20 years for manslaughter

Esel · 01-08-2013 03:01AM

garv123 wrote: »

And fire 2 shots in the window of the car with a shotgun?

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't the gunman.

Gatling · 01-08-2013 03:10AM

Esel wrote: »

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't the gunman.

According to him he only threw a brick and ran out of petrol 5 mins away ,

kowloon · 01-08-2013 04:57AM

endacl wrote: »

The convicted prick admitted he went out with the definite intent to kill somebody. The fact that he hit the wrong target apparently made it manslaughter.

I remember a similar case where someone ran over and killed someone but hit the wrong person. They also got done for manslaughter.

Sunnyisland · 01-08-2013 06:39AM

ardle1 wrote: »

Cant imagine any known reason that those people would effect the outcome of his sentence!mayb it's about time judges started to notice the plea bargaining and shinanagans that goes on between solicitors and barristers,it's bad enough when it comes to a simple car crash or shop lifting.:mad:

As all judges were at one stage solicitors and as far as I know barristers to they are quite aware of the legal games that go on between both parties.

hairyslug · 01-08-2013 06:51AM

On the murder/manslaughter charge, I think he was originally charged with murder but admitted manslaughter which the court accepted to speed up the process in the courts, tbh if he had been done for murder he probably would not have got more, I think also that having 112 other convictions may have played some part in the sentencing.
I just hope that more judges are like this and start to hand.down some decent stretches of time

Dude111 · 01-08-2013 07:17AM

realies wrote:

A 24-year-old man has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for his role in the killing of a 16-year-old girl

Im sorry but this idiot should have more!!!!!

HE TOOK SOMEONE'S LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!

arybvtcw0eolkf · 01-08-2013 07:56AM

YFlyer wrote: »

You wouldn't get that for murder.

You're correct, he'd have got more ~ he's have been convicted for life!.

People mistake what a life sentence is, although people get early releases (I think the average is about 12-14 yrs) you're released on licence and the conviction is there for the rest of your ie ~ ie you can be returned to prison at anytime to serve out more of your life sentence (I know, it never happens).

But this lad will serve his sentence and (if he doesn't appeal) in twenty years he has served his time and society can never get a second bite of the cherry, we know he'll be released early but the point is a murder conviction will always be longer than a manslaughter one.

seamus · 01-08-2013 08:12AM

endacl wrote: »

The convicted prick admitted he went out with the definite intent to kill somebody. The fact that he hit the wrong target apparently made it manslaughter.

If somebody could explain this? Does it mean that if I leave the house now with the definite intent to kill the seventh person I meet, obviously not knowing who that could be, the charge would be manslaughter and not murder?

..Brian.. wrote: »

This is total guess work but if I intended to kill you, murder, shot at you and missed hitting and killing someone behind you, that would make it manslaughter. As in accidentally killing that person, their death was not my intent.

The law is that if you go out with the intention of killing someone and a person dies, then it's murder, even if the person you killed wasn't the intended target.

There was a case (last year?) where a woman drove a car at her ex with the intention of killing him, but at the last second his Dad got in the way and was killed. She was tried for murder, but mounted a defence on the basis that once she saw his Dad step in, her murderous intent disappeared and she tried to brake (but accelerated instead). She won that one and was done for manslaughter instead.

In this specific case he was given the option to plead guilty to manslaughter and knowing that a murder conviction was likely, his solicitor probably advised him to plead guilty for an easier sentence.

Judge Carney is in an ongoing battle with the court of criminal appeal in regards to the changing of sentences and for the last two years has been handing out bizarre sentences all over the place, knowing that the court of appeal will have to clean up his mess. This is the same, it's just a political football from Carney. This sentence will be appealed and reduced to ten years or something.

TheGunns · 01-08-2013 08:45AM

Punishment in Ireland is still far too nice. Personally would like to see people locked up until they're no longer a big threat to society. With good behaviour, couldn't this guy get out before he's 40?

01-08-2013 09:08AM

Just so everyone is aware, he won't serve 20years. He,like everyone else, will get 25% remission meaning he'll serve 15 years.

Given that he wasn't the actual gun man, I think the 20 year sentence is fair. We constantly knock judges for being too lenient. I think it's time this one is commended.

Pro Hoc Vice · 01-08-2013 09:12AM

YFlyer wrote: »

You wouldn't get that for murder.

Murder in Ireland is a Mandatory life sentence, the average served is 17 years, with a number of people serving close to 30 years. A 20 year sentence imposed for manslaughter will result in max 15 years served.

F35 · 01-08-2013 09:13AM

Yep, 20 sounds fair to me,

...if he actually got 20

Pro Hoc Vice · 01-08-2013 09:14AM

endacl wrote: »

The convicted prick admitted he went out with the definite intent to kill somebody. The fact that he hit the wrong target apparently made it manslaughter.

If somebody could explain this? Does it mean that if I leave the house now with the definite intent to kill the seventh person I meet, obviously not knowing who that could be, the charge would be manslaughter and not murder?

Happy to see the heavy sentence, but I don't get the 'manslaughter' bit. He intended to kill somebody, and he did kill somebody. It was murder.

He knew there was to be a shooting but he did not do the shooting, the article implies that there was a jury trial, so I assume the jury with all the evidence decided it was not murder.

Pro Hoc Vice · 01-08-2013 09:16AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

How would you have the cheek to say the sentence was too harsh for taking a life. :mad: if it is appealed, I hope he gets an even longer one

On Appeal that is a distinct possibility, the Court is able to increase as well as decrease.

Pro Hoc Vice · 01-08-2013 09:18AM

..Brian.. wrote: »

This is total guess work but if I intended to kill you, murder, shot at you and missed hitting and killing someone behind you, that would make it manslaughter. As in accidentally killing that person, their death was not my intent.

I'd gues the defence jumped on manslaughter to get a lighter sentence playing a technicality and the judge thre his full weight at it as a result. Fair play to him.

Your guess work is wrong, if you intend to seriously harm or kill mr. a but instead kill mr. B that is murder. But here he did not have the gun or use the gun, the State I guess argued common purpose which I assume the jury rejected.

TheIrishGrover · 01-08-2013 09:18AM

endacl wrote: »

The convicted prick admitted he went out with the definite intent to kill somebody. The fact that he hit the wrong target apparently made it manslaughter.

If somebody could explain this? Does it mean that if I leave the house now with the definite intent to kill the seventh person I meet, obviously not knowing who that could be, the charge would be manslaughter and not murder?

No. Only if you intended to kill the seventh person you met but "accidentally" killed the eight ........

johnnyskeleton · 01-08-2013 09:19AM

endacl wrote: »

The convicted prick admitted he went out with the definite intent to kill somebody. The fact that he hit the wrong target apparently made it manslaughter.

If somebody could explain this? Does it mean that if I leave the house now with the definite intent to kill the seventh person I meet, obviously not knowing who that could be, the charge would be manslaughter and not murder?

Happy to see the heavy sentence, but I don't get the 'manslaughter' bit. He intended to kill somebody, and he did kill somebody. It was murder.

He didn't have the gun. He threw a rock and the house, lured them out and two other people (presumably unidentified) shot her.

He was charged with murder but it looks like a jury didn't convict of murder and accepted his manslaughter plea. This could be because he didn't believe that the others would shoot her dead or even cause serious injury, or it could be for any number of other reasons juries reach their verdicts.

Pro Hoc Vice · 01-08-2013 09:21AM

..Brian.. wrote: »

Allow me to reiterate the first part of my post in bold.....this is total guesswork!

I think he should have been charged with murder, I don't know why he was charged with manslaughter, I was simply throwing out a guess as to why.

He pleaded guilty to manslaughter but not guilty to murder, meaning he was charged with murder, I assume the jury found him not guilty of murder.

Artful_Badger · 01-08-2013 09:23AM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

hopefully this is the start of proper justice in this country where people get the sentences they deserve.

You know its just one rogue judge and the sentence will be reduced by another one on appeal.

johnnyskeleton · 01-08-2013 09:24AM

EB_2013 wrote: »

Good to see the heavy sentence handed down in this case as its usually the lenient ones we only hear about. I just wish there was more consistency in sentencing.

It's usually the lenient ones "we hear" about, "we hear" is the important part. This is a typical enough sentence from Mr justice Carney in this type of circumstance, but journalists know that the lenient ones will attract greater readership.

To be honest, I'm amazed that this is being discussed in after hours at all - usually these normal to heavy sentences are ignored here in favour of those sentences that give an unrepresentative view of sentencing so that people can complain about judges.

Pro Hoc Vice · 01-08-2013 09:28AM

Artful_Badger wrote: »

You know its just one rogue judge and the sentence will be reduced by another one on appeal.

No he is not one rouge judge, this is Judge Carney, look through the threads you will see most people think he is lenient. Which in fact he is not. The reason for the perception is that people only usually notice what they think are low sentences. There are far more long sentences than people believe as they usually don't look good on a headline, "Scumbag gets what he deserves" does not read as well as "scumbag gets light sentence, bloody out of touch judges".

Artful_Badger · 01-08-2013 09:32AM

infosys wrote: »

No he is not one rouge judge, this is Judge Carney, look through the threads you will see most people think he is lenient. Which in fact he is not. The reason for the perception is that people only usually notice what they think are low sentences. There are far more long sentences than people believe as they usually don't look good on a headline, "Scumbag gets what he deserves" does not read as well as "scumbag gets light sentence, bloody out of touch judges".

One rogue decision then. I'm sure there are some heavy sentences but there is no consistency and violent offenders are routinely given lenient sentences. And "Scumbag gets what he deserves" does read better.

Pro Hoc Vice · 01-08-2013 09:37AM

Artful_Badger wrote: »

One rogue decision then. I'm sure there are some heavy sentences but there is no consistency and violent offenders are routinely given lenient sentences. And "Scumbag gets what he deserves" does read better.

I have studied Carney's decisions, he is still the only judge who has given life for Rape, in modern times on numerous occasions. He has passed more life sentences than any other judge as he does most murder trials, as he sits in the central his only cases are murder and rape. He consistently gives proper sentences to reflect the crime, but as most people get their information from newspapers rather than direct they don't even know they are being manipulated.

heybaby · 01-08-2013 09:52AM

I am of the mind that there should be absolutely no early remission built into sentencing in this country. Its utterly deplorable that the minute a sentence is handed down the accused is calculating how much of his sentence he wont be serving due to this nonsensical irish phenomenon.

Sentencing for multiple offences should be consecutive and not concurrent, as is the case in America.

In the vast majority of cases community service should be the punishment and not jail time. It costs 300k a year to keep a prisoner incarcerated, why not have the guilty person contribute to society instead of festering away in cells getting high on contraband and honing their crmininal education.

In respect of murder cases I believe capital punishment is something that should be looked at again. Now I know its an emotive issue but the discussion should be re-opened. At the very least murder should bring a whole life term with zero possibility of parole. In respect of manslaughter a very lengthy sentence of 40 years minimum should be applied. The current situation where as a society we are stunned by a 20 year sentence for manslaughter, is an indictment of just how pathetic our existing penal system is. There is currently practically no deterrent to committing serious crime in this country and serious criminals know this, they also know in the unlikely event they are sent inside, it will be a holiday for them regardless of having to slop out.

All access to tv should be removed immediately. Prisoners should not have access to internet at all. All prisoners should have to wear prison issue jumpsuits and work within the prison for 40 hours a week, surely there are plenty of things the prison population can be put to work to do. Irish prisons have a reputation of being a holiday camp, this needs to change.

Former Governor of Mountjoy jail John Lonergan, now retired, has been lauded in recent years and feted for his work as governor, this is inexplicable. The prevalence of drugs within his facility during his tenure was utterly appalling. The levels of recidivism by mountjoys population illustrated Lonergan's abject failure when it came to the fundamentals of incarceration.

Prisons are meant to be the most secure facilities in the state. If even one splif makes its way inside a jail then that is an indictment of our prison system, then by extension, if drugs are an epidemic in Irish prisons then the entire system from the prison officers, to governors to the minister for justice are failing in their remit. This is currently very much the case.

Pro Hoc Vice · 01-08-2013 10:16AM

heybaby wrote: »

I am of the mind that there should be absolutely no early remission built into sentencing in this country. Its utterly deplorable that the minute a sentence is handed down the accused is calculating how much of his sentence he wont be serving due to this nonsensical irish phenomenon.

Sentencing for multiple offences should be consecutive and not concurrent, as is the case in America.

In the vast majority of cases community service should be the punishment and not jail time. It costs 300k a year to keep a prisoner incarcerated, why not have the guilty person contribute to society instead of festering away in cells getting high on contraband and honing their crmininal education.

In respect of murder cases I believe capital punishment is something that should be looked at again. Now I know its an emotive issue but the discussion should be re-opened. At the very least murder should bring a whole life term with zero possibility of parole. In respect of manslaughter a very lengthy sentence of 40 years minimum should be applied. The current situation where as a society we are stunned by a 20 year sentence for manslaughter, is an indictment of just how pathetic our existing penal system is. There is currently practically no deterrent to committing serious crime in this country and serious criminals know this, they also know in the unlikely event they are sent inside, it will be a holiday for them regardless of having to slop out.

All access to tv should be removed immediately. Prisoners should not have access to internet at all. All prisoners should have to wear prison issue jumpsuits and work within the prison for 40 hours a week, surely there are plenty of things the prison population can be put to work to do. Irish prisons have a reputation of being a holiday camp, this needs to change.

Former Governor of Mountjoy jail John Lonergan, now retired, has been lauded in recent years and feted for his work as governor, this is inexplicable. The prevalence of drugs within his facility during his tenure was utterly appalling. The levels of recidivism by mountjoys population illustrated Lonergan's abject failure when it came to the fundamentals of incarceration.

Prisons are meant to be the most secure facilities in the state. If even one splif makes its way inside a jail then that is an indictment of our prison system, then by extension, if drugs are an epidemic in Irish prisons then the entire system from the prison officers, to governors to the minister for justice are failing in their remit. This is currently very much the case.

Remission is not just an irish phenomenon, it is available in the UK and the USA to name but two. The USA does not operate a mandatory consecutive sentencing in all cases, Ireland in certain circumstances does mandate consecutive sentences. Most prisoners only have access to TV in a common room, the same in US and UK. To the best of my knowledge Internet is not allowed except in very limited circumstances.

The murder of a person by the state is for another forum.

In relation to drugs in prisons again an issue for another thread as this thread is about a sentence for manslaughter.

But as an aside if the prisoners are thinking of remission don't you also not think the judges take it into account.

fonda · 01-08-2013 10:50AM

Fair play to his legal team, bet you they advised him to put in a plea deal for manslaughter because he shouldn't risk getting convicted of murder and getting 20 years, they probably told him he would do 10 max.

And then he got 20 years for manslaughter, brilliant:D

Artful_Badger · 01-08-2013 10:50AM

infosys wrote: »

I have studied Carney's decisions, he is still the only judge who has given life for Rape, in modern times on numerous occasions. He has passed more life sentences than any other judge as he does most murder trials, as he sits in the central his only cases are murder and rape. He consistently gives proper sentences to reflect the crime, but as most people get their information from newspapers rather than direct they don't even know they are being manipulated.

Fair point.

Collie D · 01-08-2013 10:59AM

..Brian.. wrote: »

This is total guess work but if I intended to kill you, murder, shot at you and missed hitting and killing someone behind you, that would make it manslaughter. As in accidentally killing that person, their death was not my intent.

I'd gues the defence jumped on manslaughter to get a lighter sentence playing a technicality and the judge thre his full weight at it as a result. Fair play to him.

As far as I'm aware he pleaded guilty to the manslaughter charge and the murder charge was dropped.

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

The Court of Criminal Appeal will reduce it, guarenteed.

I think this is definitely what will happen. Hopefully the sentence is upheld.

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

Then couldn't he also be charged with the attempted murder of the person he missed?

I wondered that too. Would be a nice irony if his appeal was upheld and he had five years knocked off the manslaughter sentence and then given a ten year consecutive sentence for the attempted murder on the intended target.

heybaby · 01-08-2013 11:16AM

infosys wrote: »

Remission is not just an irish phenomenon, it is available in the UK and the USA to name but two. The USA does not operate a mandatory consecutive sentencing in all cases, Ireland in certain circumstances does mandate consecutive sentences. Most prisoners only have access to TV in a common room, the same in US and UK. To the best of my knowledge Internet is not allowed except in very limited circumstances.

The murder of a person by the state is for another forum.

In relation to drugs in prisons again an issue for another thread as this thread is about a sentence for manslaughter.

But as an aside if the prisoners are thinking of remission don't you also not think the judges take it into account.

I suggest you leave the moderating to the moderator.

I Never said remission was an exclusively irish phenomenon.

For serious crime consecutive sentencing is used more often than not in the states, but this varies depending on individual state law

Access to tv and internet anywhere within the penal system is entirely unnecessary except for where inmates are undergoing a course of education, even then it needs to be strictly controlled

"Murder of a person by the state" ? clearly you are against capital punishment, but in a thread of this nature the subject of capital punishment will whether you like it come up and suggesting it shouldnt is ingnoring an essential part of the debate on how we punish serious crime in this country.

The judicial system needs to be divested of its independence in this country. Up to this point, our independent judiciary has overseen some of the most appallingly inconsistent sentencing for the most heinous crimes. The legislature needs to bring into law actual lengthy mandatory sentences which are applied by the judiciary on a 100% basis. The existing situation where the same judge can based on whim apply two different sentences in identical case is a nonsense.

The judiciary, the legislature and the penal system all need total overhauling in tandem so that cases where a 20 year sentence for manslaughter are deemed lenient and not a lengthier than usual exception.

Pat Mustard · 01-08-2013 11:42AM

heybaby wrote: »

I suggest you leave the moderating to the moderator.

Hey baby,

Responding to extreme views on crime and punishment does not a moderator make.

:pac:

Yoda

20 years for manslaughter

Comments