Drunk driver jailed for killing 'good Samaritan' - justice FAIL

Little CuChulainn · 24-07-2015 11:26AM

Shelflife wrote: »

We should have a basic human right to go about our business without fear of having our lives ruined by scumbags like this.

How someone can rack up so many convictions and not be behind bars is beyind me.

We are simply too soft on criminality and are afraid to impinge on the human rights of those who have no regard for the rights of anyone else.

By all means give offenders a second chance ,even a third chance but after that the scumbags should be taken out of society and put in a very basic prison with basic facilities where they simply never get out.

Harsh ? Yes but why should scumbags be accommodated to the detriment of law abiding citizens.

That kind of criminal history is not unusual in Ballyfermot. If you were to throw everyone from Ballyfermot with 50+ convictions in Wheatfield there would not be enough room.

Sleepy · 24-07-2015 11:45AM

Lexie Billions Spectator wrote: »

There's no such crime as vehicular manslaughter here. You're watching too many US TV shows. Plus no death penalty and life doesn't mean life ether.

Oh, I know it doesn't appear on the statute books as such, it's just a better description of the actual crime committed.

The death penalty would be great for scum like this that have repeatedly demonstrated that their very existence is damaging to society. Unfortunately, based on American data, it appears to cost more to exterminate such vermin than to lock them up for the rest of their natural lives.

There's a large part of me which thinks we should just arm the victims family with a few hurleys and turn a blind eye to what happens in cases like this. Treat those who believe themselves to be outside the control of the law as exactly that: outlaws. Individuals who are no longer afforded the protection of the law.

RayCon · 24-07-2015 12:25PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

If you were to throw everyone from xxxxxx with 50+ convictions in Wheatfield there would not be enough room.

We need to get to a situation were it's impossible for somebody to rack up 50+ convictions (or anywhere near that number)

Shelflife · 24-07-2015 12:27PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

That kind of criminal history is not unusual in Ballyfermot. If you were to throw everyone from Ballyfermot with 50+ convictions in Wheatfield there would not be enough room.

Build a bigger camp, similar to an army barracks with basic facilities, its not a hotel they need, big field basic sleeping qtrs, basic hygiene decent security fencing.

whomitconcerns · 24-07-2015 12:28PM

I know its been posted...but really has to be posted again..

"He also pleaded guilty to having no insurance, driving while disqualified and failing to stop his vehicle at the scene of an accident.
His 186 previous convictions include 148 road traffic offences and 30 disqualification orders."

Its just incomprehensible....6 1/2 years.....so he couldnt drive then anyway..so the driving ban only affects him for 3.5 years...not that he cares if driving whiel disqualified anyway...186 convictions means how many charges? It looks like (from a brief search) that 20% or so of charges lead to convictions..so hes potentially been arrested and charged up to 1000 times! (Obviously not 1000 times....but point remains)

Fr_Dougal · 24-07-2015 01:08PM

Anyone that kills someone whilst drink-driving should be found guilty of murder.

conorhal · 24-07-2015 01:12PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

That kind of criminal history is not unusual in Ballyfermot. If you were to throw everyone from Ballyfermot with 50+ convictions in Wheatfield there would not be enough room.

The Thunderdome would be large enough, well, not initally perhaps, but eventually.....

pickarooney · 24-07-2015 02:29PM

osarusan wrote: »

Article 6 of the EU Convention on Human Rights also I believe.

So it's pretty unlikely to happen, appealing as it sounds to no longer have people with multiple convitions soaking up legal aid money - what government wants to start a referendum on what is effectively removing a defendant's right to a fair trial?

Better to focus on getting judges to sentence properly (and I say that as somebody who does not agree with minimum sentencing laws).

They should just do like on telly and give them really bad lawyers after the second offence.

mud · 24-07-2015 03:06PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

He didn't come forward.

That's shocking. I remember it was a hit and run but didn't realise that they knew who had done it.

Really awful thing to happen.

Little CuChulainn · 24-07-2015 04:29PM

mud wrote: »

That's shocking. I remember it was a hit and run but didn't realise that they knew who had done it.

Really awful thing to happen.

The damaged car was spotted in a driveway by two Gardaí. When they went to investigate it he came out and attacked them.

Vic_08 · 24-07-2015 04:53PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

That kind of criminal history is not unusual in Ballyfermot. If you were to throw everyone from Ballyfermot with 50+ convictions in Wheatfield there would not be enough room.

Then build more prisons. I do not want to pay more tax but if that is what is required to rid us of a huge % of the scum that make life worse for the majority then I have no problem with it.

We are already paying for these people anyway through social welfare, subsidised housing, Garda and court costs on top of the cost to the random people and businesses that these scum perpetrate crimes against.

People deserve second chances for most things but a second chance should be just that. Repeat offenders need to be dealt with properly and the only way I can see is for mandatory sentences.

The sentences for repeat offences should ramp up, doubling seems a reasonable solution so an offender is allowed a chance to reform after the first or even second offence but faces serious time for subsequent criminality. 1 year-2 year-4 year-8 year-16 year-lucky to get out in anything other than a box.

Shelflife · 25-07-2015 12:51PM

Serial offenders need to be taken out of society, once a person goes to 5 offences then they should simply be locked away forever, Harsh ?? yes but in this particular case the scumbag would be locked away and the father would be still alive.

We are far too soft on criminals, worrying about their rights and their living conditions while they put the fear of god into ordinary law abiding people.

We need to help people to rehabilitate but once that offer to help is thrown back in our faces then they shouldnt be allowed to hurt anyone again.

Why should someone who steals from people and has no intention of changing be consistently be allowed back into society to do the same again and again.

Needs to stop, once they show that they have no regard for society then society should have no regard for them.

It would be simple enough to build a large camp and put them in it, if conditions are so tough that some of them dont make it .... Tough ! you chose to go down this path.

Wont happen though, politicians have no balls

Drunk driver jailed for killing 'good Samaritan' - justice FAIL

Comments