Religion and the Irish Court System

Kivaro

I was reading an article today about a woman who risked losing her chance of Irish citizenship by stealing cosmetics worth €9.99. While I was debating in my mind whether or not this should be an automatic denial of citizenship, I saw a quote from the Judge adjudicating the trial:

"They should read the New Testament and find it in their hearts to forgive her," Judge Mitchell said.
"If not, then it must be a different New Testament than the one I have read."

The judge went on to aide the defendant by asking the defendant's barrister if she had been offered an adult caution by the Gardai - an alternative to court prosecution when the accused admits responsibility. The judge then told the defence to contact the prosecuting Garda to establish if the adult caution could be administered.

So one wonders if the defendant was not from "a very religious community" (as stated by her barrister) would the judge have acted differently?
And asking the victims of the crime to forgive her because of the New Testament is very odd for a supposedly impartial judiciary.

Since the separation of Church and State is critical for a functioning democracy, should not the same principle apply for the separation of Church and The Courts (irrespective of the whole "swearing on the bible debacle")?

The whole story is here:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/impulse-of-temptation-mum-put-citizenship-at-risk-by-stealing-10-makeup-35066552.html

Michael OBrien

Kivaro wrote: »

I was reading an article today about a woman who risked losing her chance of Irish citizenship by stealing cosmetics worth €9.99. While I was debating in my mind whether or not this should be an automatic denial of citizenship, I saw a quote from the Judge adjudicating the trial:

"They should read the New Testament and find it in their hearts to forgive her," Judge Mitchell said.
"If not, then it must be a different New Testament than the one I have read."

The judge went on to aide the defendant by asking the defendant's barrister if she had been offered an adult caution by the Gardai - an alternative to court prosecution when the accused admits responsibility. The judge then told the defence to contact the prosecuting Garda to establish if the adult caution could be administered.

So one wonders if the defendant was not from "a very religious community" (as stated by her barrister) would the judge have acted differently?
And asking the victims of the crime to forgive her because of the New Testament is very odd for a supposedly impartial judiciary.

Since the separation of Church and State is critical for a functioning democracy, should not the same principle apply for the separation of Church and The Courts (irrespective of the whole "swearing on the bible debacle")?

The whole story is here:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/impulse-of-temptation-mum-put-citizenship-at-risk-by-stealing-10-makeup-35066552.html

I am surprised it even went to the police, unless the woman caused a fuss when apprehended. I did some security in the 90's in the UK, and usually even after apprehending a shoplifter, the issue was rarely worth going to court over it. Normally they are banned from the store.

Should it affect her application? No. If she makes a habit of it. Yes.

Religion should not have anything to do with this. Take the bible literally and she could lose a hand. Take the quran literally and she definitely would.

recedite

Kivaro wrote: »

So one wonders if the defendant was not from "a very religious community" (as stated by her barrister) would the judge have acted differently?

I don't think it necessarily follows that he would have treated her differently. But even if that is the case, he may have just been trying to make a point that there were some consequences for her outside of any court sentencing ie being looked down upon by your community.
In this context it is sometimes seen as harsher to sentence a "reputable middle class person" to a week in jail compared to some skanger who has spent half his life there. "Mortification" for one person, but "water off a duck's back" to another. Maybe it is justifiable to take into account these kind of personal circumstances.

BTW I would not be inclined to believe the lawyers assertion...

"I don't think she really knew what was happening," said Mr Pattison. "She had never been in trouble before and this was all new to her."

Migrants don't tend to get halfway around the world without seeing and doing things that most of us would never want to do.
I would fully support the Gardai in trying to prosecute her, because at the end of the day we have to decide whether these kind of people are going to be a long term asset to the country, or an ongoing liability.

Kivaro

recedite wrote: »

I don't think it necessarily follows that he would have treated her differently. But even if that is the case, he may have just been trying to make a point that there were some consequences for her outside of any court sentencing ie being looked down upon by your community.

I understand that aspect of it, but my question revolved around "the forgiving" part i.e. if the judge knew that the defendant was an atheist who did not believe in the New Testament. Would the judge have recommended "forgiveness" then? I don't think so; the concept of forgiveness would probably not have come up, which would have been a disadvantage to the non-believer.

The comment:

"I don't think she really knew what was happening," said Mr Pattison. "She had never been in trouble before and this was all new to her."

was a bit laughable. Stealing a number of items and putting them into her bag without paying is not what most rational people would do to "try something new".

And the phrase "succumbed to an impulse of temptation" was also used during the trial, which to me almost has a religious connotation to it, as if she was tempted to commit the theft. Maybe there was a snake under the cosmetics counter.

recedite

The report gives us no idea what the forgiveness thing was about.
I'm guessing that her lawyer had given some BS story in court about the terrible consequences for the defendant arising from the stigma within some particular church community that she is involved in, therefore implying there was no need to punish her any further.

I suppose you could possibly infer from the outcome (no conviction; probation act or Garda caution to be applied) that the judge accepted that argument, and therefore she was treated differently to an atheist. On the other hand, maybe he would not have convicted her anyway as it was not a serious crime.

If I was "judging" this case, and I am in a way, I'd say this person is already on a kind of probation ie intending to get Irish citizenship. She didn't steal food to survive, she stole cosmetics to look good. There is a gazillion people of good character living in third world countries who would love to be offered EU citizenship, so why offer it to somebody who travels here without a valid visa, and then shows contempt for our society by robbing from us?

The judge is also undermining the good work of the Gardai by implying that they should have given her a caution instead of attempting to prosecute.

He also seems to be trying to mount some kind of high horse by offering forgiveness when others don't, as if the crime has been committed against him personally.

looksee

I would be a bit concerned that someone who is hoping to work with sick and vulnerable people is so easily able to get distracted into stealing.

Michael OBrien

recedite wrote: »

I suppose you could possibly infer from the outcome (no conviction; probation act or Garda caution to be applied) that the judge accepted that argument, and therefore she was treated differently to an atheist. On the other hand, maybe he would not have convicted her anyway as it was not a serious crime.

If I was "judging" this case, and I am in a way, I'd say this person is already on a kind of probation ie intending to get Irish citizenship. She didn't steal food to survive, she stole cosmetics to look good. There is a gazillion people of good character living in third world countries who would love to be offered EU citizenship, so why offer it to somebody who travels here without a valid visa, and then shows contempt for our society by robbing from us?

While stealing food might be viewed as more understandable in your view, she stole one item of cosmetics, not to resell but to use (otherwise she would steal more than €10 of it. She may have been simply overwhelmed with the desire to improve herself, perhaps for an interview or just for normal everyday life. That is what cosmetics advertise for in the first place.
If she stole a bunch to resell I would have a different and harsher outlook, but life is more than mere survival. Someone might steal just to have something they used to have, but now cannot afford. It can be a rash decision that they regret later, even if they get away with it. I have caught many thieving people when I worked security. Some utter scumbags that would knife you, others just really sad cases, often mentally ill or just so poor that mercy is the call of the day.

Also rejecting her application can have serious knock on effects on her life, which is far worse than need be for a once off impulse crime of such minor level. A degree of forgiveness us called for.

recedite

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Someone might steal just to have something they used to have, but now cannot afford. ...
A degree of forgiveness us called for.

The shop owner is the person who has been "trespassed against" so he/she is the one who decides whether to forgive. Apparently that person took the option to press charges, so we can assume that they do not forgive the thief.

The judge is not there to forgive, he is there to decide whether the accused is guilty, and to pass sentence if guilt is proven.

The Gardai may be the only ones seeing the bigger picture here. The thief has some kind of asylum here, on a kind of probation. The Gardai provide vetting for Irish citizens. They have vetted me in the past.
They are in this case part of a filtering mechanism. It may not be a serious crime, but it shows a character flaw when you are willing to steal luxury items for yourself from other people who are trying their best to run an honest business. Why should the thief be set on a path to Irish citizenship when there are an almost unlimited number of other people who could be offered it instead?

Michael OBrien

recedite wrote: »

The shop owner is the person who has been "trespassed against" so he/she is the one who decides whether to forgive. Apparently that person took the option to press charges, so we can assume that they do not forgive the thief.

The judge is not there to forgive, he is there to decide whether the accused is guilty, and to pass sentence if guilt is proven.

The Gardai may be the only ones seeing the bigger picture here. The thief has some kind of asylum here, on a kind of probation. The Gardai provide vetting for Irish citizens. They have vetted me in the past.
They are in this case part of a filtering mechanism. It may not be a serious crime, but it shows a character flaw when you are willing to steal luxury items for yourself from other people who are trying their best to run an honest business. Why should the thief be set on a path to Irish citizenship when there are an almost unlimited number of other people who could be offered it instead?

I agree with the first part of your statement, yes it is the person or business who decides who forgives the person accused of the crime, which is who I think should forgive. The judge is responsible for deciding what punishment is warranted too, and mercy is not outside his or her permit.

I have known asylum seekers, I worked with them. They suffer a lot under Irish immigration law and are actively abused by many lawyers too, racially abused by certain immigration judges and even certain immigration officials and police. Some have been in the system for 10 years, unable to work legally, having a possible death sentance hang over them if they get returned to their country of origin.
It is easy to be angry with them for messing up, but having a moment of weakness, and wanting a bit of cosmetic makeup, something most people don't think of as a real LUXURY anymore than toothpaste, deserves more forgiveness than it seems you think appropriate.
Again there are some actual criminals that do deserve the full wraith of the law, who seek to make a lifestyle out of it and then there are people that make a mistake. The amount of crap and pressure she may be under is unknown and the crime is extremely minor, it should not destroy her life over it.

recedite

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I have known asylum seekers, I worked with them. They suffer a lot under Irish immigration law.

Strictly speaking they are not supposed to be working, but assuming you mean people who have been granted asylum, then yes they have generally been kept waiting in a kind of limbo for far too long.

If I was in charge, immigration would be based on merit. That girl would not make the grade unfortunately. But looking on the bright side, somebody else who was more deserving of it would. The current system effectively favours chancers above all others, and the more brazen they are, the more likely they are to get here. And then secondly, to be allowed to stay here.

Michael OBrien

recedite wrote: »

Strictly speaking they are not supposed to be working, but assuming you mean people who have been granted asylum, then yes they have generally been kept waiting in a kind of limbo for far too long.

If I was in charge, immigration would be based on merit. That girl would not make the grade unfortunately. But looking on the bright side, somebody else who was more deserving of it would. The current system effectively favours chancers above all others, and the more brazen they are, the more likely they are to get here. And then secondly, to be allowed to stay here.

I see you misunderstood my sentence about working with them. I mean I worked to HELP them with their situation. People can be held, in limbo, for a decade, so long that their kids go from primary school to try to get into college. Immigration is horrible in Ireland.

Immigration is based on merit, but not the merit you propose. It is based on the risk of NOT granting asylum to the person (will they suffer if returned to their country of origin). Naturally criminals are not welcome, but 'criminal' as a label is a serious thing to apply to someone who made a mistake that minor. She may have plenty of great characteristics, had a moment of weakness, and would make a fine citizen. This all or nothing approach is pretty harsh.

recedite

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I see you misunderstood my sentence about working with them. I mean I worked to HELP them with their situation. People can be held, in limbo, for a decade, so long that their kids go from primary school to try to get into college. Immigration is horrible in Ireland.

Duly noted, and well done, fair play to you. I agree the limbo system is bad. It demoralises them and trains them into welfare dependency.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Immigration is based on merit, but not the merit you propose. It is based on the risk of NOT granting asylum to the person (will they suffer if returned to their country of origin).

I wouldn't quite call that immigration based on merit.
I'd call it a judgement of foreign countries by Irish civil servants.
Possibly followed by a decision to provide asylum to an individual from that substandard country who has already traveled here without asking for permission, and without going through any valid immigration procedure.

Kivaro

Michael OBrien wrote: »

While stealing food might be viewed as more understandable in your view, she stole one item of cosmetics, not to resell but to use (otherwise she would steal more than €10 of it.

I'm not sure how you know that her intent was not to resell.

And since she stole more than one item (read the article), that fact leads me to believe that a different 'intent' existed i.e. one item may be impulsive, more than one item is not impulsive.

Michael OBrien

Kivaro wrote: »

I'm not sure how you know that her intent was not to resell.

And since she stole more than one item (read the article), that fact leads me to believe that a different 'intent' existed i.e. one item may be impulsive, more than one item is not impulsive.

I accept it was more than 1 from the article, but my stance has not changed.
From years of experience stopping such crimes, taking a few items, still worth less than a tenner, is usually for personal use. I stopped people who clear shelves, fill shopping baskets and plastic bags of stuff. Also if the items are worth so little, we are talking low value cosmetics (Women are charged obscene amounts for high quality stuff). Ask any woman and see how far a tenner gets you. Facial cream and lipstick or eyeliner would cost that much. And that was 16+ years ago when I worked security so I doubt they got cheaper. Also she chose TK MAXX, already a cheap shop generally.

Seriously I dealt with bombers, needle junkies, gun users, getaway drivers that would run you over, death threats and organised criminal gangs. I also had an old woman who held up a tin of cat food and a tin of peas to see which she could afford and try to steal the other one. There are criminals and then there are sad cases. This looks like a sad case to me.

Zubeneschamali

Kivaro wrote: »

Since the separation of Church and State is critical for a functioning democracy

Ha ha ha. Good one.

Anyhow, this was a District Court judge, usually someone who failed as a solicitor and took a handy bench job instead. A few religious references are probably the least of the problems in that court.

learn_more

The real story here is that our judicial system has to deal with utterly trivial cases. What an utter waste of public money.

Hotblack Desiato

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

A few religious references are probably the least of the problems in that court.

Hmm, imagine choosing to affirm as a witness, or worse, a suspect.