Ana Kriegel - Boys A & B found guilty [Mod: Do NOT post identifying information]

KWAG2019 · 12-11-2019 10:43pm

tuxy wrote: »

Eight and a half pages written in very basic English.

Calhoun · 12-11-2019 11:12pm

banie01 wrote: »

You may want to fix your link. Actually never mind I did it for you.
https://www2.gov.scot/resource/doc/925/0063072.pdf

That you think that sociological theory abstract running to 11 pages is heavy going, or that what you linked to is actually research is, to use a turn of phrase of yours "quite illuminating"

It's not research, its a glossary of terms and theories associated with domestic violence.

I don't think somebody caught by a click bait article from the Irish Times has the mental capacity to see past their own confirmation bias.

If you engage in these type of politics that are designed to divide don't hope that there will ever be a solution or things will get better. We only have to look at the mess that is America right now to see the results of the polarization in politics.

KWAG2019 · 12-11-2019 11:33pm

Calhoun wrote: »

I don't think somebody caught by a click bait article from the Irish Times has the mental capacity to see past their own confirmation bias.

If you engage in these type of politics that are designed to divide don't hope that there will ever be a solution or things will get better. We only have to look at the mess that is America right now to see the results of the polarization in politics.

It is illuminating to see the highly emotional and personalized responses. I’m not sure why people feel so threatened. I drew attention to the article as a theoretical overview. It is academic and references other works. I’m glad some posters find it accessible, it’s actually a compliment to the authors. It shows the importance of how theoretical stance can inform policy and impact practice in people’s lives.

mrjoneill · 12-11-2019 11:38pm

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

You are totally confused regarding the difference between sentence and review.

Sentence for A was Life

Sentence for B was 15 years

Review for A is 12 years

Review for B is 8 years.

No matter how you juggle it, Boy A got the harsher sentence.

My reading of it is both beast were convicted of murder but under the Children's Act the customary mandatory life sentence does not apply rather the trial judge determines the sentence. In this case beast A, has got a conditional life sentence which will be determined after 12yrs. So in effect it cant be said for certain that this beast will get a life sentence. Should the review decide he has served his time he could well walk out of the court free without any legal restraining constraint of "licence" associated with a life sentence. The only restraint he has for certain is he is on the Sex Offenders registrar.

tuxy · 12-11-2019 11:48pm

mrjoneill wrote: »

My reading of it is both beast were convicted of murder but under the Children's Act the customary mandatory life sentence does not apply rather the trial judge determines the sentence. In this case beast A, has got a conditional life sentence which will be determined after 12yrs. So in effect it cant be said for certain that this beast will get a life sentence. Should the review decide he has served his time he could well walk out of the court free without any legal restraining constraint of "licence" associated with a life sentence. The only restraint he has for certain is he is on the Sex Offenders registrar.

My understanding is that Boy A has received a life sentence which normally does come with a recommended review date. That does not mean they will be reviewing if the life sentence sticks but that is the earliest date they will start to consider his release on licence.

banie01 · 12-11-2019 11:49pm

Calhoun wrote: »

I don't think somebody caught by a click bait article from the Irish Times has the mental capacity to see past their own confirmation bias.

If you engage in these type of politics that are designed to divide don't hope that there will ever be a solution or things will get better. We only have to look at the mess that is America right now to see the results of the polarization in politics.

See Cal, now you are just being knee jerk and emotional!
Luckily our resident SJW Muldoon lover has read some "heavy" research and your posts just illuminate the issue and highlight how many feathers have been ruffled by the penis possessors.

pinkyeye · 12-11-2019 11:54pm

Will people PLEASE stop comparing these boys to animals.

Animals do not kill for pleasure or perversion.

Spanish Eyes · 12-11-2019 11:57pm

I often think about the parents.

They are not without blame, for obvious reasons. Just saying that good parenting has a lot of responsibilities.

johnnyskeleton · 12-11-2019 11:59pm

KWAG2019 wrote: »

I see no evidence here from you to overturn her article. A lot of agitation certainly. I’ll pass this on to her so she can see if it’s worth a follow up.

Approximately 10 women are killed each year. Assuming all were murdered (as opposed to manslaughter), the perpetrator was always male and its always a unique perpetrator (i.e. not one man killing three of the women), all of which assumptions would favour her hypothesis that the problem is men murder women (rather than murderers murder people), then that is approximately 10 murders per 1.8m odd men.

Or 0.000005% chance that a man kills a woman in any given year.

Or, this year ten men killed a woman and 1,799,990 men did not.

Based on that, it seems only fair that we should implicitly excuse these individual murderers, because the other 1,799,990 are the real problem.

I mean, while we are in silly land, why dont we just say humanity is the real problem and be done with it?

Calhoun · 13-11-2019 12:11am

KWAG2019 wrote: »

It is illuminating to see the highly emotional and personalized responses. I’m not sure why people feel so threatened. I drew attention to the article as a theoretical overview. It is academic and references other works. I’m glad some posters find it accessible, it’s actually a compliment to the authors. It shows the importance of how theoretical stance can inform policy and impact practice in people’s lives.

Its illuminating to see how easily people are taken in by these type of articles which are designed to basically divide people and opinion. Its very much a copy and paste of what goes on allot of the time across the pond.

The fact that anyone gives credibility to an article that generalizes half the population of this country and is written as an opinion piece is quite scary.

I wonder what social policy you would put in place to take men and boys to task?

donkeykong5 · 13-11-2019 12:19am

pinkyeye wrote: »

Will people PLEASE stop comparing these boys to animals.

Animals do not kill for pleasure or perversion.

Well said .

KWAG2019 · 13-11-2019 12:26am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Approximately 10 women are killed each year. Assuming all were murdered (as opposed to manslaughter), the perpetrator was always male and its always a unique perpetrator (i.e. not one man killing three of the women), all of which assumptions would favour her hypothesis that the problem is men murder women (rather than murderers murder people), then that is approximately 10 murders per 1.8m odd men.

Or 0.000005% chance that a man kills a woman in any given year.

Or, this year ten men killed a woman and 1,799,990 men did not.

Based on that, it seems only fair that we should implicitly excuse these individual murderers, because the other 1,799,990 are the real problem.

I mean, while we are in silly land, why dont we just say humanity is the real problem and be done with it?

Statistics have more to say: some 70%+ of homicide victims world wide are male. Some 96% of perpetrators are make. What I like about Muldoon’s article is she calls a spade a spade. Ana was murdered because she was a girl. Only a fool could state otherwise. There was more to it certainly but ignoring her gender is just ridiculous.

Where Muldoon goes with it what has rattled cages; she refuses to accept that it’s simply a case of saying these two are extraordinary exceptions and that there’s a bigger problem. You can say 10 women a year isn’t a big problem: well that’s a point of view if a tad dismissive of 10 lives. You can look at the 19,000 cases of domestic violence as another sign of the bigger problem. Alternatively others here have pointed out the unique nature of the case in the age of the perpetrators: that too is a theoretical framing but one which ignores gender. Why ignore it. As an amusement to myself and a trigger to others I might say that an intersectional interpretation has something to be said for it.

We are all looking for solutions. Addressing male violence to females is needed. Why aren’t more males violent toward women and men? Is there a cultural message we pick up and others don’t? What messages do males pick up about violence and it’s uses? These are important questions. It’s not easy to ask them. Turn off the outrage that someone dared ask.

KWAG2019 · 13-11-2019 12:38am

Calhoun wrote: »

I wonder what social policy you would put in place to take men and boys to task?

A real question at last. What do we want to achieve? A reduction in levels of violence from men toward women.

Does that mean we also have to look at levels of violence of men toward men?

“Taking to task” is a poor phrase by Muldoon. It’s too limited and gets certain backs up. What policies do we always recommend to limit damage from mass shootings? Limit access to weapons and stores of ammo. That is a type of taking to task.

Other social policies will be based on the theoretical framework you put in place around the problem. If only someone had offered a link to an article written in accessible English offering an overview to a general audience.

Beyond that I think it needs major educational work and support across society.

Calhoun · 13-11-2019 12:39am

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Statistics have more to say: some 70%+ of homicide victims world wide are male. Some 96% of perpetrators are make. What I like about Muldoon’s article is she calls a spade a spade. Ana was murdered because she was a girl. Only a fool could state otherwise. There was more to it certainly but ignoring her gender is just ridiculous.

Where Muldoon goes with it what has rattled cages; she refuses to accept that it’s simply a case of saying these two are extraordinary exceptions and that there’s a bigger problem. You can say 10 women a year isn’t a big problem: well that’s a point of view if a tad dismissive of 10 lives. You can look at the 19,000 cases of domestic violence as another sign of the bigger problem. Alternatively others here have pointed out the unique nature of the case in the age of the perpetrators: that too is a theoretical framing but one which ignores gender. Why ignore it. As an amusement to myself and a trigger to others I might say that an intersectional interpretation has something to be said for it.

We are all looking for solutions. Addressing male violence to females is needed. Why aren’t more males violent toward women and men? Is there a cultural message we pick up and others don’t? What messages do males pick up about violence and it’s uses? These are important questions. It’s not easy to ask them. Turn off the outrage that someone dared ask.

Who is looking for solutions? Should we not try and stop violence towards all or is it only when its male violence on female that there is an issue?

As a male who is in the know what lesson's can you tell the rest of us heathens.

No one is outraged that you dare ask questions, if anything just pointing out the gullibility of people who reads too much into such an article. The fact its triggering you into a position where you are trying to insinuate that people are overly emotional in order to discount their views says allot.

If we want to look into this with any credibility we have to look at the role the sexes play in society overall.

mrjoneill · 13-11-2019 12:42am

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

I’d imagine so.
But I’d also say it’s true. A knows well had B just did what he did and kept his mouth shut it would have been a much harder case. That Newstalk podcast with the 3 journalists all said B literally hung himself and had he’d been no comment all the way through, there’s no way he would have been convicted. Fancied himself able to pull on over the police though.
It’s still mad he got more than A but well deserved.

=========================================

Not true, beast A parents initiated their own complaint over an alleged assault on him. That's how the boots got into Garda custody. Ana's DNA was determined from the blood stains on his boots. Beast A DNA was found on Ana's body so he would have been linked by this too. Gardai would have tied in the two issues as they happened same evening same place. As for beast B while its stated he convicted himself I don't see it that way. Beast B was led through his evidence on a timeline and video evidence determined from CCTV. He repeatedly lied and lied till he was brought back into the frame through CCTV. Evidence was also given at his trial of him calling for Ana and he leading her through the park and there was also a timeline of him returning just prior to beast A. There was no forensics linking beast B to the crime scene. What beast B was convicted of was he aided & abetted in the crime. Ana's father identification + CCTV of him with Ana put him squarely in the picture. It would seem that both beast had concocted a similar story of beast A wanting to tell Ana he wasn't interested in her and beast B being just the facilitator in that, What the interview video showed was beast B is a consummate liar and anything he was to say should be taken in that context. For him going repeatedly "no comment" in video evidence being put to the jury, this would not have done him any favors either rather it would convinced them he was in the conspiracy why else would he be refusing to cooperate.

Calhoun · 13-11-2019 12:43am

KWAG2019 wrote: »

A real question at last. What do we want to achieve? A reduction in levels of violence from men toward women.

Does that mean we also have to look at levels of violence of men toward men?

“Taking to task” is a poor phrase by Muldoon. It’s too limited and gets certain backs up. What policies do we always recommend to limit damage from mass shootings? Limit access to weapons and stores of ammo. That is a type of taking to task.

Other social policies will be based on the theoretical framework you put in place around the problem. If only someone had offered a link to an article written in accessible English offering an overview to a general audience.

Beyond that I think it needs major educational work and support across society.

Who is the we you are speaking about?

So we limit access to women or men in society so they wont have a the ability to be violent?

What theoretical frameworks should we target? Should it be all men or do we limit by certain religious or minorities? I have a certain religion in mind that is fairly violent and is a patriarchal society, i think applying these generalization to it also might work.

mrjoneill · 13-11-2019 1:01am

tuxy wrote: »

My understanding is that Boy A has received a life sentence which normally does come with a recommended review date. That does not mean they will be reviewing if the life sentence sticks but that is the earliest date they will start to consider his release on licence.

"A judge in the central criminal court in Dublin on Tuesday sentenced one boy to life in detention, with the sentence to be reviewed after 12 years. The other received 15 years, with the sentence to be reviewed after eight years."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/05/teenagers-sentenced-for-of-irish-14-year-old-ana-kriegel

I find it too innocent to call any of these monsters "Boy". I associate such with schoolboy, choirboy etc all with innocence.

I believe A sentence can be determined in its full context by looking at B sentence. B has got a conditional 15yrs to be reviewed after 8yrs. Should the review be satisfactory after 8yr he could walk away without further restrictions. Similarly for A if the review is satisfactory after 12yrs he could walk away too with the only restrictions being the Sex Offenders Registrar.

tuxy · 13-11-2019 1:06am

mrjoneill wrote: »

"A judge in the central criminal court in Dublin on Tuesday sentenced one boy to life in detention, with the sentence to be reviewed after 12 years. The other received 15 years, with the sentence to be reviewed after eight years."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/05/teenagers-sentenced-for-of-irish-14-year-old-ana-kriegel

I find it too innocent to call any of these monsters "Boy". I associate such with schoolboy, choirboy etc all with innocence.

I believe A sentence can be determined in its full context by looking at B sentence. B has got a conditional 15yrs to be reviewed after 8yrs. Should the review be satisfactory after 8yr he could walk away without further restrictions. Similarly for A if the review is satisfactory after 12yrs he could walk away too with the only restrictions being the Sex Offenders Registrar.

I see nothing there about the life verdict being removed. In every other life sentence including one of a minor (Darren Goodwin) review means review for release on licence is considered for the first time at that point. Reviews for life cases usually take 2 - 3 years by the way. There must be a review process with life sentences as there is no fixed date on incarceration.

KWAG2019 · 13-11-2019 1:07am

Calhoun wrote: »

Who is the we you are speaking about?

So we limit access to women or men in society so they wont have a the ability to be violent?

What theoretical frameworks should we target? Should it be all men or do we limit by certain religious or minorities? I have a certain religion in mind that is fairly violent and is a patriarchal society, i think applying these generalization to it also might work.

The we is every reasonable person of course.

Solutions have to be practical.

The theoretical framework is a big choice because lots flow from it: do you think individualistic or social etc etc.

We are talking Society so religion to my mind is irrelevant and harm reduction measures apply to all.

Calhoun · 13-11-2019 1:10am

KWAG2019 wrote: »

The we is every reasonable person of course.

Solutions have to be practical.

The theoretical framework is a big choice because lots flow from it: do you think individualistic or social etc etc.

We are talking Society so religion to my mind is irrelevant and harm reduction measures apply to all.

You decide who is being reasonable and not being reasonable?

What theoretical framework would you want to see in place? Social policy would be influenced from this would it not?

So your OK with tackling minority cultures still stuck in the past and forcing them to abide by whatever system you deem to put in place?

Is there a specific answer you could actually give me or are we going to keep doing this dance?

mrjoneill · 13-11-2019 1:17am

banie01 wrote: »

Are you seriously insinuating that we install police men in our schools?

The police presence in US schools is indicative of societal failure.
It's the most imprisoned population in the world, yet still incredibly violent.
Indeed the move from any police presence from being one of "Protectors" of the peace, to being active enforcers is something that is completely contrary to what our Gardaí are designed and indeed legislated to be.

Moving towards enforcing a modicum of societal norms by threat of force or police sanction is frankly ridiculous.

All I'm stating is a fact. But I have observed so many trends that start out in the US end up with Western Europe following.

Calhoun · 13-11-2019 1:19am

mrjoneill wrote: »

All I'm stating is a fact. But I have observed so many trends that start out in the US end up with Western Europe following.

It has worked out well for them over there, hardly any crime in the US. Especially violent crime :pac::pac::pac:

KWAG2019 · 13-11-2019 1:20am

Calhoun wrote: »

You decide who is being reasonable and not being reasonable?

What theoretical framework would you want to see in place? Social policy would be influenced from this would it not?

So your OK with tackling minority cultures still stuck in the past and forcing them to abide by whatever system you deem to put in place?

Is there a specific answer you could actually give me or are we going to keep doing this dance?

We can all tell people who are being unreasonable.
I haven’t decided. I already told you it would.
No. This is a decision for society obviously. That’s obvious to reasonable people.
I have no problem with irrational religious beliefs playing second fiddle to reason in the organisation of the common good.
We’re not dancing. We’re typing on a forum. I have no specific solution in mind: I’m simply contributing to a discussion around that.

mrjoneill · 13-11-2019 1:23am

tuxy wrote: »

I see nothing there about the life verdict being removed. In every other life sentence including one of a minor (Darren Goodwin) review means review for release on licence is considered for the first time at that point. Reviews for life cases usually take 2 - 3 years by the way. There must be a review process with life sentences as there is no fixed date on incarceration.

Its not clear to me Goodwin's release is on licence.
"A 26-year-old Laois man jailed for life as a teenager for hammering a boy to death will be released in less than two years, after his trial judge reviewed his sentence."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-26-jailed-for-life-as-a-teenager-for-hammering-boy-to-death-to-be-released-in-less-than-two-years-30580270.html

Calhoun · 13-11-2019 1:26am

KWAG2019 wrote: »

We can all tell people who are being unreasonable.
I haven’t decided. I already told you it would.
No. This is a decision for society obviously. That’s obvious to reasonable people.
I have no problem with irrational religious beliefs playing second fiddle to reason in the organisation of the common good.
We’re not dancing. We’re typing on a forum. I have no specific solution in mind: I’m simply contributing to a discussion around that.

Indeed we can also tell the trolls.

You don't have to decide to give us a general idea of where you fall on this one.

What would you do if your changes were looked upon as discrimination against a certain religion or minority group and it sparked more violence?

Oh we are dancing, you trying to avoid answering anything with real substance and me trying to tease out what your saying. I suppose you have to wait for Orla to publish her next article to tell me what you think.

tuxy · 13-11-2019 1:26am

mrjoneill wrote: »

Its not clear to me Goodwin's release is on licence.
"A 26-year-old Laois man jailed for life as a teenager for hammering a boy to death will be released in less than two years, after his trial judge reviewed his sentence."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-26-jailed-for-life-as-a-teenager-for-hammering-boy-to-death-to-be-released-in-less-than-two-years-30580270.html

https://www.leinsterexpress.ie/news/news/250233/strict-regime-for-killer-of-mountmellick-teenager.html

Sorry about the paywall, this is the important bit

“My hopes, rather than my expectations, were that Darren Goodwin would get a sentence to reflect his crime,” she said. “He hit Darragh once with a hammer from behind and then five times more as he lay on the ground. This was a sustained attack. ... While Mr Goodwin has served his sentence, he is released under licence.

KWAG2019 · 13-11-2019 1:33am

Calhoun wrote: »

Indeed we can also tell the trolls.

You don't have to decide to give us a general idea of where you fall on this one.

What would you do if your changes were looked upon as discrimination against a certain religion or minority group and it sparked more violence?

Oh we are dancing, you trying to avoid answering anything with real substance and me trying to tease out what your saying. I suppose you have to wait for Orla to publish her next article to tell me what you think.

Oh I certainly can.
I know.
If a religion claimed its religion gave it the right to over rule the law of the land you enforce the law.
No we are typing. My answers are very clear. This is a discussion. I haven’t arrived with any ready made solutions. I’m reading what others write and contributing. It’s a pity you collapse back into personalized jibes when your emotions get the better of you.

mrjoneill · 13-11-2019 1:38am

Calhoun wrote: »

It has worked out well for them over there, hardly any crime in the US. Especially violent crime :pac::pac::pac:

And what is the trend in Ireland? Going back 20yrs ago murder was very rare, and even 10yrs ago it was also relatively rare. Its not today. There is a murder every day or second day in Ireland. There has been an outpouring of school bullying reportings in recent weeks and school totally failing to deal with the issues as a lot of the time the bullying is online which the school has not the capacity to police. Drugs have become common in schools and most children get their first introduction to drugs in schools. Gangs are becoming more a problem in our schools mimicking the same as US schools. More and more schools are coming under state control, becoming secular loosing their religious controls as happened in the US. More and more the question is being asked in Ireland what is the role of teachers, is it educators or is it policing the classroom and schools and the internet in regards it student population.

mrjoneill · 13-11-2019 1:47am

tuxy wrote: »

https://www.leinsterexpress.ie/news/news/250233/strict-regime-for-killer-of-mountmellick-teenager.html

Sorry about the paywall, this is the important bit

Ok see that now in respect of Goodwin but it appears to me it was the trial judge's review that reaffirmed it. So it was not set in stone at the trial

At sentencing the trial judge stated.

"He had said the correct sentence for the ‘pre-meditated, brutal, callous murder’ was life imprisonment, but said that he would review it in a decade.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-26-jailed-for-life-as-a-teenager-for-hammering-boy-to-death-to-be-released-in-less-than-two-years-30580270.html

tuxy · 13-11-2019 1:53am

mrjoneill wrote: »

Ok see that now in respect of Goodwin but it appears to me it was the trial judge's review that reaffirmed it. So it was not set in stone at the trial

At sentencing the trial judge stated.

"He had said the correct sentence for the ‘pre-meditated, brutal, callous murder’ was life imprisonment, but said that he would review it in a decade.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-26-jailed-for-life-as-a-teenager-for-hammering-boy-to-death-to-be-released-in-less-than-two-years-30580270.html

So are you saying the Judge in this case said the same?

Ana Kriegel - Boys A & B found guilty [Mod: Do NOT post identifying information]

Comments