Justice for all

mycroft

The criminal justice system in Ireland is not working.

In the last two days two teenage boys have been convicted for life for two appalling murders.

The first Darren Goodwin murdered a neighbour with a hammer.

The second Christopher Dunne Killed another teenager over his mobile phone.

In both cases, the murderers were suffering either psychological problems, or diminished mental capacity, making it difficult to tell right from wrong or understand the consequences of their actions. They both face life sentences

In February of last year 3 men were convincted of the man slaughter of Brian Murphy, a blackrock college student outside the burlingtion hotel. They were bright education men with full mental capacity, who knew well the consequences of their actions, yet they recieved minor sentences.

Why? Whats the difference?

Money. The defendents in the Murphy case, had money could afford the best solicitors and barristers money can buy. They didn't argue that their clients were innocent, they argued "reasonable doubt", they used the minute details of the law not to prove their clients innocent but to cast suspicion on the prosecution evidence. The result. Guilty men with money walk free.

The justice system is supposed to be fair and blind. So much a trial is lleft to chance, the character of the jury members can never really be known, the bias and compendence of the prosecution and judge are essentially a matter of chance.

So I propose this. Nationalise the defence council on all serious crimes (murder, assault, rape etc). Money should not be a factor when you go to court. And on serious cases everyone should approach the court on as level a playing field as possible. Defence council should be selected on a random basis.

You can argue that might slow down trials, and many top barristers command too high a fee for the state to afford them. Well the state pays the costs in innumerable cases, if it's no longer losing money this way, it can afford a pay rise accross the board for these valuable public servants.

Discuss.

[Aside] Yes yes yes, I know it will never in a million years actually work, I'm just tossing around a few ideas for making the criminal justice system more equitable. [/Aside]

Sleepy

In both cases, the murderers were suffering either psychological problems, or diminished mental capacity, making it difficult to tell right from wrong or understand the consequences of their actions.

Says who? Defense counsel or one of their "experts"?

They both face life sentences

Rightly so, they were both convicted of murder. Shouldn't all murderers receive life imprisonment?

In the Murphy case, as you point out yourself, the charge was of manslaughter. Also making this case far from open and shut, there were a number of other individuals involved who were never brought to court. There was no CCTV footage of the incident and conflicting witness reports as to who delivered the fatal blow. It was the complexity of the circumstances of the crime and a lack of hard evidence that could pin the killing on one person that lead to the former Blackrock students to light sentences. I'd imagine a state appointed legal team would have received a similar verdict in that case.

All that said, I actually like your idea of nationalising defence counsel. It would level the playing field certainly and I like the idea of lawyers taking a pay cut. It might loosen their grip on one of the last legal cartels in Ireland.

Hobbes

Sleepy wrote:

Says who? Defense counsel or one of their "experts"?

Exactly says who? I've live near where the kid got killed for his phone and I can tell you now that the guy along with his gang had full mental capicity and had been threatening people for a long time there.

Zulu

Unfortunatly Ireland is too small a country, so you'll always have instances were things are taken care of.

I'm not saying this is right or not, but it has positive and negaitave points.

ionapaul

Don't know what positive points you can take away from that Murphy case, or the one when the rich family got the husband a reduced vehicular manslaughter (or whatever it is called) sentence cause they knew the judge, or any cases like this. I know the Murphy case was very complex and so on, but it is clear that the legal system is flawed and can be manipulated by the rich and those in-the-know. I am not sure what needs to be done, but I would prefer all before the courts to be dealt with equally. Those involved in the Murphy case (private school alums but thugs nevertheless) should have had much harsher sentences.

mycroft

Hobbes wrote:

Exactly says who? I've live near where the kid got killed for his phone and I can tell you now that the guy along with his gang had full mental capicity and had been threatening people for a long time there.

from Rte.ie

"Christopher Dunne was described as having borderline intellectual capacity. The court further heard that psychologists' tests showed he would have had difficulty understanding the consequences of his actions. "

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/1015/dunne.html

There was no CCTV footage of the incident and conflicting witness reports as to who delivered the fatal blow. It was the complexity of the circumstances of the crime and a lack of hard evidence that could pin the killing on one person that lead to the former Blackrock students to light sentences. I'd imagine a state appointed legal team would have received a similar verdict in that case.

I agree the Murphy case is not nearly as open and shut, but simply put having some of the finest legal minds in the country on your side, and murkying up the waters helped more then a little.

ixoy

What defence would you proffer for Goodwin? I seem to recall he had a problem with his father, but I don't seem to recall he had intellectual problems such that he can't make a credible decision on moral values. The media reports (which you can accuse, I'm sure, of being sensationalist) all made reference to his calm, uncaring attitude. It sounds like evidence of a psychopathic disposition but that's hardly mitigating otherwise we could use the same sort of rule, or diminished capacity whatever, to apply to other cases where the murderer had an afflicted childhood. There's a certain line that, when crossed, you shouldn't be able to jump back over, a point when you must accept the consequences of your own action, having understood it (in Goodwin's case). I don't think from the evidence presented to us that Goodwin was treated unfairly.

Zulu

ionapaul wrote:

Don't know what positive points you can take away from that Murphy case, or the one when the rich family got the husband a reduced vehicular manslaughter (or whatever it is called) sentence cause they knew the judge, or any cases like this.

The positive point evidently wouldn't be taken from these cases. Heres an example of some advantages: petty crime being delt with locally (ie: Gaurd knows family, has a chat with the parents, problem solved). Dealing with local issues at a local level can have get benifits - but also has terriable bad points.

I'm not advocating it - I'm mearly pointing out it's existance.

mycroft

ixoy wrote:

What defence would you proffer for Goodwin? I seem to recall he had a problem with his father, but I don't seem to recall he had intellectual problems such that he can't make a credible decision on moral values. The media reports (which you can accuse, I'm sure, of being sensationalist) all made reference to his calm, uncaring attitude. It sounds like evidence of a psychopathic disposition but that's hardly mitigating otherwise we could use the same sort of rule, or diminished capacity whatever, to apply to other cases where the murderer had an afflicted childhood. There's a certain line that, when crossed, you shouldn't be able to jump back over, a point when you must accept the consequences of your own action, having understood it (in Goodwin's case). I don't think from the evidence presented to us that Goodwin was treated unfairly.

Sorry read your post and then went through all my posts thinking "Why is ioxy invoking Godwins law? what did I say?"

My understanding is in Goodwin's case he suffered violent fantasys about his father, and the rte TV report implied that he did not understand the consequences of his actions which is essentially the essence of an insanity plea.

As for media hyperbole, RTE did an excellent fair and measured report for the nine o clock news on the rise of violent crime among teenagers and the failings of the childrens court, balanced and objective in my opinion.

Hobbes

mycroft wrote:

from Rte.ie

"Christopher Dunne was described as having borderline intellectual capacity. The court further heard that psychologists' tests showed he would have had difficulty understanding the consequences of his actions. "

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/1015/dunne.html

Which means he was going for the insanity plea. Doesn't hold up when you have been robbing people in that area for months. The local cops knew him well enough.

Sleepy

mycroft wrote:

from Rte.ie

"Christopher Dunne was described as having borderline intellectual capacity. The court further heard that psychologists' tests showed he would have had difficulty understanding the consequences of his actions. "

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/1015/dunne.html

Ah, so I was right. Defence Counsel can provide a psychologist who will attest to the fact that the little gurrier didn't understand that stabbing someone three times would kill them. :rolleyes:

Lock him up, throw away the key. I've had enough of society's new idea that nobody is responsible for their own actions. The kid is quite obviously a thug. Just because his lawyer was able to find someone that passed a few psychology exams that would believe the brat was "a good lad at heart" doesn't mean that we should believe it.

He stabbed someone 3 times for a mobile phone. Can you honestly say he didn't get what he deserved?

He stabbed someone 3 times for a mobile phone. Can you honestly say he didn't get what he deserved?

Damn right. Regardless of whether he was "having borderline intellectual capacity", he killed someone in an extremely violent manner for a mobile phone. He got what he deserved.

This country needs a hardline approach towards teenage violent crime, as it seems to be increasing.

mycroft

Sleepy wrote:

Ah, so I was right. Defence Counsel can provide a psychologist who will attest to the fact that the little gurrier didn't understand that stabbing someone three times would kill them. :rolleyes:

Thats a massive assumtion there sleepy theres no evidence his legal team plea'd insanity, or diminished mental capacity, or that the prosecution offered altenative testimony for another psychologist as a counter balance or even if they objected to the defenses psychologists. In fact in these sort of cases involving children and violent crime I think psychogicial evaluation by the state is manditory. So I think you're running ahead of yourself, I've seen no evidence that he tried an insanity plea.

Lock him up, throw away the key. I've had enough of society's new idea that nobody is responsible for their own actions. The kid is quite obviously a thug. Just because his lawyer was able to find someone that passed a few psychology exams that would believe the brat was "a good lad at heart" doesn't mean that we should believe it.

Once again no evidence that he tried an insanity plea, and he was convicted of murder. He's looking at a minimum of ten years. It's extremely like you're going to have an extremely violent and dangerous man on the streets in fifteen years time.

Furthermore, I'm not disputing that the kid deserved a serious sentence, I was arguing about the inequality of his sentence compared to the suspended sentences in the murphy case. In no way do I suggest that Goodwin deserved a hug n a lollipop, he needs to be sent away for a long time, in an evironment were he can be rehabilitated.

And frankly I think you'd be rejected from the jury process for being unobjective.

Lemming

The justice dept. has a tactic whereby if a murder charge is going to be difficult to secure, they will lower the charge to get a guaranteed manslaughter conviction.

THe annabels case was not premeditated nor was there an attempt to cover up the "deed" afterwards. Also add in the uncertainty of exactly whom did what and it would be *VERY* difficult to get a successful murder charge out of it.

These two other cases were much more straightforward.

Sleepy

mycroft - the point I was making was that this kid it was a clear cut case of murder. One person stabbed another three times. The Murphy case was far less clear, from what I gathered a fight broke out, one guy's friends all jumped in and bet the guy to death. However, the legal system judged that this death was a manslaughter. IIRC, one of the defendents called the ambulance, hardly the actions of someone who intended to kill the other party. The facts of the case were that it was virtually impossible to determine who landed the fatal blow. Again, my recollection of the case may be hazy but wasn't Laide the only one actually charged with manslaughter, the other two having charges of public disorder or something similar levied against them?

Again, a factor of our judicial system is that past behaviour is taken into account when sentencing is considered. In the case of the Murphy trial you had defendents whom, until that point weren't known to the police. In the Dunne case, Hobbes has pointed out that the lad was well known to the local police, presumably for other offences.

Yes, the fact that the Blackrock old boys had a better level of representation probably had some influence on the sentancing, however I don't think it's near the level of difference that you suggest. It was one of many factors that lead to their receiving lighter sentences.

And frankly I think you'd be rejected from the jury process for being unobjective.

That very sentence could be used against you to the same end. Believing in harsh punishments for those convicted doesn't make me unobjective. A juror's duty is to return a guilty or not guilty decision, not to handle the sentencing. That's the judge's job.

LightofDarkness

About the boy:
Would you REALLY want (taking it for truth) a young boy with psychopathic problems, knowing no difference between right and wrong, running around the streets EVER again? He could stab/murder anyone randomly for anything, because he doesn't know it's wrong. Just because he has an illness doesn't mean he should get off lightly, the whole point of life sentences is because the incarcerated individual is unsafe in society, be he a danger to others or himself. I think that's a fair ruling. Who wants a psychopathic, knife-brandishing repeated violence offender running around the streets when it can be helped?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dermot_sheehan

The differance is this:

In the first two cases you mention, the State proved beyond reasonable doubt to a jury that the defendent intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to the deceased. If the defendent did not know what he was doing was wrong, he would have the defence of insanity, which he must prove on the balance of probabilities. In those two cases, if that defence was raised, it was unsuccessful.


In the Murphy case, the State pursued a charge of manslaughter because (rightly in my opinion), they felt they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an intent to kill. Bear in mind that only one of the 4 original defendents in that case was convicted of manslaughter.