Guilty of unprovoked metal bar attack - walks free

I am pie · 27-11-2013 03:06PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

What would that have achieved do you think?

It would have removed from society a man who tried to cave in someone's head with an Iron bar? A man which the medical profession have not found any underlying condition for his actions.

Is it better that he walks the streets, capable of grevious acts of violence, because the medical profession aren't sure why he did it, or is it better that he is confined with pyschiatric supervision so we can both find out why he did it, and a - make sure he doesn't do it again.

Early parole is any condition is identified and treated to the satisfaction of a medical board, i.e not just one dr and a judge.

ahnowbrowncow · 27-11-2013 03:09PM

joeguevara wrote: »

Wrong! But always gets trumped out on AH. The average time spent in prison in Ireland for murder is 17 years. Again this is time spent.

Could you provide some evidence for this?

Akrasia · 27-11-2013 03:09PM

I am pie wrote: »

OK, I misread that. He apologised, lets get back to what you have claimed above. The bit where you insinuate a medical defense exists when in fact the judges ruled that no finding was made.

I'd say that is more material then whether he apologised or not. Which he did, my bad.

My main point is that there is not enough information in the article for us to Judge whether or not this man was criminally responsible enough for his actions to be given a custodial sentence.

We know that the consequences of his actions were terrible, but we do not know why he did it, and that is a very important element in deciding criminal responsibility.
Perhaps the Judge got it wrong, but from the very limited information in the article, it is impossible to say for sure.

I am pie · 27-11-2013 03:10PM

Akrasia wrote: »

If you're basing your opinion entirely on the report in the independent, can I suggest that perhaps there was a lot more detail that the Judge considered other than what was in the article?

Obfuscation, I am basing my opinion on quotes from the medical professionals at the trial. It's a direct quote, "no finding"

Do you accept you are muddying the waters here by insinuating a condition exists when one was not identified.

What is your issue with incarcerating a dangerous individual until that condition is identified? Are you content that with no diagnosis other than depression this man should walk out of court after battering someone about the head with a metal bar?

chopper6 · 27-11-2013 03:10PM

Akrasia wrote: »

I agree, the priority should be to protect others in society, however, lets say that the person became violent after taking prescription drugs (as directed by a doctor) and suffering an adverse reaction. The adverse reaction could be temporary and the effects could be to make the person act in an uncontrolled but totally uncharacteristic way. When the effects of the prescription drugs wear off, there is no longer any risk to society.

Should that person be locked up?

What prescription medication (directed by a doctor) would make somebody flip out and attack sopmebody with an iron bar?

prescription medication might do that when combined with alcohol alright but then voluntary intoxication is no defence.

I am pie · 27-11-2013 03:13PM

Akrasia wrote: »

My main point is that there is not enough information in the article for us to Judge whether or not this man was criminally responsible enough for his actions to be given a custodial sentence.

We know that the consequences of his actions were terrible, but we do not know why he did it, and that is a very important element in deciding criminal responsibility.
Perhaps the Judge got it wrong, but from the very limited information in the article, it is impossible to say for sure.

The only pertinent point is the further requirements of Dr Mahony, if he requires the man is locked up in a secure mental unit, then fair enough. No finding is no finding, it doesn't require much more context.

If he is let free, if I were Dr mahony, I wouldn't sleep so comfortably at night knowing an he out there unsupervised.

27-11-2013 03:14PM

chopper6 wrote: »

And you'd do that in an unprovoked attack WHY?

It wouldn't be an attempt to kill them anyway...

Akrasia · 27-11-2013 03:16PM

I am pie wrote: »

Obfuscation, I am basing my opinion on quotes from the medical professionals at the trial. It's a direct quote, "no finding"

Do you accept you are muddying the waters here by insinuating a condition exists when one was not identified.

What is your issue with incarcerating a dangerous individual until that condition is identified? Are you content that with no diagnosis other than depression this man should walk out of court after battering someone about the head with a metal bar?

Trial by media?
You know nothing about the case other than a couple of paragraphs written in the Irish independent.

Lets get rid of judges altogether and replace it with polls in After hours were we take an article from the Independent, we can analyse the 'quotes' the journalist decided to include and then pass sentence on how long the scumbag should rot behind bars (with mandated times for being beaten with metal bars and raped by fellow prisoners)

joeguevara · 27-11-2013 03:18PM

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Could you provide some evidence for this?

Probation service of Ireland board reports.

Here is an article that outlines all the stats.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/icrime/life-term-for-killers-equals-175-years-in-jail-203897.html

chopper6 · 27-11-2013 03:19PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It wouldn't be an attempt to kill them anyway...

Why would you do it?

A good natured wheeze perhaps?

Dyr · 27-11-2013 03:20PM

From Cloughleigh eh?

Caliden · 27-11-2013 03:23PM

Sue the bollox off him. Found guilty so off she goes.

Akrasia · 27-11-2013 03:27PM

chopper6 wrote: »

What prescription medication (directed by a doctor) would make somebody flip out and attack sopmebody with an iron bar?

prescription medication might do that when combined with alcohol alright but then voluntary intoxication is no defence.

For one example:
Varenicline is a drug prescribed in ireland to help people quit smoking. It has been associated with an 1800% increase in likelyhood that someone will commit a violent act while taking the medication. If someone was also on a psychiatric drug, these could possibly react together to cause a psychosis.

I'm not saying that this happened in this case, there is no evidence for that at all, I am only pointing out that it is possible that people can become psychotic to the point where they have no control over their behaviour and this might not necessarily mean that they have a dangerous mental illness that requires them to be committed to a residential mental unit.

Akrasia · 27-11-2013 03:30PM

Bambi wrote: »

From Cloughleigh eh?

Cloughleigh is a big place. You can't tar them all with the same brush.. Lets say there are 2,000 people living in Cloughleigh, and only 10% of them batter women with metal bars, that's only 200...

father ted reference

I am pie · 27-11-2013 03:42PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Trial by media?
You know nothing about the case other than a couple of paragraphs written in the Irish independent.

Lets get rid of judges altogether and replace it with polls in After hours were we take an article from the Independent, we can analyse the 'quotes' the journalist decided to include and then pass sentence on how long the scumbag should rot behind bars (with mandated times for being beaten with metal bars and raped by fellow prisoners)

That's a really facile argument, but I guess it's all your left with since you aren't going to answer any of the questions I asked you directly. Of course I haven't suggested any of the above so in the absence of an intelligent response you have just resorted to more insinuation. I'll ignore it from now on.

The source is irrelevant, any source you go to, including the transcription, will say "no finding" in relation to an underlying condition. Do you accept this?

In the case that no underlying condition exists, we are left with the accused complying with "the requirements" of one pyschiatrist. Do you think those requirements should or should not include incarceration until an accurate diagnosis is possible and a cure is reached? Direct question...

If no underlying condition does exist, is depression, a serious condition in itself, a defence suitable to keep the accused out of prison? Again, a direct question. I don't believe prison would be appropriate, but certainly still incarceration in a secure unit and treatment should be.

27-11-2013 03:51PM

chopper6 wrote: »

Why would you do it?

A good natured wheeze perhaps?

Doesn't really matter, I can't see how it's an attempt to kill someone.

jmayo · 27-11-2013 04:00PM

joeguevara wrote: »

Wrong! But always gets trumped out on AH. The average time spent in prison in Ireland for murder is 17 years. Again this is time spent.

And how much of that figure is skewed by having the likes of malcolm macarthus in there for 30 years or geoffrey evans and john shaw in jail for over 30 years ?
Then add in a couple of Garda killers like colm o'shea and patrick mccann who have both served more than 30 years and you see how the averages are brought up.

Then there is the fact that a lot of killings are now tried as manslaughters which means killers never get a life sentence in the first place.
Maybe I should have stated killing rather than murder ?

Akrasia wrote: »

Here's a question for the After Hours community.

If someone is genuinely 'non compos mentis' and does something violent that is completely outside of character, should that person be held criminally responsible for that action?

By 'non compos mentis' I mean an incident where the individual is acting in a way that he/she is not able to control using his normal mental faculties.

What is the main purpose of Prison. Is it to get revenge on people who have done wrong?
Is it to keep ordinary citizens safe from dangerous criminals?
Is it to punish criminals?
Is it to re-habilitate criminals?
Or is it a mixture of the above.

If someone who was totally non compos mentis (through no fault of their own) and that person assaulted you and caused you serious harm. Do you have the right to insist that this person is thrown into prison to make amends for the pain you have suffered? Or should the main concern be to make sure that the person is safe enough to not pose a risk to him/herself or others in the future?

in this case, the court heard the opinion of psychiatrists and concluded that the man may not have been in control of his actions due to the effects of depression and a sleep disorder. He is under supervision of the psychiatric services and if he does not comply, he will be sent to prison.

Shouldn't prison (and mental hospitals) be used to keep people who are a danger to society out of that society ?

Not everyone deserves a second chance.
But in our system people are nearly always given it.
Some very famous ones that come to mind are gerard barry (Galway), michael murphy (Louth), thomas murrary (Galway).
These three had previous convictions as killers yet were allowed out and they killed again.
I will bet any money the killer of the two elderly innocent brothers in Castlebar will be out before 20 years.

NiallSparky wrote: »

That's a disgusting thing to say.

Here is a well know example.
Perhaps the ex Garda and now sitting judge might consider sexual asault and attempted rape to be as serious as garlic smuggling if one of his own female relatives had suffered such a fate ?
Instead he gave a custodial consective sentences to a garlic smuggler who was repaying his duties to the exchequer whilst giving suspended sentences to sexual predators on the basis they gave some money to their victims.

Another judge released a rapist who then spent the train journey home harrassing his victim.
The list is a mighty long one and everytime the judge effectively gives the two fingers to the victims and their families whilst they show leniency to the perps.

Cienciano · 27-11-2013 04:03PM

mikom wrote: »

What's everybodies problem?
We need the space in the prisons for the more dangerous offenders.

#backwardsland

I'm not one for conspiricy theorys, but clearly the way it works is RTE scratches the governments back by siding with them on issues and the government returns the favour with stuff like this, and the new "broadcast charge".

jmayo · 27-11-2013 04:39PM

Cienciano wrote: »

I'm not one for conspiricy theorys, but clearly the way it works is RTE scratches the governments back by siding with them on issues and the government returns the favour with stuff like this, and the new "broadcast charge".

I always remember how they managed to find space for the Rossport 5 in Cloverhill and yet we hear how some scumbag or other is on bail since there is no room for him in a prison.
But then again the Rossport 5 challenged a judge and a court.
I guess contempt of court and questioning a judge and their paymasters appears to be a much worse offence that beating some defenseless women over the head with an iron bar in her own home. :rolleyes:

yizorselves · 27-11-2013 04:52PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Doesn't really matter, I can't see how it's an attempt to kill someone.

Yeah because whacking someone across the shins with a hurl is the same as bashing someones head in with a metal bar

You people!

chopper6 · 27-11-2013 05:10PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Doesn't really matter, I can't see how it's an attempt to kill someone.

Well if it doesnt matter why did you mention it?

What if the person collapses and hits thier head off the concrete and dies?

27-11-2013 05:27PM

yizorselves wrote: »

Yeah because whacking someone across the shins with a hurl is the same as bashing someones head in with a metal bar

You people!

What?

chopper6 wrote: »

Well if it doesnt matter why did you mention it?

What if the person collapses and hits thier head off the concrete and dies?

False equivalence. Using a weapon on someone's head or stamping on their head is very, very different to punching someone once or trying to non-fatally injure them.

chopper6 · 27-11-2013 05:36PM

Deleted User wrote: »

What?

False equivalence. Using a weapon on someone's head or stamping on their head is very, very different to punching someone once or trying to non-fatally injure them.

Thats what you think...when you choose to assault somebody you cannot be sure of the severity of the outcome.

Many,many people have been killed from somebody "punching them once"...as for "trying to non-fatally injure them" again that's nonsense.

A guy i wentto school with died after heading a ball during a match...he had a congenital weakness of the skull that caused his brain to bleed and all it took was one impact at the right time.

Suppose you whack somebody playfully across the shins with a hurley stick and they grab the stick off you and give you a good beating with it...do you think if you can get the weapon back off them you'll consider it all good fun and let that be an end to the matter?

I saw a guy getting kicked on the ground by a gang because he'd hit some guy in the face with a snowball,the guy remonstrated with him and once the first punch was thrown his mates all piled in a kicked the **** out of the snowball-thrower.

People who don't understand violence fail to understand how it can escalate...YOUr intention isn't important,it's the reaction to your intention and the ensuing raising of the stakes that causes people to lose thier lives.

And i will tell you this...had I caught some scrote hitting my GF with an iron bar then there would have been a murder,no question about it.

27-11-2013 05:40PM

chopper6 wrote: »

Thats what you think...when you choose to assault somebody you cannot be sure of the severity of the outcome.

No ****. The intent and likelihood of outcome should be what influence the sentence, not the outcome. I would like to see anyone caught drink-driving given the same sentence (perhaps graded on alcohol level) whether they're caught by a random checkpoint or after driving into another car. Beating someone over the head with a weapon with no provocation should carry a much longer sentence than punching someone once, whatever the outcome.

sReq | uTeK · 27-11-2013 05:41PM

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

What the actual ****?

Seriously so someone can come into my home, assault me with a potentially deadly weapon and walk free. I feel really sorry for this woman, after going through all this and then having to go back into court and drag the whole thing back up again and he gets a suspended sentences? Seriously what is the point of being a law abiding citizen in this country?

Yet you get 6 years for smuggling in Garlic

chopper6 · 27-11-2013 06:02PM

Deleted User wrote: »

. Beating someone over the head with a weapon with no provocation should carry a much longer sentence than punching someone once

It does...what's your point?

Deleted User wrote: »

. whatever the outcome.

Whatever the outcome?

If you punch somebody and they die you can expect to be in a whole lot more trouble than if you hit them with a bar and they dont.

If you think punching somebody is good clean fun then google "one punch can kill".

joeguevara · 27-11-2013 06:03PM

jmayo wrote: »

And how much of that figure is skewed by having the likes of malcolm macarthus in there for 30 years or geoffrey evans and john shaw in jail for over 30 years ?
Then add in a couple of Garda killers like colm o'shea and patrick mccann who have both served more than 30 years and you see how the averages are brought up.

Then there is the fact that a lot of killings are now tried as manslaughters which means killers never get a life sentence in the first place.
Maybe I should have stated killing rather than murder ?

.

The figures aren't skewed. Usually the parole board will review a murder case once the individual has been incarcerated for 12 years. As stated average is 17-17.5. Most heinous will be a lot more. Kind of goes against your point. The more heinous the longer a person will be in jail for.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any individual who got a mandatory life sentence for murder, being out in 10 years that is why I made the point. Sensationalism posting that murderers get out in 10 years or less.

Your second point is ludicrous. Firstly there is a huge difference between a murderer and somebody who kills someone by manslaughter. Intent being the difference.

Now, the more heinous the manslaughter, the higher the sentence. Take example, the scissor sister who was found guilty of manslaughter. She got 15 years and will probably be out in 10. She was found guilty of manslaughter by reason of provocation.

Are you trying to suggest that every person who kills somebody, no matter what the intent, should be given a mandatory life sentence?

chopper6 · 27-11-2013 06:08PM

joeguevara wrote: »

The figures aren't skewed. Usually the parole board will review a murder case once the individual has been incarcerated for 12 years. As stated average is 17-17.5. Most heinous will be a lot more. Kind of goes against your point. The more heinous the longer a person will be in jail for.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any individual who got a mandatory life sentence for murder, being out in 10 years that is why I made the point. Sensationalism posting that murderers get out in 10 years or less.

Your second point is ludicrous. Firstly there is a huge difference between a murderer and somebody who kills someone by manslaughter. Intent being the difference.

Now, the more heinous the manslaughter, the higher the sentence. Take example, the scissor sister who was found guilty of manslaughter. She got 15 years and will probably be out in 10. She was found guilty of manslaughter by reason of provocation.

Are you trying to suggest that every person who kills somebody, no matter what the intent, should be given a mandatory life sentence?

Hold your horses here.

The ONLY sentence imposed upon conviction for murder is the mandatory life sentence.

Unoficially the life sentence is 25 years although the judge may make a recomendation for a minimum sentence in the case for example of somebody murdering a Garda.

Normal parole hearings would be after 10-12 years although most will probably serve 15 or more before being released.

You may be thinking of a sentence of "natural life" or "life without parole".

It's only a matter of time before this country will move towards US-style sentences...consecutive prison terms instead of concurrent,life without parole or minimum tariffs ete etc.

wmpdd3 · 27-11-2013 06:11PM

Your second point is ludicrous. Firstly there is a huge difference between a murderer and somebody who kills someone by manslaughter. Intent being the difference.

There have been so many local incidents that have gone to court as manslaughter to the utter dismay of the people who remember the details. (abait as much as the victim's family can report of what they were told happened. )

The opinion of the police is usually that they cannot see the charge of murder getting through so thye choose manslaughter as there is a better chance of conviction.

joeguevara · 27-11-2013 06:15PM

chopper6 wrote: »

Hold your horses here.

The ONLY sentence imposed upon conviction for murder is the mandatory life sentence.

Unoficially the life sentence is 25 years although the judge may make a recomendation for a minimum sentence in the case for example of somebody murdering a Garda.

Normal parole hearings would be after 10-12 years although most will probably serve 15 or more before being released.

You may be thinking of a sentence of "natural life" or "life without parole".

It's only a matter of time before this country will move towards US-style sentences...consecutive prison terms instead of concurrent,life without parole or minimum tariffs ete etc.

Hold your own horses. A poster made the point that murderers get out of prison after 10 years. I just pointed statistics that disproved that. I am well aware of mandatory life sentences for murder.

Guilty of unprovoked metal bar attack - walks free

Comments