O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

Beelzebub wrote: »

Whether Robert Holohan was accidently killed or murdered intentionally by Wayne O'Donoghue, we will never know, we can never know because we weren't there.
We have to accept the verdict of the jury who found Wayne O'Donoghue guilty of manslaughter. It will be extremely difficult if not impossible for his family to accept this.

What is difficult to accept for a lot of people and myself included is the leniency of the sentencing.

It doesn't seem just, even if it is the law ,that is to say the punishment does not seem to fit the crime.

One of the big problems that I have with this line of reasoning is this: it is based on how people view the punishment rather than the punishment itself.

Let's say, for example, that I wake up tomorrow and I'm in America. I try to buy some breakfast and I'm told that it costs $10. Because I'm not familiar with America, American money, or American prices, I don't know what the $10 represents in real terms, nor do I know whether I'm getting a good deal or if I'm being shafted as a tourist.

However, if I were to say to myself that $10 is about €7 (A), then I can start to understand how much the breakfast costs. If I have a job in America that pays $10 an hour(B), I have an even more real sense of value. Knowing what the breakfast is composed of, and how much time/effort/materials is put in also helps me understand why the resteraunt owner charges that price (C). And if I were to go around to all the various resteraunts etc and find out their prices(D), then I will have sufficient information to make a rational decision on whether the price fits the breakfast.

So to apply this to the argument that the punishment fits the crime, I believe you need to understand:
A) what the punishment (i.e. 4 years imprisonment) actually entails, not in an abstract way, but in relation to what you know;
the effect, or likely effect that the sentence will have on the offender
C) the reasons why the sentence imposed was as long / short as it was; and
D) the range of sentences imposed for similar offences.

The biggest problem here is that people seem to think that a few years in prison is not bad. The media have perpetuated two myths - that prisoners are treated very well with their own cells with flat screen TVs and all sorts of goodies courtsy of the state and that what would be considered to be a long stretch by anyone who has to actually serve it (i.e. 5 years or more) is seen as a slap on the wrist.

I'll put it this way, on what experience would you base your assertion that it was a lenient sentence? I think the casual observer can no more know what it's like to spend time in prison than a man can know what the pain of child birth is like. In the latter case, not knowing what pregnancy is like is no reason for a man to be dismissive of the pain involved, and so I find it difficult to see how a prison sentence can be considerd lenient in an absolute way.