How ridiculous is this?

Chaotic_Forces

Teutorix wrote: »

No judge would allow a man be convicted of rape if it was drunken sex between two adults. Cite a case where this actually happened.

Sure, I'll ask my local judge; one sec. :rolleyes:

Teutorix

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Sure, I'll ask my local judge; one sec. :rolleyes:

You said people had been convicted for it, so show some fúcking evidence.

Chaotic_Forces

Teutorix wrote: »

You said people had been convicted for it, so show some fúcking evidence.

Show some fu*king evidence where the case was thrown out?

bohsboy

With regards to the animal convicted for the attempted rape, he got 12 years with 3 suspended, has served 1 year on remand so this is back dated, so he's been handed an 8 year sentence.

Take into account his 25% remission he has to serve 6 years from today.

12 years suddenly becomes 6. What a joke.

Teutorix

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Show some fu*king evidence where the case was thrown out?

burden of proof is on the claimant

semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit

Micky Dolenz

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Sure, I'll ask my local judge; one sec. :rolleyes:

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Show some fu*king evidence where the case was thrown out?

You stop trolling now or I will ban you.

Back on topic please.

Nodin

My name is URL wrote: »

Maybe.. again it comes down to judges making suspect calls on certain cases. On the one hand they want there to be space in prisons so they hand down sentences which are far too lenient, and on the other hand they pass on sending mentally ill criminals to the proper facilities. It's a joke.. there seems to be no overall plan on what they want to achieve. People get all hot and bothered if it's suggested that the President step in and sort it out, even though she's the one who appoints judges and the only one with the power to do anything.

I'm actually not sure the law provides for the situation, tbh.

My name is URL

Nodin wrote: »

I'm actually not sure the law provides for the situation, tbh.

I think it allows the president to dismiss judges under certain circumstances.. not too sure what the circumstances are but I'd hope that one would be to preserve the integrity of Irish law. Even if no law allows for it, why isn't there changes being brought in too change that?

Raze_them_all

I heard this on the radio today and joked that yer man would of gotten less time if he actually committed the rape...thing is I could of been right!

Nodin

My name is URL wrote: »

Even if no law allows for it, why isn't there changes being brought in too change that?

Again, something I've no answer to. I've never understood it, and never heard it raised in the Dail either (which doesn't mean it didn't happen, admittedly).

prinz

My name is URL wrote: »

I think it allows the president to dismiss judges under certain circumstances.. not too sure what the circumstances are but I'd hope that one would be to preserve the integrity of Irish law. Even if no law allows for it, why isn't there changes being brought in too change that?

Two bases.. (1) Stated misbehaviour. No real definition of that though, as far as what 'misbehaviour' could mean. Accused of serious crimes I suppose. Perhaps treasonous remarks from the bench. It's a grey area. AFAIK only been used once, back in the 1800's for a judge basically pocketing fines and bonds for himself.

(2) Incapacity to judge - if the judge is seriously ill/ becomes mentally ill/ develops a serious addiciton etc.

The idea of reprimanding a judge to 'preserve the integrity of Irish law' sort of goes against our Common Law system. If you believe the judge in any given case has veered too far one way or the other with regard to Irish law you can appeal.

The call for the removal has to go through the Dáil and the Seannad... the usual course of action if for the judge to resign before it gets all the way though. That has happened a few times. Jump or be pushed.

RVP 11

RVP 11 wrote: »

Reason being kids are cruel and look for any reason to be centre of attention and make funny statements to get a laugh.
A bit like yourself i might add.

...

orourkeda

Royal Irish wrote: »

So with good behaviour he could be out in 5 years?

I think thats right, that they can get 1/3 off their sentence for that. If true its a joke.

Perhaps I'm completely wide of the mark by suggesting this, but is remission for good behaviour a cost cutting measure.

prinz

orourkeda wrote: »

Perhaps I'm completely wide of the mark by suggesting this, but is remission for good behaviour a cost cutting measure.

The problem is the remission for good behaviour is automatic. Rewarding people for behaving like prisoners should to begin with. The whole system is arseways.