This is just fcuking sick

Nodin

Jeapy wrote: »

. I'm just pointing out that the first post could have given a little detail about what the link was about.

If he did what I normally do, he'd have pasted an extract of about a paragraph from the story...which means you'd have read the detail you don't want to read.

I'd avoid the english news today, were I you.

Jeapy

Nodin wrote: »

If he did what I normally do, he'd have pasted an extract of about a paragraph from the story...which means you'd have read the detail you don't want to read.

I'd avoid the english news today, were I you.

Ya, but you might have posted the headline with it and I'd have avoided it. So many disturbing details in the baby p case as it is. It is beyond "sick". I'll avoid the papers and we'll agree to disagree.

Trog

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

How in the name of fúck does someone rape a 2 year old.

Well first you go to the shop and buy some candy. Or you can just take it from some other baby...


/Paedophilia

raah!

heh heh, the first line is "the twisted fiend.."
Those papers crack me up.

Although I agree in that you do have to be pretty demented to rape a 2 year old. My guess is he was trying to get at his ex or something..

aDeener

brianthebard wrote: »

The AH dumb as **** mob strikes again. No one sees the irony in beating the **** out of a guy who beat the **** out of children I suppose? Really cathartic and cleansing for you and society as a whole is it?

and what if it were brianthebard's son that this monster raped? im sure you would happily see him sit out 10 years in prison in front of big screen tvs and having access to mobile phones.:rolleyes:

Mrmoe

brianthebard wrote: »

The AH dumb as **** mob strikes again. No one sees the irony in beating the **** out of a guy who beat the **** out of children I suppose? Really cathartic and cleansing for you and society as a whole is it?

Ah thats right, we should really be giving him a kiss and a cuddle, the poor man, he has had it tough alright.:rolleyes:

Lockstep

aDeener wrote: »

and what if it were brianthebard's son that this monster raped? im sure you would happily see him sit out 10 years in prison in front of big screen tvs and having access to mobile phones.:rolleyes:

The whole point is that the justice system is meant to be objective. We're meant to take crimes as they occur, not imagining how we'd feel if our own kids were the ones damaged as we'd be....biased.

Lockstep

Mrmoe wrote: »

Ah thats right, we should really be giving him a kiss and a cuddle, the poor man, he has had it tough alright.:rolleyes:

Where did Brian say anything of the sort?
If all else fails, create a strawman.

Disease Ridden

Sorry brianthebard, but if a grown man goes and rapes a 2 year old child he deserves, not only to get the sh'ite kicked out of him, but to be made dead. Seriously, theres too many socially liberal people these days for anybodies good; those criminals are lost causes, incapable of changing their sick, twisted ways. While you could philosophize about the fact that nobody is ultimately responsible for their actions, thats irrelavent. For a society to work for the benefit of the vast majority you need to get rid of the bad apples by either extermination, locking them up or by otherwise instilling enough fear into them that the chance of them commiting their depraved or violent acts is lessened.

Mrmoe

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The whole point is that the justice system is meant to be objective. We're meant to take crimes as they occur, not imagining how we'd feel if our own kids were the ones damaged as we'd be....biased.

The justice system should be objective up until the point that a person is proven and convicted of committing a crime. You need subjectivity when issuing a punishment as each circumstance is different. For me the severity of the punishment should reflect the heinousness of the crime committed. In order to do this you need to be subjective. This is the justice that I would like to see. The word justice conveys equity to me. Spending time in prison where all your physical needs are catered for is nowhere equal punishment for what this guy did.

thelordofcheese

Mrmoe wrote: »

Why should emotion be taken out of this situation? What this guy did was sickening. He should thanks his lucky stars that he makes it to prison in one piece.What exactly is wrong with someone taking revenge against this guy?

People make stupid decisions all the time when emotions are running high, call me crazy but punishments shouldn't be decided and handed out when everyone is hopped up on their own impotent rage.
Doubly so considering that justice systems are not infallible.

Mrmoe wrote: »

What exactly is wrong with someone taking revenge against this guy?

That's mob justice, which is not justice at all and a very fucking dangerous path to start down.

Lockstep

Disease Ridden wrote: »

For a society to work for the benefit of the vast majority you need to get rid of the bad apples by either extermination, locking them up or by otherwise instilling enough fear into them that the chance of them commiting their depraved or violent acts is lessened.

I hardly think these people can be deterred by "fear".
Locking them up is really the only viable option. Capital punishment is too expensive given the level of appeals, evidence etc. ANd I'd be really worried about letting the justice system we have in this country deciding when people can die. It's just too fallible to set a precedent in killing.

Lockstep

Mrmoe wrote: »

The justice system should be objective up until the point that a person is proven and convicted of committing a crime. You need subjectivity when issuing a punishment as each circumstance is different. For me the severity of the punishment should reflect the heinousness of the crime committed. In order to do this you need to be subjective. This is the justice that I would like to see. The word justice conveys equity to me. Spending time in prison where all your physical needs are catered for is nowhere equal punishment for what this guy did.

Nonono.
We cannot have a subjective justice system. Do you honestly think that a judge should give rulings based on emotion rather than reason?
What you would like to see is not justice but revenge. Justice is about harmony, whereas your concept seems to be about making yourself feel better.
The severity of the sentencing already reflects the crime (you just don't think they go far enough)

I find it ironic that someone advocating "taking revenge" tries to bring in equity.

Mrmoe

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Nonono.
We cannot have a subjective justice system. Do you honestly think that a judge should give rulings based on emotion rather than reason?
What you would like to see is not justice but revenge. Justice is about harmony, whereas your concept seems to be about making yourself feel better.
The severity of the sentencing already reflects the crime (you just don't think they go far enough)

I find it ironic that someone advocating "taking revenge" tries to bring in equity.

Revenge:
1. To inflict punishment in return for (injury or insult).
2. To seek or take vengeance for (oneself or another person); avenge.

I interpret revenge as inflicting punishment that equates to the crime. I think we arguing over two different things. A judge should be neutral when interpreting the law but the law is different from justice. They are not the same and I doubt they will ever be in the society that we currently live in. I always remember a quote from my one of my old teachers:

"If you want justice, go to heaven, if you want the law, go to court"

which shows the futility of achieving justice seeing that there is no heaven.

Mrmoe

thelordofcheese wrote: »

People make stupid decisions all the time when emotions are running high, call me crazy but punishments shouldn't be decided and handed out when everyone is hopped up on their own impotent rage.
Doubly so considering that justice systems are not infallible.

That's mob justice, which is not justice at all and a very fucking dangerous path to start down.

You are right. People make mistakes full stop. Justice will never ever be achieved as we are always fearful of convicting the wrong person so we always err on the cautious side. This is a rational approach but one that makes us impotent in achieving true justice.

Lockstep

Mrmoe wrote: »

Revenge:
1. To inflict punishment in return for (injury or insult).
2. To seek or take vengeance for (oneself or another person); avenge.

Note the second definition there?

Mrmoe wrote: »

I interpret revenge as inflicting punishment that equates to the crime.

Right, well our justice system doesn't run by your interpretations.

Mrmoe wrote: »

I think we arguing over two different things. A judge should be neutral when interpreting the law but the law is different from justice.

In your opinion.
What is your reasoning that the two are seperate? We have the law to ensure justice. Not that they are mutually exclusive.

Mrmoe wrote: »

They are not the same and I doubt they will ever be in the society that we currently live in. I always remember a quote from my one of my old teachers:

"If you want justice, go to heaven, if you want the law, go to court"

which shows the futility of achieving justice seeing that there is no heaven.

Oh they have a lot of similarities. It's just too many people go off on a emotional rage over the bad things they see and complain about the lack of justice, without bothering to look at what their desires would achieve;
the precedents set
alllowing the State to decide when a person may die
Emotional responses over rationality
etc

Lockstep

Mrmoe wrote: »

You are right. People make mistakes full stop. Justice will never ever be achieved as we are always fearful of convicting the wrong person so we always err on the cautious side. This is a rational approach but one that makes us impotent in achieving true justice.

I am completely unable to follow your train of thought here given that;
1) You accept that we fear for wrongful convictions
2) YOu bring in the concept of "true justice", despite the fact our justice system is infallibe.

galwayrush

A shockingly abused baby, even raped,murdered. No doubting the evidence, That vile scumbag doesn't deserve any rights.:mad:

Tomebagel

dont worry, once he gets in to prison and the other prisoners find out what hes in for....he'll wish there was a death penalty too.

amacachi

Tomebagel wrote: »

dont worry, once he gets in to prison and the other prisoners find out what hes in for....he'll wish there was a death penalty too.

:rolleyes:

regob

steof1984 wrote: »

Now i know UK just like ourselves are a first world country but no one can argue with me here that in certian cases te Death Penality should exist

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2407368.ece

now i know its the sun and not exactly amazing journalism but even if there is a 1% chance this is true then its sickening

this man can contribute nothing to society so to me the only alternatitive is to execute him

If i had my option i would torture him for years but the PC brigae would give out


This is just sick. some people dont deserve life

he should be shot

thelordofcheese

Mrmoe wrote: »

You are right. People make mistakes full stop. Justice will never ever be achieved as we are always fearful of convicting the wrong person so we always err on the cautious side. This is a rational approach but one that makes us impotent in achieving true justice.

Heh, for this to make even the slightest lick of sense you'd have to have an immutable definition of "true justice".
Which we don't, and cannot, have because what you're calling "true justice" is actually revenge as a catharsis for you.

infact i'd argue that by recognising the fallibility of the justice system and not stooping to state sponsered torture and murder we're closer to justice than you'd like to admit.
I'd rather live in a society that, in your opinion, underpunishes offenders than one where state sponsered murder and torture are used.

Mrmoe

kickoutthejams wrote: »

In your opinion.
What is your reasoning that the two are seperate? We have the law to ensure justice. Not that they are mutually exclusive.

etc

More often than not we do not achieve justice as the judge is following the law. Here are some example of our so called justice system.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0511/keanea.html

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/man-receives-four-year-jail-sentence-for-robbing-a-neighbour-1668094.html

passive

leitrim lad wrote: »

i would torture him with a nail bar and a tire lever , and maybe beat him with a bell hook, as if this story is true he deserves none other than a decade of torture

typical english waster, all they know how to say is "all right mate"

awwwh, that's so cute! *pinches his cheeks*

Lockstep

Mrmoe wrote: »

More often than not we do not achieve justice as the judge is following the law. Here are some example of our so called justice system.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0511/keanea.html

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/man-receives-four-year-jail-sentence-for-robbing-a-neighbour-1668094.html

Yes, as I have said, our justice system is fallible. The odd incident doesn't make law and justice completely at odds (you claim "more often than not", you'd need a lot more evidence to make such a claim)

The first case is used every time anyone wants to make a point about the justice system. It's so overdone that I'd really like to see people use other examples.

In the second case, 4 years for a nonviolent offense (in this case; robbery) doesn't strike me as overly lenient..

amacachi

kickoutthejams wrote: »

In the second case, 4 years for a nonviolent offense (in this case; robbery) doesn't strike me as overly lenient..

I think that was the point, that he got that sentence for a non-violent offence which he obvious showed some remorse for, while a rapist gets a suspended sentence.
It was only really 2 and a half years anyway, suspended sentences of parts of sentences which are suspended barely count IMO.

Mrmoe

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Yes, as I have said, our justice system is fallible. The odd incident doesn't make law and justice completely at odds (you claim "more often than not", you'd need a lot more evidence to make such a claim)

The first case is used every time anyone wants to make a point about the justice system. It's so overdone that I'd really like to see people use other examples.

In the second case, 4 years for a nonviolent offense (in this case; robbery) doesn't strike me as overly lenient..

You will have to give me time to compile evidence to make such a claim to present to you. The two links that I included were actually mean't as a contrast. Two extremes, one where a rapist gets off free and the second where someone gets a jail sentence for a non violent crime.

Davaeo09

Tori Elegant Writer wrote: »

I get the feeling that if he's allowed in the general population in prison he'll get what he deserves fairly quickly.. i hope he does anyway.. scum

Firmly agree.
He will be shown just how sick he is..

But yeah, where's the death penalty when its deserved!

Lockstep

amacachi wrote: »

I think that was the point, that he got that sentence for a non-violent offence which he obvious showed some remorse for, while a rapist gets a suspended sentence.
It was only really 2 and a half years anyway, suspended sentences of parts of sentences which are suspended barely count IMO.

Fair enough, I misread it. Although I'd never discount suspended sentences as they'll be tacked on if he commits another offence.

Lockstep

Mrmoe wrote: »

You will have to give me time to compile evidence to make such a claim to present to you. The two links that I included were actually mean't as a contrast. Two extremes, one where a rapist gets off free and the second where someone gets a jail sentence for a non violent crime.

Right, well as I said, the first was so incredibly publicised (and used to show how damn lenient our courts are) that I'd always like to see other examples beyond that (if our courts are as bad as is claimed, there should be a lot more evidence)

I look forward to your case.

amacachi

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Fair enough, I misread it. Although I'd never discount suspended sentences as they'll be tacked on if he commits another offence.

I would discount it as it is then served concurrently with the sentence for the other offence. Though often the second offence isn't even brought to court and just the suspended sentence (well, half of it) is served even when the offence most likely would've carried a heavier sentence.

The trouble most people have with the justice system is the scale and inconsistency. That guy getting 2 and a half years with a year and a half suspended is, in my personal scale of how it should, is fair. Getting rid of proper life tariffs has meant that all sentences have now been reduced as well so that they scale with what is realistically the longest sentence anyone can get.
And on the inconsistency topic, a mate of mine was caught with a very personal amount of drugs and ended up with a €1400 fine. First offence, no history, no previous run-ins. On the other hand I've a cousin who has been in several car crashes in stolen cars, drink driving, car theft, arson, assault, etc. Dozens of convictions, yet he has never spent more than a couple of nights in the cells in the Garda station. I know that a justice system is always going to be fallible, but it's those inconsistencies that rile people up so much, and it's hard not to react.

thelordofcheese

amacachi wrote: »

I would discount it as it is then served concurrently with the sentence for the other offence. Though often the second offence isn't even brought to court and just the suspended sentence (well, half of it) is served even when the offence most likely would've carried a heavier sentence.

The trouble most people have with the justice system is the scale and inconsistency. That guy getting 2 and a half years with a year and a half suspended is, in my personal scale of how it should, is fair. Getting rid of proper life tariffs has meant that all sentences have now been reduced as well so that they scale with what is realistically the longest sentence anyone can get.
And on the inconsistency topic, a mate of mine was caught with a very personal amount of drugs and ended up with a €1400 fine. First offence, no history, no previous run-ins. On the other hand I've a cousin who has been in several car crashes in stolen cars, drink driving, car theft, arson, assault, etc. Dozens of convictions, yet he has never spent more than a couple of nights in the cells in the Garda station. I know that a justice system is always going to be fallible, but it's those inconsistencies that rile people up so much, and it's hard not to react.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would view your mates sentance as too lenient. What people call "proper justice" is as subjective as their taste in music or films and should be treated as such.

Likewise, any story that is ran with regard to jail sentances are run because they are extraordinary. not typical. It always makes me laugh i see someone comment on how the judicary are "a joke" or "out of touch" based on a report of the extraordinary and ignoring all the mundane and not outrage worthy sentances that preceed and will folow the one they're all rilled up about

Lockstep

amacachi wrote: »

I would discount it as it is then served concurrently with the sentence for the other offence. Though often the second offence isn't even brought to court and just the suspended sentence (well, half of it) is served even when the offence most likely would've carried a heavier sentence.

That really depends on the sentence.
Evidence for your claims by the way?

amacachi wrote: »

The trouble most people have with the justice system is the scale and inconsistency. That guy getting 2 and a half years with a year and a half suspended is, in my personal scale of how it should, is fair. Getting rid of proper life tariffs has meant that all sentences have now been reduced as well so that they scale with what is realistically the longest sentence anyone can get.
And on the inconsistency topic, a mate of mine was caught with a very personal amount of drugs and ended up with a €1400 fine. First offence, no history, no previous run-ins. On the other hand I've a cousin who has been in several car crashes in stolen cars, drink driving, car theft, arson, assault, etc. Dozens of convictions, yet he has never spent more than a couple of nights in the cells in the Garda station. I know that a justice system is always going to be fallible, but it's those inconsistencies that rile people up so much, and it's hard not to react.

Frankly, people get riled up over anything. There are the odd discrepancies in the law but on the whole, it works out well enough. Problem being that when there is a case of the law being unfair, people rush to try and claim it shows how awful the justice system is.

amacachi

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would view your mates sentance as too lenient. What people call "proper justice" is as subjective as their taste in music or films and should be treated as such.

Likewise, any story that is ran with regard to jail sentances are run because they are extraordinary. not typical. It always makes me laugh i see someone comment on how the judicary are "a joke" or "out of touch" based on a report of the extraordinary and ignoring all the mundane and not outrage worthy sentances that preceed and will folow the one they're all rilled up about

Perhaps there are some, but my point is in comparison to a ****load of other people in town who are known to the Gardaí and the courts, it's a ridiculous sentence.

Even leaving out the extraordinary sentences, the fact is that the upper scale of sentences is "20 years" in prison (other than multiple murders) which means that everything else has to be scaled down in comparison. Would you agree with that?

dfx-

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I am completely unable to follow your train of thought here given that;
1) You accept that we fear for wrongful convictions
2) YOu bring in the concept of "true justice", despite the fact our justice system is infallibe.

1. Do you think this is a wrongful conviction?

2. Do you think a prison sentence is any deterrent or punishment for this crime?

Answer yes to either and your train of thought is flawed.

amacachi

kickoutthejams wrote: »

That really depends on the sentence.
Evidence for your claims by the way?

Family and friends of family, nothing that made the papers unfortunately. :pac: One that didn't make the papers was a guy who had gotten out after serving about 2 years of a 5 year sentence for a pretty horrible assault with a knife. Short story he had a friend in his house who went for a kip, yer man went up and cut his throat and tied a plastic bag around his head. "18 years" I believe he got.

Frankly, people get riled up over anything. There are the odd discrepancies in the law but on the whole, it works out well enough. Problem being that when there is a case of the law being unfair, people rush to try and claim it shows how awful the justice system is.

Well your opinion is that it works out fair enough, all I can go on is my own personal experience and that of people around me. I've felt pretty victimised by the Gardaí at times when I'd done absolutely nothing wrong. I look at people within 5 minutes walk of me and how they're still free is beyond me. I know lads who have been knived and others left in hospital, all that's handed down are suspended sentences, if even. I base my opinons on the sentences I read about in the local paper and from cases friends and acquaintances are involved in, I can't claim to have done massive statistical analysis on all sentences.

Lockstep

dfx- wrote: »

1. Do you think this is a wrongful conviction?

Is which a wrongful conviction>

dfx- wrote: »

2. Do you think a prison sentence is any deterrent or punishment for this crime?

Answer yes to either and your train of thought is flawed.

I think a prison sentence is a punishment. Rarely a deterrent though.

Lockstep

amacachi wrote: »

Family and friends of family, nothing that made the papers unfortunately. :pac: One that didn't make the papers was a guy who had gotten out after serving about 2 years of a 5 year sentence for a pretty horrible assault with a knife. Short story he had a friend in his house who went for a kip, yer man went up and cut his throat and tied a plastic bag around his head. "18 years" I believe he got.

Well, you were using terms such as "often" so I'd imagine you'd need much more empirical evidence before coming to that conclusion.

amacachi wrote: »

Well your opinion is that it works out fair enough, all I can go on is my own personal experience and that of people around me. I've felt pretty victimised by the Gardaí at times when I'd done absolutely nothing wrong. I look at people within 5 minutes walk of me and how they're still free is beyond me. I know lads who have been knived and others left in hospital, all that's handed down are suspended sentences, if even. I base my opinons on the sentences I read about in the local paper and from cases friends and acquaintances are involved in, I can't claim to have done massive statistical analysis on all sentences.

You do realise that the papers will only really generate a lot of coverage RE sentences when the sentencing is viewed as too lenient?
I can't comment on the cases involving your friends and acquintences given that it's too subjective/I can't know anything about them. There's not really much I can do to argue against claims involving people you know as I don't know them/ for all I know they could be exagerated or made up (I'm not saying you are, just saying why it's hard to argue against them)

Mrmoe

Here are more examples of justice at work. I know of a lot more but again I don't think I have the time to compile them here. I think it is a wrong assertion that only extreme cases reach the newspapers. I know of a lot more cases which were not headline news. I find it extremely disheartening at times at the level of injustice in this country.

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/man-given-oneyear-suspended-sentence-for-sexual-assault-1681060.html

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5863&Itemid=38

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0205/owoiyas.html

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/eyauqlidkfql/

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2004/01/21/story130638.asp

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/man-given-twoyear-suspended-sentence-for-abusing-young-boy-1681059.html

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=10749

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0314/sutcliffej.html

dfx-

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Is which a wrongful conviction>


I think a prison sentence is a punishment. Rarely a deterrent though.

The case in the OP's post.

A prison sentence for this case is punishment? You think it is the appropriate sentence for the crime here?

Lockstep

dfx- wrote: »

The case in the OP's post. Is there any other case mentioned?

Yes, read through the thread and you'll see there a few more cases mentioned. Not that far behind your post so it's hard to see what you were referring to.

dfx- wrote: »

A prison sentence for this case is punishment? You think it is the appropriate sentence for the crime here?

Yes, a prison sentence is a punishment. No frills or anything, but locking up etc etc.
What's your alternative?
Torture?
Death penalty?

Even aside from the likely results of either of these,I'm extremely glad Ireland is unable to implement either of them.

amacachi

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Well, you were using terms such as "often" so I'd imagine you'd need much more empirical evidence before coming to that conclusion.

Well there's another involving a minor who was given a "last warning" three different times in court. Since he was a minor that's about a run-of-the-mill sentence, so as you said it's not going to fill many column inches. :P

You do realise that the papers will only really generate a lot of coverage RE sentences when the sentencing is viewed as too lenient?
I can't comment on the cases involving your friends and acquintences given that it's too subjective/I can't know anything about them. There's not really much I can do to argue against claims involving people you know as I don't know them/ for all I know they could be exagerated or made up (I'm not saying you are, just saying why it's hard to argue against them)

Of course I realise that, like I said I'm basing my arguments on cases I know about myself. That and the odd case on television. Stopped watching that stuff because victims and the families of victims of crime and accidents are just used like currency on TV shows like that.
I understand it's hard to argue when only one person has the facts. (Not saying you don't have your own, just that I do know what I'm talking about and it's not really possible to prove/source it online.)
As I said, from my perspective, in my area, the justice system just doesn't work. It's nothing to do with newspaper reports or anything else, it's the day-to-day petty, moderate and serious crime that people are witnessing and suffering, and seeing the perpetrators often get off scot-free, even when convicted.

dfx-

So do you think the justice system has wrongfully convicted this man? Third time to ask...

As I've argued before for pages that I am pro-Death penalty and voted as such in the 3% or so to keep it mentioned on the constitution years ago. Especially for cases where there can be no debate about wrongful convictions.

Lockstep

dfx- wrote: »

So do you think the justice system has wrongfully convicted this man? Third time to ask...

Nah, I never said he wasn't wrongfully convicted. What's your point though?

dfx- wrote: »

As I've argued before for pages that I am pro-Death penalty and voted as such in the 3% or so to keep it mentioned on the constitution years ago. Especially for cases where there can be no debate about wrongful convictions.

You can argue for it all you want, we're bound by the European COnvention of Human Rights.

Lockstep

amacachi wrote: »

Well there's another involving a minor who was given a "last warning" three different times in court. Since he was a minor that's about a run-of-the-mill sentence, so as you said it's not going to fill many column inches. :P

Source please.

amacachi wrote: »

Of course I realise that, like I said I'm basing my arguments on cases I know about myself. That and the odd case on television. Stopped watching that stuff because victims and the families of victims of crime and accidents are just used like currency on TV shows like that.
I understand it's hard to argue when only one person has the facts. (Not saying you don't have your own, just that I do know what I'm talking about and it's not really possible to prove/source it online.)
As I said, from my perspective, in my area, the justice system just doesn't work. It's nothing to do with newspaper reports or anything else, it's the day-to-day petty, moderate and serious crime that people are witnessing and suffering, and seeing the perpetrators often get off scot-free, even when convicted.

I study the law and from what I can see, we have a flawed justice system but I don't really see any alternatives. IMHO it's pretty much one of the best we could hope for.

Lockstep

Mrmoe wrote: »

Here are more examples of justice at work. I know of a lot more but again I don't think I have the time to compile them here.

Ah well if you know OF them, that makes it allright.

Mrmoe wrote: »

I think it is a wrong assertion that only extreme cases reach the newspapers. I know of a lot more cases which were not headline news. I find it extremely disheartening at times at the level of injustice in this country.

Well, the papers would hardly be reporting on cases where the subject got a good sentence. Doesn't really sell newspapers. Sensationalism sells.

Mrmoe wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/man-given-oneyear-suspended-sentence-for-sexual-assault-1681060.html

It doesn't go into specifics on what exactly the sexual assault is. THis can be anything to touching her arse.
Out of character etc etc.

Mrmoe wrote: »

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5863&Itemid=38

Admission of guilt, it being an accident (they were friends)
Again, out of character.

Mrmoe wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0205/owoiyas.html

Seven years for the man doesn't seem too bad, given the death was accidental.
The woman wasn't involved in the death so a suspended sentence isn't too far off.

Mrmoe wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/eyauqlidkfql/

Seems like just lost control here. Hitting someone in the spur of the moment isn't too heinous.

Mrmoe wrote: »

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2004/01/21/story130638.asp

He bit her?
Yeah, terrible perversion of justice there. Better get the ECHR in on this.

Mrmoe wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/man-given-twoyear-suspended-sentence-for-abusing-young-boy-1681059.html

Wasn't the guy dying in this case?

Mrmoe wrote: »

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=10749

10 year suspended sentence?
Doesn't sound as if she's too much of a threat TBH

Mrmoe wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0314/sutcliffej.html

Sounds like a brawl with an addict that got out of hand.

amacachi

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Source please.

:rolleyes:

I study the law and from what I can see, we have a flawed justice system but I don't really see any alternatives. IMHO it's pretty much one of the best we could hope for.

You genuinely don't think that general increased sentences and some more consistency would be a good thing?

EDIT: BTW I'm not just a reactionary. In my opinion it should always be the crime and the intent of the crime rather than the result that should be the main deciding factor when in comes to sentencing. As far as I'm concerned someone getting a long custodial sentence for punching someone who then falls and bangs their head and dies is ridiculous as the only crime was a single punch. Likewise with drink-driving. Drink driving is drink driving, the result is purely down to luck.

Lockstep

amacachi wrote: »

:rolleyes:

:pac:

amacachi wrote: »

You genuinely don't think that general increased sentences and some more consistency would be a good thing?

I don't really see how such a thing could be achieved.
Generally increasing sentences per se doesn't solve anything. It depends on the crime/situation in question.

amacachi

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I don't really see how such a thing could be achieved.
Generally increasing sentences per se doesn't solve anything. It depends on the crime/situation in question.

I know that it doesn't serve as much of a deterrant, but it would at least reduce the amount of time/opportunity they have to re-offend.

amacachi

Also I'm assuming you know the answer to this, I don't, is our sex offenders register the same as the american in that someone caught taking a piss in public can end up on the same list as rapists and child molesters?