Judges

miseeire

Let me start by saying I am not a big fan of the Gardai.I believe that there are a lot of thugs who uphold the law but their methods might be open to question.My gripe is with a particular judge who failed to jail a 17 year old who threatened to rape a female garda,assaulted another garda and pleaded not guilty to all charges.He was found guilty but was given a 12 month probation order by Judge Clare Leonard.He is currently in custody on remand for seperate offences.I am sure there are "experts"out there who cannot hear a bad thought,let alone a bad word about the judicary but please try to explain this.You would probably find reason to excuse Hitler and the gas chambers.The floor is yours.

Wolfe Tone

Judge had his reasons I'm sure... Whether you or I accept them as sufficient is another matter entirely.

miseeire

I presume Clare is female.Regardless,common sense is open to all.

nuac

Clare Leonard is an experienced lawyer and a good judge.

I presume she imposed what she considered the appropriate
sentence based on the evidence befoe her.

Shelflife

Its all thats wrong with the Irish Justice system today, there seems to be no deterrent to wrongdoers and little protection to those who are here to protect us.

Guards can get the crap beaten out of them and the thugs get probation or suspended sentences and then when they utter a poor choice of words or are rude to someone all hell breaks loose.

we really need proper punishments that would make the criminals think twice about their actions.

miseeire

miseeire wrote: »

.I am sure there are "experts"out there who cannot hear a bad thought,let alone a bad word about the judicary but please try to explain this.You would probably find reason to excuse Hitler and the gas chambers.The floor is yours.

Well you really left us all so much room to answer you. If we voice an opinion other than yours we are Hitler loving conspirators. Godwin's law is the only real legal discussion here methinks.

I'd prefer to think that the judge who heard all the evidence could give a better and more adequate sentence than someone who had the sort of synopsis you have given us. Without all the facts any opinion we give is flawed. Basing any decision or opinion on your ridiculously emotive framing of the "facts" would be pointless.

I'm sure you'll claim I am just an invested party defending the system but my basic point is this: you clearly have made up your mind and you are either looking for an argument or people to just agree with you. Best of luck.

McCrack

miseeire wrote: »

Let me start by saying I am not a big fan of the Gardai.I believe that there are a lot of thugs who uphold the law but their methods might be open to question.My gripe is with a particular judge who failed to jail a 17 year old who threatened to rape a female garda,assaulted another garda and pleaded not guilty to all charges.He was found guilty but was given a 12 month probation order by Judge Clare Leonard.He is currently in custody on remand for seperate offences.I am sure there are "experts"out there who cannot hear a bad thought,let alone a bad word about the judicary but please try to explain this.You would probably find reason to excuse Hitler and the gas chambers.The floor is yours.

What newspaper did you read and get your "facts" on this matter from?

Best piece of advice I can give you is don't make assumptions on what you read in a newspaper.

Judge Leonard had the case before her, reports and witnesses. She also has her many years experience as a District Court Judge.

What do you have? Page 6 of the Sun is all.

seamus

How's about this beauty

Judge Martin Nolan said he was impressed by Costello's low conviction record and was prepared to give him a chance by imposing a three-year suspended sentence.

Now, it has been explained to me elsewhere that a judge in a circuit court will typically have scum of earth in front of them with 40+ convictions, so someone with few convictions is a rarity.

But I think this shows exactly what kind of fantasy world judges are living in when a judge remarks that he's "impressed" that a criminal only has a small number of previous convictions, rather than punishing him more severely for having any previous convictions at all.

I know for a fact that the Garda in their entirety are extremely frustrated by the judicial system. They put a lot of effort into trying to secure convictions, only to see it result it pathetic sentences or having the case struck out over minor (or irrelevant) legal trickery which is immaterial to the fact of whether or not the person is guilty.

McCrack

seamus wrote: »

How's about this beauty

Now, it has been explained to me elsewhere that a judge in a circuit court will typically have scum of earth in front of them with 40+ convictions, so someone with few convictions is a rarity.

But I think this shows exactly what kind of fantasy world judges are living in when a judge remarks that he's "impressed" that a criminal only has a small number of previous convictions, rather than punishing him more severely for having any previous convictions at all.

I know for a fact that the Garda in their entirety are extremely frustrated by the judicial system. They put a lot of effort into trying to secure convictions, only to see it result it pathetic sentences or having the case struck out over minor (or irrelevant) legal trickery which is immaterial to the fact of whether or not the person is guilty.

Criminal judges are well tuned into criminality, they deal with it years and years as lawyers and as a Judge when they become one. They are more clued in than most people who don't fortunately have any dealings with the criminal justice system except what they read in newspapers or online and form their opinions based on that.

Your last points don't have merit. The system is there and the Gardai have to work within legislation and their powers. Cases don't get struck out by "legal trickery". Cases get struck out by incompetent or inexperienced Gardai saying or doing something they shouldn't in the course of the investigation and gathering of evidence.

We have very indulgent criminal justice legislation which gives very wide powers to Gardai to investigate and prosecute crime, particularly Acts enacted in recent years.

There are no loopholes, only somebody doing something they shouldn't to the detriment of the prosecution.

seamus

McCrack wrote: »

Cases get struck out by incompetent or inexperienced Gardai saying or doing something they shouldn't in the course of the investigation and gathering of evidence.

I'll give you an example I heard last week from a Garda I was speaking to, who was telling me about a case they had been in court for, early in their career.

A Garda was asked as a witness if they had obtained a warrant for a particular search under section X, to which they responded "no".

The Judge struck the case out on foot of this. When the Garda had a look at the statute to figure out what they should have done, they realised that they had in fact done the correct thing. For that particular type of search, a warrant was not required, could not have been obtained and in fact would have been illegal to obtain under that section (because they didn't have any legal basis on which to obtain that warrant).

The solicitor knew this, and asked the question hoping to catch the green Garda unawares. The fact that no warrant was obtained was immaterial to the case at hand and yet the perpetrator walked free basically without having been tried for the crime.

Solicitors and barristers do this stuff day in and out - using legal nicities and asking trick questions in order to avoid having to actually argue the case on its facts.

Plenty of cases get struck out because the prosecution was incomplete or search/arrest procedures not followed through. But many are lost in courtroom on the basis of ambiguous questioning or lexical semantics rather than simple facts.

McCrack

Your scenario of the warrant and the case getting struck out is too obscure to give any comment on.

You are also making an assumption that this defendant was guilty of the offence he was in the dock for. You say "perpetrator walked free". That smacks of reading too much sensationalist newspaper reports and listening to incompetent gardai.

Again I'll reiterate for you that there are no "technicalities", "loopholes" in the law. The system is there and people must work within it and that includes police, witnesses, experts and lawyers. There are also no "trick questions" either believe it or not. There are two ways of doing anything, the right and wrong way.

If somebody makes a fcuk up along the way thats the problem and an accused should not be penalised for that.

johnnyskeleton

seamus wrote: »

The solicitor knew this, and asked the question hoping to catch the green Garda unawares. The fact that no warrant was obtained was immaterial to the case at hand and yet the perpetrator walked free basically without having been tried for the crime.

Assuming for a moment that the anecdote is true and that it shows how there is a problem in the system that needs fixing, there are two possible ways to fix it. 1, we could relax the rules of evidence so any old rubbish prosecution will get over the line (a process that has been ongoing over the last few years) or 2, we could maintain fair trials but actually get lawyers to prosecute legal cases instead of gardai. Gardai are not lawyers and ipso facto should not be given carriage of complex legal proceedings.

But the people who make these arguments don't want to look at overcrowed prisons, poor garda training and a lack of resources to State Solicitors because these issues require money to fix. They only want to look at some perceived easy option that the world would somehow be a better place if judges handed down longer sentences (where would we even put them?).

MagicSean

miseeire wrote: »

Let me start by saying I am not a big fan of the Gardai.I believe that there are a lot of thugs who uphold the law but their methods might be open to question.

Great start.

miseeire wrote: »

My gripe is with a particular judge who failed to jail a 17 year old who threatened to rape a female garda,assaulted another garda and pleaded not guilty to all charges.He was found guilty but was given a 12 month probation order by Judge Clare Leonard.

I'm surprised he even get charged to be honest. It wouldn't be what I call a unique incident.

miseeire wrote: »

He is currently in custody on remand for seperate offences.I am sure there are "experts"out there who cannot hear a bad thought,let alone a bad word about the judicary but please try to explain this.You would probably find reason to excuse Hitler and the gas chambers.The floor is yours.

Where you at the court case and did you hear the facts and the judges reasons or is this opinion of yours based on the same evidence as your opinion of Gardaí i.e. nothing but hearsay.

Pkiernan

Judges here should be elected just like our politicians.

That way, we can weed out the corrupt and incompetent ones based on their sentencing.

When one sees how lightly hardened criminals are treated (especially sex criminals), one could be forgiven for concluding that many judges are corrupt and possibly child molesters themselves. I am at a loss as to how to explain suspended sentences for rape.

And as for giving a traveler with 58 prior convictions a suspended sentence - WTF???

Shield

Pkiernan wrote: »

And as for giving a traveler with 58 prior convictions a suspended sentence - WTF???

I'd expand on that by saying that giving anyone with 58 prior convictions a suspended sentence - WTF???

shaneybaby

Pkiernan wrote: »

Judges here should be elected just like our politicians.

That way, we can weed out the corrupt and incompetent ones based on their sentencing.

When one sees how lightly hardened criminals are treated (especially sex criminals), one could be forgiven for concluding that many judges are corrupt and possibly child molesters themselves. I am at a loss as to how to explain suspended sentences for rape.

And as for giving a traveler with 58 prior convictions a suspended sentence - WTF???

presumably you're taking the p***....

Pkiernan

Pkiernan wrote: »

Judges here should be elected just like our politicians.

Yeah, because we've done a marvellous job of weeding out corrupt politicians. :rolleyes:

Making judicial roles elected offices encourages populist stances and populist sentences. Judge's then would make decisions based on what will get them re-elected rather than what is just. In short your "idea" is absolutely horrendous.

Robbo

Given how we tend to elect our politicians on the basis of fixing the pothole or sorting the planning, god only knows how bad a judicial election would be.

"If ye give me the vote, I'll have yerman at number 16 locked up for his barking dog".

I suppose they'd have to start attending the funerals of local crims then, if only to make a show of dancing on the grave.

Maximilian

I can only imagine the terrible judicial decisions that would be made if judges were regularly answerable to electorates consisting of pitchfork wielders.

234

Electing judges is possibly the worst idea I have ever heard. They should be appointed by a completely independent committee composed of more than just lawyers; with no political influences what so ever (unlike the JAAB).

Thirdfox

Before people pooh-pooh the idea of elected judges, perhaps one should look at the empirical evidence in a country where judges are elected (at least at the local/state level):

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1008989 - it's just one article but it does show that there is "proper" research going into this, not just emotional/gut-feeling responses.

I got onto a discussion of the article from this blog:
http://lawandcourts.com/2007/09/08/judicial-selection-method-smackdown-appointed-vs-elected-judges/

Personally - I'm not sure either way. Instinctively I feel that appointed ones are more suitable...however as one poster on that blog says - appointed could just be a code word for "elite". If you just have to appeal to one Minister, or one panel of people, one could argue that it is a lot easier to appease them than to appease the general public.

On the other hand - do we want to appease the general public?

miseeire

Ok.Newspaper should report ALL of the case or none at all.Agreed?