Three teens involved in vicious hate crime to be given probation

Little CuChulainn

http://www.herald.ie/news/mum-kicked-and-burned-by-girls-after-defending-her-son-from-gay-abuse-31025969.html

Well, as long as they apologise very nicely. I realise that these girls are under 18 and have no previous but this seems excessively lenient for the nature of the crime. Do you think they should get off without a recorded conviction?

My name is URL

They should definitely serve time in prison. No doubt about it.

ancapailldorcha

Is this for real? If they were lads, I'd say a spell in prison would have been on the cards alright.

Arsemageddon

Think I'm right in saying we still don't have any hate crime legislation in Ireland. It's about time that changed.

This was way more than just a normal case of assault.

Fr_Dougal

They denied everything and showed no remorse. Lock them up.

My name is URL

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Is this for real? If they were lads, I'd say a spell in prison would have been on the cards alright.

I dunno, the same judge is considering probation for a 17 year old that went on a rampage and smashed a load of windows on a train

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/teenager-went-on-train-rampage-after-forcing-it-to-make-emergency-stop-court-told-31027953.html

Maybe if so many people weren't being jailed for non-payment of fines etc there'd be space in prisons for violent scumbags like the above :rolleyes:

gumbo1

6 months in oberstown house would see them right!

K4t

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Think I'm right in saying we still don't have any hate crime legislation in Ireland. It's about time that changed.

This was way more than just a normal case of assault.

No, it's not. A crime is a crime; and all crimes are hate crimes.

My name is URL

K4t wrote: »

No, it's not. A crime is a crime; and all crimes are hate crimes.

That's frankly absurd. Is illegally downloading a song a hate crime?.. or stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family?

In both crime and law, hate crime (also known as bias-motivated crime) is a usually violent, prejudice motivated crime that occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group

gctest50

My name is URL wrote: »

I dunno, the same judge is considering probation for a 17 year old that went on a rampage and smashed a load of windows on a train

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/teenager-went-on-train-rampage-after-forcing-it-to-make-emergency-stop-court-told-31027953.html

Maybe if so many people weren't being jailed for non-payment of fines etc there'd be space in prisons for violent scumbags like the above :rolleyes:

long day ?

CCTV footage showed him talking to a young couple on the train before another passenger approached him and started beating him over the head with knuckle-dusters.

He then tried to get away

The youth went to the back of the carriage, took possession of a shatter hammer and pulled the emergency chord

He then used the hammer to hit a number of windows but did not succeed in breaking them.

Links234

K4t wrote: »

No, it's not. A crime is a crime; and all crimes are hate crimes.

I don't think you understand what a hate crime is.

It's like in the US when James Byrd was picked up by white supremacists, savagely beaten and urinated upon, before he was chained to the back of their truck and dragged to his death for 3 miles. It's a hate crime because it's not just a murder; it's that these people were sending a message, they were terrorizing black people by killing a black man in one of the most horrific ways humanly possible.

My name is URL

gctest50 wrote: »

long day ?





He then tried to get away

Not sure what your point is tbh.

Judge John O'Connor rejected the defence argument. He noted the teenager did not have a ticket, had admitted he had five drinks taken and the judge said the teen had not needed to break the windows as he could have gone to Irish Rail staff to ask them to call gardai.

The boy, who had 21 prior criminal convictions, pleaded not guilty to criminal damage but was found guilty following his trial at the Dublin Children's Court.

He's either guilty of the crime he's charged with or he isn't, and guilty he is.

fleet_admiral

Would be totally different if they were lads

Bongalongherb

Or they didn't pay their TV licence.

Little CuChulainn

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Or they didn't pay their TV licence.

Yet another person who doesn't understand the difference between a sentence and a forfeit. Nobody has ever been given jail time for not paying their tv licence.

suicide_circus

Horrible degenerate scum

Uncle Ruckus

Dirty, filthy skangers.

Bongalongherb

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Yet another person who doesn't understand the difference between a sentence and a forfeit. Nobody has ever been given jail time for not paying their tv licence.

Well let me say.. that didn't pay the fine for their TV licence. Locking a person up over a TV licence fine is acceptable to you ? compared to a vicious assault.

It is you that doesn't understand basic differences regarding both of these scenarios.

The pc brigade is back I see.

You say nobody has ever been given jail-time for not paying their tv licence fine, lol you know nothing.

Little CuChulainn

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Well let me say.. that didn't pay the fine for their TV licence. Locking a person up over a TV licence fine is acceptable to you ? compared to a vicious assault.

It is you that doesn't understand basic differences regarding both of these scenarios.

The pc brigade is back I see.

You say nobody has ever been given jail-time for not paying their tv licence fine, lol you know nothing.

The sentence is what the judge gives. In the case of a tv licence, it's a fine. In the case of the story in the op, it's probation. If you fail to engage with or complete the sentence you generally get jail time. If you don;t pay the fine you go to jail (for a few hours) for failing to pay the fine. Similarly, if you fail to engage with the probation service, you will likely go to jail. It's not so much a punishment for the original crime as it is for failing to respect the courts decision. If you can find a report of a person who was straight up sentenced to jail for having no tv licence I'll tip my hat to you.

Bongalongherb

A spokesperson from the Irish Prison Service said that people who are convicted of not paying their television licence usually serve anywhere between a couple of hours and a couple of days in jail.

Source: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/411-people-jailed-last-year-for-not-paying-their-tv-licence-30235625.html

Maybe this should get back on topic.

K4t

My name is URL wrote: »

That's frankly absurd. Is illegally downloading a song a hate crime?.. or stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family?

I thought it would have been clear I was referring to violent crime. By the way, Downloading a song could be considered a hate crime; a person might illegally download a song because they hate the musician but like the music. And stealing a loaf of bread could be considered a hate crime against all those employed in producing that loaf of bread. Bottom line, you should not legislate for what is inside a person's head. I have no problem collecting hate crime data and statistics concerning race, religion, sexuality etc. but it is absurd to add years onto a sentence because of any of those things.

Links234 wrote: »

I don't think you understand what a hate crime is.

I don't think you do. There is a crucial and very important difference between Hate Crime and Hate Crime legislation, which I was referring to, and which I have explained above. Hate Crime is horrible. Hate Crime legislation is horrible too.

Gatling

Personally don't see it as a hate crime or anything like it .
Sounds like an all too average feral teen rampage .
Teens + drink and adults getting involved usually ends the same most nights of the week around the country .

batnolan

Little scum.

Amazingfun

Links234 wrote: »

I don't think you understand what a hate crime is.

It's like in the US when James Byrd was picked up by white supremacists, savagely beaten and urinated upon, before he was chained to the back of their truck and dragged to his death for 3 miles. It's a hate crime because it's not just a murder; it's that these people were sending a message, they were terrorizing black people by killing a black man in one of the most horrific ways humanly possible.

Or when Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom were both raped tortured and murdered by a group of Blacks? They were sending a mesage too.....were they not?

Newsom's body was found alongside railroad tracks near Chipman Street in East Knoxville. He had been raped with an object and then shot three times. The final shot was delivered execution style.

He had been gagged with a sock stuffed in his mouth. His ankles were bound with his own belt. His hands were secured behind his back. His face was wrapped in a bandanna. His head was covered with a sweatshirt tied around his neck with shoestrings.

Forensic evidence showed that he had been raped in the final hours of his life. He was forced to walk barefoot to the railroad tracks that ran parallel to Chipman Street and shot in the neck and back. As Newsom lay paralyzed on the ground, the muzzle of a .22-caliber gun was placed against his covered head and fired. His body would later be wrapped up in a comforter, doused in gasoline and set afire.

Christian, meanwhile, was tied up inside the Chipman Street house of Davidson, a stranger to her. She was repeatedly raped orally, vaginally and rectally. At some point, she was savagely attacked in her genital region, either kicked or beaten with an object.

She suffered two blows to the head and was dragged into the carpeted living room of Davidson's Chipman Street home. Bleach was sprayed down her throat, an apparent effort to destroy DNA evidence.

She was hogtied with strips of fabric from a bedding set. Still alive, her body was encased in black garbage bags and her head wrapped in a white plastic grocery bag. Christian was then stuffed inside a trash can and left to die, slowly suffocating.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/local-news/horror-of-christiannewsom-killings-in-focus

bb1234567

I just can't imagine something like this happening to a whole family because their sons gay, I just didn't really think hate crimes as severe as this occurred in modern Ireland
Maybe I just live in a good area

Little CuChulainn

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Source: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/411-people-jailed-last-year-for-not-paying-their-tv-licence-30235625.html

Maybe this should get back on topic.

They said that the number of prisoners who are in prison for non-payment of a court ordered fine, including those imprisoned for the non-payment of a TV licence, is a tiny fraction of the overall prisoner population.
To illustrate this point they said that on February 28 2014 nine people or 0.22pc out of a total of 4,086 in the Irish prison system were in custody for non-payment of fines.
However, they said that none of these were in custody as a result of the non-payment of a TV licence

So your own link makes **** of your and other peoples belief that prisons are full of people who have committed minor crimes. Incidentally, the non payment of fines cover a wide range of crimes like simple posession, road traffic offences and tv/dog licence offences. Your comment is even more irrelevent in that the girls are all under 18 and wouldn't be going to the same place as people who don't pay tv licence fines.

The teens in question are being given a clean slate at the complete discretion of the judge. People say that lads would have been given harsher sentences but I don't think this is necessarily true either. Our criminal justice system has no idea how to deal with children of either gender.

bb1234567

K4t wrote: »

No, it's not. A crime is a crime; and all crimes are hate crimes.

What the ? So if I steal a car from some lady because she happened to leave her car unattended, then I stole it out of hatred towards her? Complete BS. Victims of hate crimes are Targeted BECAUSE of certain characteristics they possess.

hatrickpatrick

I personally don't believe in differentiating between hate-motivated violent crime and other violent crime. Violent crime is violent crime and should result in jail time, end of.

The number of suspended sentence we throw around in this country for genuine criminals is ridiculous. I've been doing a fair bit of research on Dublin's gangland "hotspots" recently after discovering that the area I've been hanging out in with my college friends is a notorious one (Cork St, Donore Ave, Rialto, Dolphin's Barn) and it would seem that in this particular area, the Gardai are well aware of the gangs, work hard initially to bring them to court, see them walking away with suspended sentences and eventually give up trying to contain the problem. And who can blame them? It's like being asked to print a hundred magazines for your employer every week and then having another department shred them all before publication. Eventually you're not going to bother printing them, knowing they'll be shredded before anyone reads them anyway.

Now I understand what people are saying about contempt of court, but contempt of court is not violent crime in and of itself, and in my view absolute priority should always be given to jailing those who commit crimes which negatively impact on the lives of other people in a serious way. In other words, jailing people for non payment of fines may or may not be ethically acceptable depending on your view point, but that's irrelevant in Ireland where we have scrotes getting off without jail time for violent offenses against other people. If even one gang member has to be turned away with a suspended sentence because "there are no jail cells free", then we're automatically jailing too many non-violent offenders in my view.

It's just my view, but having heard stories recently about how lawless some areas are, very close to my college and most of my friends' apartments, I'm starting to become incredibly fed up with all the stories of suspended sentences for genuine criminals, and jail time for bureaucratic nonsense.

bb1234567

Gatling wrote: »

Personally don't see it as a hate crime or anything like it .
Sounds like an all too average feral teen rampage .
Teens + drink and adults getting involved usually ends the same most nights of the week around the country .

Im sorry but if you think an innocent mother being beaten to the ground by three 16 year old girls and having a cigarette butt stuck in her eye and her husband being beaten unconscious is common anywhere in Ireland then your delusional.

Gatling

bb1234567 wrote: »

Im sorry but if you think an innocent mother being beaten to the ground by three 16 year old girls and having a cigarette butt stuck in her eye and her husband being beaten unconscious is common anywhere in Ireland then your delusional.

It's pretty common

bb1234567

Amazingfun wrote: »

Or when Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom were both raped tortured and murdered by a group of Blacks? They were sending a mesage too.....were they not?





http://www.knoxnews.com/news/local-news/horror-of-christiannewsom-killings-in-focus

What are you trying to prove? Yes I also agree that this case sounds like a hate crime against whites but it just seems like you're trying to stir sh!t

Bongalongherb

Are you off your trolly ? where did I ever say this below in your quote ?

So your own link makes **** of 'your' and other peoples belief that prisons are full of people who have committed minor crimes.

I never said prisons are full of people who have committed minor crimes. I said the jailing of folk that don't pay their tv licence fine are jailed compared to scumbags involved in vicious assaults.

keanosbeard

In Britain, that would be a " Hate Crime " and they could expect a premium to their sentence.

Of course, if they had got on a plane to Syria and thrown the lad off a tall building or beheaded him for being gay, I think that the police would say that they had been " radicalised " by evil Twitter users and that they should come home as they had done nothing wrong.

Britain. Funny place.

bb1234567

keanosbeard wrote: »

In Britain, that would be a " Hate Crime " and they could expect a premium to their sentence.

Of course, if they had got on a plane to Syria and thrown the lad off a tall building or beheaded him for being gay, I think that the police would say that they had been " radicalised " by evil Twitter users and that they should come home as they had done nothing wrong.

Britain. Funny place.

It comes off as if you're saying Britain shouldn't classify a crime thats clearly a hate crime as a hate crime.

strobe

Links234 wrote: »

I don't think you understand what a hate crime is.

It's like in the US when James Byrd was picked up by white supremacists, savagely beaten and urinated upon, before he was chained to the back of their truck and dragged to his death for 3 miles. It's a hate crime because it's not just a murder; it's that these people were sending a message, they were terrorizing black people by killing a black man in one of the most horrific ways humanly possible.

Do you think they should get less time in prison if they did it cause they didn't like the way his hat looked?

keanosbeard

Noooo

They do different strokes for different folks

But back the little sh!tes, custodial should have been given to teach them a lesson.

K4t

bb1234567 wrote: »

What the ? So if I steal a car from some lady because she happened to leave her car unattended, then I stole it out of hatred towards her?

Violent crime committed against a person or persons. But even in your example, possibly, yes. Nobody can read what is inside your head. If you admit you did it because of a hatred for the woman, then it's a hate crime! Otherwise, it's not a hate crime. The point is, whatever the case, you should only be allowed to legislate for the actual crime of stealing the car or assault or murder etc.

Victims of hate crimes are Targeted BECAUSE of certain characteristics they possess.

I don't dispute that. But that doesn't make it right to add years onto a sentence for assault or murder and legislate against somebody for simply being a racist or a homophobe. That's ridiculous.

irish gent

little fcukers** I have no time for this act send them away to prison end of storey...........

Arsemageddon

K4t wrote: »

No, it's not. A crime is a crime; and all crimes are hate crimes.

The initial attack started because the lad was gay (clue for ya - It's in the headline to the story)

A hate crime is a crime motivated by racial, sexual, religious or other prejudice. In countries which have hate crime legislation it means the guilty party gets a harsher sentence. The rationale behind this approach is blindingly obvious.

As for 'all crime is hate crime', I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Any chance you might explain?

K4t

bb1234567 wrote: »

What are you trying to prove? Yes I also agree that this case sounds like a hate crime against whites but it just seems like you're trying to stir sh!t

He's merely highlighting the absolute hypocrisy of hate crime legislation which a lot of people here evidently don't understand.

Little CuChulainn

bb1234567 wrote: »

Im sorry but if you think an innocent mother being beaten to the ground by three 16 year old girls and having a cigarette butt stuck in her eye and her husband being beaten unconscious is common anywhere in Ireland then your delusional.

This kind of violence is frequent enough to be honest, especially in rougher areas. You don't hear about it because people don't often make formal complaints.

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Are you off your trolly ? where did I ever say this below in your quote ?

I never said prisons are full of people who have committed minor crimes. I said the jailing of folk that don't pay their tv licence fine are jailed compared to scumbags involved in vicious assaults.

That wasn't a quote. it is my understanding of your position. I can't see any other reason for you to post what you posted unless you don't understand the difference between a sentence and a forfeit.

keanosbeard wrote: »

In Britain, that would be a " Hate Crime " and they could expect a premium to their sentence.

I don't think crimes should be classified differently but I definitely think judges should be required to consider motive before giving a sentence.

K4t

Arsemageddon wrote: »

As for 'all crime is hate crime', I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Any chance you might explain?

I have explained several times in my posts. You suggested Ireland should introduce hate crime legislation. I pointed out how that would be bad and a regressive step for a free and liberal nation.

Bongalongherb

I remember a news story a few months ago saying... for non serious violent crimes these people will be given probation/community service because there are no places left for them in Irish prisons. It seems to have come to fruition since then as we can all see almost every single day criminals are let go with a slap on the hand. Build a new prison so.

Links234

strobe wrote: »

Do you think they should get less time in prison if they did it cause they didn't like the way his hat looked?

So you don't think motive matters at all? Manslaughter vs. premeditated murder for example?

Little CuChulainn

Bongalongherb wrote: »

I remember a news story a few months ago saying... for non serious violent crimes these people will be given probation/community service because there are no places left for them in Irish prisons. It seems to have come to fruition since then as we can all see almost every single day criminals are let go with a slap on the hand. Build a new prison so.

Judges don't generally take the prison population into consideration when passing sentence.

Arsemageddon

K4t wrote: »

I have explained several times in my posts. You suggested Ireland should introduce hate crime legislation. I pointed out how that would be bad and a regressive step for a free and liberal nation.

Yep I've read your posts, trouble is your attempts to explain what you mean are beyond ridiculous. This one is priceless....

stealing a loaf of bread could be considered a hate crime against all those employed in producing that loaf of bread

Amazingfun

One of the most famous supposed "hate crimes" turned out to be something else entirely . The true narrative only emerged long after the usual suspects made great political hay of their original version, a truly lie-laced tale:

The truth behind America’s most famous gay-hate murder

Matthew’s tragedy began long before the night he was killed.

Jimenez found that Matthew was addicted to and dealing crystal meth and had dabbled in heroin. He also took significant sexual risks and was being pimped alongside Aaron McKinney, one of his killers, with whom he’d had occasional sexual encounters. He was HIV positive at the time of his death.

“This does not make the perfect poster boy for the gay-rights movement,” says Jimenez. “Which is a big part of the reason my book has been so trashed.”

Matthew’s drug abuse, and the fact that he knew one of his killers prior to the attack, was never explored in court. Neither was the rumour that the killers knew that he had access to a shipment of crystal meth with a street value of $10,000 which they wanted to steal.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/26/the-truth-behind-americas-most-famous-gay-hate-murder-matthew-shepard

foggy_lad

Public flogging and naming those older than 10 would not just teach them that this behaviour will never be ok but that it can damage a person for a very long time!

Amazingfun

Amazingfun wrote: »

One of the most famous supposed "hate crimes" turned out to be something else entirely . The true narrative only emerged long after the usual suspects made great political hay of their original version, a truly lie-laced tale:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/26/the-truth-behind-americas-most-famous-gay-hate-murder-matthew-shepard

Mod

Your agenda pushing is getting tiresome.

Keep at it and your forum access will be removed.

Do no post in this thread again.

bb1234567

Amazingfun wrote: »

One of the most famous supposed "hate crimes" turned out to be something else entirely . The true narrative only emerged long after the usual suspects made great political hay of their original version, a truly lie-laced tale:




http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/26/the-truth-behind-americas-most-famous-gay-hate-murder-matthew-shepard

You're saying it as if its okay he was brutally murdered because he sold drugs and was hiv positive
and so what if it wasn't a true hate crime?It doesn't take away from the severity of other such hate motivated crimes. Hate crimes are different to other crimes, I don't understand what you're trying to do really.

strobe

Links234 wrote: »

So you don't think motive matters at all? Manslaughter vs. premeditated murder for example?

Were those questions supposed to be an answer?

If you answer mine, I'll answer yours.