This is just fcuking sick

thelordofcheese · 02-05-2009 02:41PM

Mrmoe wrote: »

Why should emotion be taken out of this situation? What this guy did was sickening. He should thanks his lucky stars that he makes it to prison in one piece.What exactly is wrong with someone taking revenge against this guy?

People make stupid decisions all the time when emotions are running high, call me crazy but punishments shouldn't be decided and handed out when everyone is hopped up on their own impotent rage.
Doubly so considering that justice systems are not infallible.

Mrmoe wrote: »

What exactly is wrong with someone taking revenge against this guy?

That's mob justice, which is not justice at all and a very fucking dangerous path to start down.

Lockstep · 02-05-2009 02:43PM

Disease Ridden wrote: »

For a society to work for the benefit of the vast majority you need to get rid of the bad apples by either extermination, locking them up or by otherwise instilling enough fear into them that the chance of them commiting their depraved or violent acts is lessened.

I hardly think these people can be deterred by "fear".
Locking them up is really the only viable option. Capital punishment is too expensive given the level of appeals, evidence etc. ANd I'd be really worried about letting the justice system we have in this country deciding when people can die. It's just too fallible to set a precedent in killing.

Lockstep · 02-05-2009 02:48PM

Mrmoe wrote: »

The justice system should be objective up until the point that a person is proven and convicted of committing a crime. You need subjectivity when issuing a punishment as each circumstance is different. For me the severity of the punishment should reflect the heinousness of the crime committed. In order to do this you need to be subjective. This is the justice that I would like to see. The word justice conveys equity to me. Spending time in prison where all your physical needs are catered for is nowhere equal punishment for what this guy did.

Nonono.
We cannot have a subjective justice system. Do you honestly think that a judge should give rulings based on emotion rather than reason?
What you would like to see is not justice but revenge. Justice is about harmony, whereas your concept seems to be about making yourself feel better.
The severity of the sentencing already reflects the crime (you just don't think they go far enough)

I find it ironic that someone advocating "taking revenge" tries to bring in equity.

Mrmoe · 02-05-2009 03:05PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Nonono.
We cannot have a subjective justice system. Do you honestly think that a judge should give rulings based on emotion rather than reason?
What you would like to see is not justice but revenge. Justice is about harmony, whereas your concept seems to be about making yourself feel better.
The severity of the sentencing already reflects the crime (you just don't think they go far enough)

I find it ironic that someone advocating "taking revenge" tries to bring in equity.

Revenge:
1. To inflict punishment in return for (injury or insult).
2. To seek or take vengeance for (oneself or another person); avenge.

I interpret revenge as inflicting punishment that equates to the crime. I think we arguing over two different things. A judge should be neutral when interpreting the law but the law is different from justice. They are not the same and I doubt they will ever be in the society that we currently live in. I always remember a quote from my one of my old teachers:

"If you want justice, go to heaven, if you want the law, go to court"

which shows the futility of achieving justice seeing that there is no heaven.

Mrmoe · 02-05-2009 03:08PM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

People make stupid decisions all the time when emotions are running high, call me crazy but punishments shouldn't be decided and handed out when everyone is hopped up on their own impotent rage.
Doubly so considering that justice systems are not infallible.

That's mob justice, which is not justice at all and a very fucking dangerous path to start down.

You are right. People make mistakes full stop. Justice will never ever be achieved as we are always fearful of convicting the wrong person so we always err on the cautious side. This is a rational approach but one that makes us impotent in achieving true justice.

Lockstep · 02-05-2009 03:12PM

Mrmoe wrote: »

Revenge:
1. To inflict punishment in return for (injury or insult).
2. To seek or take vengeance for (oneself or another person); avenge.

Note the second definition there?

Mrmoe wrote: »

I interpret revenge as inflicting punishment that equates to the crime.

Right, well our justice system doesn't run by your interpretations.

Mrmoe wrote: »

I think we arguing over two different things. A judge should be neutral when interpreting the law but the law is different from justice.

In your opinion.
What is your reasoning that the two are seperate? We have the law to ensure justice. Not that they are mutually exclusive.

Mrmoe wrote: »

They are not the same and I doubt they will ever be in the society that we currently live in. I always remember a quote from my one of my old teachers:

"If you want justice, go to heaven, if you want the law, go to court"

which shows the futility of achieving justice seeing that there is no heaven.

Oh they have a lot of similarities. It's just too many people go off on a emotional rage over the bad things they see and complain about the lack of justice, without bothering to look at what their desires would achieve;
the precedents set
alllowing the State to decide when a person may die
Emotional responses over rationality
etc

Lockstep · 02-05-2009 03:13PM

Mrmoe wrote: »

You are right. People make mistakes full stop. Justice will never ever be achieved as we are always fearful of convicting the wrong person so we always err on the cautious side. This is a rational approach but one that makes us impotent in achieving true justice.

I am completely unable to follow your train of thought here given that;
1) You accept that we fear for wrongful convictions
2) YOu bring in the concept of "true justice", despite the fact our justice system is infallibe.

galwayrush · 02-05-2009 03:16PM

A shockingly abused baby, even raped,murdered. No doubting the evidence, That vile scumbag doesn't deserve any rights.:mad:

Tomebagel · 02-05-2009 03:22PM

dont worry, once he gets in to prison and the other prisoners find out what hes in for....he'll wish there was a death penalty too.

amacachi · 02-05-2009 03:26PM

Tomebagel wrote: »

dont worry, once he gets in to prison and the other prisoners find out what hes in for....he'll wish there was a death penalty too.

:rolleyes:

regob · 02-05-2009 03:27PM

steof1984 wrote: »

Now i know UK just like ourselves are a first world country but no one can argue with me here that in certian cases te Death Penality should exist

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2407368.ece

now i know its the sun and not exactly amazing journalism but even if there is a 1% chance this is true then its sickening

this man can contribute nothing to society so to me the only alternatitive is to execute him

If i had my option i would torture him for years but the PC brigae would give out

This is just sick. some people dont deserve life

he should be shot

thelordofcheese · 02-05-2009 03:27PM

Mrmoe wrote: »

You are right. People make mistakes full stop. Justice will never ever be achieved as we are always fearful of convicting the wrong person so we always err on the cautious side. This is a rational approach but one that makes us impotent in achieving true justice.

Heh, for this to make even the slightest lick of sense you'd have to have an immutable definition of "true justice".
Which we don't, and cannot, have because what you're calling "true justice" is actually revenge as a catharsis for you.

infact i'd argue that by recognising the fallibility of the justice system and not stooping to state sponsered torture and murder we're closer to justice than you'd like to admit.
I'd rather live in a society that, in your opinion, underpunishes offenders than one where state sponsered murder and torture are used.

Mrmoe · 02-05-2009 03:29PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

In your opinion.
What is your reasoning that the two are seperate? We have the law to ensure justice. Not that they are mutually exclusive.

etc

More often than not we do not achieve justice as the judge is following the law. Here are some example of our so called justice system.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0511/keanea.html

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/man-receives-four-year-jail-sentence-for-robbing-a-neighbour-1668094.html

passive · 02-05-2009 03:30PM

leitrim lad wrote: »

i would torture him with a nail bar and a tire lever , and maybe beat him with a bell hook, as if this story is true he deserves none other than a decade of torture

typical english waster, all they know how to say is "all right mate"

awwwh, that's so cute! *pinches his cheeks*

Lockstep · 02-05-2009 03:34PM

Mrmoe wrote: »

More often than not we do not achieve justice as the judge is following the law. Here are some example of our so called justice system.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0511/keanea.html

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/man-receives-four-year-jail-sentence-for-robbing-a-neighbour-1668094.html

Yes, as I have said, our justice system is fallible. The odd incident doesn't make law and justice completely at odds (you claim "more often than not", you'd need a lot more evidence to make such a claim)

The first case is used every time anyone wants to make a point about the justice system. It's so overdone that I'd really like to see people use other examples.

In the second case, 4 years for a nonviolent offense (in this case; robbery) doesn't strike me as overly lenient..

amacachi · 02-05-2009 03:39PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

In the second case, 4 years for a nonviolent offense (in this case; robbery) doesn't strike me as overly lenient..

I think that was the point, that he got that sentence for a non-violent offence which he obvious showed some remorse for, while a rapist gets a suspended sentence.
It was only really 2 and a half years anyway, suspended sentences of parts of sentences which are suspended barely count IMO.

Mrmoe · 02-05-2009 03:40PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Yes, as I have said, our justice system is fallible. The odd incident doesn't make law and justice completely at odds (you claim "more often than not", you'd need a lot more evidence to make such a claim)

The first case is used every time anyone wants to make a point about the justice system. It's so overdone that I'd really like to see people use other examples.

In the second case, 4 years for a nonviolent offense (in this case; robbery) doesn't strike me as overly lenient..

You will have to give me time to compile evidence to make such a claim to present to you. The two links that I included were actually mean't as a contrast. Two extremes, one where a rapist gets off free and the second where someone gets a jail sentence for a non violent crime.

Davaeo09 · 02-05-2009 03:42PM

Tori Elegant Writer wrote: »

I get the feeling that if he's allowed in the general population in prison he'll get what he deserves fairly quickly.. i hope he does anyway.. scum

Firmly agree.
He will be shown just how sick he is..

But yeah, where's the death penalty when its deserved!

Lockstep · 02-05-2009 03:43PM

amacachi wrote: »

I think that was the point, that he got that sentence for a non-violent offence which he obvious showed some remorse for, while a rapist gets a suspended sentence.
It was only really 2 and a half years anyway, suspended sentences of parts of sentences which are suspended barely count IMO.

Fair enough, I misread it. Although I'd never discount suspended sentences as they'll be tacked on if he commits another offence.

Lockstep · 02-05-2009 03:43PM

Mrmoe wrote: »

You will have to give me time to compile evidence to make such a claim to present to you. The two links that I included were actually mean't as a contrast. Two extremes, one where a rapist gets off free and the second where someone gets a jail sentence for a non violent crime.

Right, well as I said, the first was so incredibly publicised (and used to show how damn lenient our courts are) that I'd always like to see other examples beyond that (if our courts are as bad as is claimed, there should be a lot more evidence)

I look forward to your case.

amacachi · 02-05-2009 03:53PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Fair enough, I misread it. Although I'd never discount suspended sentences as they'll be tacked on if he commits another offence.

I would discount it as it is then served concurrently with the sentence for the other offence. Though often the second offence isn't even brought to court and just the suspended sentence (well, half of it) is served even when the offence most likely would've carried a heavier sentence.

The trouble most people have with the justice system is the scale and inconsistency. That guy getting 2 and a half years with a year and a half suspended is, in my personal scale of how it should, is fair. Getting rid of proper life tariffs has meant that all sentences have now been reduced as well so that they scale with what is realistically the longest sentence anyone can get.
And on the inconsistency topic, a mate of mine was caught with a very personal amount of drugs and ended up with a €1400 fine. First offence, no history, no previous run-ins. On the other hand I've a cousin who has been in several car crashes in stolen cars, drink driving, car theft, arson, assault, etc. Dozens of convictions, yet he has never spent more than a couple of nights in the cells in the Garda station. I know that a justice system is always going to be fallible, but it's those inconsistencies that rile people up so much, and it's hard not to react.

thelordofcheese · 02-05-2009 04:02PM

amacachi wrote: »

I would discount it as it is then served concurrently with the sentence for the other offence. Though often the second offence isn't even brought to court and just the suspended sentence (well, half of it) is served even when the offence most likely would've carried a heavier sentence.

The trouble most people have with the justice system is the scale and inconsistency. That guy getting 2 and a half years with a year and a half suspended is, in my personal scale of how it should, is fair. Getting rid of proper life tariffs has meant that all sentences have now been reduced as well so that they scale with what is realistically the longest sentence anyone can get.
And on the inconsistency topic, a mate of mine was caught with a very personal amount of drugs and ended up with a €1400 fine. First offence, no history, no previous run-ins. On the other hand I've a cousin who has been in several car crashes in stolen cars, drink driving, car theft, arson, assault, etc. Dozens of convictions, yet he has never spent more than a couple of nights in the cells in the Garda station. I know that a justice system is always going to be fallible, but it's those inconsistencies that rile people up so much, and it's hard not to react.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would view your mates sentance as too lenient. What people call "proper justice" is as subjective as their taste in music or films and should be treated as such.

Likewise, any story that is ran with regard to jail sentances are run because they are extraordinary. not typical. It always makes me laugh i see someone comment on how the judicary are "a joke" or "out of touch" based on a report of the extraordinary and ignoring all the mundane and not outrage worthy sentances that preceed and will folow the one they're all rilled up about

Lockstep · 02-05-2009 04:05PM

amacachi wrote: »

I would discount it as it is then served concurrently with the sentence for the other offence. Though often the second offence isn't even brought to court and just the suspended sentence (well, half of it) is served even when the offence most likely would've carried a heavier sentence.

That really depends on the sentence.
Evidence for your claims by the way?

amacachi wrote: »

The trouble most people have with the justice system is the scale and inconsistency. That guy getting 2 and a half years with a year and a half suspended is, in my personal scale of how it should, is fair. Getting rid of proper life tariffs has meant that all sentences have now been reduced as well so that they scale with what is realistically the longest sentence anyone can get.
And on the inconsistency topic, a mate of mine was caught with a very personal amount of drugs and ended up with a €1400 fine. First offence, no history, no previous run-ins. On the other hand I've a cousin who has been in several car crashes in stolen cars, drink driving, car theft, arson, assault, etc. Dozens of convictions, yet he has never spent more than a couple of nights in the cells in the Garda station. I know that a justice system is always going to be fallible, but it's those inconsistencies that rile people up so much, and it's hard not to react.

Frankly, people get riled up over anything. There are the odd discrepancies in the law but on the whole, it works out well enough. Problem being that when there is a case of the law being unfair, people rush to try and claim it shows how awful the justice system is.

amacachi · 02-05-2009 04:07PM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would view your mates sentance as too lenient. What people call "proper justice" is as subjective as their taste in music or films and should be treated as such.

Likewise, any story that is ran with regard to jail sentances are run because they are extraordinary. not typical. It always makes me laugh i see someone comment on how the judicary are "a joke" or "out of touch" based on a report of the extraordinary and ignoring all the mundane and not outrage worthy sentances that preceed and will folow the one they're all rilled up about

Perhaps there are some, but my point is in comparison to a ****load of other people in town who are known to the Gardaí and the courts, it's a ridiculous sentence.

Even leaving out the extraordinary sentences, the fact is that the upper scale of sentences is "20 years" in prison (other than multiple murders) which means that everything else has to be scaled down in comparison. Would you agree with that?

dfx- · 02-05-2009 04:13PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I am completely unable to follow your train of thought here given that;
1) You accept that we fear for wrongful convictions
2) YOu bring in the concept of "true justice", despite the fact our justice system is infallibe.

1. Do you think this is a wrongful conviction?

2. Do you think a prison sentence is any deterrent or punishment for this crime?

Answer yes to either and your train of thought is flawed.

amacachi · 02-05-2009 04:15PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

That really depends on the sentence.
Evidence for your claims by the way?

Family and friends of family, nothing that made the papers unfortunately. :pac: One that didn't make the papers was a guy who had gotten out after serving about 2 years of a 5 year sentence for a pretty horrible assault with a knife. Short story he had a friend in his house who went for a kip, yer man went up and cut his throat and tied a plastic bag around his head. "18 years" I believe he got.

Frankly, people get riled up over anything. There are the odd discrepancies in the law but on the whole, it works out well enough. Problem being that when there is a case of the law being unfair, people rush to try and claim it shows how awful the justice system is.

Well your opinion is that it works out fair enough, all I can go on is my own personal experience and that of people around me. I've felt pretty victimised by the Gardaí at times when I'd done absolutely nothing wrong. I look at people within 5 minutes walk of me and how they're still free is beyond me. I know lads who have been knived and others left in hospital, all that's handed down are suspended sentences, if even. I base my opinons on the sentences I read about in the local paper and from cases friends and acquaintances are involved in, I can't claim to have done massive statistical analysis on all sentences.

Lockstep · 02-05-2009 04:17PM

dfx- wrote: »

1. Do you think this is a wrongful conviction?

Is which a wrongful conviction>

dfx- wrote: »

2. Do you think a prison sentence is any deterrent or punishment for this crime?

Answer yes to either and your train of thought is flawed.

I think a prison sentence is a punishment. Rarely a deterrent though.

Lockstep · 02-05-2009 04:20PM

amacachi wrote: »

Family and friends of family, nothing that made the papers unfortunately. :pac: One that didn't make the papers was a guy who had gotten out after serving about 2 years of a 5 year sentence for a pretty horrible assault with a knife. Short story he had a friend in his house who went for a kip, yer man went up and cut his throat and tied a plastic bag around his head. "18 years" I believe he got.

Well, you were using terms such as "often" so I'd imagine you'd need much more empirical evidence before coming to that conclusion.

amacachi wrote: »

Well your opinion is that it works out fair enough, all I can go on is my own personal experience and that of people around me. I've felt pretty victimised by the Gardaí at times when I'd done absolutely nothing wrong. I look at people within 5 minutes walk of me and how they're still free is beyond me. I know lads who have been knived and others left in hospital, all that's handed down are suspended sentences, if even. I base my opinons on the sentences I read about in the local paper and from cases friends and acquaintances are involved in, I can't claim to have done massive statistical analysis on all sentences.

You do realise that the papers will only really generate a lot of coverage RE sentences when the sentencing is viewed as too lenient?
I can't comment on the cases involving your friends and acquintences given that it's too subjective/I can't know anything about them. There's not really much I can do to argue against claims involving people you know as I don't know them/ for all I know they could be exagerated or made up (I'm not saying you are, just saying why it's hard to argue against them)

Mrmoe · 02-05-2009 04:22PM

Here are more examples of justice at work. I know of a lot more but again I don't think I have the time to compile them here. I think it is a wrong assertion that only extreme cases reach the newspapers. I know of a lot more cases which were not headline news. I find it extremely disheartening at times at the level of injustice in this country.

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/man-given-oneyear-suspended-sentence-for-sexual-assault-1681060.html

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5863&Itemid=38

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0205/owoiyas.html

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/eyauqlidkfql/

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2004/01/21/story130638.asp

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/man-given-twoyear-suspended-sentence-for-abusing-young-boy-1681059.html

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=10749

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0314/sutcliffej.html

dfx- · 02-05-2009 04:22PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Is which a wrongful conviction>

I think a prison sentence is a punishment. Rarely a deterrent though.

The case in the OP's post.

A prison sentence for this case is punishment? You think it is the appropriate sentence for the crime here?

This is just fcuking sick

Comments