nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

A fine example of crime and punishment

Slow Motion

Not...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1012/limerick.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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

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."

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?

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.

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?

Sam Vimes

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

*that was a joke

ambro25

Commander Vimes wrote: »

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.

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".

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?

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:)

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.

tbh

Slow Motion wrote: »

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!)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

Slow Motion

muppetkiller wrote: »

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.

whiskeyman

metaoblivia wrote: »

and will be scarred for life.

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

*joke. kinda...

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

) 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...

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?!

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?!

Bullets?

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

x_Laura_x

Commander Vimes wrote: »

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

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?!

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

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.

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?

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

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?

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?

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