WTF??? That is NOT punishment!!!!!!

CaSCaDe711 · 21-12-2013 11:51PM #1

A man has been sentenced to ten years with the final seven years suspended for offences including raping his then four-year-old neighbour.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1220/494138-man-rape-sentence/

Spring Onion · 22-12-2013 12:04AM

I agree with the 10 years but the 7 years suspended is a disgrace.

My name is URL · 22-12-2013 12:08AM

Paul Carney strikes again... how is he still a judge?

wretcheddomain · 22-12-2013 12:13AM

My name is URL wrote: »

Paul Carney strikes again... how is he still a judge?

Carney of course standing for the devil incarnate...

timthumbni · 22-12-2013 12:15AM

CaSCaDe711 wrote: »

A man has been sentenced to ten years with the final seven years suspended for offences including raping his then four-year-old neighbour.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1220/494138-man-rape-sentence/

The judge took into account he had no previous convictions....????? For fecking child rape??? We are not talking about shoplifting here judge....

I cannot seriously understand this legal twats position here. The law is an ass and this man is the glaring example. Disgusting.

My name is URL · 22-12-2013 12:17AM

This is from back in 2002

A former soldier was given a five-year suspended prison sentence by a judge at the Central Criminal Court today after a jury found him guilty of the manslaughter of the 18-month-old son of his first cousin.

Mr Justice Paul Carney said that a relatively small quantity of poteen had "a unique, inexplicable and extraordinary effect'' on John Reilly and "he had no control over his body or his actions'' and was functioning like an epileptic or diabetic in a bad state of a hypo or hyper.

The judge said that the case had been "unique in the criminal law of this country".

He said he was satisfied that a prison sentence would serve no purpose and he sentenced Reilly to five-years imprisonment suspended on Reilly's own bond of €1,000, on condition that he keep the peace for five years and that he does not carry a Leatherman (a multi tool knife used in the killing ) of any other similar device.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/man-convicted-of-babys-manslaughter-50398.html

timthumbni · 22-12-2013 12:18AM

Spring Onion wrote: »

I agree with the 10 years but the 7 years suspended is a disgrace.

As a parent I wouldn't even think that 10 years served is sufficient tbh. This is a 4 yr old we are talking about. Jaysus that is terrible.

michael999999 · 22-12-2013 12:20AM

Carney needs to face a court and explain some of the sentences he has been handing down, ****ing three years for raping a kid. Hell be out in 2.

allym · 22-12-2013 12:21AM

How Paul Carney is still a judge is beyond me. It's seems like 9/10 times if there's a ridiculously low sentence given or lots of years suspended, particularly in cases of sexual crimes, it's him behind it.

22-12-2013 12:22AM

If the punishment is meant to fit the crime, Justice Carney obvious considers child rape to be no biggie. Three years jail time is really an insult to the innocent little victim. She deserves better than that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 22-12-2013 12:23AM

says he was only 16 when he comitted the offense - which would have made him a minor.

Not excusing any of this, btw - just pointing out a possible reason.

pm1977x · 22-12-2013 12:24AM

Our "justice" system is a sickening joke and a national embarrassment. Beyond belief how lenient the courts can be.

loubian · 22-12-2013 12:24AM

CaSCaDe711 wrote: »

A man has been sentenced to ten years with the final seven years suspended for offences including raping his then four-year-old neighbour.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1220/494138-man-rape-sentence/

I read about this earlier. How are people of the future generations going to ever learn what's wrong if they see murderers and rapists been given a jail sentence but have years suspended because of stupid reasons. Why is this even possible?

Read before of this guy who murdered someone, he got 15 years with 12 years suspended.. wtf?

HighClass · 22-12-2013 12:26AM

Going by all his convictions it seems Paul Carney has a soft spot for rapists.

timthumbni · 22-12-2013 12:26AM

michael999999 wrote: »

Carney needs to face a court and explain some of the sentences he has been handing down, ****ing three years for raping a kid. Hell be out in 2.

This happens in the uk courts as well ( I'm from Norn Iron).

The legal profession (along with the banks) are the 2 things that need to be given an almighty boot in the balls by the public. Ie. us.

The legal eagles from judges to solicitors should be told yo wise up as they have been taking the piss out of joe public and laughing for a long time.

Kristopherus · 22-12-2013 12:26AM

My name is URL wrote: »

Paul Carney strikes again... how is he still a judge?

Well, he'll be gone in a few months - off to collect his currently protected pension, [url]www.independant.ie:rolleyes[/url]:

timthumbni · 22-12-2013 12:28AM

pm1977x wrote: »

Our "justice" system is a sickening joke and a national embarrassment. Beyond belief how lenient the courts can be.

Not just Irish btw, the British courts are exactly the same.

Kristopherus · 22-12-2013 12:29AM

Spring Onion wrote: »

I agree with the 10 years but the 7 years suspended is a disgrace.

He should be locked up a la the Lost Prophet:mad:.

22-12-2013 12:30AM

loubian wrote: »

Read before of this guy who murdered someone, he got 15 years with 12 years suspended.. wtf?

Murder carries a mandatory life sentence. If he got 15 years the charge was most likely manslaughter.

loubian · 22-12-2013 12:37AM

Candie wrote: »

Murder carries a mandatory life sentence. If he got 15 years the charge was most likely manslaughter.

Oh right! I can't remember the exact details of the case but the sentence really struck a chord on how ridiculous the justice system is

diograis · 22-12-2013 01:28AM

is this the guy that handed out a ten thousand euro fine to a man that sexually assaulted a woman and had to be pulled off him by the victim's friend? Shocking stuff

Tipsy McSwagger · 22-12-2013 01:30AM

timthumbni wrote: »

As a parent I wouldn't even think that 10 years served is sufficient tbh. This is a 4 yr old we are talking about. Jaysus that is terrible.

Ye because you need to be a parent to understand 10 years is not enough.

A Neurotic · 22-12-2013 01:33AM

First I've heard of this particular judge, did a quick image search to see if he looked like a wanker and was not disappointed:

Sh1tbag OToole · 22-12-2013 01:36AM

A Neurotic wrote: »

First I've heard of this particular judge, did a quick image search to see if he looked like a wanker and was not disappointed:

The ould scrap of carpet on his head doesnt help..

expectationlost · 22-12-2013 01:39AM

sure take account of age guilty plea etc but don't knock off so much of each element

nc19 · 22-12-2013 01:48AM

Its about time we had universal sentences

75 years for rape or killing of a child (child being 0-12)

50 years for rape or killing of an adult

40 years for dealing any amont of class A

Big time may make people think twice

Manslaughter and statutory rape would be looked at individually

I dont claim it to be a prefect system but when gilligan gets 17 yrs and rapists get 6 something needs to be done

syklops · 22-12-2013 02:06AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

says he was only 16 when he comitted the offense - which would have made him a minor.

Not excusing any of this, btw - just pointing out a possible reason.

Why suspend so many years though? Why not just give the guy 3 years and be done with it?

Giving 10 years and then suspending 7 is just stupid. Does the judge think most people dont have basic math skills?

Donkey Oaty · 22-12-2013 02:10AM

I'm inclined to agree with the outrage.

But - and hear me out, folks - there may well be circumstances here that we don't know about.

Mr Justice Carney said the case warranted a ten-year term but took into account the man's pleas of guilty, lack of previous convictions, youth at the time and the fact that a historical case, like this going back 30 years, would have been difficult to prosecute without his pleas.

The sentence seems absurd, but there have been cases where this has to be balanced against walking free/putting the victim through the trial.

Wild speculation: the victim was dying, and without a guilty plea there wouldn't have been a court case.

More wild speculation: for whatever reason, the victim refused to testify, and the perpetrator would have walked free without some kind of implicit deal.

Even further wild speculation: the perpetrator is ill and will be dead within a fortnight, and his guilty plea will at least give peace of mind to the victim and all those that doubted her.

We could go on, but there is surely a lot more to this than meets the eye.

If there isn't, well....Christ, what an appalling sentence.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 22-12-2013 02:11AM

syklops wrote: »

Why suspend so many years though? Why not just give the guy 3 years and be done with it?

Giving 10 years and then suspending 7 is just stupid. Does the judge think most people dont have basic math skills?

No idea - as i said, I'm just theorizing.

What's the maximun sentence a 16yo would get if he carried out the same crime today? Or what was it when he carried out the crime? Should it even make a difference that he was a minor?

jhegarty · 22-12-2013 02:13AM

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree with the outrage.

But - and hear me out, folks - there may well be circumstances here that we don't know about.

The sentence seems absurd, but there have been cases where this has to be balanced against walking free/putting the victim through the trial.

Wild speculation: the victim was dying, and without a guilty plea there wouldn't have been a court case.

More wild speculation: for whatever reason, the victim refused to testify, and the perpetrator would have walked free without some kind of implicit deal.

Even further wild speculation: the perpetrator is ill and will be dead within a fortnight, and his guilty plea will at least give peace of mind to the victim and all those that doubted her.

We could go on, but there is surely a lot more to this than meets the eye.

If there isn't, well....Christ, what an appalling sentence.

It's because it was 30 years since it happened. All physical evidence is long since gone.

HighClass · 22-12-2013 02:14AM

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree with the outrage.

But - and hear me out, folks - there may well be circumstances here that we don't know about.

The sentence seems absurd, but there have been cases where this has to be balanced against walking free/putting the victim through the trial.

Wild speculation: the victim was dying, and without a guilty plea there wouldn't have been a court case.

More wild speculation: for whatever reason, the victim refused to testify, and the perpetrator would have walked free without some kind of implicit deal.

Even further wild speculation: the perpetrator is ill and will be dead within a fortnight, and his guilty plea will at least give peace of mind to the victim and all those that doubted her.

We could go on, but there is surely a lot more to this than meets the eye.

If there isn't, well....Christ, what an appalling sentence.

I'd be more inclined to think rationally about it like that if the judge wasn't already known for giving sex offenders very lenient sentences.

WTF??? That is NOT punishment!!!!!!

Comments