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

Seachmall · 13-03-2012 12:10PM

benway wrote: »

*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.

I'm glad you proceed to join us in our circle-jerk anyway, however comparative sentencing is very relevant which is why legal precedents are an important factor in law.

But you're right, this isn't like with like. One intentionally killed a man in cold blood, the other avoided paying tax.

And if you don't want bias best to stay off AH, and the internet in general. In fact I wouldn't converse with many people if I were you.

Cianos · 13-03-2012 12:12PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

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 handly anything.:cool:

Good idea!

[ ] Innocent
[ ] Guilty
[ ] Atari Jaguar

Paparazzo · 13-03-2012 12:27PM

benway wrote: »

8 years isn't lengthy now?

Not for killing someone.
Murder should have a sentence more like 40 years, manslaughter about 20.

ejmaztec · 13-03-2012 12:32PM

Cianos wrote: »

Good idea!

[ ] Innocent
[ ] Guilty
[ ] Atari Jaguar

Most people on here wouldn't bother with the 1st or the 3rd choice.:(

Stiffler2 · 13-03-2012 12:33PM

Paparazzo wrote: »

Not for killing someone.
Murder should have a sentence more like 40 years, manslaughter about 20.

Well you can't have manslaughter without laughter...
Manslaughter IMO should be kept for people like :

drink drivers accidently killing someone.
Someone whol killed someone accidentaly
and so on

Clearly this was murder and she should have been sentanced as such.
She did not accidentely run this man over, she clearly got into her car and ran him down in the driveway. Nothing accidental about it.

Garlic man steals some garlic and gets 6 years as well - ridiculous.

Garlic man should have got maybe 1 - 2 yrs
This Kunt should have gotten 20 to life

goose2005 · 13-03-2012 12:45PM

Cianos wrote: »

Good idea!

[ ] Innocent
[ ] Guilty
[ ] Atari Jaguar

In scotland they have that, you can be Guilty, Not Guilty or Not Proven (the jury think you did it but not beyond a reasonable doubt; you can be retried without double jeopardy applying)

paddyandy · 13-03-2012 12:56PM

Cianos wrote: »

Good idea!

[ ] Innocent
[ ] Guilty
[ ] Atari Jaguar

That's overly flattering and in bad taste .Half of the posters on Boards.ie would have their polling cards withdrawn if making judgement was a prerequisite .

44leto · 13-03-2012 01:30PM

This IMO was a travesty of justice,,have I missed new legislation that excuses your behavior because you were Hi.

"You are accused of intentionally crushing a man to death in your car", "how do you plead", "your honour I was pissed",,,"OH why wasn't I told this, case dismissed and the court apologizes for the inconvenience" .

Son Of A Vidic · 13-03-2012 01:33PM

More evidence if ever any more was needed, of the shocking and insulting judicial sentencing patterns in this country. She should be serving life for her crime, because it was nothing less than an attempt to murder her target. It is irrelevant that she killed the wrong person, because she set out with clear and deliberate intent to kill.

I only hope the victim quickly lost consciousness, which he most likely did. Because he suffered horrific injuries, included a transected (severed) spinal column. Yet this bítch will be out in 3-4 years, minus any time already served if any. At the end of the day, it's the clowns in the judiciary I blame for this bullshít sentencing.

up for anything · 13-03-2012 01:34PM

Stiffler2 wrote: »

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 ??

This is getting old. :rolleyes:

Frank Black · 13-03-2012 01:43PM

Serious question.

Why, in any media reporting of the incident, is Claire Nolan referred to as 'Mother of one, Claire Nolan'?

You never hear of a man being convicted of a serious crime being called 'Father of two Black Francis'.

I find it strange.

SeanW · 13-03-2012 01:55PM

benway wrote: »

there are pressing reasons why "garlic scam man" deserved a substantial custodial sentence

Noone is arguing that per se, but I think its fair to consider that if you can't pay back your loan, don't pay your TV License fines or cheat the taxman, you are more likely to go to jail and serve a longer sentence than if you commit a violent crime or a crime against a person or their property.

This is a messed up state of affairs and people are right to feel aggrieved about it.

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.

I'm not sure how complicated it could be - she tried to murder one person but instead killed another.

Frankly, you sound like Garlic Man's crime was to be a successful businessman, and that if instead he had donned a hoodie and went around setting cars on fire you would have had sympathy for his personal circumstances and difficult upbringing and blah blah blah

6 years (reduced with time served and "good behaviour" for manslaughter plus attempted murder is a travesty of justice.

af_thefragile · 13-03-2012 02:10PM

Not directly related to the topic but its sorta funnt that when a man attacks someone in his house (wife, partner etc.) then its classified as attempted murder but when a women attacks the man, its classified as domestic voilence!

Dermighty · 13-03-2012 02:10PM

I'm delighted, stupid bitch should be shot.

LuckyLloyd · 13-03-2012 02:12PM

After Hours demonstrating its group intelligence yet again. I wonder how many more people will come in and post along the lines of 'SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH MURDER, NOT MANSLAUGHTER'.

I do give some blame to the RTE piece, but still.

SeanW · 13-03-2012 02:15PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

After Hours demonstrating its group intelligence yet again. I wonder how many more people will come in and post along the lines of 'SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH MURDER, NOT MANSLAUGHTER'.

I do give some blame to the RTE piece, but still.

She should have been charged with attempted murder. And manslaughter.

Dudess · 13-03-2012 02:26PM

af_thefragile wrote: »

Not directly related to the topic but its sorta funnt that when a man attacks someone in his house (wife, partner etc.) then its classified as attempted murder but when a women attacks the man, its classified as domestic voilence!

Is that definitely true?

benway · 13-03-2012 02:29PM

Seachmall wrote: »

comparative sentencing is very relevant which is why legal precedents are an important factor in law.

The precedents say that crimes are sentenced based on both the precise individual circumstances of the offence, and the precise, individual circumstances of the accused. You could check the 1993 Law Reform Commission Report for a good summary. With how the system operates, it's meaningless to compare sentences for different offences, by different offenders. There's also a recent decision setting out the policy basis for imposing substantial prison sentences on dole frauds or tax evaders, which no-one seems interested in.

Black Francis wrote:

Why, in any media reporting of the incident, is Claire Nolan referred to as 'Mother of one, Claire Nolan'?

You never hear of a man being convicted of a serious crime being called 'Father of two Black Francis'.

Papers tend to spin these reports into one-dimensional reality plays, based more on evoking feelings in the reader than informing them - generally it works the other way, though : pretty mum *victim*, preyed upon by thug *accused*. I'm always very wary of adjectives in these stories.

It's pretty much impossible to condense a week-long criminal trial into 100 words - these reports should be taken with a pinch of salt, to say the least.

Anfield Road · 13-03-2012 02:29PM

I feel sorry for the victims family she is a nasty piece of work and to make it worse the day before she killed that poor man she got a 3 year suspended sentence for sale & supply of cocaine!, read that in the paper. So, the horrible cow was out celebrating getting away with another of her crimes and then takes a life. She got 6 years, which means she will serve 4 but will probably get a few month off that even unless she does it to the end due to the severity of her crime. By the looks of her prison won't bother her, she looks like she will be well able to survive in there.
That man got a terrible death and I could never understand how the jury could not reach a verdict on the murder charge.
I hope his family can stay strong but I think the sentence was disrespectful to the. Like that is the 2 years suspended all about???. Give her the whole 8 years!.

Seachmall · 13-03-2012 02:33PM

benway wrote: »

which no-one seems interested in.

Because it's not the topic of discussion...

benway · 13-03-2012 02:41PM

It is according to the OP:

Stiffler2 wrote: »

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.........

In case anyone's confused, btw, nobody was stealing garlic, there was gross tax evasion, to the tune of €1.6m.

Seachmall · 13-03-2012 02:55PM

benway wrote: »

It is according to the OP:

Now can you quote a relevant bit?

fallen01angel · 13-03-2012 02:56PM

At the end of the day she is responsible for ending a man's life,she got 6 years,last 2 suspended.She got behind the wheel of her car to intentionally hurt SOMEONE and she only gets manslaughter cos she hit the wrong man WTF!! I cannot get my head around these 2 court cases .....ok the garlic guy was completely wrong for trying to evade tax but for god's sake is it really on a par to what that woman did?Just imagine if it was your Dad/Brother lying in a grave.....that b***h shouldn't see the outside world for a very long time.:mad:

I Heart Internet · 13-03-2012 03:00PM

benway wrote: »

In case anyone's confused, btw, nobody was stealing garlic, there was gross tax evasion, to the tune of €1.6m.

+1

Yes - this was stealing money off the State. Pure and simple.

On Ms. Nolan - I read in the Irish Times she went after the deceased man's son who has a "mild intellectual disability" with a baseball bat before aiming her car at him. After being beaten about the head by her, the son rang his father and the guards. After crushing the father she drove off and torched the car..............wait for it............300 metres away.

So yeah - she's as stupid as she is cruel.

I don't think it serves any use comparing her sentence with the garlic man's. And lets be honest, even if she serves "only" 3-4 years, that's still a long enough time to be banged up. We all immeadiately say, oh, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. But 3 years is a LONG time to be locked up. I know, I know, the dead man will be dead for a long time too.

Bullseye1 · 13-03-2012 03:03PM

Was the attempted murder of the son not also judged on? Seems like that is the more crime here.

Seachmall · 13-03-2012 03:03PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I don't think it serves any use comparing her sentence with the garlic man's. And lets be honest, even if she serves "only" 3-4 years, that's still a long enough time to be banged up. We all immeadiately say, oh, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. But 3 years is a LONG time to be locked up. I know, I know, the dead man will be dead for a long time too.

She intended to kill someone. With such a lenient sentence she's in essence being rewarded for killing the wrong person.

And 6 years for killing someone is very lenient.

pickarooney · 13-03-2012 03:17PM

In fairness, there'd be a lot to be said for this wan just being given a quick hanging.

ArmaniJeanss · 13-03-2012 03:21PM

fallen01angel wrote: »

She got behind the wheel of her car to intentionally hurt SOMEONE and she only gets manslaughter cos she hit the wrong man WTF!!

Seachmall wrote: »

She intended to kill someone. With such a lenient sentence she's in essence being rewarded for killing the wrong person.

Jesus H Christ.

'Hitting the wrong man' was not why she only got manslaughter.
Or if it was the reason why (unlikely) the jury didn't reach a guilty verdict we will never know. But it was made clear to the jury in her first trial that this was irrelevent.

Report of first murder trail.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0302/duffym.html

The jury was told that in considering the murder charge, it was irrelevant whether or not the person killed was the person at whom the intent to kill or seriously injure was directed.

Venom · 13-03-2012 04:04PM

A complete joke of a sentence which sadly is normal for violent crimes in this country.

Is the 3 year suspended sentence for sale & supply of cocaine she already had true?

Anfield Road · 13-03-2012 04:46PM

From breakingnews.ie:

Last week, the court heard Claire Nolan has 15 previous convictions including a three-year suspended sentence in the Circuit Court for possession of cocaine for sale and supply committed on January 25, 2008 - the day prior to this incident.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/woman-sentenced-to-six-years-for-killing-man-with-car-543247.html#ixzz1p0on7jst

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

Comments