Is any other Irish person feeling guilty about Manuela Riedo?

JonathanAnon

Seeing her parents on the LLS tonight, I got to wondering. Would the Swiss judicial system have put any Irish traveller in the same dangerous position position as our justice system did.

As an Irish person, I'm embarrassed by the fact that our state would let a proven animal (look up his record) out on the streets. They KNEW he had the capability to do this, and still he was let free.

Also, I think it's about time that the "judicial" system starting allowing the jury to hear the previous convictions of the defendants. It is not influencing the jury against the defendant, it is proving that the defendant has form.

Very very sad case though.

markopantelic

Well I don't feel guilty but I think it tarnishes Ireland in the name of that family and her community, I mean its only natural. So sad though.

Souljacker

I think it's only natural to feel guilty for the failings of our judicial system to put this man (who as you say was so clearly a danger) away.

It's really a joke that our current justice minister is focusing his energy into blasphemy laws when he could implement real changes people in this country want to the judicial system.

Personally I'd like to see substantial mandatory custodial sentences handed down to all convictred rapists followed by a lengthy follow up on their release which would involve more than sex offenders simply signing on in their local garda station.

I don't believe anyone in beyond helping and rehabilitation is Key. I'd never be in favour of completely writing anyone off but some of the sentences for rape handed down in this country are nothing short of a joke. It's not a matter of revenge, but of the safety of the public and justice.

walrusgumble

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Seeing her parents on the LLS tonight, I got to wondering. Would the Swiss judicial system have put any Irish traveller in the same dangerous position position as our justice system did.

As an Irish person, I'm embarrassed by the fact that our state would let a proven animal (look up his record) out on the streets. They KNEW he had the capability to do this, and still he was let free.

Also, I think it's about time that the "judicial" system starting allowing the jury to hear the previous convictions of the defendants. It is not influencing the jury against the defendant, it is proving that the defendant has form.

Very very sad case though.

how does that prove the facts of the actual charges put in front of the court and jury. what happens if the person has previous convictions such as assault, does that immediately mean that he or she is either possibly-defintely capable of say rape? what happens where somone has being charged for a crime they did not do? do the jury know the defendant (obviously not as they would be prevented from sitting) presumption of innocence springs to mind

let the jury concentrate on the actual evidence put before them they will be doing alright. they are there to determine the facts of what occurred in relation to the particular offence to the particular victim and not what they did years ago in seperate incidents with different victims (unless of course a different victim was giving evidence in case before the jury) anyway it was the state who let him out not the jury, the jury in previous cases had done their job, its not for the jury to decide the actual sentence

jmayo

It is just not this case, here is a guy who has committed crimes before, he gets a few years, is given remission for being a good little boy and reoffends.
He now gets life, what is a life sentence in Ireland BTW ?

The German girl that was killed in Louth a number of years ago, was killed by a second time murderer who had been released after a few years in prison.

A retired teacher in Roscommon was killed by a guy that was on day release to his family home from Castlerea prison.
He had previously viciously killed an old neighbouring farmer and he had been labelled a physco by the guards and doctors, but the guy was let out on day releases.
He killed the retired teacher and went back to prison the same night as if nothing had happened.

What are the bets that this sickos will be "rehabiliated" and out in another 10 odd years.
The criminals are treated as the victims by our courts and the real victims are forgotten.
They should get at least 20 years and if they reoffend for serious crimes (murder, rape, kidnap, child abuse) then they never get out except in a coffin.

I am just waiting for all the bleedin hearts to start posting.

Souljacker, IMHO some people should be written off.
They will never offer anything to society except pain and fear.
We seem to value personal freedoms over society's safety.

walrusgumble

jmayo wrote: »

It is just not this case, here is a guy who has committed crimes before, he gets a few years, is given remission for being a good little boy and reoffends.
He now gets life, what is a life sentence in Ireland BTW ?

The German girl that was killed in Louth a number of years ago, was killed by a second time murderer who had been released after a few years in prison.

A retired teacher in Roscommon was killed by a guy that was on day release to his family home from Castlerea prison.
He had previously viciously killed an old neighbouring farmer and he had been labelled a physco by the guards and doctors, but the guy was let out on day releases.
He killed the retired teacher and went back to prison the same night as if nothing had happened.

What are the bets that this sickos will be "rehabiliated" and out in another 10 odd years.
The criminals are treated as the victims by our courts and the real victims are forgotten.
They should get at least 20 years and if they reoffend for serious crimes (murder, rape, kidnap, child abuse) then they never get out except in a coffin.

I am just waiting for all the bleedin hearts to start posting.

BTW to previous poster some people shoudl be written off.
Society and the victims deserve it.

you are missing the point here and if you are referring to my previous post, would you kindly try and learn the actual basics of the role of the court jury. if you want to complain, complain about the judges, or more importantly complain about those who legislate and make policies etc. this is not an issue of bleeding heart liberals in the context that jury should get to hear about previous convictions.

the first fella you are talking about was convicted. jury found him guilty from the facts that were presented before the court. there job is over in that regard. it was the judge who passed the sentence and the minister/governor with aid of the sentencing precedent who gave him remission "for being a good little boy" juries dont have a say on sentencing, they have a say on whether someone is guilty or not, they don't need, as seen in first persons previous cases, need to know his previous convictions. evidence given in court will make it clear for them in their judgements (most of the time)

if you feel so strongly about writting off people, then by all means become a judge or a serial murder, see how far you will get

Souljacker

jmayo wrote: »

Souljacker, IMHO some people should be written off.
They will never offer anything to society except pain and fear.
We seem to value personal freedoms over society's safety.

I don't want to change this into a debate on whether the death penalty should be reintroduced as that's not the reason it started but have a look a countries where it exists (USA, Saudi Arabia) and then have a look at the number of violent crimes committed there in comparison to here. All the evidence says it doesn't work.

I agree with you that there are some nasty people out there whop deserved to be locked up maybe for the rest of their lives but if you want society to start giving up on people we're on a very slippery slope. Who decides where we draw the line? This has nothing to do with bleedin hearts simply arming our judicial system with the powers to lock up (and yes try to rehabilitate) the people who need to locked up, for the safety of everyone. We go down the US route and we'll end up failing more people.

JonathanAnon

jmayo wrote: »

I
I am just waiting for all the bleedin hearts to start posting.
Souljacker, IMHO some people should be written off.
They will never offer anything to society except pain and fear.
We seem to value personal freedoms over society's safety.

I agree with all of this. The judicial system has to cop on to the fact that THERE ARE BAD EGGS. Not people who didnt get a chance, not people who were failed by society etc etc... just bad people. And they should be locked up for life, to prevent what happened to Manuela Riedo.

I know a guy who got done DUI twice, and his previous offence was brought up in court when he was up the second time. Is it just for minor offences that the court is allowed to peruse the form, or should it not be for the people who are a danger to society as well?

nesf

I don't feel in the slightest way guilty. I really don't see how or why any Irish person not involved in the incident would feel guilty.

walrusgumble

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I agree with all of this. The judicial system has to cop on to the fact that THERE ARE BAD EGGS. Not people who didnt get a chance, not people who were failed by society etc etc... just bad people. And they should be locked up for life, to prevent what happened to Manuela Riedo.

I know a guy who got done DUI twice, and his previous offence was brought up in court when he was up the second time. Is it just for minor offences that the court is allowed to peruse the form, or should it not be for the people who are a danger to society as well?

that guy obviously either was found guilty (by judge, if in district court no jury) or pleaded guilty. at migitation & conviction stage previous convictions are always brought up by the prosecution. it does not matter what type of offence it is, if one got previous record and is convicted his past will be looked at at mitigating / sentence stage

jmayo

walrusgumble wrote: »

you are missing the point here and if you are referring to my previous post, would you kindly try and learn the actual basics of the role of the court jury. if you want to complain, complain about the judges, or more importantly complain about those who legislate and make policies etc. this is not an issue of bleeding heart liberals in the context that jury should get to hear about previous convictions.

the first fella you are talking about was convicted. jury found him guilty from the facts that were presented before the court. there job is over in that regard. it was the judge who passed the sentence and the minister/governor with aid of the sentencing precedent who gave him remission "for being a good little boy" juries dont have a say on sentencing, they have a say on whether someone is guilty or not, they don't need, as seen in first persons previous cases, need to know his previous convictions. evidence given in court will make it clear for them in their judgements (most of the time)

if you feel so strongly about writting off people, then by all means become a judge or a serial murder, see how far you will get

FFS I was not having a go at you so kindly stop the condescending attitude.
I know the role of a jury in a trial and the role of the judge.
We can all be condescending, sentences begin with a capital letter you know.

Did I mention a jury was at fault anywhere ?
Did I even reference the divulging of previous criminal history to the jury during a trial ?

What I am complaining about is the fact that sentencing is too lenient and some people who have committed very serious crimes are let out after a few years in prison.
Often these people reoffend and then they are sent back to prison for another few years.
There are a fair few people, includuing this poor girl, who would be aliive today but for our lax sentencing and revolvig door prison systems.

The judges, the DPP, the prison system and the legislature have a lot to answer for but not the juries.

And before you claim I am hijacking this thread to complain about sentencing, did the OP not mention that this guy had been let out into society after having previously committed crime ?

Regardig your point there is an argument for divulging a defendants previous criminal history, should the jury know of the defendant's propensities ?

This thread was started to ask if Irish people feel ashamed.
And yes I am and I am very sorry that some innocent kid dies, because we let scumbags loose after serving a few years in jail for very serious crimes.

Souljacker wrote: »

...

I agree with you that there are some nasty people out there whop deserved to be locked up maybe for the rest of their lives but if you want society to start giving up on people we're on a very slippery slope. Who decides where we draw the line? This has nothing to do with bleedin hearts simply arming our judicial system with the powers to lock up (and yes try to rehabilitate) the people who need to locked up, for the safety of everyone. We go down the US route and we'll end up failing more people.

Well our system has already failed a fair few people, the victims and their families, but that is alright so long as Johnny the serial rapist and Frankie the murderer are rehabiliated and given a second, third or forth chance.