Killer could avoid prison because he's deaf.

Pumpkinseeds · 05-06-2014 11:36AM

Sure why not use his deafness as an excuse not to jail him? In this country if you go on a drink or drug fuelled spree of violence or criminal activity of any kind you mostly don't go to jail as apparently the judges seem to think that being off your head on booze or drugs is a valid excuse to commit crime, it's a frigging joke.

humanji · 05-06-2014 11:52AM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Have they not also failed the next person he assaults and/or robs? Because going on form it is going to happen shortly after he's on the streets.

Who deserves more protection?

When we get psychics in the police force, then we can start punishing for future crimes. Until then we're sadly stuck with assuming innocence before guilt.

Pugsly wrote: »

I'm not upset about this I'm just discussing it, don't be so dismissive. I understand that the judge is trying to find the best way out of this I never said otherwise nor do I believe otherwise. However it seems to me like he's taking a lot into consideration in order to mitigate this guys crime. And I'd be very worried given the lax sentencing in the Irish judicial system that the alternative found will not match the degree of the crime. And I also think that the reasons for avoiding a custodial sentence are not entirely valid. For example prison being detrimental to his mental state shouldn't be a realistic concern. Its detriment to the mental state of anyone who would be imprisoned. This is the consequences for committing such crimes.

You're missing the point. Putting this guy in a cell for 23 hours a day with no proper human interaction for months on end is not the same as the actual murderers and rapists who are treated better. Remember, this guy isn't a murderer. He's guilty of manslaughter. He never intended to kill. Why should he be treated worse that worse criminals?

That's the point the judge made. Sending him to prison isn't the same as sending someone with the exact same record, the exact same crime, but who is able to hear and speak.

It's also worth noting that the sentencing system being what it is, he'll get about 5 years with 3 or 4 suspended. So he isn't going to be away very long anyway (which is another problem with the system, but that's for another discussion). So if the choice is between a possibly inhumane year in prison that will make him a worse offender, or something else that might make him less likely to re-offend, isn't the judge right to actually give it some though?

Pugsly wrote: »

Its both depending on your particular view. And mine is that serial violent criminals being permanently locked up is both and is currently the best way to deal with the problem of violent serial offended in society. Because on all current evidence repeated short custodial sentencing and suspending sentences are not working. The fact that so many people have so many convictions is proof of that. For some individuals its simply letting them out time and again to continue having a negative impact on society. Are you telling me that is the actions of a responsible state ?

But you're finding them guilty of crimes they may or may not commit in the future. That is 100% irresponsible.

Awkward Badger · 05-06-2014 12:16PM

humanji wrote: »

You're missing the point. Putting this guy in a cell for 23 hours a day with no proper human interaction for months on end is not the same as the actual murderers and rapists who are treated better. Remember, this guy isn't a murderer. He's guilty of manslaughter. He never intended to kill. Why should he be treated worse that worse criminals?

That's the point the judge made. Sending him to prison isn't the same as sending someone with the exact same record, the exact same crime, but who is able to hear and speak.

I'm not missing the point I just don't agree that its of that much concern that this guy will choose to sit in a cell for 23 hours a day. He's a 30 year old adult. If he wants to communicate to some degree and socialise in prison he can learn to do that. The fact that he doesn't shouldn't excuse him from a prison term because it would be to hard for him. He should be sentenced proportionate to the crime the same as anyone else convicted of the crime would be and deal with the consequences they have to deal with. Which is being locked up in prison and however that will affect them personally.

It's also worth noting that the sentencing system being what it is, he'll get about 5 years with 3 or 4 suspended. So he isn't going to be away very long anyway (which is another problem with the system, but that's for another discussion). So if the choice is between a possibly inhumane year in prison that will make him a worse offender, or something else that might make him less likely to re-offend, isn't the judge right to actually give it some though?

And that's another cause of concern such a lax sentence for such a violent criminal convicted of yet another violent crime. But we'll deal with that when we see the sentencing. You say it would be an inhumane year for him. Being locked in prison is itself inhumane by nature and there probably more people who will suffer far more in prison than this guy might. As I said how it affects a person is the consequence they must deal with for committing the crime that got them locked up. Of course the judge is right to give it some thought. Again this isn't something I'm disputing.

But you're finding them guilty of crimes they may or may not commit in the future. That is 100% irresponsible.

Its not finding them guilty of anything but the crimes they have already committed. Its dealing with criminals who have caused such a negative impact on society that their cumulative convictions are together dealt with as a crime in itself and sentenced for that fact.

humanji · 05-06-2014 12:27PM

Pugsly wrote: »

I'm not missing the point I just don't agree that its of that much concern that this guy will choose to sit in a cell for 23 hours a day. He's a 30 year old adult. If he wants to communicate to some degree and socialise in prison he can learn to do that. The fact that he doesn't shouldn't excuse him from a prison term because it would be to hard for him. He should be sentenced proportionate to the crime the same as anyone else convicted of the crime would be and deal with the consequences they have to deal with. Which is being locked up in prison and however that will affect them personally.

He CAN'T! That's what the judge is trying to sort out. That's why this story came up. It's why you posted about it. There are no facilities to teach a deaf man to read and write in prison.

And that's another cause of concern such a lax sentence for such a violent criminal convicted of yet another violent crime. But we'll deal with that when we see the sentencing. You say it would be an inhumane year for him. Being locked in prison is itself inhumane by nature and there probably more people who will suffer far more in prison than this guy might. As I said how it affects a person is the consequence they must deal with for committing the crime that got them locked up. Of course the judge is right to give it some thought. Again this isn't something I'm disputing.

If you're not disputing it, then why post about it? That's what the story is; a judge is thinking long and hard about what the right sentence should be. He's taking in many more factors than we are. Assuming the guy is getting na easy time because he's deaf isn't taking into all the other factors.

Its not finding them guilty of anything but the crimes they have already committed. Its dealing with criminals who have caused such a negative impact on society that their cumulative convictions are together dealt with as a crime in itself and sentenced for that fact.

It's giving an inordinately large sentence for an accidental death because you don't want to have to deal with him again.

rick_fantastic · 05-06-2014 12:35PM

Were talking about a little scrote here who goes around threatening people with syringes, had over 60 offences against him and should be locked up forever... even if he didn't mean to kill this other guy, he should still be held accountable.

i remember him from back in the day when he used to terrorize Sandyford area... he was a scumbag then and hes a scumbag now. just because hes deaf doesn't mean he deserves special treatment.

Anyone that feels "sorry" for him needs to get their heads checked.

hatrickpatrick · 05-06-2014 12:35PM

humanji wrote: »

If the state locks him in a small room with no way of communicating with anyone else in the prison, so the majority of the day, the state has failed everyone.

Which do you think is the lesser of two evils then if we must choose between justice for an innocent man's family and a guy who is enough of a scumbag to go around threatening people with a syringe unprovoked and have 64 - 64!!! - previous convictions? I'm normally very liberal but I have absolutely zero sympathy for this kind of person, he's clearly a serial criminal who has absolutely no regard for anyone but himself. On the other hand, an innocent man's family deserve to see some justice done for the killing of their relative.

EDIT:

humanji wrote: »

It's giving an inordinately large sentence for an accidental death because you don't want to have to deal with him again.

What most of us are disputing is the legitimacy of applying the word "accidental" to this death.

Awkward Badger · 05-06-2014 12:45PM

humanji wrote: »

He CAN'T! That's what the judge is trying to sort out. That's why this story came up. It's why you posted about it. There are no facilities to teach a deaf man to read and write in prison.

How does he communicate with his mother ? How did he communicate with people in his day to day life ? He's not a spud ffs, he's a 30 year old man. If he wanted to make an effort to communicate in some limited capacity and socialise and interact he could. I could do that without reading, writing or talking and I haven't had 30 years to figure out how to do it !

If you're not disputing it, then why post about it? That's what the story is; a judge is thinking long and hard about what the right sentence should be. He's taking in many more factors than we are. Assuming the guy is getting na easy time because he's deaf isn't taking into all the other factors.

This isn't about the judge giving it some thought. That's not the story, the story is the judge doesn't intend to give a custodial sentence. And please don't tell me we're back to "Judge is a judge, judge knows how to judge". I know enough of the story to be able to comment on it and discuss the proposed means of sentences for the reasons the judge outlined. This didn't seem to be an issue for you when you were happy to tell me why the judge was doing what he was doing but when I dispute the validity of it I'm out of line because I don't know everything disclosed in the courtroom ?

It's giving an inordinately large sentence for an accidental death because you don't want to have to deal with him again.

No it isn't. Again I'll repeat

Its not finding them guilty of anything but the crimes they have already committed. Its dealing with criminals who have caused such a negative impact on society that their cumulative convictions are together dealt with as a crime in itself and sentenced for that fact.

If this happened in this case this guy would be sentenced for this crime as anyone else would but would also be sentenced based on his accumulation of convictions. Why is anything a crime ? Because its deemed to have a negative impact on society and the people in it who have a right not to be affected in such a way. Society and the people in it have a right not to be persistently abused and negatively affected by an individual such as this. And having close to 70 convictions many for violent crimes is beyond the line of what any society should tolerate in my opinion.

humanji · 05-06-2014 12:50PM

rick_fantastic wrote: »

Were talking about a little scrote here who goes around threatening people with syringes, had over 60 offences against him and should be locked up forever... even if he didn't mean to kill this other guy, he should still be held accountable.

i remember him from back in the day when he used to terrorize Sandyford area... he was a scumbag then and hes a scumbag now. just because hes deaf doesn't mean he deserves special treatment.

Anyone that feels "sorry" for him needs to get their heads checked.

Anyone who is happy to pay a fortune to continually house the thousands that you would have imprisoned may also need their head checked, unless money really is no issue to them.

No one is doubting the guy is a scumbag, but claiming eternity in prison is justice, is ridiculous.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Which do you think is the lesser of two evils then if we must choose between justice for an innocent man's family and a guy who is enough of a scumbag to go around threatening people with a syringe unprovoked and have 64 - 64!!! - previous convictions? I'm normally very liberal but I have absolutely zero sympathy for this kind of person, he's clearly a serial criminal who has absolutely no regard for anyone but himself. On the other hand, an innocent man's family deserve to see some justice done for the killing of their relative.

And they'll get the justice apportioned out by the law. And hopefully it'll be a just justice and not a knee-jerk "kill him or lock him away forever" justice.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What most of us are disputing is the legitimacy of applying the word "accidental" to this death.

That's not really what people are disputing. The death was not intended. The judge said as much.

humanji · 05-06-2014 12:58PM

Pugsly wrote: »

How does he communicate with his mother ? How did he communicate with people in his day to day life ? He's not a spud ffs, he's a 30 year old man. If he wanted to make an effort to communicate in some limited capacity and socialise and interact he could. I could do that without reading, writing or talking and I haven't had 30 years to figure out how to do it !

So you're assuming a lot and pretending that's enough to answer the whole problem?

This isn't about the judge giving it some thought. That's not the story, the story is the judge doesn't intend to give a custodial sentence. And please don't tell me we're back to "Judge is a judge, judge knows how to judge". I know enough of the story to be able to comment on it and discuss the proposed means of sentences for the reasons the judge outlined. This didn't seem to be an issue for you when you were happy to tell me why the judge was doing what he was doing but when I dispute the validity of it I'm out of line because I don't know everything disclosed in the courtroom ?

You know enough of the story to comment on it, but too little to be able to decide this persons future.

If this happened in this case this guy would be sentenced for this crime as anyone else would but would also be sentenced based on his accumulation of convictions. Why is anything a crime ? Because its deemed to have a negative impact on society and the people in it who have a right not to be affected in such a way. Society and the people in it have a right not to be persistently abused and negatively affected by an individual such as this. And having close to 70 convictions many for violent crimes is beyond the line of what any society should tolerate in my opinion.

But you don't want a solution. You want to hide him away and not bother about the reasons that made him commit those nearly 70 crimes, and as a result more people will end up committing nearly 70 crimes and more people and more people and more, and nothing will be solved because you want to take the head in the sand approach to society.

hatrickpatrick · 05-06-2014 01:09PM

humanji wrote: »

And they'll get the justice apportioned out by the law. And hopefully it'll be a just justice and not a knee-jerk "kill him or lock him away forever" justice.

By the sound of things they won't be getting any justice at all. Also, your argument is a straw man - the prison sentence doesn't necessarily have to be "forever" but it should be for a fairly long time nonetheless.

That's not really what people are disputing. The death was not intended. The judge said as much.

Analogy for you: if I cause a motorway pile up killing 20 people because I was recklessly speeding while drunk driving, the deaths were not "intentional". But my initial decision to drink drive on a busy motorway absolutely was, as was my decision to speed.

Do you think it would be reasonable to use the word "accident" to describe the result? Because I certainly don't.
Another analogy: the guy who attacked Eugene McCarthy didn't specifically set out to kill him, but through acting like a scumbag and attacking an innocent man unprovoked, he ultimately caused his death through deliberate actions. Do you think it's unreasonable to hold him responsible for the death?

This really comes down to whether or not you believe in criminal liability for the law of cause and effect. I personally believe in it 100%.

seamus · 05-06-2014 01:12PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

the state has failed in its duty to the dead man's family, to allow them to see justice done for the crimes which have destroyed so much that they cared for.

The state has no duty to the family of the deceased in this regard.

The purpose of the justice system is not to satisfy the victim of crime or exact appropriate revenge for a crime committed, but to act as an impartial 3rd party to determine whether a crime has been committed, and if so to determine an appropriate punishment for that crime from an objective point of view.

If a family or a victim is unhappy with the sentencing, there is nothing they can do about it, because the purpose of sentencing is not to satisfy their need for justice, but the state's need to maintain order.

Victim impact statements are taken to assist in this sentencing process because in many cases without knowing the effect a crime had on a victim, it is difficult to determine what an appropriate punishment may be. But they don't get to decide what the actual sentence will be.

Awkward Badger · 05-06-2014 01:17PM

humanji wrote: »

So you're assuming a lot and pretending that's enough to answer the whole problem?

I'm assuming as much as you, why are your assumptions valid and not mine ? And which of my assumptions are unreasonable ? The story says he communicates with his mother and communicated his plea and answers to the accusations made against him. Its reasonable to assume he can communicate in some way then ? So then is it not reasonable to expect a 30 year old who has been deaf his entire life who has spent a lot of time in his life in custody given his long list of convictions even if its only weeks here and there awaiting trial to be able if he wanted and made an effort to be able communicate while in custody ?

I'm not pretending anything. I'm being realistic and reasonable.

You know enough of the story to comment on it, but too little to be able to decide this persons future.

Well I'm not deciding his future, I'm only commenting....

But you don't want a solution. You want to hide him away and not bother about the reasons that made him commit those nearly 70 crimes, and as a result more people will end up committing nearly 70 crimes and more people and more people and more, and nothing will be solved because you want to take the head in the sand approach to society.

I don't want a solution ? Why would I not want solution to something I consider a serious problem ? Do you think a string of short custodial sentences, suspended sentences and whatever else they give this guy and others like him makes a blind bit of difference ? If it did they wouldn't have so many convictions. You also don't need to keep letting these people commit crimes to understand why they do.

Its you taking the head in the sand approach. Refusing to accept that there is a solution to the problem and instead agreeing with a system that simply allows it to happen over and over and over again. A life sentence for racking up 70 convictions IS dealing with the problem. Because the problem is the individual and the fact they persistently commit crimes and have a negative impact on society. Removing them from society where they cannot do that is solving that immediate problem. The revolving door approach does absolutely nothing but gives society a brief respite from a few particular individuals.

c_man · 05-06-2014 01:18PM

Scumbag. Yeah sure why bother locking them up, no point. Let him out and when he next pops up as the subject in an AH thread (for either killing someone else? or seriously injuring them with his needle antics?) we can have the same crowd come in and tell us that the judiciary know best.

sabat · 05-06-2014 01:26PM

But an illiterate monolingual Japanese man would be in the exact same position; would he get off a custodial sentence?

tayto lover · 05-06-2014 01:28PM

seamus wrote: »

The state has no duty to the family of the deceased in this regard.

The purpose of the justice system is not to satisfy the victim of crime or exact appropriate revenge for a crime committed, but to act as an impartial 3rd party to determine whether a crime has been committed, and if so to determine an appropriate punishment for that crime from an objective point of view.

If a family or a victim is unhappy with the sentencing, there is nothing they can do about it, because the purpose of sentencing is not to satisfy their need for justice, but the state's need to maintain order.

Victim impact statements are taken to assist in this sentencing process because in many cases without knowing the effect a crime had on a victim, it is difficult to determine what an appropriate punishment may be. But they don't get to decide what the actual sentence will be.

Maybe if the state had dealt appropriately with some of the immediate previous offences the offender would not have been in a position to commit this one.

seamus · 05-06-2014 01:39PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe if the state had dealt appropriately with some of the immediate previous offences the offender would not have been in a position to commit this one.

Indeed. But why should the state punish this man more harshly because the state has failed?

In reality there should be one if not two specials needs units in prisons in this country where people with disabilities can be accommodated as prisoners. To steal humanji's analogy; if someone locked a dog in a kennel 23 hours a day with zero contact, you'd call it cruel and inhumane, so clearly locking this man up in the same way is the wrong approach to take.
How do we accommodate prisoners in wheelchairs or blind prisoners? Though arguably deaf is the hardest of the lot, because they have more communication difficulties.

That doesn't mean he needs to go free, but taking all things into account, release on parole (with sign-on and curfew) or house arrest would seem to be better than what the state can provide, which is effectively solitary confinement.

rawn · 05-06-2014 01:56PM

Say this man is sentenced to 5 years in prison. Serves 2.
Option A:
So 2 years in prison with only an hour of communication a month, the rest in personal isolation, withdrawing from heroin. He is then released and does... what exactly? Picks up where he left off, stealing, using, attacking, intimidating... why? Cos he has no other choice. People say he chooses not to learn to interact with others. A deaf-mute long term heroin addict has likely little or no education. No one will ever hire him in the event he tries to find a job. So he's back being a scumbag. OR

Option B: He is sentenced to lock-down in a rehab facility that can deal with his disability and his addiction. Provide some education and skills training and some psychiatric help in an effort to rehabilitate him. Release him when he is ready to reenter society. He may offend again. He may not. But at least he has been provided with another option than stealing/being a scumbag, and leaves the general public in peace.

IMO Option B provides the best protection of the public. But that's just me.

hatrickpatrick · 05-06-2014 03:08PM

seamus wrote: »

The state has no duty to the family of the deceased in this regard.

The purpose of the justice system is not to satisfy the victim of crime or exact appropriate revenge for a crime committed, but to act as an impartial 3rd party to determine whether a crime has been committed, and if so to determine an appropriate punishment for that crime from an objective point of view.

If a family or a victim is unhappy with the sentencing, there is nothing they can do about it, because the purpose of sentencing is not to satisfy their need for justice, but the state's need to maintain order.

Victim impact statements are taken to assist in this sentencing process because in many cases without knowing the effect a crime had on a victim, it is difficult to determine what an appropriate punishment may be. But they don't get to decide what the actual sentence will be.

Alright, firstly I've always felt that's ridiculous to begin with, but that's the way it is so we'll leave that to one side. Regardless, another oft-ignored purpose of punishment is to scare other would-be criminals out of doing what they might be about to do. Growing up in Ireland, if I was of a violent or kleptomaniac disposition I would honestly go out with the impression that I was highly unlikely to receive any meaningful punishment for my crimes. In that context, why not just go ahead and stab that guy who pissed me off, or steal as many wallets as I need to fund my booze habit?

Another purpose of the justice system is to protect the public, and a man who has 60 previous convictions and goes around threatening people with a syringe is a danger to anyone unfortunate enough to cross paths with him when he's in a bad mood. I've spoken many times about how the person who stole my iPhone a year ago is almost certainly the same person who was arrested for the same crime previous to my experience and let off with a suspended sentence because of his heroin addiction - had he been locked up, he wouldn't have been in a position to subsequently steal my phone, would he?

Thirdly, what exactly is the purpose of a victim impact statement, if it's not to factor as one criteria during a judge's consideration of sentencing? To suggest that no aspect of the justice system is about providing redress to victims of crime is absurd.

Pumpkinseeds · 05-06-2014 03:35PM

seamus wrote: »

Indeed. But why should the state punish this man more harshly because the state has failed?

In reality there should be one if not two specials needs units in prisons in this country where people with disabilities can be accommodated as prisoners. To steal humanji's analogy; if someone locked a dog in a kennel 23 hours a day with zero contact, you'd call it cruel and inhumane, so clearly locking this man up in the same way is the wrong approach to take.
How do we accommodate prisoners in wheelchairs or blind prisoners? Though arguably deaf is the hardest of the lot, because they have more communication difficulties.

That doesn't mean he needs to go free, but taking all things into account, release on parole (with sign-on and curfew) or house arrest would seem to be better than what the state can provide, which is effectively solitary confinement.

If you locked an animal up for 23 hours a day it would be cruel and the animal would not understand why it had been locked up. If you lock up a criminal you deprive them of their liberty as punishment for a crime, there's a difference.

D-FENS · 05-06-2014 03:39PM

Pugsly wrote: »

30 years of age, 64(I think) convictions when he was charged with the killing. Serial violent criminal. Convicted killer. Suspect in another killing where he couldn't be prosecuted. He was also arrested twice for assault and robbery and attempting to mug an undercover Garda while on bail for this manslaughter charge before he was sent to prison for breach of bail. And along with this was convicted of two other incidents of threatening with syringes in muggings last year. I'd say the guy is already beyond help.

You could almost say any attempts to rehabilitate him have fallen on deaf ears.....

Killer could avoid prison because he's deaf.

Comments