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

Are Irish Judges getting worse

Reg'stoy

Anyone else go WTF :mad: when they heard that a drugs dealer who having been caught red handed still pleaded not guilty when charged. Now by him pleading not guilty the state had all the expense of a trial, yet his driver who saved the state i.e you and me money by pleading guilty, got a two year longer sentence

then the drug dealer who was found guilty by a jury.
Now I may have watched too many 'Law and Orders' on TV but surely the whole idea of pleading guilty and saving us all the expence of a trial was that you got a reduced sentence.
But no! another Irish Judge sends out the message, Plead not guilty and when even if you are found guilty guess what, you'll get a reduced sentence.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Maximilian

The facts of the case warranted the sentence perhaps but hey, you read a newspaper report or something, you must know better.

What kind of drugs?

445279.ie

Have you a link to the case? Would like to see the whole picture before commenting.

Sherifu

Was it a publican? /stir

Keano

Rb wrote: »

What kind of drugs?

Amphetamines

Full story http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0610/hanleys.html

Does seem a bit odd though that the driver got more.

dresden8

Farmer.

445279.ie

The driver only pleaded guilty on the second day of the trial, hence little saving to the state in relation to prosecution.

Maybe he had more previous convictions, therefore a longer sentence.

Reg'stoy

Maximilian wrote: »

The facts of the case warranted the sentence perhaps but hey, you read a newspaper report or something, you must know better.

Wow and people in the legal profession wonder why we the 'great unwashed' question their decisions. Please maximilian might you in a less condesending tone explain (you do after all secretly think you know better than me) how someone who's very trade causes death and hardship gets such a favourable sentence.

Personally I couldn't care less about the hardships he's had to endure. In saying that I would imagine having to hand over 3 million to the cab would bum you out, but to get time off for it well that just takes the biscuit.

http://www.rte.ie/aertel/117-02.html

Reku

Judge Anthony Kennedy said that Costello may feel aggrieved but that the sentence must be tailored to Hanley's circumstances.

The court heard Hanley was in poor health mentally and physically and was still grieving for his 20-year-old son Brian who was stabbed to death in 2001.

However, gardaí say Hanley was a significant drug dealer and was a key figure in the Ryan criminal gang, one of Limerick's feuding criminal gangs.

He also managed to buy a farm for €190,000 in 1994 at Meelick in Co Clare after other prospective buyers received bullets in the post. He sold the farm in 2004 for over €3m.

Hanley has not submitted a tax return since 1998 and is a target of the Criminal Assets Bureau.

What a load of BS, the Judge should be forced to step down IMO. FFS Hanley is clearly a career criminal and so what if his son was stabbed to death, it was undoubtedly because he was running drugs for the father or as a vendetta against the father, if he was genuinely upset about it he'd stop dealing drugs and go make an honest living. Only way I can see someone making such a poor judgement as that is if Hanley has something over them.

mikemac

farohar wrote: »

What a load of BS, the Judge should be forced to step down IMO.

If every judge was forced to step down after the public viewed something as unpopular then they'd be afraid to make any decisions.
Trial by media?

The DPP can appeal if they want, they probably won't

Reku

micmclo wrote: »

If every judge was forced to step down after the public viewed something as unpopular then they'd be afraid to make any decisions.
Trial by media?

The DPP can appeal if they want, they probably won't

It's not a case of it being unpopular, it's a case of making up clearly dishonest or deluded reasons to give a criminal a shorter sentence. If a boss used clearly dishonest or deluded reasons to get rid of a staff member he'd be sued for wrongful dismissal.

all the stars

Personally,
think the system is a joke. Prisons here need to be more like thai prisons - 80 in a cell for 20. sleeping on top of eachother. ****e food, no tv, radio, all that.
I see it here locally, the same heads back to prison every few weeks after release, they have better Gym's, food etc. in there than out here.

Also, worth mentioning, everyone should be glad im not a judge or everyone would fear commiting crime for what i'd do to them! :cool:

Maximilian

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Wow and people in the legal profession wonder why we the 'great unwashed' question their decisions. Please maximilian might you in a less condesending tone explain (you do after all secretly think you know better than me) how someone who's very trade causes death and hardship gets such a favourable sentence.

Personally I couldn't care less about the hardships he's had to endure. In saying that I would imagine having to hand over 3 million to the cab would bum you out, but to get time off for it well that just takes the biscuit.

http://www.rte.ie/aertel/117-02.html

There's no secret, I do know more than you about it. Its my job.

The man got 10 years for God's sake. Could you imagine spending 10 years in prison? You seem to object to a judicial system that has the capability to show a degree of compassion, whether the less informed public believe it is warranted or not. What you seemingly would advocate is a less tolerant system. A crueler one.

I have little sympathy for someone who peddles drugs but I don't want an arbitrary judicial system that punishes people according to public opinion.

By all means you can opine that the sentence was too light but when the title of the thread is implying judges are "getting worse" then you deserve to get flak and condescension is entirely appropriate.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Anyone else go WTF :mad: when they heard that a drugs dealer who having been caught red handed still pleaded not guilty when charged. Now by him pleading not guilty the state had all the expense of a trial, yet his driver who saved the state i.e you and me money by pleading guilty, got a two year longer sentence then the drug dealer who was found guilty by a jury.
Now I may have watched too many 'Law and Orders' on TV but surely the whole idea of pleading guilty and saving us all the expence of a trial was that you got a reduced sentence.
But no! another Irish Judge sends out the message, Plead not guilty and when even if you are found guilty guess what, you'll get a reduced sentence.

Two questions:

1) DO you know more abotu this or less about this than the jedge?
2) Are you sticking to the facts or are you letting emotion get involved?

gurramok

Maximilian wrote: »

I have little sympathy for someone who peddles drugs but I don't want an arbitrary judicial system that punishes people according to public opinion.

Thats where its leading to due to judges wrecklessness. When the public lose confidence in the judicial system and i believe there is a serious dent there, vigilantism will take off.

luckat

We need a different kind of prison. Prison *should* rehabilitate people. Prisons that have prisoners returning again and again just aren't working.

Maximilian

gurramok wrote: »

Thats where its leading to due to judges wrecklessness. When the public lose confidence in the judicial system and i believe there is a serious dent there, vigilantism will take off.

Vigilantes? Oh for god's sake no it won't.

Robbo

Maximilian wrote: »

Vigilantes? Oh for god's sake no it won't.

Well hear the man out. I believe in America, there's a city that has a vigilante system that works quite well. When a crime is deserving of the vigilante treatment, they shine a symbol at the sky and he sorts it out.

I fail to see why that couldn't work in Limerick say, given that the prevailing climate allows for excellent cloud cover.

Maximilian

Robbo wrote: »

Well hear the man out. I believe in America, there's a city that has a vigilante system that works quite well. When a crime is deserving of the vigilante treatment, they shine a symbol at the sky and he sorts it out.

I fail to see why that couldn't work in Limerick say, given that the prevailing climate allows for excellent cloud cover.

Surely such a man would be recognized by either criminals or police and either killed or arrested.

Robbo

Maximilian wrote: »

Surely such a man would be recognized by either criminals or police and either killed or arrested.

He's well known to both and indeed works with the police. The arrangement has been operating with great success since 1939.

Ste.phen

Yeah, but his car is very conspicuous.

Maximilian

Robbo wrote: »

He's well known to both and indeed works with the police. The arrangement has been operating with great success since 1939.

If that were true I'm sure somebody would have based a movie franchise on it by now.

Robbo

Maximilian wrote: »

If that were true I'm sure somebody would have based a movie franchise on it by now.

I believe the individual in question is quite private and doesn't seek the limelight.

johnnyskeleton

gurramok wrote: »

Thats where its leading to due to judges wrecklessness. When the public lose confidence in the judicial system and i believe there is a serious dent there, vigilantism will take off.

Oh dear gurramok.

You are prepared to accept that public confidence as regards house prices is clearly wrong as it is based on a number of false assumptions, so can you accept the possibility that the recent waning of public confidence in the realm of criminal justice is equally based on a number of false assumptions.

In fact, these assumptions are completely ridiculous when looked at in their context:
1) judges acting out of fear or sympathy for individual offenders
2) judges not knowing what an appropriate sentence is
3) 10 years being a short sentence
4) prisons in Ireland being a desireable place to be in
5) the longer the prison sentence, the better the victim will feel.

So when there is a disparity between public perception and reality do you advocate:
a) people educating themselves to understand what's going on more; or
b) reality should change to fit public perception lest there be vigiliantism (or price drops shock horror).

Intothesea

I think it would be a mistake for any judicial system or
community to consider its laws and punishments to be beyond
critical evaluation. This relates to manslaughter cases,
but indicates that reciprocity between public opinion and
sentencing policy is required for balance:

From The Irish Times, 11/6:

Addressing the Law Faculty at University College
Cork last night, Mr Justice Carney said fatal stabbings "are
in fact now out of control".

In a speech entitled The Role of the Victim in the Irish Criminal
Process Part III, he quoted from an address by Joan Deane,
one of the founding members of crime victims' group AdVic,
delivered to the Judicial Studies Institute annual conference
two years ago.

In that address, Ms Deane said: "Families of homicide victims
and the majority of the public at large, feel that the sentences
being handed down for manslaughter are frequently too lenient,
with the penalties imposed not reflecting the severity of the
crime."

In a carefully nuanced speech, the judge said several lengthy
sentences for manslaughter imposed by the Central Criminal
Court have been overturned by the Court of Criminal Appeal.
He said he was "bound by considerations of fealty and obedience
to follow the judgments of Mr Justice (Adrian) Hardiman which
are binding upon me". "It is not for me to say that there should
be a reassessment of the fundamental principles of sentencing
in the light of what the courts are having to deal with today.

"That is for the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal
whom it is my obligation in the scheme of things as a trial judge
to respectfully follow and obey." However, he thought he could
"formulate what I believe Joan Deane would say were she the
one who was giving this lecture.

"I believe that she would say that so far as wilful, violent,
gratuitous homicides are concerned, the courts are not dealing
with them with the severity expected by the majority of right-thinking
members of society who are fearful for their safety.

"I believe she would then want to know why this is so. I do not
have the answer to that question. I think it may have something
to do with the rules being formulated in different times." He said
manslaughter cases in the past "do not compare with the mindless
viciousness of what is going through the courts today".

johnnyskeleton

Intothesea wrote: »

I think it would be a mistake for any judicial system or
community to consider its laws and punishments to be beyond
critical evaluation. This relates to manslaughter cases,
but indicates that reciprocity between public opinion and
sentencing policy is required for balance:

It requires critical evaluation. Same is severly lacking in threads like this.

Intothesea wrote: »

From The Irish Times, 11/6:

Note that this is the same Judge Carney that people in similar threads believe is a lenient sentencer.

Intothesea

It requires critical evaluation. Same is severly lacking in threads like this.

My point is general, the systems are and should
be feedback loops. I'd tend to be quite critical
of people who talk down to a community member whose
opinion probably relates nicely to the general. When words
like 'vigilantism' pop up in the general media, it's a sign
(to me at least) that the loop is loop the loop :pac:

johnnyskeleton

Intothesea wrote: »

My point is general, the systems are and should
be feedback loops. I'd tend to be quite critical
of people who talk down to a community member whose
opinion probably relates nicely to the general. When words
like 'vigilantism' pop up in the general media, it's a sign
(to me at least) that the loop is loop the loop :pac:

I'm not sure what you mean by the talking down comment, whether you are referring to me or not. I am not talking down to gurramok - he's a seasoned veteran of these pages. Also, I'm not talking down to you, as I essentially agree with your point. However, there is a different meaning attached to critical in the phrase "critical evaluation" than in saying "I'm quite critical".

However, I don't accept the original post as it's a mish-mash of angst, misunderstanding and piggy-backing on perceived public sentiment. If he gave a critical analysis of the decision (i.e. a reasoned account of what he considers to be the issue) we could then discuss the matter rationally.

I didn't understand your last comment - discussing vigilantism in the general media is a sign to you of what exactly?

Intothesea

Johnny, I didn't think you were talking down to me
but in general in threads like this one the men of
law do tend to adopt a superior tone to talk to
community members. In general I think this is bound
to communicate an 'us Vs. them' attitude to people
who might already be very wary of 'the law'.

With regard to the 'loop-the-loop' statement, I
meant to say that if a negative opinion arises in the
general public as a result of incommensurate
punishment, or of the perception of it -- that it
still creates an atmosphere conducive to dischord
and damages the community's sense of safety (as
well as providing criminal minds with the illusion of
greater freedom).

For this reason I'd look on the general opinions
expressed as signs of community feeling.

gurramok

Oh thanks Johnny for the seasons vet remark

Perception or not, the relative of the victim in the driving case(other thread) knew exactly how that case progressed and that persons reaction to the changing of the sentence from a suspended one to a cummunity service one for killing a pedestrian is justified reactionary anger i believe.
I do read up on the most serious cases every week and the sentencing in some does be unreal. If it was the UK or US, the offender would be almost guaranteed to get the appropiate unlenient sentence.
There was a case earlier where a South African man killed his wife in Meath and only committed the act in this jurisdiction as he would get a lenier sentence(he admitted this in his trial)
There are also cases out there where people(especially the thugs) are granted bail for serious offences and alot do commit more crimes while on bail despite the public voting to restrict the bail laws(remember that one?) and yet the judges do not reflect public opinion on these matters.