Not justice to me.

caustic 1 · 02-07-2013 05:33PM #1

Just read of a young man got five and half years for murdering a man with final two suspended.

I know if that was a member of my family I really think I would go and dish out my own justice if I thought that was the only punishment he was going to get. Seems incredibly unfair.

fullstop · 02-07-2013 05:34PM

caustic 1 wrote: »

Just read of a young man got five and half years for murdering a man with final two suspended.

I know if that was a member of my family I really think I would go and dish out my own justice if I thought that was the only punishment he was going to get. Seems incredibly unfair.

Link??

HondaSami · 02-07-2013 05:38PM

caustic 1 wrote: »

Just read of a young man got five and half years for murdering a man with final two suspended.

I know if that was a member of my family I really think I would go and dish out my own justice if I thought that was the only punishment he was going to get. Seems incredibly unfair.

Any other details available or is this a random court case?

Marsden · 02-07-2013 05:38PM

It wasn't murder it was manslaughter. I was listening to this myself earlier and thought the same thing. 3.5 years for killing someone is outrageous, regardless of intent. It's a rubbish system that see's people commit horrible crimes yet walk free after a few years. Is our penal system meant to reform or punish criminals. I can't see it doing either with the soft sentences they receive.

caustic 1 · 02-07-2013 05:39PM

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0702/460161-man-jailed-for-killing-of-journalist/

NoQuarter · 02-07-2013 05:40PM

caustic 1 wrote: »

Just read of a young man got five and half years for murdering a man with final two suspended.

I know if that was a member of my family I really think I would go and dish out my own justice if I thought that was the only punishment he was going to get. Seems incredibly unfair.

It wasnt murder. Huge difference. Even the family of the deceases said the judge did her best and they were happy with the outcome, considering the deceased cant be brought back obviously.

So dont be so idiotic.

02-07-2013 05:41PM

I say let the family get justice and when he gets out kill him

eye for an eye

caustic 1 · 02-07-2013 05:41PM

It wasn't murder it was manslaughter

I am completely ignorant about law, I know he hit him which killed him and to me that is murder.

Marsden · 02-07-2013 05:42PM

caustic 1 wrote: »

I am completely ignorant about law, I know he hit him which killed him and to me that is murder.

Murder is when you intentionally kill someone, manslaughter is when they die due to your actions.

caustic 1 · 02-07-2013 05:42PM

So dont be so idiotic.

My apologies, we can't all be as mighty as oneself.

HondaSami · 02-07-2013 05:42PM

The sentence seems appropriate for the crime/how it happened imo, he had no previous convictions and it was manslaughter not murder.

Deleted User wrote: »

I say let the family get justice and when he gets out kill him

eye for an eye

Then they go to prison, what exactly does this do for anyone, it's better to move on with your life and not let revenge consume you.

NoQuarter · 02-07-2013 05:43PM

caustic 1 wrote: »

I am completely ignorant about law, I know he hit him which killed him and to me that is murder.

I can see that.

Manslaughter is when he didnt intend to actually kill him. Which we can all see happened here. So he got 5 and a half years with 2 suspended for punching someone in the neck basically. Which is a fair sentence considering the man ended up dying. But you can see the difference.

caustic 1 · 02-07-2013 05:45PM

The sentence seems appropriate for the crime/how it happened imo, he had no previous convictions and it was manslaughter not murder.

I couldn't be as forgiving if it were done to any of my children, if because of someones actions they were taken from me. So it makes it ok he wasn't in trouble before?

caustic 1 · 02-07-2013 05:47PM

I can see that.

Manslaughter is when he didnt intend to actually kill him. Which we can all see happened here. So he got 5 and a half years with 2 suspended for punching someone in the neck basically. Which is a fair sentence considering the man ended up dying. But you can see the difference.

NoQuarter is online now Report Post

I stand corrected even if was done in a condescending manner.

techdiver · 02-07-2013 05:48PM

HondaSami wrote: »

The sentence seems appropriate for the crime/how it happened imo, he had no previous convictions and it was manslaughter not murder.

Then they go to prison, what exactly does this do for anyone, it's better to move on with your life and not let revenge consume you.

You must be joking??? 3.5 years for killing some one by hitting them over the head in an unprovoked attack?

Remorse or not (which is coached to accused these days as gullible judges lap it up), it's a disgrace!

NoQuarter · 02-07-2013 05:48PM

caustic 1 wrote: »

I couldn't be as forgiving if it were done to any of my children, if because of someones actions they were taken from me. So it makes it ok he wasn't in trouble before?

There is no room for subjectivity in sentencing. If there was I would lock up the bloke who scratched my car for 5 years myself. You can see it doesnt make sense to have the system that way.

HondaSami · 02-07-2013 05:48PM

caustic 1 wrote: »

I couldn't be as forgiving if it were done to any of my children, if because of someones actions they were taken from me. So it makes it ok he wasn't in trouble before?

Nothing makes it ok but he did not set out to kill the man that night, he hit him and the man died as a consequence of that and he has shown genuine remorse for what he did.
I know it's easy say when it's not my own family but i would hope i could be logical if it did happen.

super_furry · 02-07-2013 05:54PM

He'll serve at most two years while an innocent man lies in a cold grave. It was an unprovoked violent attack in which he hit a stranger over the head for no reason other than the fact that's he was walking away from him. That unprovoked attack robbed a man of his life and the sentence should reflect this.

Nemeses · 02-07-2013 05:57PM

I'm sure the judge did what they could by the book.

What would someone suggest as suitable punishment then in this case?

Rayne Wooney · 02-07-2013 05:58PM

That judge's name seems familiar, I vaguely remember AH being infuriated be some sentence she gave out before?

caustic 1 · 02-07-2013 05:58PM

You can see it doesnt make sense to have the system that way.

Here is what I see. A man walking away was hit for no reason and died, is no more, why? Who knows? However the person responsible will do just a bit over two years. That is not justice in no shape or form in my eyes.

super_furry · 02-07-2013 06:00PM

Nemeses wrote: »

I'm sure the judge did what they could by the book.

What would someone suggest as suitable punishment then in this case?

Hard to put an arbitary figure on it, but when you consider the outcome of this assault, a ten year sentence should be the minimum. This wasn't an accidental death like a car crash, an innocent man died because another man deliberately set out to cause harm to him and injure him. As a direct result of his unprovoked attack, a man died.

NoQuarter · 02-07-2013 06:04PM

caustic 1 wrote: »

Here is what I see. A man walking away was hit for no reason and died, is no more, why? Who knows? However the person responsible will do just a bit over two years. That is not justice in no shape or form in my eyes.

Congratulations on going from having no knowledge of the legal system to having a working knowledge of sentence reduction.

The guy got a 5 and a half year sentence, not a 2 year one. If he gets in any trouble when he leaves prison the rest of the sentence will be enacted. Being realistic about it, his life is pretty much ruined now too, which is something the victims family also said on the news just there.

I'm not for one second saying what he did wasn't wrong, but its clear there was no intention to kill the guy. Would serving any more time for someone who's life is ruined already by his own actions, what would it serve? I'd imagine he already regrets it. I think the sentence is in the correct ballpark.

caustic 1 · 02-07-2013 06:09PM

I admit I have no knowledge how though can you justify that two years is a proper sentence for killing someone whether meant or not?

wandatowell · 02-07-2013 06:10PM

Outside court, Mr Moloney's brother, Sean, expressed disappointment with the length of the sentence.

He said nothing could bring his brother back, but added that the judge had done all that she could.

"When you looked at the other family you realise just what a sorry day it is for both families.

"Insofar as no amount of justice will bring our brother back, the other man's life is ruined," he said.

Fair play to his brother.

caustic 1 · 02-07-2013 06:11PM

I don't know you but I will say your tone whilst trying to get your point is most aggressive Noquarter. Why?

NoQuarter · 02-07-2013 06:19PM

caustic 1 wrote: »

I don't know you but I will say your tone whilst trying to get your point is most aggressive Noquarter. Why?

Because this whole thread is premised on a knee-jerk reaction about the justice of a sentence when, by your own admission, you havent a clue what you are talking about.

If you had an idea about the difference between murder and manslaughter, the purpose and rationale behind sentencing, the purpose of suspending part of a sentence, the allowances made for guilty pleas, mitigating circumstances such as no previous convictions, the importance of a persons intent among others, you would see that the sentence is certainly not outrageous.

Threads like this give the legal system a worse name than it already has to casual readers who read your original post and think "uh oh, the legal system f*cked up again" when in fact, for people who understand the system (but are not necessarily a part of it) the sentence is actually reasonable.

What I think is that you read the headline, hadn't a breeze what you were talking about but decided to make a thread on AH moaning about something alien to you to try rack up a few "thanks".

Zebra3 · 02-07-2013 06:23PM

Load of bollocks.

Should do seven years min.

caustic 1 · 02-07-2013 06:26PM

I am not intrested in racking up thanks maybe that might be why you post, not me, don't judge me. You don't know me. I do not know anything about the justice system, I admit that and I have no shame in admitting that I am talking about reading a piece and saying my opinion on it. You do know about the justice system. Fair play, but I will say this I would rather not know than be a condescending up on your high horse looking down on those who have lesser understanding than you person. Someone else pointed out to me the difference between murder and manslaughter which I thank them for you did also but you called me idiotic because I didn't know. How dare you.
Am I not allowed to have an opinion or only speak of subjects I am read on?

I still stand by my original opinion. Just over 2 years is not a long enough sentence for taking a life meant or not. if that makes me stupid then so be it Mr NoQuarter.

Irish Guitarist · 02-07-2013 06:30PM

"I didn't mean to kill him your honour. I just innocently hit him over the head".

Personally I find the best way of avoiding killing people is to not attack random passers by.

If you engage in senseless violence there's a chance your victim will die. In my view that outcome is no accident.

NoQuarter · 02-07-2013 06:36PM

I have no idea where you keep getting 2 years from. The custodial sentence is 3.5 years. That is almost double 2 years. Of course the sentence is going to seem light if you are knocking most of the time off it yourself. And there is a 2.5 year suspended sentence on top of that too, which is a horrible thing I imagine. And his life is all but ruined too.

So I wonder, if an extra year or two was added on top of that to satisfy you, would it actually achieve anything? The point of prison is to rehabilitate also.

Apologies for using the term idiotic.

Not justice to me.

Comments