Suspended sentences for assault

GCDLawstudent

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I'm convinced lads! Down with this sort of thing. Bollocks to a system of checks and balances! A system of subjective, emotionally driven, opinion is what we need! We should just have list of crimes and a list of sentences - simples!

Once again, an attempt to disregard what I am saying rather than any kind of comprehension or understanding. I suppose, we've all be cocky first-years at some point.

I would argue that what we have at the moment is a subjective view of the law based on a certain judges and their strange sentencing habits, and apparent sympathy for the attacker in many cases.

Procrastastudy

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Once again, an attempt to disregard what I am saying rather than any kind of comprehension or understanding. I suppose, we've all be cocky first-years at some point.

I would argue that what we have at the moment is a subjective view of the law based on a certain judges and their strange sentencing habits, and apparent sympathy for the attacker in many cases.

I'd have a discussion if thats what this was. Each time I pose a question you ignore it. My extra-terrestrial status aside I'm 32 and beyond the cocky first year stage - unfortunately!

234

homeOwner wrote: »

Surely this leaves the whole process open to massive abuse. We are basically trusting our judges to impose sentences that are worthy of the crime without any input into the appointing of the judges. Given that they have such power.

You can look at it two ways:
Experienced judge makes a wise decision to suspend 90% of a sentence and impose a fine on a wealthy well respected businessman who is unlikely to re-offend, saving the tax payer alot of money.

or

Experienced judge decides that man of similar age and means as himself is not a threat to society and decides to suspend 90% of his sentence and impose a fine that amounts to a slap on the wrist.

If we elected judges like they do in the US the system would be a whole lot worse. Decisions would be made based on populist sentiment rather than reason. That said the JAAB does need to be reformed and appointments taken out of the hands of the government.

You can look at it in either of those ways if you like. Neither necessarily relecfts the reality and we are not in a position to make the judgment. I'm not saying that judges are infallible, just that they, by virtue of their position, are in possession of the full array of facts and considerations while we only receive a skewed media interpretation.

homeOwner

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

First of all 6 months in prison will be a harrowing experience - if you're looking for an eye for an eye then I'm certain he'll get it more than a few times.

Secondly a suspended sentence and additional requirements isn't being let off!

Not if its 6 months in the training unit in mountjoy we don't know where he is being sent. Given that its a 6 month sentence, and he'll likely be out in 4 months, isn't it the normal to send people on short sentences to "softer" units.

And I never said he was "let off" I said his sentence was very lenient for what he was convicted of. I am absolutely believe it was too lenient. He'll be back walking down his street, very close to where his victim also lives before the end of the year. How do you think she feels about this? This wasn't a random person he attacked miles away from his neighbourhood, there is a good possibility they will see each other on the street.

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I simply don't understand what purpose is served by the guy going in for a full six years.

I find that statement shocking from someone who is studying law (you have mentioned that you are a first year so I assume you are studying law) and shocking from a decent human being! The victim is entitled to see her attacker do the time for what he was convicted of. The crime comes with a 6 year sentence. That was decided by the judge. He imposed the sentence himself before suspending it. That you don't "understand" the purpose of the sentence being served in full is frankly baffling. Under your logic, why have the sentence being set at 6 years at all? Why not say the sentence is 6 months since you clearly think that 6 months is a more appropriate sentence and be done with the charade of making sexual assault being seen as a serious crime.

homeOwner

hardCopy wrote: »

So the judge knows best then? End of discussion?



Ding ding ding!



By that logic, why make anyone serve a full sentence? I'm sorry but 6 months and a year's wages is a joke of a sentence for sexual assault.

But sure he's an upstanding, respected man of means, I'm sure he'll be good from now on.

Interesting to read this article today

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/sexattack-executive-shared-1m-pension-topup-with-wife-3187095.html

It seems 75K was indeed a slap on the wrist.

I totally agree with you that this was a complete joke of a sentence.
Unfortunately it seems we are in the minority here.

homeOwner

234 wrote: »

If we elected judges like they do in the US the system would be a whole lot worse. Decisions would be made based on populist sentiment rather than reason. That said the JAAB does need to be reformed and appointments taken out of the hands of the government.

Under the current system they are appointed by politicians right? Does that not throw up the possibility that they are open to influence from the party that put them on the bench? I am not suggested for one second that any judge is under anyone's influence, in pratice. Just countering your argument that a voting system would be any worse. Couldn't you argue that whatever system you use for appointing judges could be open to abuse by the person/people that make the decisions.

234 wrote: »

You can look at it in either of those ways if you like. Neither necessarily relecfts the reality and we are not in a position to make the judgment. I'm not saying that judges are infallible, just that they, by virtue of their position, are in possession of the full array of facts and considerations while we only receive a skewed media interpretation.

But they should still be accountable for their decisions. They should still need to justify publically why they came to their conclusions for the system to have any integrity.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

feeney92

feeney92 wrote: »

This Country's a S***hole

When you see the reaction here from the actual legal professionals, it really makes you wonder.

homeOwner

homeOwner wrote: »

I find that statement shocking from someone who is studying law (you have mentioned that you are a first year so I assume you are studying law) and shocking from a decent human being! The victim is entitled to see her attacker do the time for what he was convicted of. The crime comes with a 6 year sentence. That was decided by the judge. He imposed the sentence himself before suspending it. That you don't "understand" the purpose of the sentence being served in full is frankly baffling. Under your logic, why have the sentence being set at 6 years at all? Why not say the sentence is 6 months since you clearly think that 6 months is a more appropriate sentence and be done with the charade of making sexual assault being seen as a serious crime.

Let me change that, I find your point of view frightening given that you are a law student. If you are the future of the legal profession its a worrying sign that you think 6 months for what the judge himself called "violence of a seriously frightening nature" is sufficient and don't see the point in the full sentence being served.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

reprazant

feeney92 wrote: »

so you think the justice system is fair?

I think you took him up wrong.

He seems baffled at the legal professionals who seem to be backing up the judge for thinking that 6 months for a violent attempted rape, which was only stopped by a passer by even though the woman in question was screaming and fighting off the attacked, is an acceptable outcome.

hardCopy

homeOwner wrote: »

Interesting to read this article today

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/sexattack-executive-shared-1m-pension-topup-with-wife-3187095.html

It seems 75K was indeed a slap on the wrist.

I totally agree with you that this was a complete joke of a sentence.
Unfortunately it seems we are in the minority here.

Interesting, so it wasn't even 6 months wages and he never lost his job at all, he's just taken a career break from his own company.

How ever will he rebuild his shattered lifestyle?

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

NoQuarter

reprazant wrote: »

I think you took him up wrong.

He seems baffled at the legal professionals who seem to be backing up the judge for thinking that 6 months for a violent attempted rape, which was only stopped by a passer by even though the woman in question was screaming and fighting off the attacked, is an acceptable outcome.

Perhaps its because the legal professionals are smart enough to avoid what you've just done... turn the facts sensationalist!

You have already reduced the sentance of 6 years with 5 and a half suspended plus €75,000 compensation (which is a huge award) to a flat 6 months and, my favourite part, you've taken it upon yourself to change "sexual assault" to a "violent attempted rape". Good one. The DPP (who I would imagine know the law that little bit better than yourself) didnt even charge him with "aggravated sexual assault" and considering they would have had the full picture, unlike you, I think they might have been in the best position to decide the charges.

For what it's worth, I do think serving 6 months was lenient but if the DPP agrees, they will appeal the sentence, they do it all the time.

There is little or no room for emotion in law, you have to look at everything objectively. I,, for one, am glad that sentences arent decided on what the victim feels.

For those of you asking about the mitigating circumstances, the paper obviously doesnt report it but if you had have been in court after the conviction, you would have heard the defence speak at lenght about any mitigating circumstances present.

The main thing to take is to not take the papers at face value, everyone should know beter than that at this stage.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

Could you please stop accusing people of becoming over-emotional. People are being extremely rational in their questioning of this sentence.

€75,000 is a huge award? Please. Who do you think you are fooling?


Also, what about the safety of the neighbours of this man after he is released? Was that taken into account? How about a deterrent for future rapists? Nothing about this sentence makes sense.

homeOwner

NoQuarter wrote: »

..... plus €75,000 compensation (which is a huge award) .....

Huge reward from what measure? Maybe "statistically" that is a huge reward or a reward of that size is uncommon in a case like this (I don't know if it is). It does not appear to be a huge amount of money for Mr Lyons.

Can you not understand that the victim doesn't want the money. On the surface 75K might be a "huge sum" but what is the victim going to do with it? Regardless of how she spends it, it will always remind her of how she got it, more so if she spends it on something tangible which will be in her line of sight for years. Who would want that? You could not in all honesty "enjoy" spending it. Its an unbelievable miscalculation on the judges part to think that money could in any way be appropriate as part of the sentence. Perhaps the judge thinks he did a good thing by granting compensation in lieu of time served, but this goes to show how far removed the judiciary is from the ordinary people they are supposed to serve.

What's the point in dishing out sentences that aren't deemed to be appropriate by the victims? And I am not talking about mob rule, lets stone the "rapist". All I am saying is that it is not unreasonable for the victim to expect that the sentence handed down is served.

hardCopy

NoQuarter wrote: »

Perhaps its because the legal professionals are smart enough to avoid what you've just done... turn the facts sensationalist!

You have already reduced the sentance of 6 years with 5 and a half suspended plus €75,000 compensation (which is a huge award) to a flat 6 months and, my favourite part, you've taken it upon yourself to change "sexual assault" to a "violent attempted rape". Good one. The DPP (who I would imagine know the law that little bit better than yourself) didnt even charge him with "aggravated sexual assault" and considering they would have had the full picture, unlike you, I think they might have been in the best position to decide the charges.

For what it's worth, I do think serving 6 months was lenient but if the DPP agrees, they will appeal the sentence, they do it all the time.

There is little or no room for emotion in law, you have to look at everything objectively. I,, for one, am glad that sentences arent decided on what the victim feels.

For those of you asking about the mitigating circumstances, the paper obviously doesnt report it but if you had have been in court after the conviction, you would have heard the defence speak at lenght about any mitigating circumstances present.

The main thing to take is to not take the papers at face value, everyone should know beter than that at this stage.

Six years with five and a half suspended is not a flat 6 months, it's really more like 4 or 5 months.

€75,000 is not a large award given the man's wealth. He can comfortably afford sexual assault.

We have been given no reason to believe that this staggeringly soft sentence was justified, do you think it's right to simply accept the anointed judges decision because he is wiser than us plebs?

Predalien

There is a huge danger that the courts have lost the run of themselves when it comes to sentencing for sexual offences, we have, it must be remembered, had a situation where a conviction for rape resulted incredulously in a fully suspended sentence of three years. The courts argue they must follow what has gone before, but they themselves are the ones who are reducing the sentences for such crimes.

The victim should have some role in the criminal process, that is especially true of sexual offences where arguably they should be provided with legal counsel to prevent the perception that it is often the victim that ends up on trial. In this particular case the victim refused the compensation offer and it was the judge who took it upon himself to award the money. In that circumstance that should not be considered mitigation, it is in fact insulting to the victim as it reduces her suffering to something the judge believes can be compensated in monetary terms. It also implies a lack of equality in the justice system, offenders who can afford more can offer more compensation, should this in turn offer them more lenient sentences for similar crimes?

NoQuarter

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Could you please stop accusing people of becoming over-emotional. People are being extremely rational in their questioning of this sentence.

Also, what about the safety of the neighbours of this man after he is released? Was that taken into account? How about a deterrent for future rapists? Nothing about this sentence makes sense.

You say you are extremely rational and yet you cant even get the offence correct, or did I miss the rape??

homeowner" wrote:

Huge reward from what measure? Maybe "statistically" that is a huge reward or a reward of that size is uncommon in a case like this (I don't know if it is). It does not appear to be a huge amount of money for Mr Lyons.

Yes, statistically. Read my post again though, I'm not justifying the sentence, I think it's lenient too, I only mentioned the compensation (and the fact that it is large for similar circumstances - a fact) because someone else seems to think he only got 6 months. I am stating the FACTUAL sentence the man actually got.

hardCopy wrote:

Six years with five and a half suspended is not a flat 6 months, it's really more like 4 or 5 months.

€75,000 is not a large award given the man's wealth. He can comfortably afford sexual assault.

We have been given no reason to believe that this staggeringly soft sentence was justified, do you think it's right to simply accept the anointed judges decision because he is wiser than us plebs?

I wasnt the one who said initially he only got 6 months, read the spirit of my post more carefully.

No, that is why the DPP can appeal, a fact which you all seem to be unable to deal with. In general, yes I do thing a judge who sentences on a daily basis and has heard every shred of evidence and information relating to the case is best placed to deliver a sentence. Moreso than internet sensationalists and customer-grabbing newspapers who want to attract readers and provoke a reaction.

homeOwner

NoQuarter wrote: »

There is little or no room for emotion in law, you have to look at everything objectively. I,, for one, am glad that sentences arent decided on what the victim feels.

No one is arguing the victim should decide the sentence. That would be farcical.

But in 2 of the 3 cases linked in the first post the victims stated they did not want money prior to the case being heard. The judge chose to ignore that and awarded money in lieu of time served.

The victim's wishes were completely disregarded, while it was within the judges remit to take them into account.

NoQuarter

homeOwner wrote: »

awarded money in lieu of time served.
.

You made that up. You dont know if that was the case.

NoQuarter

NoQuarter wrote: »

You say you are extremely rational and yet you cant even get the sentence correct, or did I miss the rape??

Ok, then how about the deterrent for future "sexual attackers/perpetrators of attempted rapes"? The point still stands, why are you even bothering to try deflect it with such pedantry? I'm failing to understand the motivation.

homeOwner

NoQuarter wrote: »

Yes, statistically. Read my post again though, I'm not justifying the sentence, I think it's lenient too, I only mentioned the compensation (and the fact that it is large for similar circumstances - a fact)

It is only statistically large because most people found guilty of sexual assault don't have 75K in cash presumably. By your logic, if more multi millionaires perpetrated this crime then statistically the award would be much higher. As it stands wealthier people are more likely to be able to "afford" sexual assault. How can this be acceptable to the legal profession?

In every other aspect of a court case, the evidence is taken on merit, not on statistics. You have to prove each point. Yet when it comes to sentencing, you can go by statistics? If you took this particular individual's ability to pay on its own merit, given his financial circumstances, you could not argue that 75K is a huge sum of money.

hardCopy

NoQuarter wrote: »

You say you are extremely rational and yet you cant even get the offence correct, or did I miss the rape??



Yes, statistically. Read my post again though, I'm not justifying the sentence, I think it's lenient too, I only mentioned the compensation (and the fact that it is large for similar circumstances - a fact) because someone else seems to think he only got 6 months. I am stating the FACTUAL sentence the man actually got.



I wasnt the one who said initially he only got 6 months, read the spirit of my post more carefully.

No, that is why the DPP can appeal, a fact which you all seem to be unable to deal with. In general, yes I do thing a judge who sentences on a daily basis and has heard every shred of evidence and information relating to the case is best placed to deliver a sentence. Moreso than internet sensationalists and customer-grabbing newspapers who want to attract readers and provoke a reaction.

Without further information from the judge the only conclusion any sane person can come to is that this sentence is a joke.

Six months in custody and six months wages for sexual assault. That's the ACTUAL sentence the man got.

But you keep on believing that he knows what he's doing and laugh at the 'sensationalists' who question his competence.

NoQuarter

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Ok, then how about the deterrent for future "sexual attackers/perpetrators of attempted rapes"? The point still stands, why are you even bothering to try deflect it with such pedantry? I'm failing to understand the motivation.

Saying that me correcting you calling a sexual assault "a rape" is pedantic will show anyone here with a legal background that you really just dont understand the fundamentals. You are adding 2 and 2 and getting 20. There is no absolute progression from a sexual assault to a rape so you cant call him an "attempted rapist". If you cant understand these simple points you are always going to struggle with any sentence passed down.

To answer your question as best I can, yes his neighbours were taken into account when the judge said he does not consider the man to be a future threat. He is also on the sex offenders register now which is solely in contemplation of neighbours and to protect them by making them aware of who is living in the area.

Tell me, if the man has have served 3 years of the 6 which I agree would be more appropriate (having read the papers, as I wasnt there for the trial), do you think after those 3 years the mans neighbours would be any more safe than they would be after 6 months?

homeOwner

NoQuarter wrote: »

You made that up. You dont know if that was the case.

I didn't make it up. It was the outcome of the case.
6 months to be served, 5.5 years suspended and a (unusually large) reward of 75K to the victim.

By your own words it was unusual for such a "huge" sum to be paid. What other conclusion can you draw from it other than it was in lieu of time served?

If I misunderstood the sentence post some links to cases where money awarded is in addition to and separate from time served ie the prisoner serves full time plus has to pay money for this crime. Then I would agree that it is not in lieu of time served.

In the absence of that, its only logical to conclude that money awarded is in lieu of a full sentence.

NoQuarter

homeOwner wrote: »

I didn't make it up. It was the outcome of the case.
6 months to be served, 5.5 years suspended and a (unusually large) reward of 75K to the victim.

By your own words it was unusual for such a "huge" sum to be paid. What other conclusion can you draw from it other than it was in lieu of time served?

If I misunderstood the sentence post some links to cases where money awarded is in addition to and separate from time served ie the prisoner serves full time plus has to pay money for this crime. Then I would agree that it is not in lieu of time served.

In the absence of that, its only logical to conclude that money awarded is in lieu of a full sentence.

So you agree, it is a concluson of your own then. That's what I said.

In response to your previous post about the compensation, i take your point about richer people committing the offence but I didnt have any "logic" because, as i've stated twice now, I am not trying to justify it. I also dont need "logic" to state a simple fact.

It simply is a large amount by comparison, I'm passing no judgment on that, Im just saying what it is.

I'll reiterate that I think the sentence was lenient but I also think most of the arguments here are not considering a wider picture that posters have already explained.

homeOwner

NoQuarter wrote: »

Tell me, if the man has have served 3 years of the 6 which I agree would be more appropriate (having read the papers, as I wasnt there for the trial), do you think after those 3 years the mans neighbours would be any more safe than they would be after 6 months?

I would think that 3 years spent in jail might make the man think twice before attempting such an act again as he would know there are serious consequences to his actions. 3 years in a prison like mountjoy I am sure is no picnic even if it is reduced down to 2.5 for good behaviour, its still going to be difficult to a middle aged man who runs his own business and is used to a wealthy lifestyle.

6 months (maybe out after 4 ) perhaps even in a "soft" unit since its a short sentence, plus a fraction of your net worth however is a completely different ball game.

Some people might be tempted to have another go, if they can live with handing over some cash and a few months inside.

Predalien

NoQuarter wrote: »

To answer your question as best I can, yes his neighbours were taken into account when the judge said he does not consider the man to be a future threat. He is also on the sex offenders register now which is solely in contemplation of neighbours and to protect them by making them aware of who is living in the area.

There is no sex offenders register in Ireland.

NoQuarter

homeOwner wrote: »

I would think that 3 years spent in jail might make the man think twice before attempting such an act again as he would know there are serious consequences to his actions. 3 years in a prison like mountjoy I am sure is no picnic even if it is reduced down to 2.5 for good behaviour, its still going to be difficult to a middle aged man who runs his own business and is used to a wealthy lifestyle.

6 months (maybe out after 4 ) perhaps even in a "soft" unit since its a short sentence, plus a fraction of your net worth however is a completely different ball game.

Some people might be tempted to have another go, if they can live with handing over some cash and a few months inside.

I thought your previous points were rational until I read this one. This guy, before this incident, seemed to be a normal guy, has a wife etc. Something like this will have ruined him in a lot of ways (and rightly so).

6 months I would imagine, for an otherwise normal man, would be plenty of time to realise you have made a huge mistake.

Do you really think he will have another crack of the whip? I bet my bottom dollar he wouldnt. There is a huge difference between doing something stupid and being a re-offender.

Like I said, I think (on the little facts I know from reading the papers) that 2-3 years would be more appropriate. That being said, if I REALLY think about it, he WILL get the point with the sentence he got, even though it is lenient.

NoQuarter

Predalien wrote: »

There is no sex offenders register in Ireland.

I say that for ease. If you want me to be technical, he will be monitered in accordance with the provisions of the Sex Offenders Act, 2001.

Predalien

NoQuarter wrote: »

I say that for ease. If you want me to be technical, he will be monitered in accordance with the provisions of the Sex Offenders Act, 2001.

You said that in reference to the neighbours, so that they might be aware of the sex offender living in their area, information they will have no access to. You have also constantly argued against sensationalism, it is sensationalism in the media and elsewhere that has propagated the myth that a sex offenders register exists in Ireland, which it doesn't.

NoQuarter

Predalien wrote: »

You said that in reference to the neighbours, so that they might be aware of the sex offender living in their area, information they will have no access to. You have also constantly argued against sensationalism, it is sensationalism in the media and elsewhere that has propagated the myth that a sex offenders register exists in Ireland, which it doesn't.

I take your point about access to the information.

However, the names of the sex offenders are actually registered with the Gardai.

NoQuarter

NoQuarter wrote: »

Saying that me correcting you calling a sexual assault "a rape" is pedantic will show anyone here with a legal background that you really just dont understand the fundamentals. You are adding 2 and 2 and getting 20. There is no absolute progression from a sexual assault to a rape so you cant call him an "attempted rapist". If you cant understand these simple points you are always going to struggle with any sentence passed down.

To answer your question as best I can, yes his neighbours were taken into account when the judge said he does not consider the man to be a future threat. He is also on the sex offenders register now which is solely in contemplation of neighbours and to protect them by making them aware of who is living in the area.

Tell me, if the man has have served 3 years of the 6 which I agree would be more appropriate (having read the papers, as I wasnt there for the trial), do you think after those 3 years the mans neighbours would be any more safe than they would be after 6 months?

The man was stopped mid-attack. Surely as a legal professional you must take into account what would have happened were he not stopped? The backward legal definition of rape in this country isn't something to stand firmly behind as though it's some sort of positive aspect of the CJS.

Like I said, pedantry.

Predalien

NoQuarter wrote: »

I take your point about access to the information.

However, the names of the sex offenders are actually registered with the Gardai.

And only certain Gardai will have access to such names. It is not much of a punishment or a crime prevention measure.

Procrastastudy

We really just need someone running around shouting "Think of the children! Won't someone think of the children!" and I think we have the full set.

I, as I frequently do, mistook this for an exchange of views. Instead it's turned into one of the weekly pointless arguments. /unfollowed

Everyone - EVERYONE makes mistakes. I suspect the judge had this in mind. If the DPP feel the Judge has made a mistake they can and will appeal. The rest of this thread, with the exception of better accessibility and better reporting is utter twaddle. If you want to live in a country that dishes out sentences based on the opinion of the vocal minority go an live in the states. Don't forget your flack jacket.

NoQuarter

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

The man was stopped mid-attack. Surely as a legal professional you must take into account what would have happened were he not stopped? The backward legal definition of rape in this country isn't something to stand firmly behind as though it's some sort of positive aspect of the CJS.

Like I said, pedantry.

In one post you show how little you understand the law. If an accused must be show to have committed an offence "beyond a reasonable doubt", well that the court is hardly going to take into account what he MIGHT have done!

You have given zero consideration to what would happen if we took into account what "would have happened".

Next we will be charging drunk drivers with manslaughter because if they "would have" kept driving they inevitably would have killed someone. An extreme example maybe, but I use it to illustrate your lack of actual though into your statement.

hardCopy

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

We really just need someone running around shouting "Think of the children! Won't someone think of the children!" and I think we have the full set.

I, as I frequently do, mistook this for an exchange of views. Instead it's turned into one of the weekly pointless arguments. /unfollowed

Everyone - EVERYONE makes mistakes. I suspect the judge had this in mind. If the DPP feel the Judge has made a mistake they can and will appeal. The rest of this thread, with the exception of better accessibility and better reporting is utter twaddle. If you want to live in a country that dishes out sentences based on the opinion of the vocal minority go an live in the states. Don't forget your flack jacket.

Even judges...

NoQuarter

Predalien wrote: »

And only certain Gardai will have access to such names. It is not much of a punishment or a crime prevention measure.

We will have to agree to disagree on that one. It would be humiliating, and I think it (in adition to the principal punishment of course) it is punitive. I would certainly feel punished if I was added as Im sure most would.

homeOwner

NoQuarter wrote: »

6 months I would imagine, for an otherwise normal man, would be plenty of time to realise you have made a huge mistake.

Do you really think he will have another crack of the whip? I bet my bottom dollar he wouldnt. There is a huge difference between doing something stupid and being a re-offender.

You have absolutely no idea what kind of a man he is. For all you know he might have done this before, and that it was not reported because the victim didn't know who he was. The only reason he was caught in this instance is because the woman recognised him.

You are basically arguing that he was not being himself when he did this and it was out of character. Can you hear yourself? That was the man's own defence....my medicine made me do it, it wasn't my fault, which was debunked by the state's doctor and rejected by the jury as a lie.

You are willing to "bet your bottom dollar" on the character of a man you know absolutely nothing about? I do not think he was doing something "stupid", something "stupid" is a far cry from what he did. Why are you trivialising his actions? Your words only prove my point that sexual assault is not seen as a serious crime in this country by the legal profession.

NoQuarter

hardCopy wrote: »

Even judges...

Absoluetly. That's why we have an appeal system

234

homeOwner wrote: »

Under the current system they are appointed by politicians right? Does that not throw up the possibility that they are open to influence from the party that put them on the bench? I am not suggested for one second that any judge is under anyone's influence, in pratice. Just countering your argument that a voting system would be any worse. Couldn't you argue that whatever system you use for appointing judges could be open to abuse by the person/people that make the decisions.

Obviously, unless they are selected through some ridiculous random lottery. Liekwise, people keep relecting Michael Lowry, obviously a system producing the incorrect result. However, if you had an independent Commission comprised of existing judges, legal practitioners, members of the public, representatives of the government and the legislature then this body could act independently and could appoint judges, set pay levels and deal with matters of discipline. It might interest you to know that our current Chhief Jusitce has been crying out for ages for a body to deal with discipline and education amongst judges; something the government had decided to ignore.

homeOwner wrote: »

But they should still be accountable for their decisions. They should still need to justify publically why they came to their conclusions for the system to have any integrity.

Again, without being there yourself, you are in no position, based on mere media reports, to make any judgment about the extent or sufficiency of the reasons given. For all we know he may have spoken at length about the sentence being imposed but the reporters only wanted soundbites. When was the last time you saw a detailed reporting of Supreme Court judgments, which can run to well over 100 pages? The media is just not interested in providing thorough and in depth coverage of these matters and to be honest, that is not really their role.

hardCopy

NoQuarter wrote: »

Absoluetly. That's why we have an appeal system

Which is either ineffective or under utilised.

homeOwner

NoQuarter wrote: »

Absoluetly. That's why we have an appeal system

The victim cant appeal the leniency of the sentence. Only the DPP.

NoQuarter

homeOwner wrote: »

You have absolutely no idea what kind of a man he is. For all you know he might have done this before, and that it was not reported because the victim didn't know who he was. The only reason he was caught in this instance is because the woman recognised him.

You are basically arguing that he was not being himself when he did this and it was out of character. Can you hear yourself? That was the man's own defence....my medicine made me do it, it wasn't my fault, which was debunked by the state's doctor and rejected by the jury as a lie.

You are willing to "bet your bottom dollar" on the character of a man you know absolutely nothing about? I do not think he was doing something "stupid", something "stupid" is a far cry from what he did. Why are you trivialising his actions? Your words only prove my point that sexual assault is not seen as a serious crime in this country by the legal profession.

Perhaps he did do it before, although saying that is more outrageous and unlikely than me saying he seemed to be a normal man. Either way, you are right, I dont know.

There is nothing wrong with arguing an offence was out of character. We all do things that are out of character, some more serious than others. People do make mistakes, of course they should be punished for what they have done, but we cant assume they are the epitomy of evil because they do make that mistake. I dont just mean this case, I mean any offence that someone does when they have no previous convictions.

I did not mean to trivialise his actions, as Ive said numerous times, I think the sentence is lenient and Im not trying to justify it. You are now taking an argument from my post which arent there. I fully understand how serious the offence is. Would you prefer if I flailed my arms and screamed "death penalty"?

NoQuarter

hardCopy wrote: »

Which is either ineffective or under utilised.

Have you researched this? If you have or you have some report on this I would be interested in reading it with a fully open mind.

234

homeOwner wrote: »

The victim cant appeal the leniency of the sentence. Only the DPP.

Obviously, the victim is in no position to make a reasonabel judgment about this. I might feel that the guy who destroys my car deserves 10 years, and that's why I can be allowed to become involved in determining his sentence. That said,the DPP will obviously speak to the victim.

hardCopy

234 wrote: »

Obviously, unless they are selected through some ridiculous random lottery. Liekwise, people keep relecting Michael Lowry, obviously a system producing the incorrect result. However, if you had an independent Commission comprised of existing judges, legal practitioners, members of the public, representatives of the government and the legislature then this body could act independently and could appoint judges, set pay levels and deal with matters of discipline. It might interest you to know that our current Chhief Jusitce has been crying out for ages for a body to deal with discipline and education amongst judges; something the government had decided to ignore.

This would be most welcome, assuming that this same body would have the power to remove judges as well as appoint them.

234 wrote: »

Again, without being there yourself, you are in no position, based on mere media reports, to make any judgment about the extent or sufficiency of the reasons given. For all we know he may have spoken at length about the sentence being imposed but the reporters only wanted soundbites. When was the last time you saw a detailed reporting of Supreme Court judgments, which can run to well over 100 pages? The media is just not interested in providing thorough and in depth coverage of these matters and to be honest, that is not really their role.

As I've said before, we can't expect every citizen to attend every hearing. Judges should give a public record of the logic of their sentence. This happens even in disciplinary hearings for Rugby.

If we rely on the media to disseminate this information then we can't complain that it's been edited, the Courts Service or some other body should publish the judges findings in full so that the public can at least have an informed opinion on the sentencing.

It's not good enough to dismiss people's opinions as sensationalist when they see disgraceful sentences handed out on a regular basis with no explanation. Maybe there were good reasons for this sentence (although I'd be surprised if there were) but you can't expect people to just take the judges word for it.

Predalien

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

We really just need someone running around shouting "Think of the children! Won't someone think of the children!" and I think we have the full set.

I, as I frequently do, mistook this for an exchange of views. Instead it's turned into one of the weekly pointless arguments. /unfollowed

Everyone - EVERYONE makes mistakes. I suspect the judge had this in mind. If the DPP feel the Judge has made a mistake they can and will appeal. The rest of this thread, with the exception of better accessibility and better reporting is utter twaddle. If you want to live in a country that dishes out sentences based on the opinion of the vocal minority go an live in the states. Don't forget your flack jacket.

Your posts have been far more dramatic than most, and without a hint of irony.

It is important to consider the influence of democracy on a judicial system, in recent years there have been some very high profile cases that the media have seized upon in relation to sentencing for sexual offences. I have in particular noted sentences I would consider lenient in cases involving clerical sexual abuse. You seem to believe it is merely "a vocal minority" that is disappointed with sentencing in such cases, I however am of the belief that if asked and considered a sizeable majority would express their disappointment with sentencing in this area. Of course the argument then is that the normal public don't understand the nuances of the law and their views shouldn't hold too much weight. But there is a balance to be struck and right now I do not believe the judiciary are paying enough heed to how the public would like such offences to be punished, like it or not the punishment of crime isn't solely at the discretion of the judiciary. Public opinion also plays a role in how we rate the seriousness of crime.

It is extremely unfortunate that we live in a country that constantly fails to hold it's public servants to account when they fail in their duties and this is also true for a small number of the judicary.

To put a six month sentence for a violent sexual assault into context, I recently was in the District Court and saw a man who only had previous convictions for driving offences sentenced to 10 months for possession of about €800 of drugs, in that context in is not surprising at all that a lot of people have expressed their dismay at the sentence in the case in question.