Three teens involved in vicious hate crime to be given probation

Cuban Pete

Not worse, per se. It's the difference between a single remark and harassment, you might say, as poor an analogy as that is.

Such laws only lack sense if you completely ignore the history of violence perpetrated against specific minority groups with the intent of driving them away from participating in society. If you ignore the periods where our own governments legislated against us. Social attitudes don't change overnight. You can change laws but you can't so easily change society.

If a group is being targeted unequally then I don't see the problem in affording them extra legal protections. There's no history of systemic violence against straight people or people with big ears or what have you.

Not all double standards are wrong. Sometimes they're even necessary. The reality simply is that certain groups are going to be targeted for violent crimes with the purpose of intimidation or whatever you want to call it. The message is that we don't belong in society, we're not "normal" and so deserve to be assaulted and murdered.

Is it a case of not understanding or just not agreeing?

Carlos Orange

bodice ripper wrote: »

underage and no previous record?

result seems reasonable.

I don't really get why people have a first one free attitude to crime.

K4t

Cuban Pete wrote: »

If a group is being targeted unequally then I don't see the problem in affording them extra legal protections.

So you'd rather acknowledge the belief that they are unequal by treating them as unequal under the law? That just hypocritical.

There's no history of systemic violence against straight people or people with big ears or what have you.

Yes, because it is stupid. Although, history is century after century of people committing violence against other people, mostly straight; change ears to noses too and you've a whole new ball game.

Anyway, the point is, just as committing violence towards people because they're straight or have big ears is entirely stupid and illogical, so is committing violence towards people because they're gay. Both reasons for the violence are incredibly stupid and should be acknowledged by society as such. Which is exactly why both crimes of violence against the straight and big eared folks and crimes of violence against gay people, should be treated as equal under the law. A crime is a crime.

lazybones32

Cuban Pete wrote: »

Not worse, per se. It's the difference between a single remark and harassment, you might say, as poor an analogy as that is.

Such laws only lack sense if you completely ignore the history of violence perpetrated against specific minority groups with the intent of driving them away from participating in society. If you ignore the periods where our own governments legislated against us. Social attitudes don't change overnight. You can change laws but you can't so easily change society.

If a group is being targeted unequally then I don't see the problem in affording them extra legal protections. There's no history of systemic violence against straight people or people with big ears or what have you.

Not all double standards are wrong. Sometimes they're even necessary. The reality simply is that certain groups are going to be targeted for violent crimes with the purpose of intimidation or whatever you want to call it. The message is that we don't belong in society, we're not "normal" and so deserve to be assaulted and murdered.

Is it a case of not understanding or just not agreeing?

*shakes head*

It's not that I don't know where to begin...it's the fear I won't stop if I do begin.

old_aussie

They played the "drunk" card.

Get out of jail.

That sends a message to all, do what you like as long as you can play the drunk card.

lazybones32

old_aussie wrote: »

They played the "drunk" card.

Get out of jail.

That sends a message to all, do what you like as long as you can play the drunk card.

In fairness, a person gets plenty of time to prepare for their day in Court...get the suit, wash the face, practice the guilty and remorseful face...it'd be refreshing to see a night-Court, where the person is brought before a Judge in the state that they caused the trouble in...but asking a Judge to work at night would contravene their Constitutional Right to a night's sleep.

Tony EH

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

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?

Sure they haven't been protesting against Irish Water or not paying their TV license.

Why would they do any jail time?

:pac:

Cuban Pete

K4t wrote: »

So you'd rather acknowledge the belief that they are unequal by treating them as unequal under the law?

Society doesn't treat all groups the same so yes, I don't see the problem here. Until we live in a perfect world where people don't treat others unequally, we'll have laws that protect those more at risk.

That just hypocritical.Yes, because it is stupid. Although, history is century after century of people committing violence against other people, mostly straight; change ears to noses too and you've a whole new ball game.

But straight people aren't targeted for violence because they're straight. That is what you and others don't seem to understand.

Anyway, the point is, just as committing violence towards people because they're straight or have big ears is entirely stupid and illogical, so is committing violence towards people because they're gay.

Doesn't stop people engaging in it, though. We don't abolish laws against theft and murder just because those crimes are illogical.

Both reasons for the violence are incredibly stupid and should be acknowledged by society as such. Which is exactly why both crimes of violence against the straight and big eared folks and crimes of violence against gay people, should be treated as equal under the law. A crime is a crime.

A crime is not a crime. Why differentiate between manslaughter and murder? Assault and sexual assault? Theft and robbery? Because intent (and to an extent, effect) is a key component of crime.

Crimes against minority groups are treated as different because those minority groups are treated differently by society; because they are targeted because they're minority groups. If you're straight and someone attacks you, you don't have to worry about it being because you're straight. You don't have to hide your straightness or fear you'll be discriminated against because of it.

It's wrong that minority groups are unequally targeted for violence and discriminated against but sticking your head in the sand and saying "it's illogical" doesn't change the reality that it happens.

bodice ripper

psinno wrote: »

I don't really get why people have a first one free attitude to crime.

I really don't get why people are so eager to put teenagers in jail.

Little CuChulainn

bodice ripper wrote: »

I really don't get why people are so eager to put teenagers in jail.

Because some of them are as dangerous as any grownup.

EazyD

bodice ripper wrote: »

I really don't get why people are so eager to put teenagers in jail.

What would you suggest then? Because it's quite evident the soft approach has no effect on scum like this.

bodice ripper

EazyD wrote: »

What would you suggest then? Because it's quite evident the soft approach has no effect on scum like this.

How can it be evident if these particular people have no previous convictions?

RWCNT

The people who go on about this stupid "equality" concept are almost always in the majority group. It' all well and good talking about your wonderful impossible ideal of everyone being treated equally when you're not the one getting beat up outside The George for being gay or getting bottled for the color of your skin.

Why in these sort of discussions do members of the majority group feel the need to jump in? It comes across very "BUT WHAT ABOUT MEEEEE". Quit crying, I have a headache from getting punched in the back of the head leaving the gay bar last night.

lazybones32 wrote: »

*shakes head*

It's not that I don't know where to begin...it's the fear I won't stop if I do begin.

Please do because that poster is absolutely spot-on and I think you're trying to weasel out because you know they're cleverer than you.

Carlos Orange

bodice ripper wrote: »

I really don't get why people are so eager to put teenagers in jail.

I have a little more sympathy with the Helen Lovejoy argument.

SeanW

Links234 wrote: »

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

If did something horrible to me or someone I loved, I don't think I would care too much whether they did it for no reason vs. some kind of hate reason. I'd want them dealt with.

Harshly.

K4t

Cuban Pete wrote: »

A crime is not a crime.

Under the law, a crime against a person should not be treated any differently in terms of sentencing simply because that person is part of a minority group (i.e. black or gay or religious or atheist etc.) An assault on a gay man or a black man should not result in more years for the guilty party because the victim is black or gay, or because the guilty party is homophobic or racist. A crime IS a crime.

foggy_lad

There should be some kind of pharmaceutical "kosh" that could be administered to these demons by order of the courts to keep them out of trouble until they are no longer a threat to the public.

Cuban Pete

K4t wrote: »

Under the law, a crime against a person should not be treated any differently in terms of sentencing simply because that person is part of a minority group (i.e. black or gay or religious or atheist etc.) An assault on a gay man or a black man should not result in more years for the guilty party because the victim is black or gay, or because the guilty party is homophobic or racist. A crime IS a crime.

Could you at least outline some kind of reasoning why?

And to reiterate, no, a crime is not a crime. No more than manslaughter is murder, theft is robbery, or assault is sexual assault. We already differentiate between crimes, taking into account intent among other things.

Why should this be different?

Tony EH

The problem, though, is when manslaughter gets twisted by the prosecution into something like "hate" manslaughter, because the victim is a minority and the accused is white.

On the other hand, it's extremely difficult to prove a "hate" crime, or to defend against the accusation for that matter. Often times, all there is to go on is the fact that one persons colour/race/creed was different to the others. But, in fact, may have absolutely no baring on the actual case at all.

I think what K4T is saying is that the label of "hate crime" can become a dangerous appellation, to be misused by more unscrupulous among us or it may simply end up having an influence on a case where it shouldn't.

BTW, "manslaughter", "murder (accidental and premeditated)", "assault", "sexual assault", etc are all differentiated by method.

A "hate crime" is not a method. It's the supposed state of mind of the accused and that's a whole minefield right there.

dont bother

these little fat ugly pig-b!tches should be whipped, then whipped again, then killed.
The fella who jumped on the dad, should be slowly lowered into a big pot of boiling oil and left there until he's dead too.

This country is full of them.

im not a hardman by any stretch - but, i know my own temper, and if anyone came at me like this, i would be the one in trouble because i'd have 4 corpses on my front lawn and a lot of explaining to do.

dont give a sh!t if some of you think they're "kids"... they're not. 17 is not a child.

hatrickpatrick

bb1234567 wrote: »

Stupid, we need to recognise certain crimes as hate crimes to determine increased risks that certain minorities have of being abused over the average person.

I disagree simply because I regard it as an affront to justice if, all humans being equal, two people who are attacked in identical ways by identical assailants and sustaining identical injuries, will see their attackers face different levels of leniency simply based on their membership, or lack thereof, of an ethnic minority.

hatrickpatrick

Rubberchikken wrote: »

the judges hand are probably tied by the laws, he didn't make them, can only enforce them.

Where does the law say that violent young offenders cannot be incarcerated for viciously violent crimes?

corner of hells wrote: »

Its unusual for women under 18 to be detained with only Oberstown the place of detention, the judge is not at fault , he must act under the Childrens Acts.

So the law mandates gender discrimination with regard to the sentencing of youths? In combination with the disparity in the statutory rape law this would render our youth justice system an absolute disgrace in every way.

RWCNT

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I disagree simply because I regard it as an affront to justice if, all humans being equal, two people who are attacked in identical ways by identical assailants and sustaining identical injuries, will see their attackers face different levels of leniency simply based on their membership, or lack thereof, of an ethnic minority.

Are you a member of an ethnic minority?

anncoates

It's just the law being applied. They're kids with no previous convictions so it seems par for the course. The one with the cigarette and the young fella might yet get punished.

Not making excuses for them obviously, I wouldn't mind taking a horse whip to the little cnuts.

Cuban Pete

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I disagree simply because I regard it as an affront to justice if, all humans being equal, two people who are attacked in identical ways by identical assailants and sustaining identical injuries, will see their attackers face different levels of leniency simply based on their membership, or lack thereof, of an ethnic minority.

Please tell me how you found this perfect world where all humans are equal.

RDM_83 again

bodice ripper wrote: »

How can it be evident if these particular people have no previous convictions?

anncoates wrote: »

It's just the law being applied. They're kids with no previous convictions so it seems par for the course. The one with the cigarette and the young fella might yet get punished.

Not making excuses for them obviously, I wouldn't mind taking a horse whip to the little cnuts.

Problem is that having no convictions as somebody underage in Ireland is a terrible way of knowing that they are not repetitively violent dangerous little sh^ts.
Got stabbed years ago by a underage guy, that it was him that did it was indisputable (his initials were on his knife and he was lifted) but because he was under age and thankfully it was only a minor injury I received the guards didn;t pursue it. If he came to court again (and I am sure he would) none of this would come up.

RecordStraight

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:

So paying fines for breaking the law should be optional?

FFS. :rolleyes:

Carlos Orange

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:

"who had 21 prior criminal convictions" "previous conviction for public order, theft, robbery and criminal damage offences"

I don't think jailing people for non payment of fines is the problem. The problem is judges thinking people might learn how to obey the law if only we give them their 22nd chance.

L.Quinn

Amazingfun wrote: »

The Daily Mail is an infinitely more fitting home for such rubbish, not the Guardian. Standards are slipping.

yoke

there are 2 unrelated topics being discussed in this thread.

the first is regarding general crime, and what can be done to combat it - imprisonment is deemed too expensive, so perhaps we need to look at removing some of society's "carrots" temporarily when someone breaks the law, as well as cheaper forms of punishmment.

the second topic is that the state/society needs to recognise when it's own existence is under threat, and punish more severely when this is so. "hate crimes" are a threat to society - if you want to know where it leads, you can look at the Rwandan genocide of 1994. People basically started identifying themselves as "Hutu" or "Tutsi" and hacked each other to pieces. It doesn't need to be about ethnicity, or religion, or anything really - the wikipedia page on Hutu goes as far as to say "There is an ongoing debate as to whether the Hutu and Tutsi are really separate groups or not".

"hate crimes" threaten to eventually divide society and destroy the state, if left unchecked, by creating a "them and us" mentality within society, and should be recognised and reacted to with this in mind. It is the same way that we try to punish murder with harsher sentences than manslaughter, or an accidental death.


For those people who still don't get it - how come it's OK for a soldier to shoot an enemy soldier in wartime, even before the enemy soldier has committed a crime? hint: the state is reacting to a threat to it's existence