Claire Nolan Sentenced to 6 years for running over old man nextdoor

Stiffler2 · 13-03-2012 11:05AM #1

Well there you have it, she was sentanced to 6 years for running over the old man next door.

Her excuse : I was trying to run down the son

Court Case is now over and she has been sentanced. Couldn't find another thread about this and since it's over we can talk about it now ??

Anyway - linky - http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0312/duffym.html

Quotey :

A Dublin mother who admitted killing a father-of-four after she crushed him with her car has been jailed for six years.

Claire Nolan, aged 25, of Sheephill Green in Blanchardstown, drove into Michael Duffy and crushed the 66-year-old against his son's house on 26 January 2008.
Mr Justice Paul Carney said today that this was an assault with a car, driven by a woman out of control on drink and drugs.

He said she fled the scene and attempted to destroy evidence by torching the car.
Judge Carney said alcohol and drugs were no defence. Regarding Ms Nolan's claim of turning her life around, the judge said that may or may not be the case in time.

He said he has no idea how she will respond when she comes to terms with serving a significant sentence in prison.

Judge Carney sentenced her to eight years in prison. He said the only factor in her favour was her guilty plea and he suspended two years

================================================

So if some aul junky looking scumbag hag ran over your old man and got 6 years How would you Feel about it ??

Lest not forget that if this was a man the sentance would be probably 12 yrs +
I would also like you to note that the garlic scam man also got 6 yrs ??

In your opinion does stealing a bit of garlic just as bad as murdering / running over someone on purpose ? The justice system seems to think so anyway.........

Thoughts ?

CardBordWindow · 13-03-2012 11:06AM

But she didn't run over him, she drove!

Seifer · 13-03-2012 11:12AM

This crime is clearly on par with scamming the tax man on garlic imports and so deserves the same sentence.

DrumSteve · 13-03-2012 11:12AM

Should have got more.

ronan45 · 13-03-2012 11:14AM

She was a true Gurrier this one. Had a list as long as your arm for previous offences too. Nasty bit of work

ejmaztec · 13-03-2012 11:16AM

ronan45 wrote: »

She was a true Gurrier this one. Had a list as long as your arm for previous offences too. Nasty bit of work

She'll be even nastier when she gets out.

SeaFields · 13-03-2012 11:16AM

There is a mandatory sentence when your convicted of murder. There really needs to be one for manslaughter and it needs to be fairly lengthy.

That mans family must feels horribly betrayed by the justice system today.

pickarooney · 13-03-2012 11:18AM

It's not murder if you kill the wrong person??

micropig · 13-03-2012 11:20AM

She'll be out next week

Rabidlamb · 13-03-2012 11:20AM

Seifer wrote: »

This crime is clearly on par with scamming the tax man on garlic imports and so deserves the same sentence.

and they wonder why people have a lack of faith in the justice system.

benway · 13-03-2012 11:20AM

SeaFields wrote: »

There is a mandatory sentence when your convicted of murder. There really needs to be one for manslaughter and it needs to be fairly lengthy.

8 years isn't lengthy now?

The whole point of manslaughter is that it's less morally culpable than murder, that the person didn't intend to kill, even if they acted recklessly. So no, there doesn't need to be mandatory life for manslaughter.

So it's let the "junkie scumbag b!tch" rot for life, but give the oootraprenooor a free pass for pretty much anything, if AH is anything to go by?

I'm gonna love this thread, I'm sure.

Dudess · 13-03-2012 11:21AM

Seifer wrote: »

This crime is clearly on par with scamming the tax man on garlic imports and so deserves the same sentence.

Obviously it's way worse, but OP, you also obviously know the guy didn't just steal "a bit of garlic". The obtuseness on this forum at times...

The bitch deserves a lot longer IMO - btw no way WHATSOEVER of knowing that if a guy did it he'd get specifically 12 years. Aren't there regularly stories posted here about men getting piss-weak sentences for awful crimes? Any opportunity for an auld "women have it better" snipe though...

Dudess · 13-03-2012 11:23AM

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Seifer wrote: »

This crime is clearly on par with scamming the tax man on garlic imports and so deserves the same sentence.

and they wonder why people have a lack of faith in the justice system.

I doubt anyone wonders that.

DrumSteve · 13-03-2012 11:24AM

benway wrote: »

8 years isn't lengthy now?

The whole point of manslaughter is that it's less morally culpable than murder, that the person didn't intend to kill, even if they acted recklessly. So no, there doesn't need to be mandatory life for manslaughter.

So it's let the "junkie scumbag b!tch" rot for life, but give the oootraprenooor a free pass for pretty much anything, if AH is anything to go by?

I'm gonna love this thread, I'm sure.

She was trying to kill, she just hit the wrong person.

Seachmall · 13-03-2012 11:25AM

benway wrote: »

8 years isn't lengthy now?

The whole point of manslaughter is that it's less morally culpable than murder, that the person didn't intend to kill, even if they acted recklessly. So no, there doesn't need to be mandatory life for manslaughter.

So it's let the "junkie scumbag b!tch" rot for life, but give the oootraprenooor a free pass for pretty much anything, if AH is anything to go by?

No one in their right mind believes crushing a man against a wall in a car isn't going to be a fatal act.

Her intention was to kill, not injure, him. In this case the extreme violence of her actions betrays her intention. She only got manslaughter because she killed the wrong person.

And no, 8 years is not a lengthy sentence.

Duggy747 · 13-03-2012 11:26AM

Want to kill an enemy but don't want to do the full time?

Just pretend that you're trying to kill his mate and "accidently" kill your enemy instead.

Everybody is a winner! :pac:

dubtom · 13-03-2012 11:26AM

SeaFields wrote: »

There is a mandatory sentence when your convicted of murder. There really needs to be one for manslaughter and it needs to be fairly lengthy.

That mans family must feels horribly betrayed by the justice system today.

Manslaughter is when you don't intend to kill, innocent people commit manslaughter everyday with no malice,no intent,purely accidental, should they have to suffer your lenghty prison sentences.

wes · 13-03-2012 11:33AM

I find it odd, that she was charged with murder. She should have been charged with murder and not man slaughter. As it stands she is getting off with a very light sentence.

SeaFields · 13-03-2012 11:33AM

dubtom wrote: »

Manslaughter is when you don't intend to kill, innocent people commit manslaughter everyday with no malice,no intent,purely accidental, should they have to suffer your lenghty prison sentences.

She was trying to kill the son but hit the father.

Dudess · 13-03-2012 11:33AM

benway wrote: »

So it's let the "junkie scumbag b!tch" rot for life, but give the oootraprenooor a free pass for pretty much anything, if AH is anything to go by?

Making up what people think - not great debating.

I certainly don't think corporate criminals should get away with it - can you point out anyone else on this thread who gives an indication of same? The garlic guy deserved to be punished - being of the view he didn't deserve six years isn't the same as saying he should get nothing for it. But seeing as there are violent crimes that get lesser sentences, and seeing as Sean Fitzpatrick et al are walking free, six years is too harsh for him IMO.

As for this woman, I condemn her for her actions end of, not for being a junkie or coming from deprived circumstances.

eviltwin · 13-03-2012 11:35AM

She claimed her intention was to hit the son but we only have her word for that. In my eyes when you drive your car at someone who is against a wall with no where to run you intend to do a lot more than just tap them.

big_heart_on · 13-03-2012 11:38AM

Ireland is full of laws, but little justice apparently.

I think prison should be reserved primarily for violent or sexual crimes, not tv licenses etc.

I always remember a judge giving a first offence father of 3, 3 months in prison for having a €20 bit of hash, or another guy went to prison for wearing a sex pistols "never mind the boll...." t-shirt to court on a very minor charge. Stupid, but worthy of prison time?

I've always thought irish judges are "pillars of the establishment" types, products of another era, and rather bizarrely for their position, out of touch with the reality of life for most people.

stovelid · 13-03-2012 11:39AM

It's terrible. Terrible so it is.

SEPT 23 1989 · 13-03-2012 11:43AM

The Garlic man made the mistake of messing with the State

had this girl run over a senior civil servant or a politician she would be behind bars for a lot longer than 6 years

benway · 13-03-2012 11:47AM

Dudess wrote: »

Making up what people think - not great debating.

Stiffler2 wrote: »

So if some aul junky looking scumbag hag ran over your old man and got 6 years How would you Feel about it ??

Lest not forget that if this was a man the sentance would be probably 12 yrs +
I would also like you to note that the garlic scam man also got 6 yrs ??

In your opinion does stealing a bit of garlic just as bad as murdering / running over someone on purpose ? The justice system seems to think so anyway.........

Thoughts ?

*ahem*

Compare, contrast. No implied bias in the OP, oh no.

In my experience, these threads don't leave any room for debate anyway, they're basically "I hate scumbags more, no I hate scumbags more, arrah the country's going to hell in a hand-cart; yerrah, it is alright" circle jerks, and there's no point trying to reason with that.

But, because I'm a sucker for punishment, yet again, you're not comparing like with like, there are pressing reasons why "garlic scam man" deserved a substantial custodial sentence, what other people are getting for other crimes is irrelevant. It's also dangerous to make assumptions as to the appropriate sentence based on media soundbites. The reality, if you'd been there for the whole trial, may have been quite different.

Dudess · 13-03-2012 11:53AM

benway wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

Making up what people think - not great debating.

Stiffler2 wrote: »

So if some aul junky looking scumbag hag ran over your old man and got 6 years How would you Feel about it ??

Lest not forget that if this was a man the sentance would be probably 12 yrs +
I would also like you to note that the garlic scam man also got 6 yrs ??

In your opinion does stealing a bit of garlic just as bad as murdering / running over someone on purpose ? The justice system seems to think so anyway.........

Thoughts ?

*ahem*

Compare, contrast. No implied bias in the OP, oh no.

In my experience, these threads don't leave any room for debate anyway, they're basically "I hate scumbags more, no I hate scumbags more, arrah the country's going to hell in a hand-cart; yerrah, it is alright" circle jerks, and there's no point trying to reason with that.

But, because I'm a sucker for punishment, yet again, you're not comparing like with like, there are pressing reasons why "garlic scam man" deserved a substantial custodial sentence, what other people are getting for other crimes is irrelevant. It's also dangerous to make assumptions as to the appropriate sentence based on media soundbites. The reality, if you'd been there for the whole trial, may have been quite different.

While I agree there is a fetish here for going on about "scumbags", look at what she did. That's all I'm doing - I'm not interested in her background. How could there be bias when she crushed a man into a wall with her car until he died?

I fully see your point about rabble-rousing but there's no need to be disingenuous in relation to the crime either.

ArmaniJeanss · 13-03-2012 11:53AM

wes wrote: »

I find it odd, that she was charged with murder. She should have been charged with murder and not man slaughter.

She was tried for murder on two occasions.
On both occasions two seperate juries, who heard over 11 days of evidence as opposed to a 300 word After Hours summary were unable to agree on a murder verdict.

odnauq · 13-03-2012 11:58AM

pickarooney wrote: »

It's not murder if you kill the wrong person??

Like friendly fire?

Ellis Dee · 13-03-2012 12:01PM

A nasty piece of work all right. Let's hope she ends up sharing a cell with a big diesel-model bulldyke who'll knock some of the rough corners off her.:):):)

odnauq · 13-03-2012 12:01PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The Garlic man made the mistake of messing with the State

had this girl run over a senior civil servant or a politician she would be behind bars for a lot longer than 6 years

I will agree with that - 6 years for murder is a crime in itself.

ejmaztec · 13-03-2012 12:03PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

She was tried for murder on two occasions.
On both occasions two seperate juries, who heard over 11 days of evidence as opposed to a 300 word After Hours summary were unable to agree on a murder verdict.

Those judges would have saved an awful lot of time and tax-payers' money, had they registered on boards and acted on our learned opinions.

In fact, Boards should have a special forum, run on the lines of Judge Judy, and we can scrap the entire legal system overnight. We can handle anything.:cool:

Claire Nolan Sentenced to 6 years for running over old man nextdoor

Comments