Man jailed for storing excrement and urine in apartment.

syklops · 26-11-2015 10:56PM

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no presumption of an inability to reason because the crime is...weird.

Well that clears that up then. :rolleyes:

26-11-2015 10:56PM

Nodin wrote: »

It may be the case that (a) he became unemployed or (b) the failure to raise more was a result of his mental issues.

It may be. If it was no doubt his defence team would have pointed it out. And it may have been, but not reported.

26-11-2015 10:57PM

syklops wrote: »

Well that clears that up then. :rolleyes:

Ah.

Roll eyes. Trumps every point on every issue. Good man.

SEPT 23 1989 · 26-11-2015 10:57PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He is being punished for his crime. He could have mitigated the punishment by using some of the proceeds of his good job. There is no presumption of an inability to reason because the crime is...weird.

He has a one man sh1te storage unit in his house and you think he has control of his finances?

Wacker The Attacker · 26-11-2015 10:58PM

I shyted the bed last sunday nigh after a particularly heavy weekend.

Theres no way im doing jail time

Sand · 26-11-2015 10:58PM

The court offered him multiple opportunities to come up with compensation for the owner. He failed, despite being in employment. The experts examining couldn't find any cause for his behaviour that would excuse it. Bobby Sands smeared ****e all over his walls too. Was he insane?

The court does not have a lot of choice in a case like that. The guy makes little or no effort to mitigate the damage, and the experts say he is depressed - but not insane.

What is the judge to do? Overrule the evidence and go with the "Shure he must be crazy" internet opinion who have never talked to the guy? The guy could easily have avoided jail but he gave the courts no option.

PIORUN · 26-11-2015 10:58PM

Lights On wrote: »

PC gone mad. So you can't bottle up your own piss and keep your ****e in plastic bags nowadays?

Ha ha. Classic

26-11-2015 11:01PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

He has a one man sh1te storage unit in his house and you think he has control of his finances?

I don't know that he has control of his finances.

I'm not his financial advisor.

When one comes up with 800 in 2 years towards repaying the victim 15k, the onus to explain the shortfall is on him.

Nodin · 26-11-2015 11:02PM

Deleted User wrote: »

He is being punished for his crime. He could have mitigated the punishment by using some of the proceeds of his good job. There is no presumption of an inability to reason because the crime is...weird.

...indeed, however it's weird and seemingly without motivation. This has the hallmark of irrationality. Were he living somewhere else and only popping over for the odd smear and a bit of bottle peeing I could see some perverted malice as the goal - I seem to remember somebody systematically soiling a pub in Britain using a mix of his own excrement and urine which he'd introduce into the carpet and upholstery by various methods.

SEPT 23 1989 · 26-11-2015 11:02PM

Sand wrote: »

The court offered him multiple opportunities to come up with compensation for the owner. He failed, despite being in employment. The experts examining couldn't find any cause for his behaviour that would excuse it. Bobby Sands smeared ****e all over his walls too. Was he insane?

The court does not have a lot of choice in a case like that. The guy makes little or no effort to mitigate the damage, and the experts say he is depressed - but not insane.

What is the judge to do? Overrule the evidence and go with the "Shure he must be crazy" internet opinion who have never talked to the guy? The guy could easily have avoided jail but he gave the courts no option.

Do what they usually do and send him away with a slap on the wrist

26-11-2015 11:05PM

Nodin wrote: »

...indeed, however it's weird and seemingly without motivation. This has the hallmark of irrationality. Were he living somewhere else and only popping over for the odd smear and a bit of bottle peeing I could see some perverted malice as the goal - I seem to remember somebody systematically soiling a pub in Britain using a mix of his own excrement and urine which he'd introduce into the carpet and upholstery by various methods.

Lots of crimes are irrational. Indeed some crimes are marked by their senselessness and depravity. But unless the person has some valid defence, like insanity or diminished responsibility...well then they have no defence albeit that a condition may lead to a mitigation in the penalty.

Nodin · 26-11-2015 11:10PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Lots of crimes are irrational. Indeed some crimes are marked by their senselessness and depravity. But unless the person has some valid defence, like insanity or diminished responsibility...well then they have no defence albeit that a condition may lead to a mitigation in the penalty.

O I'm not saying he shouldn't be sent somewhere. Just not a prison. I'd argue the act was proof enough of his problem, given that it is a known phenomena associated with mental illness.

Ally Dick · 26-11-2015 11:10PM

He's a typical scat farmer. Look it up on Urban Dictionary ! Yuk

Spanish Eyes · 26-11-2015 11:14PM

The man is obviously ill with some phobia or other mental disturbance.

However what I fail to understand is this...

Why can the courts not garnishee part of his salary to pay for the damage instead of putting him in jail?

You know, a court order or something that Apple has to deduct X amount per month until the damages are paid for.

Even if he lost his job in the meantime a smaller amount could be taken from SW payments.

Revenue can do it to salary and SW if you don't pay your Property Tax.

I am baffled by the fact that a similar system is not in place for all kinds of defaults, fines, damages payments etc. and so forth.

But then this is Ireland.

I hope the chap gets the help he needs, because it won't be nice in prison if he keeps on hoarding his waste products in a more than likely shared cell somewhere.

Wacker The Attacker · 26-11-2015 11:16PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The man is obviously ill with some phobia or other mental disturbance.

However what I fail to understand is this...

Why can the courts not garnishee part of his salary to pay for the damage instead of putting him in jail?

You know, a court order or something that Apple has to deduct X amount per month until the damages are paid for.

Even if he lost his job in the meantime a smaller amount could be taken from SW payments.

Revenue can do it to salary and SW if you don't pay your Property Tax.

I am baffled by the fact that a similar system is not in place for all kinds of defaults, fines, damages payments etc. and so forth.

But then this is Ireland.

I hope the chap gets the help he needs, because it won't be nice in prison if he keeps on hoarding his waste products in a more than likely shared cell somewhere.

He clearly doesn't slashophobia

syklops · 26-11-2015 11:16PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah.

Roll eyes. Trumps every point on every issue. Good man.

Well done for ignoring the rest of my post.

Dude clearly has serious personal issues. Could possibly that impact his ability to follow the courts orders and pay the amount required? Possibly yes?

Its not as clear cut as you make it.

26-11-2015 11:19PM

syklops wrote: »

Well done for ignoring the rest of my post.

Dude clearly has serious personal issues. Could possibly that impact his ability to follow the courts orders and pay the amount required? Possibly yes?

Its not as clear cut as you make it.

There was no Court Order to pay the sum.

This was a criminal trial, not some civil debt collection and enforcement matter. You may make up the law, the Judge can't.

kupus · 26-11-2015 11:21PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Judge Sean O'Donnabhain has been involved in more criminal cases than you've had hot dinners. If you studied law from now and for the rest of your life, you'll be lucky to grasp a fraction of what he does. He is pretty brilliant, if at times he can be impatient because he is waiting for everyone in Court to catch up. But he knows the law. For you to say he us an idiot just shows your own ignorance.
.

http://www.herald.ie/opinion/joel-case-shows-why-we-need-guidelines-for-sentencing-now-29113487.html

Eleanor Joel and Jonathan Costen were found guilty of the manslaughter of Joel's mother, Evelyn, found maggot-infested and starving in her bed.
The pair were ordered to complete 240 hours of community service and, farcically given the gravity of their crime, told to remain sober in public.
:rolleyes: "not only an idiot, but a big fcuking idiot."

Im too poor to have hot dinners everyday, but i bet them idiot judges and the klingon court jesters are milking the system to pay for their hot dinners.

syklops · 26-11-2015 11:27PM

Deleted User wrote: »

There was no Court Order to pay the sum.

This was a criminal trial, not some civil debt collection and enforcement matter. You may make up the law, the Judge can't.

Im tired of you. Goodbye

26-11-2015 11:28PM

syklops wrote: »

Im tired of you. Goodbye

Good luck. The "make up law as you go along" thread should be fun, so enjoy.

26-11-2015 11:30PM

kupus wrote: »

http://www.herald.ie/opinion/joel-case-shows-why-we-need-guidelines-for-sentencing-now-29113487.html

Eleanor Joel and Jonathan Costen were found guilty of the manslaughter of Joel's mother, Evelyn, found maggot-infested and starving in her bed.
The pair were ordered to complete 240 hours of community service and, farcically given the gravity of their crime, told to remain sober in public.
:rolleyes: "not only an idiot, but a big fcuking idiot."

Im too poor to have hot dinners everyday, but i bet them idiot judges and the klingon court jesters are milking the system to pay for their hot dinners.

The convicted couple are appealing that decision on the basis that they had tried to seek intervention against her wishes.

http://www.wexfordpeople.ie/news/joel-jury-should-have-considered-hses-role-in-trial-31605016.html

Spanish Eyes · 26-11-2015 11:32PM

Well so it was a criminal trial.

How did it get to that stage so? Could the landlord not have taken a civil action for damages and in default, the court may have garnisheed part of his income as part of the court order.

I accept that my point may be incorrect in law, but if it is, why is that?

Thanks to the legal eagles out there who will be able to point out why this case turned into a criminal rather than a civil action for damages.

Ally Dick · 26-11-2015 11:34PM

Sh1t happens

La Fenetre · 26-11-2015 11:35PM

mad muffin wrote: »

I'd say he got 12 months because head a former Apple employee. Seems to be an important part of this story… since they mentioned it.

Should have read dirty former apple employee . . .jailed for storing excrement and urine in apartment
Maybe he thought he was cleverly getting back at the landlord.

26-11-2015 11:36PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Well so it was a criminal trial.

How did it get to that stage so? Could the landlord not have taken a civil action for damages and in default, the court may have garnisheed part of his income as part of the court order.

I accept that my point may be incorrect in law, but if it is, why is that?

Thanks to the legal eagles out there who will be able to point out why this case turned into a criminal rather than a civil action for damages.

It didn't turn into a criminal trial.

He caused criminal damage. He was prosecuted. He may still be sued for the damage. But the two matters will run separately.

wally1990 · 26-11-2015 11:37PM

I read this article , sat back and thought to myself...

Doesn't cover the cost . And is sent to jail to be with dangerous scum bags

Wouldn't he be more suited to community service and a period of time in a mental health hospital.

There is clearly something very very wrong with this guy in the head. I can't help but feel sorry because he clearly had problems and then scum bags with multiple convictions walk the streets ..

He needs help

Spanish Eyes · 26-11-2015 11:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It didn't turn into a criminal trial.

He caused criminal damage. He was prosecuted. He may still be sued for the damage. But the two matters will run separately.

Thanks for the clarification.

Seemed to me from reports that he was jailed because he failed to pay compensation for the damage he caused.

I was just wondering why that compensation could not have been taken from his salary.

If it had been, would there have been any need for a criminal trial?

I think that is a fair question.

moc moc a moc · 26-11-2015 11:41PM

Ally Dick wrote: »

Look it up on Urban Dictionary ! Yuk

Eh... no thanks. Once bitten, twice shy and all that.

wally1990 · 26-11-2015 11:41PM

Spanish Eyes wrote:

I was just wondering why that compensation could not have been taken from his salary.

If it had been, would there have been any need for a criminal trial?

I think that is a fair question.

Can the judge impose a court order to take the money from his salary?
If so, what about the scum bags who cause damage in receipt of social welfare? Reduce theirs too !!

26-11-2015 11:43PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification.

Seemed to me from reports that he was jailed because he failed to pay compensation for the damage he caused.

I was just wondering why that compensation could not have been taken from his salary.

If it had been, would there have been any need for a criminal trial?

I think that is a fair question.

He was convicted p and jailed for the crime.

If he had paid for the damage, it would have been a significant mitigating factor.

But anyone who commits a crime that causes 15k damage is facing a very real prospect of prosecution. Arson, criminal damage, assault leaving a victim with 15k of medical bills etc. You can't break someone's teeth in and throw them the amount to pay dental bills and expect to get away with it.

Man jailed for storing excrement and urine in apartment.

Comments