8 years for manslaughter of garda

Wolfe Tone · 22-07-2011 12:30AM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

91 previous convictions?

We need a three strikes rule to stop this kind of thing from happening. Pretty much every murder/manslaughter case has people with priors in the double figures.

Rehabilitation doesn't work, build more prisons and lock these animals away sooner rather than later and maybe decent people won't have to bury family members while scum like this will be back on the street within 5 years.

Three strikes rules are not the answer. They are a disgrace.

The Internet Explorer · 22-07-2011 12:38AM

Silly silly Ireland. Who's a silly country ? You are ! Yes you are ! Yes you are ! Silly country. Who's a silly country ? Yes you are !!

Son Of A Vidic · 22-07-2011 12:42AM

Cill Dara Abu wrote: »

Meh

One word for that................................pathetic.

Tehachapi · 22-07-2011 12:50AM

I know now if I ever want to commit pre-meditated murder, I just have to hop into my car and find the person out walking. Smash into them (maybe while drunk to make it more believable) and get off with a nice 7-year manslaughter charge. Good oul Ireland.

mickydoomsux · 22-07-2011 12:58AM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Three strikes rules are not the answer. They are a disgrace.

Well i guess what we're doing now is fine so :rolleyes:

Let 'em rack up the convictions until they kill someone, give them an embarrassingly pathetic sentence and then wonder why our society is in the ****ter.

Wolfe Tone · 22-07-2011 01:00AM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Well i guess what we're doing now is fine so :rolleyes:

Let 'em rack up the convictions until they kill someone, give them an embarrassingly pathetic sentence and then wonder why our society is in the ****ter.

I never said what we have now is fine did I?

steddyeddy · 22-07-2011 01:13AM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Well i guess what we're doing now is fine so :rolleyes:

Let 'em rack up the convictions until they kill someone, give them an embarrassingly pathetic sentence and then wonder why our society is in the ****ter.

Lived in america man theres people in jail for stealing cookies because of that rule it is a disgrace.

x in the city · 22-07-2011 01:20AM

realies wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0721/mcloughling.html

A 25 year old Donegal man has been sentenced to eight years in prison, with the last year suspended, for the manslaughter of a Garda in December 2009.
Martin McDermott was today found guilty of the manslaughter of Garda Gary McLoughlin after he drove into the officer's patrol car at high speed.
Mr McDermott, 25, of Castlegrove, Raphoe, Co Donegal, was also found guilty of recklessly endangering the life of Garda Bernard McLoughlin in the same crash.
He was sentenced to five years for endangering the life of Garda Bernard McLoughlin and five years for dangerous driving causing death.
He also received six months sentences for each of the charges of drink driving, driving with no insurance and driving while disqualified.
All sentences will run concurrently while Mr McDermott has also been disqualified from driving for 20 years.
During sentencing the court heard that Mr McDermott had 91 previous convictions including dangerous driving and drink driving. There were two bench warrants out for his arrest at the time that he crashed into Garda McLoughlin's patrol car.

The jury had heard how on 13 December 2009 detectives in an unmarked car at Bridgend in Donegal noticed something unusual at a petrol station.
Mr McDermott left the petrol station in a red Opel Astra and travelled towards Letterkenny at speeds up to 180km/h. The Garda car followed with its lights flashing.
Mr McDermott then turned his car around and was driving towards Derry, where he was living at the time, when he hit a marked Garda car being driven by Garda McLoughlin.
Garda McLoughlin, 24, from Fenagh in Leitrim, died the next day in hospital.

IMO this is mad justice,This chap was a repeat offender with bench warrants out for him and at the time already banned from driving and he gets 8 years,with one suspended plus all the rest of the sentenced ran concurrent, the social welfare fraudster gets 12 years for swindling 250,000 euro and no one was hurt, As I said bit mad to me.

Ireland is a joke of a place. for jobs, justice and pretty much anything else.

randylonghorn · 22-07-2011 01:21AM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Well i guess what we're doing now is fine so :rolleyes:

Let 'em rack up the convictions until they kill someone, give them an embarrassingly pathetic sentence and then wonder why our society is in the ****ter.

I don't think that's what's being said at all.

We're (supposedly) intelligent human beings, surely we can come up with better systems than a rigid mathematical formula?

It's worth noting that the "three strikes rule" is strongly opposed by many judges in the areas where it applies.

This case says our system isn't working. I think lots of people are agreeing on that.

The jump to a simplistic three strikes rule is neither a logically necessary one nor one for which there would be the same support.

Capt'n Midnight · 22-07-2011 01:28AM

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

On what planet is concurrent sentencing considered a good idea?

Never understood this

Doesn't it createsa "Might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb" attitude ?

If you reckon you think you are going to get caught then you might as well keep going since the punishment isn't going to be any worse. This also applies to the bankers , we should do like many other countries do where the sentence can be longer for larger amounts. How many people will die because of health cuts ? Locking up some of the politicians / bankers / traders / developers might have saved lives.

And I think any crimes commited whilst on bail must not be concurrent.

charlemont · 22-07-2011 01:30AM

The poor man was only doing his job so my sympathies to his family, that guy has a huge amount of convictions so 8 Years is way too little, He knew what he was doing when he was driving at that speed so I think the sentence is way too lenient, people get longer sentences for dealing in hash, Yet in this case a man who's job is to protect people gets killed in the course of other offences being committed, Way too lenient, Id love to see what all his previous are..

steddyeddy · 22-07-2011 01:33AM

charlemont wrote: »

The poor man was only doing his job so my sympathies to his family, that guy has a huge amount of convictions so 8 Years is way too little, He knew what he was doing when he was driving at that speed so I think the sentence is way too lenient, people get longer sentences for dealing in hash, Yet in this case a man who's job is to protect people gets killed in the course of other offences being committed, Way too lenient, Id love to see what all his previous are..

He only got 8 years for this jurys in ireland dont convict easily so im sure their significant.

Tehachapi · 22-07-2011 01:37AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Lived in america man theres people in jail for stealing cookies because of that rule it is a disgrace.

Well don't commit theft when you have 2 priors then.

I have never broken the law, and probably never will. However if I had a criminal conviction already - I'd be insanely careful not to even get a second with that rule in place. With two already I'd be watching my behaviour like a hawk, for fear of getting locked up on another conviction. You'd wanna be a serious gobsh1te to commit a third criminal offence with two behind you.

All criminal acts have victims, what the hell gives anyone the right to commit 3 criminal acts? Would you like to be walking on the same street as johnny scumbag with 152 previous convictions? Would you support the 3 strikes rule if he seriously assaulted you, caused brain damage to a member of your family or even killed them in the case of manuel riedo? The swiss people were shocked at why this prick wasn't locked up at the time of her murder.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/evil-predator-showed-no-remorse-for-terror-reign-1841361.html

He was just 16 when he got involved in a violent attack that ended in the brutal death of an innocent young man on a stag night in Galway.

He went on to attack an elderly man in his home, resulting in him being completed blinded. He was sentenced to two years in jail for that.

Barry was convicted of sexual assault for which he received an 18-month sentence. When he got out, he continued to pursue her. Late on August 16, 2007, he called to her home. There was a fight and a struggle and he assaulted her.

Two days later, on August 18, Barry was charged with assaulting his ex-girlfriend. Gardai, aware of her fear of him, asked the judge to keep him in custody. And although they had no evidence, he was now a key in a serious rape allegation. The judge granted Barry bail. Seven weeks later, he killed Manuela Riedo, a Swiss student who was only in Galway three days.

It's thinking like yours that allows people like him to still walk the streets with a criminal history like that.

steddyeddy · 22-07-2011 01:43AM

Tehachapi wrote: »

Well don't commit theft when you have 2 priors then.

I have never broken the law, and probably never will. However if I had a criminal conviction already - I'd be insanely careful not to even get a second with that rule in place. With two already I'd be watching my behaviour like a hawk, for fear of getting locked up on another conviction. You'd wanna be a serious gobsh1te to commit a third criminal offence with two behind you.

All criminal acts have victims, what the hell gives anyone the right to commit 3 criminal acts? Would you like to be walking on the same street as johnny scumbag with 152 previous convictions? Would you support the 3 strikes rule if he seriously assaulted you, caused brain damage to a member of your family or even killed them in the case of manuel riedo? The swiss people were shocked at why this prick wasn't locked up at the time of her murder.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/evil-predator-showed-no-remorse-for-terror-reign-1841361.html

It's thinking like yours that allows people like him to still walk the streets with a criminal history like that.

So you agree life in prison for stealing cookies is ok?

Zebra3 · 22-07-2011 01:48AM

The "three strikes rule" crap is generally supported by tabloid reading, uneducated idiots and right wing extemists.

Enough said.

charlemont · 22-07-2011 01:52AM

Tehachapi wrote: »

It's thinking like yours that allows people like him to still walk the streets with a criminal history like that.

These are serious offences in which he should have been remanded in custody till trial..
Stealing biscuits doesn't even come close to the seriousness of the crimes committed by that scumbag.

randylonghorn · 22-07-2011 02:05AM

Tehachapi wrote: »

It's thinking like yours that allows people like him to still walk the streets with a criminal history like that.

Ofc Barry should have been locked up for a long time long before that. He certainly should never have been released on bail.

But it doesn't need a simplistic "three strikes rule" to achieve that. It needs better sentencing.

And space in prisons for the likes of Barry to be incarcerated for a very long time.

Which won't be achieved by over-populating the prisons with far less serious criminals imprisoned under the three strike rule.

Capt'n Midnight · 22-07-2011 02:06AM

91 previous convictions at age 25

Is this from age 12 or 18 ? that's between 7 and 13 a year or one conviction every four to 7.5 weeks depending on when the convictions are recorded from.

The state had 90 chances of rehabiliting this person.

This person had 90 chances of going straight.

How many people were affected by this person in the past ?

While the three strikes rule is Draconian, society has a right to be protected.

What is the rivicisism rate amongst habitual criminals ?
How would you work out the optimum sentence for those who don't reform such that their rights to freedom are balanced with the rights of society to have freedom from them ?

steddyeddy · 22-07-2011 02:10AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

91 previous convictions at age 25

Is this from age 12 or 18 ? that's between 7 and 13 a year or one conviction every four to 7.5 weeks depending on when the convictions are recorded from.

The state had 90 chances of rehabiliting this person.

This person had 90 chances of going straight.

How many people were affected by this person in the past ?

While the three strikes rule is Draconian, society has a right to be protected.

What is the rivicisism rate amongst habitual criminals ?
How would you work out the optimum sentence for those who don't reform such that their rights to freedom are balanced with the rights of society to have freedom from them ?

+ 1 (at least)

He had options of rehab but his victims may have to endure a lifetime of therapy because of his actions.

Wolfe Tone · 22-07-2011 02:12AM

randylonghorn wrote: »

Ofc Barry should have been locked up for a long time long before that. He certainly should never have been released on bail.

But it doesn't need a simplistic "three strikes rule" to achieve that. It needs better sentencing.

And space in prisons for the likes of Barry to be incarcerated for a very long time.

Which won't be achieved by over-populating the prisons with far less serious criminals imprisoned under the three strike rule.

It needs better rehabilitative prisons too.

A small jail term for a young man i like sending him to a university of crime, jail makes them career criminals, that has to change.

randylonghorn · 22-07-2011 02:15AM

I knew Barry.

Rehabilitation was never likely (and I would be a supporter of better rehabilitation programmes in the prison system).

He should have been locked up for a long time ages before he killed that girl.

It didn't need a three strikes rule, it needed a bit of cop-on on the part of the judges who encountered him.

marcsignal · 22-07-2011 02:23AM

cosmicfart wrote: »

The 'Showers' one feels wont be kind to him.

not the showers i have in mind anyway....

The Maverick · 22-07-2011 02:59AM

Jesus, only 8 years for killing a guard. He'll be out in 6, free to maim some other poor unfortunate on the road. The sentencing system really is a joke in this country. While I agree that a 3 strikes system isn't the answer, the concurrent method has to stop. This toerag should have received the full 19.5 year term.

Morlar · 22-07-2011 03:21AM

Another day another disgracefully lenient sentence.

Sympathies to the family of the Garda.

mcmoustache · 22-07-2011 04:07AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

So you agree life in prison for stealing cookies is ok?

That's not what he said.

Surely, there must be something wrong with the perp to have 91 convictions. While 3 convictions might be a bit harsh as a basis for a mandatory life sentence, maybe the number we need is closer to 10. Seriously, a person needs to be a right scumbag to get 10 convictions and if a person gets 10 or whatever magic number we agree on, they should be removed from society because the lives of ordinary people are too important to be put at risk by having dangerous people wander around openly.

HavingCrack · 22-07-2011 04:16AM

mcmoustache wrote: »

That's not what he said.

In fairness it was pretty close, sending someone to prison for robbing cookies or childrens videos does nobody in society any favours.

mcmoustache wrote: »

Surely, there must be something wrong with the perp to have 91 convictions. While 3 convictions might be a bit harsh as a basis for a mandatory life sentence, maybe the number we need is closer to 10. Seriously, a person needs to be a right scumbag to get 10 convictions and if a person gets 10 or whatever magic number we agree on, they should be removed from society because the lives of ordinary people are too important to be put at risk by having dangerous people wander around openly.

We don't need mandatory life sentencing, what we need is sentences to carry an approriate penalty. Someone with 91 convictions should not be walking the streets but each conviction should carry an appropriate sentence, Serious assault should be 10 years, repeat car theft 5 years etc. I feel that's a better approach to be honest.

mcmoustache · 22-07-2011 04:18AM

Zebra3 wrote: »

The "three strikes rule" crap is generally supported by tabloid reading, uneducated idiots and right wing extemists.

Enough said.

It's also supported by law abiding people who wonder how someone can rack up that many convictions.

And who the hell brought up the cookie-stealing strawman and why? Nobody here wants to convict anyone for stealing a cookie ffs.

What I would like to see is people going to jail for violent crime. This chap had 91 previous convictions. At what point should a judge say "Hang on. You're taking the piss. It's time you saw what prison is like."? 10 convictions, 20, 30 perhaps. A line needs to be drawn somewhere because it's not acceptable that a degenerate such as that piece of scum should be allowed out in public.

Does anyone know if he received a custodial sentence for any of his previous convictions?

mcmoustache · 22-07-2011 04:28AM

HavingCrack wrote: »

We don't need mandatory life sentencing, what we need is sentences to carry an approriate penalty. Someone with 91 convictions should not be walking the streets but each conviction should carry an appropriate sentence, Serious assault should be 10 years, repeat car theft 5 years etc. I feel that's a better approach to be honest.

I'd be happy with that if the judges pass appropriate sentences. The problem is that they don't so maybe the legislative branch of our government should step in. It wouldn't rehabilitate people or make them productive members of society but it would prevent innocent people getting killed. I'd rather deny a guilty man his human rights so that an innocent man can live to old age. I know that it may seem cold but it's often an either-or situation. Some people are just beyond redemption and their presence in public results in innocent lives destroyed.

heffomike54 · 22-07-2011 05:03AM

Everyone on this website has an opinion on this matter & i am not going to argue for or against three strikes rules or anything else. I knew the Garda who was killed, he was my friend, I will never ever talk to him again or buy him a drink. The scum who killed him will be out in a few years with a chance at life again, Gary Mcloughlin will never ever get this chance again. His family, friends & girlfriend have been devastated by this scum's actions. Its not fair, right or just that we will have to see this scum walking our streets again in a few years & never see our friend again.

Laisurg · 22-07-2011 05:08AM

91 previous convictions!? Why was he out of prison in the first place!

8 years for manslaughter of garda

Comments