that priosners should get a few yrs knocked off at the end for reforming themselves and expressing remorse? Esp in cases where there were no deaths?

    I think thats fair isnt it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭hshortt


    delop wrote: »
    Time they have served while waiting for trial

    You dont think that priosners should get a few yrs knocked off at the end for reforming themselves and expressing remorse? Esp in cases where there were no deaths?

    I think thats fair isnt it?

    I don't, it's my opinion that a sentence is given and takes into account the severity of the crime. - The sentence given should be served completely. Getting off early for being a good lad, lessens the severity of the original crime.

    Sorry for going off topic.
    Cheerio
    Howard


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    hshortt wrote: »
    Is there evidence to say that the culprits didn't know the kids were in the car? Or are we generally assuming that wouldn't do harm to little kids?

    Well the DPP accepts that they didn't know the kids were in there (so there's obviously evidence to that effect), and one of them also helped to rescue the kids. Not really somethin you'd do if you had the intention of burning them... Unless you're Chopper Reid (shoot the person and then take them to the hospital!)


  • Registered Users Posts: 541 ✭✭✭hopalong85


    delop wrote: »
    Time they have served while waiting for trial



    You dont think that priosners should get a few yrs knocked off at the end for reforming themselves and expressing remorse? Esp in cases where there were no deaths?

    I think thats fair isnt it?

    I don't think it's fair for prisoners to get early release for showing remorse when two children have been badly scarred in what could have been a fatal attack. Thats just me though...:rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭indough


    hopalong85 wrote: »
    I don't think it's fair for prisoners to get early release for showing remorse when two children have been badly scarred in what could have been a fatal attack. Thats just me though...:rolleyes:

    Prison is supposed to be more about rehabilitation than punishment AFAIK, and rightly so. If someone is rehabilitated then they are not the same person as they were when they committed the crime, so should be treated more leniently. Thats one of the things that separates justice from revenge.


  • Registered Users Posts: 541 ✭✭✭hopalong85


    indough wrote: »
    Prison is supposed to be more about rehabilitation than punishment AFAIK, and rightly so. If someone is rehabilitated then they are not the same person as they were when they committed the crime, so should be treated more leniently. Thats one of the things that separates justice from revenge.

    Yes prison is supposed to be about rehabilitation. Unfortunately the amount of repeat offendors proves that the rehabilitation thing doesn't really work for the majority. I don't really see why behaving well in prison should make you eligible for early release in a case like this. I wouldn't view this as "justice", but again, that's just me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    hopalong85 wrote: »
    Yes prison is supposed to be about rehabilitation. Unfortunately the amount of repeat offendors proves that the rehabilitation thing doesn't really work for the majority. I don't really see why behaving well in prison should make you eligible for early release in a case like this. I wouldn't view this as "justice", but again, that's just me.

    Maybe cos the perps are 18 years old, and you want to give them an incentive to avoid the criminality that goes on in prisons, and not to get sucked into that lifestyle. They committed a crime and should serve an appropriate sentence for it, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be helped to get back on track.


  • Registered Users Posts: 541 ✭✭✭hopalong85


    DaveMcG wrote: »
    Maybe cos the perps are 18 years old, and you want to give them an incentive to avoid the criminality that goes on in prisons, and not to get sucked into that lifestyle. They committed a crime and should serve an appropriate sentence for it, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be helped to get back on track.

    We will just have to disagree on this one. I think it's likely that guys who are petrol bombing cars at 18 have already been sucked into the lifestyle. If, after serving a full sentence, they leave prison rehabilitated then that's great. I don't think it's fair for them to be released early though. They committed a crime, they received a sentence, and it should be served in full imo. I know this is a cliched argument, but do you think your opinion would be the same if was your children this happened to?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement