Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Victim impact statement offensive...what did they expect?

24

Comments

  • #32
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    bigpink wrote: »
    Xenophobic?
    They were foreign yes?Committed crime yes?Do you think they should be in the country so?

    God i love the way the people stick up for criminals in this country

    Again, are you actually reading any of the replies? If so, please quote one responce in this thread where someone sticks up for the criminals.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #33
    Millicent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    bigpink wrote: »
    Xenophobic?
    They were foreign yes?Committed crime yes?Do you think they should be in the country so?

    God i love the way the people stick up for criminals in this country

    What? Why are you attacking me? Do you understand what xenophobic means? I'm guessing you're probably at least familiar with the mentality from your response to me.

    I was simply doing you a courtesy and outlining for you the problem with the impact statement. Who was sticking up for anyone?


  • #34
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    bigpink wrote: »
    You should be allowed some free speech,it wasnt for political gain it was to point out flaws in allowing criminals into the country i dont see the problem with that

    It's a Victim Impact Statement..........


  • #35
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    This is a much better article BTW:
    RT&#201 wrote: »
    The judge in the case of four men who pleaded guilty to impeding the investigation into the killing of Rebecca French last year has asked the DPP to consider whether he should recuse himself from the case.
    Mr Justice Barry White has asked the Director of Public Prosecution to consider the victim impact statement from Ms French's sister, Rachel, in determining his decision.
    Mr Justice White was due to sentence the four men in the case today in the Central Criminal Court.
    Two of the men last month pleaded guilty to impeding the investigation into the killing of Rebecca French at Ard Na Dara, Clonard, Wexford.
    Ricardas Dilys, 28, and Ruslanas Mineikas, 26, of Goodtide Harbour and formerly of Davitt Road South, both in Wexford town, were on trial for her murder when they made the pleas.
    They had pleaded not guilty to her murder but the murder charges were dropped when a legal technicality meant their admissions in garda custody could not be used against them.
    Two other men, 41-year-old Patrick O'Connor of Ard Na Dara, Clonard, Wexford, and 27-year-old Piotr Pasiak of Lower John Street in Wexford had already pleaded guilty to impeding the investigation in the same way.
    Ms French's body was discovered by firefighters in the boot of her burning car at Cod's Lane on 9 October 2009.

    Rachel French expressed anger with the justice system as no one was to be prosecuted for the killing.
    This morning, Mr Justice White described that statement as offensive, inappropriate, and xenophobic.
    He said he had no advance knowledge of the contents of the statement, a copy of which was handed to him as the evidence was being presented.
    He said it lacked an appreciation of the presumption of innocence, an appreciation of the concept of joint enterprise and an appreciation of the judicial function.
    Mr Justice White said he was not sure if the criticisms were directed at him, the DPP, or the Minister for Justice.
    But he said if he was to sentence the men today justice might not be seen to have been done and it could seem that he was influenced.
    He said he appreciated the feelings of the French family but 'we are an ordered and lawful society'.
    The judge said this was clearly a case involving a substantial custodial sentence but he said if there were an appeal on the severity of sentencing the material in the victim impact statement would be before the Court of Appeal.
    He also said he wanted the DPP to consider whether the original victim impact statement should be redacted and an appropriate report presented before a different judge.
    Mr Justice White also said he wanted the DPP advised that he would not accept victim impact statements presented to him 'on the hoof' at the same time as they were being presented in court.
    He said he appreciated the matter of sentencing should not be unduly delayed and said the case should come back before him on 10 December.


  • #36
    Millicent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    OisinT wrote: »
    This is a much better article BTW:

    Okay, judging from that, it would appear that the judge doesn't know what "xenophobic" means either. :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    ...it would help if the full text of the statement was available....


  • #38
    Bosco boy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,235 ✭✭✭Bosco boy


    I think the real issue here is a decision by the judge to exclude statements made by the accused which were vital to the prosecution case. legislation intoduced around the time of the killing was confusing to say the least and statements taken vital to the case were excluded after a number of days of legal arguement, I think that is part of the reason the family spoke out today! I might be wrong.


  • #39
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    I have colleagues who were there and 100% of them said that the statement was xenophobic. I didn't hear it so I can't say, but without the full statement we only have the Judge's opinion.

    I can say that Mr Justice Barry White is a very fair judge and a very good man who makes clear and appropriate decisions.


  • #40
    ilovelamp2000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭ilovelamp2000


    I don't think it would be a bad idea to have some restrictions on freedom of movement so that foreign criminals can't enter the country and settle here. Most sane countries have something in place to deal with these situations.

    To import crime is senseless, considering we've got enough of it already.


  • #41
    FoxT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,204 ✭✭✭FoxT


    I am surprised that the people who wrote the Impact statement were not advised on what they could & could not write.

    I thought that the V.I.S. is supposed to be limited to a description by the victim(s) on the impact the crime had on them. It is not ( & should not be) a platform for the victim to express their personal views on immigrants, the justice system, or whatnot.

    How were they permitted to bring that statement before the judge? It clearly was not in their best interest to do so, yet somebody, somewhere must have authorised it? Or did they just walk in & plonk it on the bench?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    ilovelamp2000 wrote: »
    I don't think it would be a bad idea to have some restrictions on freedom of movement so that foreign criminals can't enter the country and settle here. Most sane countries have something in place to deal with these situations.

    To import crime is senseless, considering we've got enough of it already.

    Currently being discussed here

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #43
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,566 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    ilovelamp2000 wrote: »
    I don't think it would be a bad idea to have some restrictions on freedom of movement so that foreign criminals can't enter the country and settle here. Most sane countries have something in place to deal with these situations.

    To import crime is senseless, considering we've got enough of it already.

    I Think that may be contrary to the EU's freedom of movement directive though, which is one of the most core principles of the EU.

    To look at it another way, at least we get to export a few criminals as well.


  • #44
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    bigpink wrote: »
    What are victims suppose to say so in an impact statement?
    Oh life is great and the guys that commited this crime are realy nice guys
    Oh that chestnut - pretend there's no other alternative.


  • #45
    ilovelamp2000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭ilovelamp2000


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I Think that may be contrary to the EU's freedom of movement directive though, which is one of the most core principles of the EU.

    To look at it another way, at least we get to export a few criminals as well.

    None of the rights are absolute. Having a restriction on it based on previous criminal history seems sensible.

    One of the duties of the Irish State is to protect its citizens, by allowing dangerous criminals to freely enter the state they aren't doing that.


  • #46
    PrincessLola
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 851 ✭✭✭PrincessLola


    goose2005 wrote: »
    The point of a victim impact statement is so that the victim can tell about the impact the crime has had on her - not for the victim to air political views.

    Fair enough. Maybe I wonder if the family had anyone advise them on the impact statement?


  • #47
    Gummy Panda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,919 ✭✭✭✭Gummy Panda


    I thought the Victim Impact Statement has to be screened before being read in court after the Holohan case where the mother read out allegations of sexual abuse that weren't included in the case?


  • #48
    Predalien
    Closed Accounts Posts: 946 ✭✭✭Predalien


    Justice Barry White seems to have a negative opinion of victim impact statements in general, I can't remember the case but I do recall he once described a victim impact statement in a murder case as 'disingenuous'. That's very harsh on any family of a murder victim. He really should just accept they are a part of our legal system. Also in delaying sentencing isn't he admitting that he isn't able to distinguish between what he can take into account and what he should disregard (the xenophobic elements of the statement for example).


  • #49
    Predalien
    Closed Accounts Posts: 946 ✭✭✭Predalien


    Gummy Panda wrote: »
    I thought the Victim Impact Statement has to be screened before being read in court after the Holohan case where the mother read out allegations of sexual abuse that weren't included in the case?

    They are screened but there's nothing to stop people deviating from the script as I believe Majella Holohan did.


  • #50
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Guess those criminals were fun loving ones as they were heard singing on the way back to their cells:

    "Barry White, saved our lives".


  • #51
    Terry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,073 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    Overheal wrote: »
    Something that isn't along the lines of "they're negros and they shouldn't be allowed to live among us in the first place."

    I understand the political point the family is trying to make but the Victim's Impact Statement isn't the place to do that.
    +1, but I do have certain issues with that which I'll cover later.

    bigpink wrote: »
    Xenophobic?
    They were foreign yes?Committed crime yes?Do you think they should be in the country so?

    God i love the way the people stick up for criminals in this country
    I agree to a certain extent. Again I'll cover that later.

    FoxT wrote: »
    I am surprised that the people who wrote the Impact statement were not advised on what they could & could not write.
    This is 100% correct.
    The Garda taking the statement should have advised them on how to proceed.

    In saying that, if a family member of yours was murdered by foreigners, how would you react?
    We're talking about days after the guilty party have been identified, and not a couple of years after the fact when you have had time to calm down.

    If the person who killed my father was found in the morning and he turned out to be foreign (EU or not), I'd question why he was allowed into this country in the first place. I'd ask questions about his past, and wonder if he had a criminal history.

    There is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't have the same restrictions on repeat criminals as the U.S. Canada and Australia have.
    Repeat Irish offender? Then you don't have access to the above countries. Why should we be any different when it comes to allowing people in?

    On top of that, any foreigner here who repeatedly offends should be deported. If the initial offence is something like murder or manslaughter, then they should be deported as soon as they have served their sentence here.

    The hippy liberals here piss me off as much as the right wing lunatics. Neither side can ever see logic.
    You have the liberals whining about the Irish immigrants in the U.S. not being deported when the right are calling for mass deportation here.
    Then you have the right whining about how the left want to support all the immigrants who are criminals.

    There's a middle ground.
    Deport illegal immigrants. All of them.
    If you break the law, then face the punishment. It's that ****ing simple.

    Three foreign people have been accused of killing someone.
    If they are guilty, then they should face their punishment and then be deported.
    If they are innocent, then they can walk free with their heads held high.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    I don't think people are objecting to the family's reaction, just explaining why the judge deemed the victim impact statement to be perhaps detrimental to the case, as a victim impact statement is only supposed to do what it says on the tin, nothing more.
    There's no hippy liberal stuff here - just an example of how the law should operate without prejudice.


  • #53
    littlefriend
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,900 ✭✭✭littlefriend


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Guess those criminals were fun loving ones as they were heard singing on the way back to their cells:

    "Barry White, saved our lives".
    OutlawPete wrote: »
    In fairness, that judge just wants love.

    Right now, I'd say he is on a large heart shaped bed, with a few female court clerks naked, hanging on every single word he utters, with his deep authoritative, seductive voice.

    He's on a mission to bring soul to our justice system.

    Ah Pete, they are so bad!


  • #54
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    ilovelamp2000 wrote: »
    I don't think it would be a bad idea to have some restrictions on freedom of movement so that foreign criminals can't enter the country and settle here. Most sane countries have something in place to deal with these situations.

    To import crime is senseless, considering we've got enough of it already.
    I don't think that's being argued: the fact that it showed up on an impact statement however, is being argued. The origin of the criminals has no bearing on the impact the crime has had on the victims. Unless they wish to possibly convey to the court that they now have become xenophobes as a result of the murder.


  • #55
    Laminations
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Overheal wrote: »
    I don't think that's being argued: the fact that it showed up on an impact statement however, is being argued. The origin of the criminals has no bearing on the impact the crime has had on the victims. Unless they wish to possibly convey to the court that they now have become xenophobes as a result of the murder.

    Of course it should. From what I've read I see no xenophobia, I see criminalophobia. They are not saying 'keep foreigners out', they're saying 'keep criminals out'. The origin matters because if we didn't import criminals this could've been avoided. If faulty kettles were being imported from china and one blew up in your mums face, killing her, I'm sure you'd question why these faulty kettles were being imported when we have our own faulty kettle problems. You can make this point without it meaning you disagree with any imports from china or that you hate the Chinese. I didn't read into that statement that they hated foreigners or wanted to stop immigration, but as people have said, we've yet to read the full statement.

    As for the points about the justice system, these weren't political points, they influence how the crime has affected them. How the courts deal with individuals who were involved in the butchery of your family member impacts on you as the victim. These guys got off a murder charge on a technicality. Also as someone mentioned, there should be no such thing as over-sentencing in this case or others involving such grotesque violence. Life for a life. They have been convicted of trying to dispose of the body which means they either did it or know who did it, are we to believe that their memory is as transient as Berties or isn't it obvious they are/were uncooperative with gardai.

    Describing these men as animals is apt, generalising to 'all foreigners are animals' is offensive and xenophobic but is not what was said from what I've read. So the statement was offensive to whom?


  • #56
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Laminations wrote: »
    Of course it should. From what I've read I see no xenophobia, I see criminalophobia. They are not saying 'keep foreigners out', they're saying 'keep criminals out'. The origin matters because if we didn't import criminals this could've been avoided. If faulty kettles were being imported from china and one blew up in your mums face, killing her, I'm sure you'd question why these faulty kettles were being imported when we have our own faulty kettle problems. You can make this point without it meaning you disagree with any imports from china or that you hate the Chinese. I didn't read into that statement that they hated foreigners or wanted to stop immigration, but as people have said, we've yet to read the full statement.

    As for the points about the justice system, these weren't political points, they influence how the crime has affected them. How the courts deal with individuals who were involved in the butchery of your family member impacts on you as the victim. These guys got off a murder charge on a technicality. Also as someone mentioned, there should be no such thing as over-sentencing in this case or others involving such grotesque violence. Life for a life. They have been convicted of trying to dispose of the body which means they either did it or know who did it, are we to believe that their memory is as transient as Berties or isn't it obvious they are/were uncooperative with gardai.

    Describing these men as animals is apt, generalising to 'all foreigners are animals' is offensive and xenophobic but is not what was said from what I've read. So the statement was offensive to whom?

    Not true, unless you're saying that, had the crime been committed by four Irishmen, it wouldn't have had as much impact.

    We need to seperate the two issus of this thread:
    1) Should foreigners with criminal records be allowed into Ireland?
    2) Should victim impact statements be allowed to comment on political issues, e.g. immigration?

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #57
    monkeypants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,385 ✭✭✭monkeypants


    From the second article posted:
    He said it lacked an appreciation of the presumption of innocence
    I'm not sure what he means by this. Surely if you're a victim and someone has been convicted of a crime, then the whole innocence thing is over and done with.


  • #58
    Laminations
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Ikky Poo2 wrote: »
    Not true, unless you're saying that, had the crime been committed by four Irishmen, it wouldn't have had as much impact.

    That's like arguing that a piano falling on her head would have the same impact as murder, because the end result is the same i.e. You've lost a loved one. After a crime many things go through your head, the how's and the why's. Why were these men let into the country is a legitimate question just as (if it was 4 Irish animals) why were they let out of prison early. Whether the justice system or the government could have done something to prevent a crime and protect citizens adds to the impact of a crime - I see little reason to exclude so-called 'political' points from victim impact statements unless they are obviously disconnected. For example, adding in that you hate Fine Gael just for the heck of it is very different to questioning policies which have allowed the criminal repeated second chances or allowed them into the country to begin with.


  • #59
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Laminations wrote: »
    That's like arguing that a piano falling on her head would have the same impact as murder, because the end result is the same i.e. You've lost a loved one. After a crime many things go through your head, the how's and the why's. Why were these men let into the country is a legitimate question just as (if it was 4 Irish animals) why were they let out of prison early..

    Nothing to do with a victim impact statement, however.
    Laminations wrote: »
    Whether the justice system or the government could have done something to prevent a crime and protect citizens adds to the impact of a crime - I see little reason to exclude so-called 'political' points from victim impact statements unless they are obviously disconnected.
    ..

    Its obviously disconnected.


  • #60
    General Zod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,661 ✭✭✭General Zod


    monkeypants wrote: »
    From the second article posted:


    I'm not sure what he means by this. Surely if you're a victim and someone has been convicted of a crime, then the whole innocence thing is over and done with.

    They weren't convicted of murder, so perhaps making reference to them as murderers is what the whole "presumption of innocence" thing is about.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Laminations wrote: »
    Of course it should. From what I've read I see no xenophobia, I see criminalophobia. They are not saying 'keep foreigners out', they're saying 'keep criminals out'..........................

    Just as a matter of interest, do you have access to the full statement?


Advertisement
Advertisement