A scumbag strikes again!

minidazzler

billymitchell wrote: »

You cant call him a scumbag, come out with what you said, and not expect to be called a hypocrite.

The difference is that that piece of human waste committed a highly damaging act on an otherwise healthy and law abiding citizen. He infringed on a mans rights to his own body and for that reason should give up his rights to his body to be done with as seen fit by the victim.

Samich

sick of seeing scum bag mentioned in the title of threads, as if they're way above the so called "scumbags". Yes they mightn't be nice people, but jaysus the world is a big place, these things are bound to happen. Not nice obviously and don't want it to happen.

Guy:Incognito

Stinicker wrote: »

Clampers are pure scum of the highest order anyway, all it took was one scumbag to lock horns with another and this happened.

I am not condoning walloping any one over the head with a hammer; however as someone who fell victim to clampers this year I don't exactly have much pity for them either at the same time, they know the risks and all it took was one nutjob loose cannon like this guy and this is what happens.

By "fell victim to" , do you mean that you didnt obey the rules set out of where you parked? I wont bother replying to the rest of the ridiculous wankery you posted.

suicide_circus

There are a lot of problems in ireland; ****e economy, cost of living, croneyism, ah-sure-its-grand-ism, crap infrastructure, corruption, drink culture, ignorance, incompetence, crap health system and general inbrededness.
However, my biggest beef with modern irish society is the way in which scumbags are routinely pandered to by the courts and social welfare system. Most of the sentences being handed down in our courts are nothimg short of a national disgrace. Pure filth like the untermensch in that article are treated softly softly and its just another slap in the face to the victim.
Makes me ashamed of my country.

Crazy Horse 6

Oh great another boards scumbag thread. :pac:

Freddie59

The judiciary need to be reined in, or the law changed to enable the Government to do so. Last week a guy who had drunk 9 pints and 5 brandies was jailed for four years (out in 2) for killing four people, including an unborn child.

Something really has to be done at this stage.

Freddie59

suicide_circus wrote: »

There are a lot of problems in ireland; ****e economy, cost of living, croneyism, ah-sure-its-grand-ism, crap infrastructure, corruption, drink culture, ignorance, incompetence, crap health system and general inbrededness.
However, my biggest beef with modern irish society is the way in which scumbags are routinely pandered to by the courts and social welfare system. Most of the sentences being handed down in our courts are nothimg short of a national disgrace. Pure filth like the untermensch in that article are treated softly softly and its just another slap in the face to the victim.
Makes me ashamed of my country.

Yep. And nothing will change so long as the judiciary are 'independent' and answerable, basically, to nobody. It matters little what the man's occupation was - NOBODY deserves this. The victim and his family have been given a life - meaning life - sentence.

Guy:Incognito

Freddie59 wrote: »

Something really has to be done at this stage.

Dock their pay.

sgb

Freddie59 wrote: »

Yep. And nothing will change so long as the judiciary are 'independent' and answerable, basically, to nobody. It matters little what the man's occupation was - NOBODY deserves this. The victim and his family have been given a life - meaning life - sentence.

The judiciary should be independent and answerable to no one

Icyseanfitz

i hear this ****e every week, makes me want to leave ireland for good tbh which is a damn shame because it would be a brilliant country without all the scumbags/incompetent officials

gurramok

sgb wrote: »

The judiciary should be independent and answerable to no one

Ah we see, in their ivory towers. About time they came down to street level and see the suffering of the victims.

jluv

I think things are going to change in this country,possibly a lot slower than we'd like, but get better in the long run. People IMO have woken up over the last while and are starting to question things more. Take the topic we are discussing. That same "scumbag" was around a few years ago but some of us were possibly too busy" investing our money/buying property bla bla bla" That judges decision still would have made us feel the same way back then but we give more emphasis to their responsibility now because we feel they need to "earn" their money. I feel the recession is making us get more real in general. The good thing is that people in high places are now being looked at. Think politics felt that this week..

The_Thing

Good for nothing and allways will be, the best thing for Sweeney is a bullet in his misbegotten brain.

Sitec

Fcuking disgrace, 7 years! In america you would get more for drugs possession in some states!

fcuking bastard should be hung by his bollocks

woodoo

Samich wrote: »

sick of seeing scum bag mentioned in the title of threads, as if they're way above the so called "scumbags". Yes they mightn't be nice people, but jaysus the world is a big place, these things are bound to happen. Not nice obviously and don't want it to happen.

You are not making much sense there.

Yes the world is a big place and bad things happen. Some bad things happen and nothing can be done about that. But when a person deliberately does these things i consider them a scumbag. Bad things like this are because of nasty lowlife scum like Sweeney. He didn't have to swing that hammer. I wouldn't have. It didn't just happen it was made to happen (by a scumbag).

previous user

Scum! He should be shot in the testicles with a flaming crossbow and his seed should be wiped from the earth :mad:

fonecrusher1

This is exactly why we're the laughing stock of the world. The cnut should be in prison for life...oh wait we can't afford that, yeah actually around seven years for murder is all we can afford at the moment.:rolleyes:

aidan24326

Hal Emmerich wrote: »

Who is worse the Judge or the Scumbag that ran off after hitting the clamper??

Poor Man needs 24hr Care provided by his sister, a 10 year old daughter and 70year old Parents back in Romania.

Is their a way to see other cases presided over by this Judge??

You have to remember that a judge is restricted by the maximum sentence legally allowed for any given crime. He can't just dish out whatever harsh sentence he feels like. Though in this case I don't see why he couldn't have handed down the full 10 years without suspending any of them. But 10 was probably the most he could give anyway.

Venom

aidan24326 wrote: »

You have to remember that a judge is restricted by the maximum sentence legally allowed for any given crime. He can't just dish out whatever harsh sentence he feels like. Though in this case I don't see why he couldn't have handed down the full 10 years without suspending any of them. But 10 was probably the most he could give anyway.

But this is only the latest court cases where a pathetic sentence has been handed down for a horrific crime.

Last week it was the scumbag couple who beat up an elderly couple and got a fully suspended sentence.

The week before that is was a drunk driver who drank 10 pints and 8 shorts, drove on the wrong side of the road and ended up killing 2 men and a pregnant woman yet only got 4 years for it.

The list goes on and on

mikeyboy

The law lays down maximum sentences for all crimes. For example, if you are found guilty of violent disorder under Section 15 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, the maximum sentence you can receive is 10 years imprisonment. When considering what sentence to impose on you, the judge follows a two-step procedure:

1. Decide what the sentence should be in light of the seriousness of the offence.
2. Reduce that sentence in the light of any mitigating or excusing factors given on your behalf.

There are a number of important factors that a judge must have regard to, when sentencing you. It is a matter for your solicitor or barrister, on your behalf, to urge the judge to consider these factors and what weight or importance should be given to each.
When deciding which sentence to impose on you, the judge considers:

• Whether or not you pleaded guilty to the offence
• The facts of the offence - the circumstances in which the offence occurred
• Whether there were any aggravating factors in relation to the offence - such as particularly violent or cruel behaviour
• Your previous criminal record
• Your character
• Your age
• Your family circumstances
• Whether you are employed
• Whether you are sorry for what you have done
• Whether certain types of treatment may help or reform you
• The impact of the offence on the victim
• Any other relevant information about you (for example, if you are in bad health)

The impression I get is that the judge started at the top of the tree (10 years) and then worked his way down taking into account Sweeney's turning himself in, offer of compensation to the victim, anger management and fund raising efforts for the CCR which led to the suspension of the final three years.
Perhaps we need a system where someone who commits such a savage crime and receives a suspended sentence should not be eligible for release until they have served the full custodial term and then have to spend at least part of the suspended time working for victims of similar thuggery, obviously under supervision.
Although the cynic in me doubts if someone with thirty previous convictions is really a candidate for reform.

x in the city

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Theres no real deterrent for crime in this country anymore. Seven years is fcuk all time compared to a lifetime of profound disability.

yet the disabled man still has a higher IQ than dub scumbag

mickydoomsux

How can this happen? Seriously?

People with double figure previous convictions should just be locked up for good in the deepest, darkest hole.

They will never be anything but a problem and it's obviously just a waste of time trying to "rehabilitate" them when they just keep re-offending.

We just seem to wait until they kill or permanently disable someone and then we give them maybe 7 years, if even that. Why even bother convicting people at this stage?

I genuinely thing that if something isn't done soon about sentencing, we're going to see more cases of vigilante justice being perpetrated by people who actually want people punished for their crimes. I'll welcome it.

senordingdong

Which is the bigger scum bag though, him or the judge?

Hal Emmerich

senordingdong wrote: »

Which is the bigger scum bag though, him or the judge?

Tough call when you read what the judge had to say....

Judge Martin Nolan said the facts of the case were “simple and tragic”.

“In a fit of temper he took out a lump hammer and struck the victim on the head,” he said.

He said the “profound injuries” the “unfortunate” Mr Pista suffered were inevitable. “The use of such a savage weapon, when you think of the fragility of the skull”.

“I have used such a tool in the past and today I weighed it in my hand, (when it was presented as an exhibit in the hearing) to reacquaint myself with it. It is an incredibly heavy hammer used in the building industry for crushing stones and splitting bricks. Apply that to any part of the body and it seems inevitable serious injuries would be expected,” Judge Nolan said.

He accepted that Sweeney had his difficulties in the past but added: “like a lot of people”.

“He has a bad temper, like a lot of people, but everyone has to control their temper and he failed miserably on the day in question,” the judge said.

Unfortunate!!!!!!!

WOW! What a choice of word!!!

Article doesn't say what age Pista is but he and his family are probably looking at a 20-30 year sentence....Scumface will probably be out in 3.

I can't say anything else...it'll only have to be deleted.

mikemac

Using a lump hammer to strike someone on the head is nothing less then attempted murder.

Probably said already in the thread but clearly the judge doesn't think so

mcgarry098

biko wrote: »

Should have been charged with attempted murder.

should be charged with murder, because attempted murder is the same idea as murder but just done by poeple who are too thick to do it right.

law is way too easy here for crime, yet for drink drivin its one of the strictest :P

busyliving

Just another reason and justification for corporal punishment...fcuking scum

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitual_offender

This is the simple solution to these problems, not even 3 strikes is needed, 5 strikes would be enough. How many times do we hear of crimes being committed by lads with 20+ convictions?

The current prison population is 4,257. Do you think that's enough? You could probably find 4000 scumbags in Dublin alone who deserve to be prison for one reason or another.

Of course, there's the cost but I think it's money well spent.

HovaBaby

The best thing about communist socities is that these things wouldn't even get a court hearing, the secret police would just show up in the middle of the night and carry them away into the darkness, never to be heard from again.

Pity the rest of communism doesn't work. If only went could find a balance between communism and capitalism.

up for anything

biko wrote: »

Should have been charged with attempted murder.

Attempted murder? He should have been charged with murder. Just because the man is still breathing doesn't mean that his life wasn't taken away from him.