nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Increased sentence for 'under influence'

crackcrack30

Shouldn't offenders recieve an increased sentence rather than a reduced sentence (mitigating circumstances:rolleyes:) when they commit crimes under the influence of alcohol and drugs? it might put a stop to their bull sh*t excuses..... last time i checked it was......

Drunk & disorderly = crime.

Drugs = crime.

I'm sick and tierd of of criminals & their so called legal team using these reasons for a 'get out of jail free/early card' :mad:

example - there are too many

Find more posts tagged with

getting drunk

Quick Links

Comments

SocSocPol

Judges do NOT usually consider being drunk a mitigating factor AFAIK.

NoQuarter

ummm, drink is not a mitigating factor at all. In fact, if a legal team tried to use that as an excuse, they would be hammered!

I know some might say that the person was drunk to merely explain the actions but the judge certainly wont take it into account when sentencing.

I think you should probably start a thread on something you actually know something about.

Good day, sir.

crackcrack30

SocSocPol wrote: »

Judges do NOT usually consider being drunk a mitigating factor AFAIK.

Dont they always rave on about -' client had drank 12 cans and naggan of spirits ...bla bla bla.... cant rember night in question.... bla bla bla......undergoing drugs counciling .....bla bla......:cool:

SocSocPol

crackcrack30 wrote: »

Dont they always rave on about -' client had drank 12 cans and naggan of spirits ...bla bla bla.... cant rember night in question.... bla bla bla......undergoing drugs counciling .....bla bla......:cool:

Eh NO, and certainly not in mitigation

Tombi!

crackcrack30 wrote: »

Dont they always rave on about -' client had drank 12 cans and naggan of spirits ...bla bla bla.... cant rember night in question.... bla bla bla......undergoing drugs counciling .....bla bla......:cool:

Only works if you're a scumbagdisadvantaged youth on the dole.
If I start doing drugs (since I'm already on the dole), I'll let you know what I get away with

NoQuarter

crackcrack30 wrote: »

Dont they always rave on about -' client had drank 12 cans and naggan of spirits ...bla bla bla.... cant rember night in question.... bla bla bla......undergoing drugs counciling .....bla bla......:cool:

Yeah, when telling the FACTS of the case!

crackcrack30

NoQuarter wrote: »

I know some might say that the person was drunk to merely explain the actions but the judge certainly wont take it into account when sentencing.

I think you should probably start a thread on something you actually know something about.

Good day, sir.

OK well then explain it and then get the increased sentence.....taking the alcohol offence into account.......:rolleyes:

LoYL

Drink is used constantly as an explanation (nod nod wink wink) in district courts. A reflection of the society etc.

NoQuarter

crackcrack30 wrote: »

OK well then explain it and then get the increased sentence.....taking the alcohol offence into account.......:rolleyes:

What alcohol offence?? Do you think the DPP/Garda should ad on a public order offence every time someone has got into trouble after a night out?

crackcrack30

NoQuarter wrote: »

What alcohol offence?? Do you think the DPP/Garda should ad on a public order offence every time someone has got into trouble after a night out?

If you are drunk any you cannot behave in an orderly manner e.g not commiting a crime...Then yes i believe you should have to face the conquences of that.....

NoQuarter

crackcrack30 wrote: »

If you are drunk any you cannot behave in an orderly manner e.g not commiting a crime...Then yes i believe you should have to face the conquences of that.....

OK so stick on an intoxication in a public place (if it even was a public place) charge on the end for the crack, sure give the prosecution more to do for the sake of a max £100 fine?! Makes no sense.

No matter what your ill-informed view is, legal representatives dont use intoxication to try and mitigate their clients sentence.

Drugs you mentioned, I have never seen drugs being used as an excuse, have you?

You actually should give us an example as per your first post, considering there is so many as you say.

crackcrack30

Bottle assailant told to stay off drink for three years or he will face jail

Published on Thursday 29 July 2010 09:29

Petula Martyn
A 23-YEAR-OLD man who attacked another man with a broken bottle at a party in Killalee has been warned by a judge that he will serve time in jail if he abuses alcohol over the next three years.

xxx Butler, with an address at Downey Street, Killalee, admitted at Limerick Circuit Court to assaulting his sister’s partner, xxxx Hayes, who intervened when the accused smashed a stereo to the ground and pushed a female relative while under the influence of alcohol.

At a party for his sister’s debs’ ball on August 29, 2008, Mr Butler threw a stereo on the ground and when asked by a female relative why he had done that, he pushed her. Mr Hayes, 34, witnessed the incident and intervened.

At a previous court sitting, the court was told that Mr Hayes was struck in the neck with a broken bottle as the men wrestled on the ground.

Mr Butler then ran into the kitchen, pulled open a drawer sending its contents falling to the floor and picked up a bread knife. When gardai arrived, the accused was covered in blood. Mr Butler’s sister identified him as the man who had assaulted Mr Hayes.

When questioned by gardai about the incident, Mr Butler said: “This is all a complete waste of time, no complaint will be made.”

The injured man received a laceration to his ear lobe, the court heard.

Laurence Goucher, BL, for the defence, said the incident was essentially a family dispute. He said the bottle used in the assault had broken during the melee and was not intentionally broken by Mr Butler.

Mr Goucher said there was no deliberate use of a weapon.

Referring to Mr Butler’s attempt to grab a bread knife from a kitchen drawer, Judge Moran said: “I can just visualise it. He was so drunk that he couldn’t get his hands on the weapon and the drawer fell on the floor.”

Mr Butler has previous convictions for assault and criminal damage.

Judge Moran read a probation report in court this week which was very favourable to the accused who has been attending ALJEFF in an effort to address his alcohol addiction.

“He has made substantial efforts to get his life back on track,” Mr Goucher said. “He seems to be making every effort to make himself part of civilised society.”

Judge Moran recalled that the victim's injuries were “noticeable but not cosmetically catastrophic”. He imposed a sentence of two years and eight months on Mr Butler which he suspended.

He bound the defendant to the peace and ordered him to abide by strict conditions which include abstaining from alcohol and obeying the directions of the probation service.

“If you go back on the drink in particular, you are going to serve two years and eight months,” Judge Moran warned.

Lets wait for manslaughter shall we, good day sir........:D

crackcrack30

NoQuarter wrote: »

OK so stick on an intoxication in a public place (if it even was a public place) charge on the end for the crack, sure give the prosecution more to do for the sake of a max £100 fine?! Makes no sense.

.

I'm so Sorry for bothering the prosecution , how inconsiderate of me, makes no sence at all .......

Johro

SocSocPol wrote: »

Judges do NOT usually consider being drunk a mitigating factor AFAIK.

I've heard many a solicitor use it as part of a defense.

Tombi!

Johro wrote: »

I've heard many a solicitor use it as part of a defense.

I think that it's used in a manner of "your honour, my client is an alcoholic and comes from a broken home/poor background/is a príck/etc and believes that should be taken into account during the sentence.

NoQuarter

crackcrack30 wrote: »

Bottle assailant told to stay off drink for three years or he will face jail

...

Lets wait for manslaughter shall we, good day sir........:D

Like I said, the FACTS of the case were that the guy was drunk, so obviously that is going to be mentioned in court. The defence acknowledge there was a drink problem and that the guy is seeking help for it.

The suspended sentence was not given because he was drunk, it was given because he is trying everything to get his life back on track, and as you can clearly see from the article, if he does touch another drop, the full sentence will be served.

So your point doesnt stand to that article whatsoever??

And I'd hardly call 2years with 8 suspended lenient in those circumstances?

As for the childish comment about bothering the prosecution, to prove a charge against someone, the prosecution has to prove every individual element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The max fine for intoxication in a public place (no such thing as "drunk and disorderly") is as I said, £100, so when we are dealing with years in prison, what difference would 100 quid make. Senseless to add it on. (not even mentioning the fact that it wouldnt stick because the house is not public and you can be as drunk as you want in a house!)

I'm gonna leave it at that, otherwise I fear ill end up giving a law lecture to someone who is looking for thanks by coming out with any oul sh1te to provoke a reaction from the AH mob!

fishy fishy

wouldn't it be a good idea if, on a weekend night, drunk people coming in blocking up A and E with their alcohol infused accidents would have to take some sort of "breathalyzer" test on entering the A and E - then if they were found to be very under the influence, they could have an additional "cost" attached to their A and E Visit.

Might make people more careful about what they are doing while drinking and would certainly free up the waiting time for people with genuine and not self induced accidents.

Tombi!

fishy fishy wrote: »

wouldn't it be a good idea if, on a weekend night, drunk people coming in blocking up A and E with their alcohol infused accidents would have to take some sort of "breathalyzer" test on entering the A and E - then if they were found to be very under the influence, they could have an additional "cost" attached to their A and E Visit.

Might make people more careful about what they are doing while drinking and would certainly free up the waiting time for people with genuine and not self induced accidents.

That'll be covered under the medical card!

Or if not, then "your honour, my client couldn't pay the cost" "why not?" "he's on the dole/comes from a broken home/poor area/drinks away his money" "alright then, fair enough".

bhamsteve

Drink is used as an excuse and penalties reduced accordingly.
If someone went out in the middle of the day, randomly attacked a stranger outside tesco and gave them a good kicking they'd be treated more severely than if the same happened outside a nightclub.

NoQuarter

fishy fishy wrote: »

Might make people more careful about what they are doing while drinking and would certainly free up the waiting time for people with genuine and not self induced accidents.

Sure! I can imagine it now, a drunk guy about to jump from a roof top into a swimming pool having secont thought, no not because he could kill himself or something else bad could happen, he stops because his visit to a & e might cost an extra 50 quid!

I dont often use rolleyes as it annoys me but in this case I cant help it

.
.
.
.
:rolleyes:

fishy fishy

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

That'll be covered under the medical card!

Or if not, then "your honour, my client couldn't pay the cost" "why not?" "he's on the dole/comes from a broken home/poor area/drinks away his money" "alright then, fair enough".

no, it would be a separate charge for anyone/everyone and would be standard - no falling back on medical cards etc.

it would be a "injury through alcohol" charge.

Tombi!

fishy fishy wrote: »

no, it would be a separate charge for anyone/everyone and would be standard - no falling back on medical cards etc.

it would be a "injury through alcohol" charge.

Don't be daft, man! This is Ireland! :pac:

We need to make sure the scumbags that get drunk and try killing one another are able to do so. Of course it would be waived for them.

tunedout

SocSocPol wrote: »

Eh NO, and certainly not in mitigation

It is frequently used in mitigation.

fishy fishy

NoQuarter wrote: »

Sure! I can imagine it now, a drunk guy about to jump into his vehicle having secont thought, no not because he could kill himself or something else bad could happen, he stops because his visit to a & e might cost an extra 250 quid!

I dont often use rolleyes as it annoys me but in this case I cant help it

.
.
.
.
:rolleyes:

don't know why you are rolling your eyes for. by the way I fixed your post above.

not so silly now eh??

NoQuarter

fishy fishy wrote: »

don't know why you are rolling your eyes for. by the way I fixed your post above.

not so silly now eh??

If someone is stupid enough to jump into their vehicle drunk, they already face a fine, penalty points, losing their licence, killing or injuring someone.

Do you really think someone who is drunk/stupid enough to get into their car while drunk would stop at the thoughts of, not the above punishments, but a possible 250 quid entrance fee into a&e if they crash?

Dont get me wrong, the idea is a noble one but completely unrealistic!

cometogether

fishy fishy wrote: »

wouldn't it be a good idea if, on a weekend night, drunk people coming in blocking up A and E with their alcohol infused accidents would have to take some sort of "breathalyzer" test on entering the A and E - then if they were found to be very under the influence, they could have an additional "cost" attached to their A and E Visit.

Might make people more careful about what they are doing while drinking and would certainly free up the waiting time for people with genuine and not self induced accidents.

I think they should definitely be placed at the bottom of the waiting list if its not too serious but still alcohol related. Let the people whose problems aren't self-inflicted have a chance first.

crackcrack30

crackcrack30 wrote: »

Bottle assailant told to stay off drink for three years or he will face jail

Published on Thursday 29 July 2010 09:29

Petula Martyn
A 23-YEAR-OLD man who attacked another man with a broken bottle at a party in Killalee has been warned by a judge that he will serve time in jail if he abuses alcohol over the next three

At a previous court sitting, the court was told that Mr Hayes was struck in the neck with a broken bottle as the men wrestled on the ground.

When questioned by gardai about the incident, Mr Butler said: “This is all a complete waste of time, no complaint will be

Mr Goucher said there was no deliberate use of a weapon.

Mr Butler has previous convictions for assault and criminal damage.

Judge Moran read a probation report in court this week which was very favourable to the accused who has been attending ALJEFF in an effort to address his alcohol addiction.

Judge Moran recalled that the victim's injuries were “noticeable but not cosmetically catastrophic”. He imposed a sentence of two years and eight months on Mr Butler which he suspended.

He bound the defendant to the peace and ordered him to abide by strict conditions which include abstaining from alcohol and obeying the directions of the probation service.

“If you go back on the drink in particular, you are going to serve two years and eight months,” Judge Moran warned.

Previous convictions for assault, criminal damage, ...crime according to judge injury not catastrophic enough, alcohol and rehab mentioned several times, sentence completely suspended".."..".......give me a break.... No quarter, I don't think I could sit thru your lecture or know if you are qualified to lecture .?but go on have a go.............and if you ever decide To stop posting I don't think boards will come to a standing stop...:p