Kerry footballers smash someone's head in. €400 fine.

Some neck to bribe someone in court in front of the judge, WTF

That should be another charge brought against them.

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Some neck to bribe someone in court in front of the judge, WTF

That should be another charge brought against them.

I dont think any bribe was made in front of a judge. :pac:

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

They have been punished they have been named and shamed - going back to the Shane Horgan incident in 1999 the information is there forever now. It will be the same with these Kerry lads in twenty year time.

In this case they gave 5000 euro in settlement. They were fined 400 euro.
If the two lads were involved in such an incident again the consequences would be more severe. That is how the law works.

Much as I would like aspects of Islamic law implemented such as amputation for certain crimes. That is not how the common law system of jurisprudence works.

OK you would say throw them in jail for how long? It costs the state a lot of money and takes up space where other more serious crimes need the jail space.

What are you on about? No one mentioned Islamic law? Now who is being hyperbolic.

If you viciously assault someone you should be in prison for at least a year sentence. Its a worthy punishment in my eyes.

I know how the law works and I am aware of the costs involved, I just believe these criminals should be more severely punished. Im not saying we sentence them to death. Get a grip.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It is not a bribe it is compensation - a form of settlement and a demonstration of their remorse. The defendants did not have to do it. But chose to.

Yes, its a common occurrence, its up to the judge whether to take it into consideration

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No meant amputation as it is the rule for many crimes in Islamic law.

You have yet to mention what punishment you would have given the two lads as a judge based on the facts at issue.
Plus they showed remorse no previous convictions mentioned, and offered the plaintiff 5k by way of compensation.

You claim that the defendants should be punished. But you have yet to state what you would consider punishment?

I think the defendants have been punished - ie they are named the information is now there on the internet forever. They offered 5k to the plaintiff off their own bat. Based on the facts and their response I think is all very reasonable.

A one year sentence.

Remorse is subjective and its hard to determine whats genuine.

I dont think they were punished enough.

KevRossi wrote: »

You can bet your last fiver that if they were from a rough part of Killarney or Tralee with no talent at sport and were working in Tesco or some pub, that they'd be waking up in prison this morning. Maybe for only 2 or 3 months, but they would go down for that. The victim is well known locally and it was utterly unprovoked.

If the judge did imprison those lads he'd have hell to play for with Kerry neighbours and friends over the next few months as the business end of the GAA season is starting now.

So that sounds like a fair point, but tomorrow I'm going to open boards.ie and read a thread where some lad who has 400 previous convictions gets a suspended sentence for assaulting someone. "Because he's from a hard background, and had issues with drugs" his lawyer argues. The judge doesn't really accept it as a valid excuse but gives a sentence that avoids jail time. Cue the outrage about lenient judges.

So is there actually a bias in the system, or is it actually moreso a case of anyone could avoid jail depending on a whole host of circumstances that are never really discussed. I have no data to backup the rate of jail sentences for similar crimes for people with different backgrounds so I can't argue one way or the other but I feel like it's not as black and white as you are suggesting here.

beakerjoe wrote: »

Whats "draconian" about wanting a prison sentence for a vicious assault?

Seriously?

You don't seem to get it do you? No previous convictions' plus you are disproportionately affecting a defendant for the rest of his/her life. You are creating a criminal rather than potentially preventing one immediately.

Also the charge was 'assault causing harm' not serious assault - otherwise it would be classed an an 'serious assult causing serious harm' s4.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/section/4/enacted/en/html#sec4



If you were a judge you would fine very quickly that you would be running out of portional responses if your answer is one years jail for assault no previous convictions.

The lads were charged under s3 and these were the judges two options based on the facts

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/section/3/enacted/en/html#sec3

The judge chose 3.2 (b) based on the defendants responses and history.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

You don't seem to get it do you? No previous convictions' plus you are disproportionately affecting a defendant for the rest of his/her life. You are creating a criminal rather than potentially preventing one immediately.

Also the charge was 'assault causing harm' not serious assault - otherwise it would be classed an an 'serious assult causing serious harm' s4.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/section/4/enacted/en/html#sec4



If you were a judge you would fine very quickly that you would be running out of portional responses if your answer is one years jail for assault no previous convictions.

Creating a criminal? They are a criminal due to their own actions? They attacked someone, they are responsible? Once that act occurs they are a criminal. (once convicted).

Its an unprovoked assault, the mindset of the accused in this scenario is criminal.

If you are vicuouslly assaulted by 2 thugs for no reason, your happy for them to walk free? Get real. Stop making excuses for lowlifes.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The lads were charged under s3 and these were the judges two options based on the facts

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1...d/en/html#sec3

The judge chose 23 (b) based on the defendants responses and history.

No previous convictions and offer of compensation.

The judge applied the law as he saw fit.

Your approach seems to be very sensationalist and tabloidesque without taking facts into account 'no previous convictions 5k offer etc'. Also what potential impact it could have on the defendants if they were convicted. That is how the law works. It deals in gradients based on the case at issue and the history of perpetrators if any. If the defendants were serial offenders the verdict would have been much harsher. Ie - 'known to gardai' and so on.

Im not saying they should get 10 years, Im saying 1 year.

The victim has to live the the assault and the effects to the unproked assault will most likley be with him the rest of his life, through no fault of his own.

IMO, they got off lightly. You clearly are soft on crime and thats fine, its your opinion, but I disagree.

If there were tougher punishments, it may deter others.

noc1980 wrote: »

The victim has been taunted on the street by GAA cultists for pressing charges.

Where have you seen this?

Majority of people I've seen online have condemned their actions, not taunted the victim. And I havent heard of it happening around town either. Dan would be a hugely popular and likeable chap, a friends with everyone type of character so people wouldn't allow him to be taunted by anyone over this.

But if you could link me to something I'd happily stand corrected.

beakerjoe wrote: »

Im not saying they should get 10 years, Im saying 1 year.

The victim has to live the the assault and the effects to the unproked assault will most likley be with him the rest of his life, through no fault of his own.

IMO, they got off lightly. You clearly are soft on crime and thats fine, its your opinion, but I disagree.

If there were tougher punishments, it may deter others.

In section 3-2(b) there was the option for the judge to give 1 years imprisonment

3.—(1) A person who assaults another causing him or her harm shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.


But the judge chose to give a fine instead as he is entitled to.
As I assume as it was the defendants first offence. Plus the reaction of the defendants - 5k offer, remorse etc

I would agree with the judge in this instance. Because what would the point in jailing them be?

However, if they committed such an offence again I would expect the consequence to be more severe.

Also you comment that a year in prison may deter others - hardened criminals would view it as an occupational hazard. On those who are not hardened criminals and it was a one off a year in prison will only likely create a hardened criminal.

dobman88 wrote: »

Where have you seen this?

Majority of people I've seen online have condemned their actions, not taunted the victim. And I havent heard of it happening around town either. Dan would be a hugely popular and likeable chap, a friends with everyone type of character so people wouldn't allow him to be taunted by anyone over this.

But if you could link me to something I'd happily stand corrected.

It was reported in the victim impact statement

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40319180.html%3ftype=amp

“Every time I’m out, I get taunted. People would say sly remarks or comment about ruining the three men’s lives and how could I live with myself doing so.

“I know they are well-known footballers, but I’m someone too. I’m someone’s son, brother, father and I so desperately want my life back,” he said.

tritium wrote: »

It was reported in the victim impact statement

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40319180.html%3ftype=amp

Fair enough. I missed that. Anyone doing that needs to take a really hard look at themselves. I cannot stress enough how nice this man is. The only life that's had a negative impact is his own. The other lads have created the problem themselves.

Genuinely cant believe people act like that, taunting a victim. Paidi O Se was right, a pack of animals.

I assume now convictions have been handed down, the victim has the option to bring a civil suit for personal injuries sustained, the €5k donation and absurd €400 fine will seem like small change

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The lads were charged under s3 and these were the judges two options based on the facts

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1...d/en/html#sec3

The judge chose 23 (b) based on the defendants responses and history.

No previous convictions and offer of compensation.

The judge applied the law as he saw fit.

Your approach seems to be very sensationalist and tabloidesque without taking facts into account 'no previous convictions 5k offer etc'. Also what potential impact it could have on the defendants if they were convicted. That is how the law works. It deals in gradients based on the case at issue and the history of perpetrators if any. If the defendants were serial offenders the verdict would have been much harsher. Ie - 'known to gardai' and so on.

Who cares about no previous convictions you keep banging that drum. There are serial killers who had no previous convictions. The sentence should reflect the severity of the crime, and in this case they got off scot free. 5000 is a drop in the ocean to them, some GAA sympathiser principal will no doubt open their doors up to these lads and hand them a career for life, plus they still get to play for their county and for an organisation that seems to have no problem whatsoever having 2 criminals on its membership. Can you tell me where the punishment is there? A year in jail would have knocked the corners off them and they would no doubt be in tears if a genuine hard man picked a fight with them.
Meanwhile the man they assaulted will suffer mental trauma for years to come, no doubt exacerbated by this joke of a sentence.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Who cares about no previous convictions you keep banging that drum. There are serial killers who had no previous convictions. The sentence should reflect the severity of the crime, and in this case they got off scot free. 5000 is a drop in the ocean to them, some GAA sympathiser principal will no doubt open their doors up to these lads and hand them a career for life, plus they still get to play for their county and for an organisation that seems to have no problem whatsoever having 2 criminals on its membership. Can you tell me where the punishment is there? A year in jail would have knocked the corners off them and they would no doubt be in tears if a genuine hard man picked a fight with them.
Meanwhile the man they assaulted will suffer mental trauma for years to come, no doubt exacerbated by this joke of a sentence.

That is a bit hyperbolic don't you think? You have jumped from 'assault causing harm' to serial killers. No murder was committed here, nor was there even intent to kill.

The charge was 'assault causing harm' under s3 of the Non-Fatal Offences the Person Act. And the judge ruled within those parameters.

The way you are framing it is that it is close to murder. 'Criminals in their membership' you say. In the history of the GAA there have been many members of the association who who would have been classed as criminals both for murder right down to the criminal offence of drink driving, speeding and so on.

If the plaintiff is as traumatised as you claim or believe, civil action could be an alternative. You also seem to forget that the defendants will have to live with what they have done. A quick internet search and their names pop up. The community in which they live know what they have done.

beakerjoe wrote: »

IMO, they got off lightly. You clearly are soft on crime and thats fine, its your opinion, but I disagree.

If there were tougher punishments, it may deter others.

I am not soft on crime at all actually. But I would take each case as I find it based on the facts. If it happens again go up the gradients.

When I was younger I would of had the misguided 'lock them all up' approach they deserve it. Life is not like that there is more nuance to it and a lot more variables and consequences and future consequences that have to be factored in.

The fact is each case depends on:

1) The facts
2) The judge interpreting the facts based on the law
3) The defendants history and background

Back over 150 years ago a person could have got hard labour or few lashes for minimal offences,

Maybe some people would prefer that instead of jail or fines. But fortunately or unfortunately that is not how the system is set up.

He hasnt, he is the victim and IMO, the lads got a slap on the wrist. Its unfair.

That assault could have had more serious consequences for the victim and not enough has been done to punish these two crinimals.

They dont deserve to be involved with the GAA. These people are no rolemodels.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That is a bit hyperbolic don't you think? You have jumped from 'assault causing harm' to serial killers. No murder was committed here, nor was there even intent to kill.

The charge was 'assault causing harm' under s3 of the Non-Fatal Offences the Person Act. And the judge ruled within those parameters.

The way you are framing it is that it is close to murder. 'Criminals in their membership' you say. In the history of the GAA there have been many members of the association who who would have been classed as criminals both for murder right down to the criminal offence of drink driving, speeding and so on.

If the plaintiff is as traumatised as you claim or believe, civil action could be an alternative. You also seem to forget that the defendants will have to live with what they have done. A quick internet search and their names pop up. The community in which they live know what they have done.

You were repeating the fact that they had no previous convictions over and over again, to justify their pathetic sentence. There have been serial killers who were only caught on something minor who had no previous convictions, my point being previous behaviour is not relevant to the crime at hand. Which in this case was a shocking assault. As for your point of the victim, civil action is a matter for him .
Surely you dont dispute it was a savage attack and that the 2 criminals acted appallingly? Do you agree with their sentence and a fine of 5000?
As for having to live with it, do you really think they give a flying fcuk?? Anyone scummy enough to start laying into a complete stranger like a demented feral animal is not going to be the type of person who feels guilt or any type of introspective awareness. And they will 100% walk into teaching jobs given by a principal who also wont care about their past. You are very naive if you think this incident will bother them.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Surely you dont dispute it was a savage attack and that the 2 criminals acted appallingly? Do you agree with their sentence and a fine of 5000?
As for having to live with it, do you really think they give a flying fcuk?? Anyone scummy enough to start laying into a complete stranger like a demented feral animal is not going to be the type of person who feels guilt or any type of introspective awareness. And they will 100% walk into teaching jobs given by a principal who also wont care about their past. You are very naive if you think this incident will bother them.

No I don't agree that 5000 was enough. But Mr McCarthy can take civil action to solve that in future if he wishes.

You are only assuming that the two Kerry lads (Ronan Buckley and Christopher O'Donoghue) felt no guilt - based on what exactly?
There was no mention of their demeanour in court, they pled guilty and offered 5k.

Everyone knows their names now Ronan Buckley and Christopher O'Donoghue it will always be known and it will follow them around in future.

The fella they attacked seems like a decent salt, but is it worth a year in prison?
What would it achieve? If I was the plaintiff I would much prefer money in a civil action. Jailing them would do nothing to solve anything, in fact it could make things worse in the long run.

Granadino wrote: »

An amateur athlete of all people should not be held up as a role model for anyone. No sports "star" should in any sport.

But sports stars are. Its a fact. Whether its a fan to Ronaldo or youth player looking to a senoir player at a GAA club. Its how it is.

These lads are potential role models if they end up being allowed to represent their club or county.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No I don't agree that 5000 was enough. But Mr McCarthy can take civil action to solve that in future if he wishes.

You are only assuming that the two Kerry lads (Ronan Buckley and Christopher O'Donoghue) felt no guilt - based on what exactly?
There was no mention of their demeanour in court, they pled guilty and offered 5k.

Everyone knows their names now Ronan Buckley and Christopher O'Donoghue it will always be known and it will follow them around in future.

The fella they attacked seems like a decent salt, but is it worth a year in prison?
What would it achieve? If I was the plaintiff I would much prefer money in a civil action. Jailing them would do nothing to solve anything, in fact it could make things worse in the long run.

If it was your own son who had his head kicked in, you would ditch your kid gloves attitude to crime in a second. They deserved jail as a punishment for what they did, its as simple as that. They got off scot free.

And as for your other repetitive argument about their names forever being searched for, how exactly does that hinder them? They will both get teaching jobs regardless of this assault. Google content is not going to hinder their career. Look at Michelle de Brun, a very successful barister now but google her name and you will read all sorts about her. The only 2 people who will have a reason to look them up on the internet are prospective employers and nosy people. Nosy people have no power and we have already established that they will get jobs in a school no problem. So how exactly does having a digital imprint of this conviction hinder them?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Everyone knows their names now Ronan Buckley and Christopher O'Donoghue it will always be known and it will follow them around in future.

You have brushed aside some posters views and comments as 'subjective' and assumptions as irrelevant.

However, your comments of "it will always be known and it will follow them around in future" is comical. You are implying and assuming that their actions will echo into the future (presumably) to have a negative effect on them. That is not guaranteed.

Your assumptions are no more relevant than anyone else's and you are being subjective, its a tad hypocritical.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The fella they attacked seems like a decent salt, but is it worth a year in prison?

Notwithstanding the Law and options the Judge had due to nature of the incident, many would like to have seen a harsher punishment.

Committing an act with the explicit intent to cause harm, especially when unprovoked is inexcusable.

A first offence, or rather first known offence (to be more precise) should not be a mitigating factor in sentencing, particularly a deliberate act such as an assault.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

What would it achieve?

A custodial sentence for unprovoked assault (first known offence or not) should act as a deterrent. If it was common knowledge that you are guaranteed to be jailed or heavily fined, people may think twice before committing the act.

At the moment, this case along with many others, just acts as a barometer for what you can reasonably be expected to get away with if you want to be a wanker.

"It was my first time (getting caught)" and "Here's a few quid as compensation" and showing remorse are not signs of a good character, which is what is implied and acted upon by way of leniency.

The "this will effect my future" defence is also a steaming pile of crap. If that thought wasn't good enough to stop them committing the assault, it certainly shouldn't be a factor in a reduced sentence.

The men already revealed their character, being good boys or being remorseful after the fact should never be accounted for. People are only remorseful when they realise their actions have consequences.

While the case has been made that it costs too much and we don't have adequate prison facilities to maintain an increase in custodial sentencing. If the penalty was severe enough could it be possible that we would not need increased space? Could it be possible that a guaranteed jail sentence could dissuade some of these acts?

If it's not possible, I would be in favour of building more prisons and utilising them.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If I was the plaintiff I would much prefer money in a civil action.

Irrelevant.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Jailing them would do nothing to solve anything, in fact it could make things worse in the long run.

Firstly, that's subjective.

Secondly, no matter what the outcome of this is it will either inform people of what their boundaries are if they want to commit a similar act or it will dissuade people from committing it.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

OK let's look at it logically the defendants get convicted jailed for a year.

They withdraw the 5k offer etc, the defendants now find it difficult to get employment because of a previous conviction. The defendants have associated with more 'experienced' criminals for a year.

Let's look at the effect prison has on criminals who convicted.

Irish prison service study 2013

https://www.irishprisons.ie/images/pdf/recidivismstudyss2.pdf


The recidivism rate is high. Many prisoners reoffend for the same offence

A recidivism rate of 62.3% within three years
Over 80% of those who re-offended did so within 12 months of release.
The recidivism rate decreased as the offender age increased.
Male offenders represented 92.5% of the total population studied and had a higher recidivism rate of than female offenders (63% for males and 57% among females).

--

You can look at that two way those who are jailed are very likely to reoffend for the same offence within one year or even three years.

Applying this to the case the OP mentions you then have to ask yourself by the judge NOT jailing the defendants does it mean that they are less likely to reoffend based on the facts of the case we were given?

I would say yes. I would also guess based on the above figures that jailing the defendants would likely mean statistically it would have the opposite effect. And they would reoffend as prison does not become a deterrent but a way of life.

From the article above:

https://www.irishprisons.ie/images/pdf/recidivismstudyss2.pdf

'the challenge then becomes how we can work together with individual offenders to reconnect them back with society and reduce the likelihood of them reoffending.'

That study isn't as conclusive as you might think:

"In 2012, the Probation Service published its study of persons who had re-offended within
two years following the imposition of a Probation Order or Community Service Order. The
two studies are not comparable as the Probation study is based on a two year period for reoffending and certain road traffic offences were excluded. However, both studies showed
that re-offending was most likely to occur in the first 12 months either after release from
prison or the imposition of an alternative sanction.
The Probation Service study showed a recidivism rate of 37.2% within two years of
the imposition of a Probation or Community Service Order.
This study shows a recidivism rate of 58.3% within two years of the completion of a
prison sentence."

Those who has a Probation or Community Service Order reoffended at the rate of 37.2%, excluding certain road traffic offences. Those who went to prison had a rate of 58.3%. That is not a huge difference, when you consider that road traffic offences were excluded. It also does not consider the point that prison sentences are more common for more serious offences, suggesting that the cohort in that study are more hardened criminals on average.

Therefore, the study should not be used to suggest that prison sentences lead to worse outcomes. One alternative possibility is that the Irish criminal justice system does not act in the whole as a significant deterral to re-offending. This may be because the risk of being caught and convicted is low, something already known to convicted criminals, hence the re-offending.

A further alternative is that the Irish criminal justice system as a whole, including the Probation Service is poor at the rehabilitation issue.