Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Phoenix Park tragedy

Options
12346

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    HensVassal
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,570 ✭✭✭HensVassal


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    True, but there also has to be an element of you have done something that is illegal to begin with but also so reckless and so obviously dangerous that regardless of your "intentions" you have to be held full responsible for any consequences. Who couldn't foresee that drinking a litre of vodka and snorting a pile of coke before driving through a crowded park full of kids could possible lead to knocking someone down? Even the biggest idiot understands that much.

    Fair enough he didn't mean to kill a child, but was it an accident in the truest sense of the word? No it absolutely wasn't, it was entirely his fault - 100%. He should be treated accordingly - I didn't mean it just doesn't cut it, that child is dead because of him. He should have to suffer because of his actions- it's not all about deterrent and rehabilitation - there is also just plain good old fashioned punishment and I for one can't think of many acts that deserve more punishment than killing a child.

    I'm not saying he didn't commit a crime or that he doesn't deserve punishment. I don't know why you are bringing all that up. I merely pointed out to a poster who said he murdered the girl that he did't in fact murder her.


  • Options
    #153
    Strazdas
    Registered Users Posts: 18,298 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    MajorMax wrote: »
    I am so sick of this. Only in Ireland is it a workable defence to be out of your head on drink and/or drugs.

    He got off very lightly IMO. Had he committed a similar offence in the US, I imagine he would be looking at 20 or 30 years in jail.


  • Options
    #154
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 29,014 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Strazdas wrote: »
    He got off very lightly IMO. Had he committed a similar offence in the US, I imagine he would be looking at 20 or 30 years in jail.

    that could very well be true. thank god we dont have a privatised judicial system or even part privatised.


  • Options
    #155
    aphex™
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭aphex™


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    that could very well be true. thank god we dont have a privatised judicial system or even part privatised.

    In the US they have the defense of affluenza.

    In Ireland we have the defense of skangerism where you get to run up 100+ convictions and still get a pat on the back.

    Which makes you more sick?


  • Options
    #156
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 29,014 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    aphex™ wrote: »
    In the US they have the defense of affluenza.

    In Ireland we have the defense of skangerism where you get to run up 100+ convictions and still get a pat on the back.

    Which makes you more sick?

    both really, it shows neither of us are truly dealing with criminality and its root causes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Beefy78
    Registered Users Posts: 8,163 ✭✭✭Beefy78


    I've no comments about the sentence - these things tend to be a little more complicated than the headlines suggest and I've not read the entire case notes. Plus nothing was going to bring this little girl back. But reading the story today has really, really upset me. That poor little girl and that poor family.


  • Options
    #158
    arybvtcw0eolkf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,878 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    I stopped by her memorial today and said a few words.

    Poor little angel.


  • Options
    #159
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    It's consistent at least. It won't make things safer in general but it will make it safer by locking up one giu AFTER the child is dead and it will satisfy your obvious bloodlust.



    Rehabilitating the individual isn't about him, it's about making us all safer.



    It is. It doesn't actually work in a meaningful way though so it's worth reconsidering. The only thing it does well is project society from that one individual, whilst in prison. Minimal deterrent effect, no restoritive effect for the victim, minimal rehabilitation. Are you happy about punishment being the main focus?



    Are you demonstrating my point on purpose or by accident?

    I would have seen it as more about the family and society but...

    Yeh. The family want punishment.


  • Options
    #160
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    that could very well be true. thank god we dont have a privatised judicial system or even part privatised.

    The us system isn't really privatised and while some of it is over severe, jailing drivers under the influence who kill is not.


  • Options
    #161
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Instead of rotting in prison, being beaten by relatives of the victim or having his head caved in by animals in state custody, what about a serious solution.

    How about he spends some of his 5 years being carted off to schools to educate young people about what can happen when you use drugs and drive. Letting them interact with the guy and take with him about how he will have to declare his criminal record to potential employers and explain that he killed a 2 year old whilst on drugs. The effect it has on his family, the nightmares he probably will experience for the rest of his life due to the fact that he killed a child. The fact that he has lost his freedom and will spend that night back in prison with the psychopaths and bullies, being told when to eat, when to sleep etc.

    That might have a deterrent effect on those young people and shape the way they approach drugs and driving. More effective than a few inches on a news site that the children probably don't read anyway.

    Or you could just bang on about longer punishment in prison.. .

    Is everybody who kills someone going to do this? Do they get free lunches? Will he spend any time in prison? Sounds like a job, not prison.

    We already have hard hitting advertisements about these kind of things that inevitably will be watched by more people than your idea and they don't work.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    HensVassal wrote: »
    He didn't intentionally set out to harm her so you can't call it murder.

    Manslaughtered.


  • Options
    #163
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Do they? I'd imagine they really want their child back. We don't allow family on the jury or decide on sentences because of lack of impartiality.



    You're worried about free lunches... strange question. Very strange considering this is part of the sentence so presumably they would be getting their food paid for in prison anyway. We'll imagine the prison make a packed lunch for him. What a trivial question...

    And In the imagined scenario, it was part of his sentence so imagine they visit one school a every 2 weeks.


    The advertisements wirk

    It's great that they work. Therefore we don't need this guy traipsing around.

    Here's a question. Let's say that this guy as accessed by a psychiatrist is found to be truely remorseful before the trial or during it. Should there be any punishment according to your "rehabilitation" philosophy?


  • Options
    #164
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,099 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Eugene Norman wrote:
    Yeh. The family want punishment.

    Do they? I'd imagine they really want their child back. We don't allow family on the jury or decide on sentences because of lack of impartiality
    Eugene Norman wrote:
    Is everybody who kills someone going to do this? Do they get free lunches? Will he spend any time in prison? Sounds like a job, not prison.

    You're worried about free lunches... strange question. Very strange considering this is part of the sentence so presumably they would be getting their food paid for in prison anyway. We'll imagine the prison make a packed lunch for him. What a trivial question...

    And In the imagined scenario, it was part of his sentence so imagine they visit one school a every 2 weeks.
    Eugene Norman wrote:
    We already have hard hitting advertisements about these kind of things that inevitably will be watched by more people than your idea and they don't work.

    The advertisements work, don't they? Speed kills, smoking kills etc. Why on earth do you think it would be better to simply increase his sentence and never have the children know about it?

    This would be better than an advertisement in tv. His would be a real person telling their story and answering questions about how their life is now ruined and they have to live with the fact that the killed a child because they were driving whilst on drugs.

    Your point sounds like a general point against education. That might explain some things alright.


  • Options
    #165
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,099 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    I hit 'post' by accident earlier. Full post above.
    Eugene Norman wrote:
    Here's a question. Let's say that this guy as accessed by a psychiatrist is found to be truely remorseful before the trial or during it. Should there be any punishment according to your "rehabilitation" philosophy?

    Yes. Obviously.
    Eugene Norman wrote:
    It's great that they work. Therefore we don't need this guy traipsing around.

    It works, so DON'T do more of it and don't do it better? This is a very strange attitude.

    Is your main goal to punish offenders or prevent this type of tragedy from happening in the first place?


  • Options
    #166
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Your point sounds like a general point against education. That might explain some things alright.

    Id take that ad hominem more seriously if you had managed to edit your previous post to include it rather than repost.

    I've got a masters in physics. As it happens.

    Can you answer my rehabilitation question? What happens if somebody is genuinely contrite before imprisonment?


  • Options
    #167
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,099 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Eugene Norman wrote:
    Id take that ad hominem more seriously if you had managed to edit your previous post to include it rather than repost.

    Explanation is above. I hit post by accident. It's easily done on the phone app.
    Eugene Norman wrote:
    I've got a masters in physics. As it happens.

    Eugene Norman wrote:
    Can you answer my rehabilitation question?

    Not a masters in English clearly.

    This is the answer from my last post. You asked if there should be punishment if they are found to be remorseful. I answered:
    El_Duderino 09 wrote:
    Yes. Obviously.


  • Options
    #168
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,099 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Well Brian Cox, since I answered your question, would you be so kind as to answer this question please?
    El_Duderino 09 wrote:
    Is your main goal to punish offenders or prevent this type of tragedy from happening in the first place?


  • Options
    #169
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 29,014 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Eugene Norman wrote: »
    The us system isn't really privatised and while some of it is over severe, jailing drivers under the influence who kill is not.

    is it true that some of it is privatised or part privatised? heard it mentioned before. disturbing if it is


  • Options
    #170
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,099 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Wanderer78 wrote:
    is it true that some of it is privatised or part privatised? heard it mentioned before. disturbing if it is

    The prison system is privatised but not the justice system. That's a government job. Moat of the prisons in the UK are run by private companies like G4S. Some judges are elected in the US which i think brings some clear complications such as they are looking for votes from the 'cave their head in' types.


  • Options
    #171
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 29,014 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    The prison system is privatised but not the justice system. That's a government job. Moat of the prisons in the UK are run by private companies like G4S. Some judges are elected in the US which i think brings some clear complications such as they are looking for votes from the 'cave their head in' types.

    i dont like the idea of a private prison system at all


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »


    Not a masters in English clearly.

    This is the answer from my last post. You asked if there should be punishment if they are found to be remorseful. I answered:

    I clearly answered the post before that in the post you are quoting. Your post crossed, although since you deleted a post that's now hidden

    More argument to sneers. Try argue the point

    Ok so we agree that remorse is not enough obviously. However if you believe that rehabilitation is a main pillar of justice or that no sentence "brings the child back" then why any sentence at all for someone already rehabilitated by remorse. At trial?

    I'm an empiricist not a virtue signaller so let's ask you what what level you would question the sentence?

    Would you be uncomfortable with.

    1) 1 year or less.
    2) 2 years
    3) 3 years
    4) 4 years.

    We know you're happy with 5 years. Just wondering where you might draw the line?


  • Options
    #173
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    The prison system is privatised but not the justice system. That's a government job. Moat of the prisons in the UK are run by private companies like G4S. Some judges are elected in the US which i think brings some clear complications such as they are looking for votes from the 'cave their head in' types.

    Most being 15%.


  • Options
    #174
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,099 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Eugene Norman wrote:
    I clearly answered the post before that in the post you are quoting. Your post crossed, although since you deleted a post that's now hidden

    What are you an about? I deleted my post which came before the question.
    Eugene Norman wrote:
    More argument to sneers. Try argue the point

    What point? You asked a trivial question.
    Eugene Norman wrote:
    Ok so we agree that remorse is not enough obviously. However if you believe that rehabilitation is a main pillar of justice or that no sentence "brings the child back" then why any sentence at all for someone already rehabilitated by remorse. At trial?

    Rehabilitation is one of the pillars. I just think it's totally ignored by imprisonment. Do you mind if I don't play along with your strawman argument? It's just not constructive.
    Eugene Norman wrote:
    Would you be uncomfortable with.

    Is this just prison time? If it's under the current, useless syste, then whatever is in line with precedent. It's just warehousing the criminal so I don't think it really matters. It's just tokenism and making the public feel safe, even if they aren't doing he work to actually make the public safe. 5 years for X crime, longer if it is premeditate, shorter if it has mitigating circumstances... Tokens.

    The current system doesn't work very well so I'm not the one to ask.
    Eugene Norman wrote:
    We know you're happy with 5 years. Just wondering where you might draw the line?

    I think the prison part is only one pillar, but it's bearing all the load. It's a stupid system.
    Eugene Norman wrote:
    Most being 15%.

    You're right. The plans to expand privatisation were abandoned. Thanks for that, Prof.


  • Options
    #175
    poa
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 541 ✭✭✭poa


    If I had done this I would voluntarily offer to shoot myself dead to the mother of the child.
    I know the bleeding heart liberals won't agree with my opinion but when the justice system fails a mother so badly; the yes, there is a time for bringing the law into one's hands.
    In the North joyriders were kneecapped or given 24 hours notice to leave town.
    I think shooting someone that does this is justified.
    Some men just cannot be rehabilitated or corrected with prison.
    I have always said it, if anyone took the life of my child I would take theirs and do the time for it no problem.


  • Options
    #176
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    poa wrote: »
    If I had done this I would voluntarily offer to shoot myself dead to the mother of the child.

    So...hypothetically...you can see yourself driving under the influence?


  • Options
    #177
    poa
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 541 ✭✭✭poa


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So...hypothetically...you can see yourself driving under the influence?

    Before making smart comments have a read of my other posts.
    I was done for drink driving 16 years ago.
    Hypothetically? No. Reality? Yes.


  • Options
    #178
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    Putin wrote: »
    Imo, 15 years in jail would still be too lenient for the c**t.

    True, all I can think of is the poor parents of the dead child. Then again no prison sentence will bring the poor child back.


  • Options
    #179
    FizzleSticks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,172 ✭✭✭FizzleSticks


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #180
    wokingvoter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 828 ✭✭✭wokingvoter


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    So...hypothetically...you can see yourself driving under the influence?

    No I don't think that's the point. This poster is putting himself in the position of a man who, now sober, has been informed that while he was drunk and high he drove a car and knocked down and killed a baby, because he made a desicion to get drunk and high, rendering him unfit to realise that he shouldn't be in charge of a car.
    The poster is saying that this would invoke a sense of self loathing, combined with such deep remorse, that would culminate in his wanting to end his own existence in order to deliver some justice to the parents of the baby
    It's called having a conscience
    This Lane mans reaction is to bemoan the fact that his family are the subject of some ire, and it seems now he won't be going to college after all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,465 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    I just hope that every time he closes his eyes or lies down in bed at night, he sees the face of the little girl he killed, and the faces of her weeping parents.

    Don't know how anyone could live with themselves after that.


Advertisement