Man drinks 8 pints, kills another in crash, judge thinks alcohol isn't a factor...

It wasn't me! · 07-12-2011 03:16PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

The minister for Justice should be able to summon that Judge and ask him WTF he was thinking. And have to power to overturn the sentence.

But, sigh, this is Ireland, and sure we couldn't be having that.

Yeah, because giving the executive the power to overturn the judiciary at an instant isn't a gross breach of the separation of powers which is a cornerstone of social protection.

cruizer101 · 07-12-2011 03:16PM

His name is Ronan Cunningham here is a link to Irish Times article which names all parties involved, not sure why other one didn't.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1207/1224308683781.html

Civil engineer Ronan Cunningham (29) of Enniskeen, Kingscourt, pleaded guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to dangerous driving causing the death of Emanuel Mendez (23) on October 10th, 2010, at Rathcoole, on the N7 Naas dual carriageway. Cunningham also pleaded guilty to driving while under the influence of alcohol on the same date.

More in the link.

humanji · 07-12-2011 03:19PM

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

Or is Cunningham active in local GAA circles or something. Again, why is this killer's name hidden?

I don't get this. Surely the community and nation must be made aware of this danger to the community and other communities?

Having his identity hidden just compounds the sheer injustice of the decision, and increased revulsion of the judge's mindset.

His identity isn't being hidden at all.

I think what the judge was saying wasn't that alcohol played no part in it, but that the guys actions that night were really weird and he's unsure as to whether or not alcohol was the main reason for it or was there something else. He had a hotel room booked but decided to drive home. He drove down the N7 for a while, then turned around and drove back on the wrong side fo the dual carriageway for 7 kilometres.

It certainly seems weird to me.

patrickbrophy18 · 07-12-2011 03:46PM

It amazes me how this has happened only weeks after the new legal limit for alcohol was introduced. If this were the US, he would be given at least 7 years for vehicular manslaughter as per "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Saburido".

What kind of idiot says that alcohol didn't play a part in someone driving the wrong way down a dual carriageway with 8 pints worth in their system?

Ronan Cunningham was obviously out of his bin when he decided to take the helm of his car oblivious to it's dangers. Nevermind the fact that he killed Latoya Scott's fiancee in the process. He should be banged up inside for at least two decades for his reckless behaviour. I also hope that the judge will be fired some day for reckless endangerment due to leniency of defendants.

veloc123 · 07-12-2011 03:50PM

Duggy747 wrote: »

*Goes into coma*

*Wakes up in 53 years time*

"Wh........where am I? Everything looks so different!"

*Reads article on newspaper about judge's sentence on a current case*

"Ahh, I'm still in Ireland!!"

:pac:

I think you should adapt that into a movie...

veloc123 · 07-12-2011 03:53PM

Are they illegal immigrants....?

I am pie · 07-12-2011 03:54PM

humanji wrote: »

His identity isn't being hidden at all.

I think what the judge was saying wasn't that alcohol played no part in it, but that the guys actions that night were really weird and he's unsure as to whether or not alcohol was the main reason for it or was there something else. He had a hotel room booked but decided to drive home. He drove down the N7 for a while, then turned around and drove back on the wrong side fo the dual carriageway for 7 kilometres.

It certainly seems weird to me.

Doesn't matter if it was weird !!! Lord above ...are you nuts ? He drank 8 pints ! ...8 pints !! Unsure if it was something else !! You are not capable of making logical decisions after 8 pints and to frame this mans decision making process in a logical and sober mindset is ludicrous.

He was pished, got in his car to drive home, remembered he had a hotel and headed back down the road to it ? Quite probably forgetting he was on a dual carriageway, thinking he just needed to drive down the other side of the road he was on...because he was full of booze.

Wow, i cannot believe anyone is coming close to condoning this sentence.

ps...maybe he had been smoking something also. Still should be locked up !

I am pie · 07-12-2011 04:02PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Would anything be gained by having this man in prison? And it will cost 400k to do so doesn't sound reasonable to me.

It is not retribution, it is a deterrent. If you drive dangerously after drinking and kill someone you will be locked up. We must effectively deter people from this most horrid, dangerous anti-social activity, and in my view a prison sentence is the appropriate deterrent.

Justice must never be related to vengence, it is based on two pillars. Firstly deterrence, secondly rehabilitation. Once without the other is counter productive and leads to an inept and futile justice system.

S. Goodspeed · 07-12-2011 04:08PM

FutureGuy wrote: »

This type of sh!te wouldn't happen in the UK. They are very strict when dealing with alcohol-fuelled crime...

Oh wait...in the Sun today...

Muslim girl gang who kicked woman in head freed after court hears they were 'not used to drinking'

A FERAL gang of Somalian girls who repeatedly kicked a young woman in the head walked free from court after a judge heard they were "not used to being drunk" because they were Muslim.

The four girls — three sisters and their cousin — were told the charge of actual bodily harm, which carries a maximum sentence of five years, against 22-year-old care worker Rhea Page would normally land them in custody.

But the judge handed the girls suspended sentences after hearing that they were not used to alcohol because their religion does not allow it.

Victim Rhea said Ambaro Maxamed, 24, Ayan Maxamed, 28, and Hibo Maxamed, 24, and their 28-year-old cousin Ifrah Nur screamed "Kill the white s***" while kicking her in the head as she lay motionless on the ground.

The support worker from Leicester was left "black and blue" with bruises and needed hospital treatment following the attack which came as she walked to a taxi rank with her boyfriend.

She was also left with a BALD patch after having her hair yanked out.

It's days like today that I feel sorry for humanity. I'm off to have a few pints and kick the sh!te of someone I have a strong dislike for.

Also a disgracefully lenient sentence but the reasoning behind that judgement is the complete opposite of the Cunningham one. The UK judge blames drink entirely for the girls' actions (which is a load of b*llox imo) whereas the Irish judge seems to be blaming something else but gives absolutely no indication of what that is. It is very bizarre.

Paparazzo · 07-12-2011 04:10PM

Mental punishment from the judge here.
He admitted to "about 8 pints". That means he had at least 10

To get so drunk that he "forgot" he had a hotel room booked, and attempted to drive from citywest to cavan, and then went 7km the wrong way down a dual carrageway means he was shítfaced.
Sad reading the bit in the Indo from Latoya Scott about her life being ruined. Pathetic punishment from the judge. If anyone ever comes up against this judge just pretent you can't remember anything, and you don't know why you did it and you'll get away with a laughable punishment.

humanji · 07-12-2011 04:15PM

I am pie wrote: »

Doesn't matter if it was weird !!! Lord above ...are you nuts ? He drank 8 pints ! ...8 pints !! Unsure if it was something else !! You are not capable of making logical decisions after 8 pints and to frame this mans decision making process in a logical and sober mindset is ludicrous.

He was pished, got in his car to drive home, remembered he had a hotel and headed back down the road to it ? Quite probably forgetting he was on a dual carriageway, thinking he just needed to drive down the other side of the road he was on...because he was full of booze.

Wow, i cannot believe anyone is coming close to condoning this sentence.

ps...maybe he had been smoking something also. Still should be locked up !

Who's condoning the sentence? I pointed out that it's possible that people are taking up the judges statement wrong. Driving 7 kilometres down the wrong lane is a weird thing to do, drunk or sober. It's happened before, but the judge believes in this case that there might be something else behind it. why is that so hard to understand? He's heard more of the details than we have.

Ray Palmer · 07-12-2011 04:18PM

I am pie wrote: »

It is not retribution, it is a deterrent. If you drive dangerously after drinking and kill someone you will be locked up. We must effectively deter people from this most horrid, dangerous anti-social activity, and in my view a prison sentence is the appropriate deterrent.

Justice must never be related to vengence, it is based on two pillars. Firstly deterrence, secondly rehabilitation. Once without the other is counter productive and leads to an inept and futile justice system.

Punishment has very little detterant value and there are numerous studies pointing this out and none proving that it is a detterant. Fear of being caught is the only deterrant so policing is really the only option.

A justice system that treats all acts the same is useless. People go on about the US system as some great system but considering their repeat offender figures and number of prisoners you suddenly see it fails. People also get off with light sentences in the US. The big difference is they use plea agreements much more so a judge doesn't even have a say. People are working on a faulty premise. If you spend some time looking at this stuff you will see harsh sentences don't work. It appears to be counter intuitive but it is the reality. Knee jerk reactions are always a bad idea.

I am pie · 07-12-2011 04:20PM

humanji wrote: »

Who's condoning the sentence? I pointed out that it's possible that people are taking up the judges statement wrong. Driving 7 kilometres down the wrong lane is a weird thing to do, drunk or sober. It's happened before, but the judge believes in this case that there might be something else behind it. why is that so hard to understand? He's heard more of the details than we have.

Driving 7km down the wrong side of the road is a perfectly comprehensible thing to do considering this moron had more than 8 pints on board. He then remembers he has a hotel, carriageway is pretty clear, he forgets it is a dual carriageway, spins round and heads back down the road. Especially if he is not totally familiar with the dual carriageway in question.

You really have watched enough Britains Worst Drivers or the like if you really think this is so improbable.

You really think the some mysterious other condition is more likely than drinking a large amount of alcohol ? I really cannot see how you can even come close to believing that ?

Logical Fallacy · 07-12-2011 04:20PM

humanji wrote: »

Who's condoning the sentence? I pointed out that it's possible that people are taking up the judges statement wrong. Driving 7 kilometres down the wrong lane is a weird thing to do, drunk or sober. It's happened before, but the judge believes in this case that there might be something else behind it. why is that so hard to understand? He's heard more of the details than we have.

Does it really matter what else is behind it? I guess that is the pertinent question. I can't really think of any factor that effectively excuses it.

phil1nj · 07-12-2011 04:21PM

humanji wrote: »

Who's condoning the sentence? I pointed out that it's possible that people are taking up the judges statement wrong. Driving 7 kilometres down the wrong lane is an weird illegal thing to do, drunk or sober. It's happened before, but the judge believes in this case that there might be something else behind it. why is that so hard to understand? He's heard more of the details than we have.

FYP

Ellis Dee · 07-12-2011 04:21PM

Judges (like Carney) who hand down stiff sentences often see the sentences reduced by the Court of Criminal Appeal, and this inevitably stays their hand a bit and has an inhibiting effect on their colleagues as well.:)

However, is it not possible for the prosecution to appeal as well? If it is, will they do so and if so, why not?

If I drank eight pints, I'd be stepping on my dick and there's no one in the world would claim that what I did in that state had nothing to do with the drink.:rolleyes:

I am pie · 07-12-2011 04:25PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Punishment has very little detterant value and there are numerous studies pointing this out and none proving that it is a detterant. Fear of being caught is the only deterrant so policing is really the only option.

A justice system that treats all acts the same is useless. People go on about the US system as some great system but considering their repeat offender figures and number of prisoners you suddenly see it fails. People also get off with light sentences in the US. The big difference is they use plea agreements much more so a judge doesn't even have a say. People are working on a faulty premise. If you spend some time looking at this stuff you will see harsh sentences don't work. It appears to be counter intuitive but it is the reality. Knee jerk reactions are always a bad idea.

You're accusing me having a knee jerk reaction. It's quite the opposite. If you asked me 5 years ago i'd give you the same answer as i would now and in 5 years time. This is not an emotive issue for me and my position is consistent and not 'knee jerk'

I also would be very interested to see your statistics which indicate that harsh sentences for drink driving fatalities do not work. I suspect your statistics will tell us that harsh sentences for career criminals / repeat offenders do not work, I do not believe that this will hold true for one off drink driving casualties. If I am wrong, I will admit it.

280special · 07-12-2011 04:40PM

Lord Trollington wrote: »

No maybe I wouldn't. To be fair I know nothing of the case or its background, unlike the judge.

As he said the man had been a model citizen up until then. Is 8 pints enough to make you drive the wrong way down the the road, I don't think it is to be honest.

There is probably something else behind it to be honest OP.

Is this poster for real ??? 8 pints not going to impair driving ??? Thats almost as nonsensical as the Judge's decision not to take the alcoholic consumption of the driver into consideration.

And as for what he should be sentenced to ? 10 years of spending his nights in hospitals dealing with the aftermath of other selfish, drunken louts and their driving , or being the one who has to go to families and tell them "...yes, your son/daughter/father/mother was killed by someone who just had a few harmless pints in his local.." , before finally spending his days being the person who has to clean out the cars involved in accidents....

Make the punishment fit the crime.

humanji · 07-12-2011 04:55PM

I am pie wrote: »

Driving 7km down the wrong side of the road is a perfectly comprehensible thing to do considering this moron had more than 8 pints on board. He then remembers he has a hotel, carriageway is pretty clear, he forgets it is a dual carriageway, spins round and heads back down the road. Especially if he is not totally familiar with the dual carriageway in question.

Does this happen everyone that has 8 pints? Or would this be a rare, nay "weird", thing to happen? And should it automatically be put down to drink without investigation? If it's such an open and shut case, then does it not make you wonder why the judge would have reservations? Especially when he's heard all the details of the case and we haven't?

I am pie wrote:

You really have watched enough Britains Worst Drivers or the like if you really think this is so improbable.

Never said it wasn't improbable. If you had actual read my last post, you'd see that I even say that it's happened before.

I am pie wrote:

You really think the some mysterious other condition is more likely than drinking a large amount of alcohol ?

From your previous post:

ps...maybe he had been smoking something also.

So even you seem to think that it's certainly possible that something else may have been a factor.

I am pie wrote:

I really cannot see how you can even come close to believing that ?

Any chance you could stop claiming that I believe things which I don't? I'm merely pointing out that we don't know the details and someone who does has unanswered questions about them. Jump to a conclusion if you want, but don't drag me down with you.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Does it really matter what else is behind it? I guess that is the pertinent question. I can't really think of any factor that effectively excuses it.

But sin't the thread about what the judge said, and not his sentence?

phil1nj wrote: »

FYP

No you didn't.

Ray Palmer · 07-12-2011 04:55PM

I am pie wrote: »

You're accusing me having a knee jerk reaction. It's quite the opposite. If you asked me 5 years ago i'd give you the same answer as i would now and in 5 years time. This is not an emotive issue for me and my position is consistent and not 'knee jerk'

I also would be very interested to see your statistics which indicate that harsh sentences for drink driving fatalities do not work. I suspect your statistics will tell us that harsh sentences for career criminals / repeat offenders do not work, I do not believe that this will hold true for one off drink driving casualties. If I am wrong, I will admit it.

Harsh sentences for anything don't work as a deterant go look it up. What makes you think id does? If you can prove harsher sentences reduce that crime I'll admit it works.

You can have a knee jerk mentality it basically involves the absence of any thought on the subject without reality to back it up.

phil1nj · 07-12-2011 05:00PM

[QUOTE=humanji;
No you didn't.[/QUOTE]

Yes I did. This guy got behind the wheel of a car after downing at least 8 pints (highly illegal last time I checked), started the car and drove off (also highly illegal) then proceeded to drive the wrong way down a dual carraige way (also illegal not to mention downright f*cking dangerous) and the best you can say is that it was a "weird" thing to do?

Jesus wept.

I am pie · 07-12-2011 05:10PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Harsh sentences for anything don't work as a deterant go look it up. What makes you think id does? If you can prove harsher sentences reduce that crime I'll admit it works.

You can have a knee jerk mentality it basically involves the absence of any thought on the subject without reality to back it up.

So no statistics at all there Ray. I thought as much. Just flipping the question on it's head. We can't really have a sensible discussion on that basis.

I had already explained why my reaction is not knee jerk, that seems to have evaded your attention however.

I'll be leaving you to it while you repeat your points ad infinitum. Good luck now.

jonnyfingers · 07-12-2011 05:11PM

In my opinion driving a car after 8 pints should be the same as attempted murder.

You know you don't have adequate control over your body, you know you're going to be in control of a lethal weapon, and you know that if you crash into someone at speed there is every likelihood that person will die. So by choosing to get behind the well you accept that you may kill someone.

Model citizen or not the driver in this case made a decision that directly led to somebody's death. That's murder.

Paparazzo · 07-12-2011 05:13PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Harsh sentences for anything don't work as a deterant go look it up. What makes you think id does? If you can prove harsher sentences reduce that crime I'll admit it works.

You can have a knee jerk mentality it basically involves the absence of any thought on the subject without reality to back it up.

You're saying harsh sentences don't work, so everyone should get away with whatever they like?

If prison works or not is another debate, but it's the form of punishement we use at the moment, and the point here is that a guy went out, broke the law, killed someone and basically got away without any proper punishment.

Ray Palmer · 07-12-2011 05:15PM

I am pie wrote: »

So no statistics at all there Ray. I thought as much. Just flipping the question on it's head. We can't really have a sensible discussion on that basis.

I had already explained why my reaction is not knee jerk, that seems to have evaded your attention however.

I'll be leaving you to it while you repeat your points ad infinitum. Good luck now.

No you don't understand what knee jerk reaction is. As I couldn't be bothered disproving your theory with stats your must be right . Good logic. I have looked where as you obviously haven't I don't run around providing every theory with absolute proof and neither do you. You have a theory that harsh punishment deters people yet can't show evidence. Have you ever read anything that actually proves it??

humanji · 07-12-2011 05:17PM

phil1nj wrote: »

Yes I did. This guy got behind the wheel of a car after downing at least 8 pints (highly illegal last time I checked), started the car and drove off (also highly illegal) then proceeded to drive the wrong way down a dual carraige way (also illegal not to mention downright f*cking dangerous) and the best you can say is that it was a "weird" thing to do?

Jesus wept.

No, you needlessly changed a word in my post to point out something that everyone already knows. How did that make anything better? No one is disputing that he was drunk. No one is disputing that it was illegal.

amacachi · 07-12-2011 05:19PM

I really wish drink wasn't mentioned in serious accidents, the sentence should be the same (high) regardless of drink being involved or not.
In cases where there is clear recklessness whether it's because of alcohol or just being a tool and someone dies the sentencing should be equivalent to manslaughter. Well, if average manslaughter sentences were higher.

Panrich · 07-12-2011 05:26PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Harsh sentences for anything don't work as a deterant go look it up. What makes you think id does? If you can prove harsher sentences reduce that crime I'll admit it works.

You can have a knee jerk mentality it basically involves the absence of any thought on the subject without reality to back it up.

Is there ever a case for a custodial sentence in your opinion? What if Cunningham had taken a gun and went out onto the street after his 8 pints and shot at a crowd indiscriminately killing an innocent bystander? Would people see this as wierd behaviour?

Ray Palmer · 07-12-2011 05:32PM

Panrich wrote: »

Is there ever a case for a custodial sentence in your opinion? What if Cunningham had taken a gun and went out onto the street after his 8 pints and shot at a crowd indiscriminately killing an innocent bystander? Would people see this as wierd behaviour?

Obviously. Way to overly simplify what I said and then exagerate. You are a powerhouse of wit and amaze me with your debating skills.:rolleyes:

I am pie · 07-12-2011 05:32PM

Rare does not equal weird Humanji. That is pretty clear despite your attempt to blur the distinction between the 2. It is rare that it happens, however it's a ridiculous leap to suggest that it's weird that 8 pints would be the cause of this accident. Extremely tenuous. Ridiculous in fact.

It is not weird. Quite the opposite, it is weird that anyone (not you, before you get all defensive again) could believe that drinking 8 pints did not cause this accident, especially considering the documented effects of drinking that amount of alcohol would be lack of coordination and memory loss. Which maybe, just maybe...would contribute to clumsily driving down the wrong side of a dual carriageway after remembering something you had forgotten.

Man drinks 8 pints, kills another in crash, judge thinks alcohol isn't a factor...

Comments