Woman who robbed homeless man with a scumbag that murdered her boyfriend is given a s

VonZan

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-who-robbed-homeless-person-after-man-murdered-her-boyfriend-spared-jail-37065704.html

What a joke of a criminal justice system...

Edit: thread title fail

judeboy101

VonZan wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-who-robbed-homeless-person-after-man-murdered-her-boyfriend-spared-jail-37065704.html

What a joke of a criminal justice system...

Edit: thread title fail

Homeless man with "mobile phone, wrist watch and €520 in cash and bank cards". More than i have.

machiavellianme

Apparently she is from a good family so it's all OK.
Especially because she's now a mother. That absolves you from all past transgressions.

machiavellianme

judeboy101 wrote: »

Homeless man with "mobile phone, wrist watch and €520 in cash and bank cards". More than i have.

Thinly veiled "la di da, look at me, I have a home" post.

Conservatory

Yeah but she had a baby

steddyeddy

judeboy101 wrote: »

Homeless man with "mobile phone, wrist watch and €520 in cash and bank cards". More than i have.

You have a place of residence I assume.

suicide_circus

1. Commit crime
2. Get knocked up
3. Avoid prison

TallGlass

This is a classic quote from the judge

'He told her that he would impose a substantial sentence but suspend it, describing this as 'one-last chance'.'

That will teach her alright, along with 'one-last chance', so be a good girl and don't be an accessory to murder again or rob someone again.

Along with this one

"But Ms Stephens is now the mother of a young child and that's the primary concern."

Maybe I am a little confused here, but is the primary 'concern' not the citizen of this country and there safety? Not giving free passes to people.

Dunno how the Garda are not up in arms about these convictions, what's the point in investigating these things if the judges can't care less.

arybvtcw0eolkf

judeboy101 wrote: »

Homeless man with "mobile phone, wrist watch and €520 in cash and bank cards". More than i have.

You're forgetting the part where he has no home.

Star Bingo

Sean Ducque looks like butter wouldn’t melt n all

https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/convicted-murderer-held-shiv-to-neck-of-female-barrister-and-threatened-to-kill-her-36918487.html

washman3

Surprised nobody has mentioned 'Garlic man' yet......:P

dotsman

Burn the bitch.

I particularly love the last line:

Mr Justice White wrote:

"But Ms Stephens is now the mother of a young child and that's the primary concern."

What the judge should be saying is "we are taking the child from her in the hope of giving that child a chance at life".

Imagine how fcuked up that child is going to grow up to be, being raised by a single mom with the moral compass to be heavily involved in the murder of her own "boyfriend" and then, later that night, violent rob a homeless person?

Cee-Jay-Cee

TallGlass wrote: »

"But Ms Stephens is now the mother of a young child and that's the primary concern."

He should be more phucking concerned that the child is being raised by such a worthless low life scumbag rather than the child being without a mother.

Stupid clueless judge with zero grasp on reality.

Donald Trump

He was a 33 year old homeless junkie

Banging a 19 year old

Hope for us all so there is

pickarooney

There's no way a child could grow up to be a decent person with a good sense of right and wrong when given such a lousy start in life as to be christened Garnet Orange.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

He was a 33 year old homeless junkie

Banging a 19 year old

Hope for us all so there is

Check out the Louis Theroux Heroin Town episode and see who the Zack de la Rocha-looking junkie is hanging out with.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Well this is effectively the rehabilitative justice so beloved of some people on this site.

judeboy101

Gatlin Yummy Bullet wrote: »

judeboy101 wrote: »

Homeless man with "mobile phone, wrist watch and €520 in cash and bank cards". More than i have.

You're forgetting the part where he has no home.

With 520 in cash, who needs a home!!

sexmag

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Check out the Louis Theroux Heroin Town episode and see who the Zack de la Rocha-looking junkie is hanging out with.

Sweet Jesus that's what I thought when I saw that episode. Thank God I'm not the only one

Sleep now in the fire!

sexmag

Gatlin Yummy Bullet wrote: »

You're forgetting the part where he has no home.

I find it strange that someone who has no home is able to have a bank account or at least cash like that.

Maybe he became homeless all of a sudden but you don't just become a junkie overnight. Something dont add up.

Anyway the child should he taken away by Tusla and put with a family, a mother who was/is a junkie and an accessory to murder cannot be a mother. Best interest of the child is the concern as the judge said and kids get taken away from parents for less

One eyed Jack

VonZan wrote: »

What a joke of a criminal justice system...

It's actually a fair judgement IMO which considered the circumstances and the crimes which the defendant was found guilty of, and the best interests of the child, and imposed what is in my view a fair sentence, and the judge was right to suspend it because the defendant is no longer a heroin addict, and it wouldn't be in the best interests of the child to be taken into the care of the State where the outcomes for children taken into the care of the State are statistically worse than allowing them to stay with their parents and providing their parents with the support they may need to raise the child.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

This post has been deleted.

How Soon Is Now

Sooner the better I get that sex change op.

washman3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's actually a fair judgement IMO which considered the circumstances and the crimes which the defendant was found guilty of, and the best interests of the child, and imposed what is in my view a fair sentence, and the judge was right to suspend it because the defendant is no longer a heroin addict, and it wouldn't be in the best interests of the child to be taken into the care of the State where the outcomes for children taken into the care of the State are statistically worse than allowing them to stay with their parents and providing their parents with the support they may need to raise the child.

I can only despair when I read posts like this..:o
Hard to believe that there are people out there with attitudes like yours.

This woman can thank her lucky stars she lives in Ireland and not the USA.
We live in a banana republic.

One eyed Jack

washman3 wrote: »

I can only despair when I read posts like this..:o
Hard to believe that there are people out there with attitudes like yours.

Why?

This woman can thank her lucky stars she lives in Ireland and not the USA.
We live in a banana republic.

That would be a completely different set of circumstances, I think thanking the Judge in this case though is sufficient.

sexmag

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why?





That would be a completely different set of circumstances, I think thanking the Judge in this case though is sufficient.

The point of custodial sentences is to discourage others breaking the law.

If people see it easy to get away with robbing someone and being an accessory to murder because you got clean and had a baby,they'd all do it and get away it.

If this was a man hed be locked up

Double standards

One eyed Jack

sexmag wrote: »

The point of custodial sentences is to discourage others breaking the law.

That's only one of the aims of providing for custodial sentences in sentencing guidelines available to Judges in making their deliberations as to an appropriate sentence in each case.

If people see it easy to get away with robbing someone and being an accessory to murder because you got clean and had a baby,they'd all do it and get away it.

Firstly, the sentence was only based on the second charge of the indictment. She was initially charged with murdering her 33 year old boyfriend. She pleaded not guilty and was due to stand trial for murder. However she was successful in having the charges dismissed. So that only leaves the second charge which concerned the robbery of the homeless man. She pleaded guilty to the attack, so this is taken into account in sentencing.

If this was a man hed be locked up

Double standards

It's not double standards as you're not comparing like for like, or even similar situations. The sentencing in this case was fair, and no amount of if she were a man, or if she wasn't a mother, or if she lived in America would change the circumstances as they actually are, and you can't simply change one element of the circumstances without making it a completely different case with it's own particular set of circumstances.

Irish Guitarist

Am I the only one that had to read that article a couple of times to make sense of it?

Franz Von Peppercorn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's only one of the aims of providing for custodial sentences in sentencing guidelines available to Judges in making their deliberations as to an appropriate sentence in each case.





Firstly, the sentence was only based on the second charge of the indictment. She was initially charged with murdering her 33 year old boyfriend. She pleaded not guilty and was due to stand trial for murder. However she was successful in having the charges dismissed. So that only leaves the second charge which concerned the robbery of the homeless man. She pleaded guilty to the attack, so this is taken into account in sentencing.





It's not double standards as you're not comparing like for like, or even similar situations. The sentencing in this case was fair, and no amount of if she were a man, or if she wasn't a mother, or if she lived in America would change the circumstances as they actually are, and you can't simply change one element of the circumstances without making it a completely different case with it's own particular set of circumstances.

She was involved in a robbery of a homeless person where he was also killed. Most jurisdictions would make her an accessory even if she didn’t herself murder the guy. That’s the case.

She got a suspended sentence.

AllForIt

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Am I the only one that had to read that article a couple of times to make sense of it?

I found it a bit all over the place, wasn't sure if was my hangover or what.

One eyed Jack

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

She was involved in a robbery of a homeless person where he was also killed. Most jurisdictions would make her an accessory even if she didn’t herself murder the guy. That’s the case.

She got a suspended sentence.

The State already went one further than you're suggesting in charging her with murder. I think the term you actually mean is an accomplice, rather than an accessory (an accomplice is present at the time the crime is being committed, an accessory isn't), nothing in Irish law to say she couldn't have been charged as an accomplice either, it can in some cases carry the same sentence as murder, but the charge of murder was dismissed, and so she could only be sentenced for her part in the robbery, to which she pleaded guilty.

The fact that she had completely turned her life around in the three years since the attack and was no longer a homeless heroin addict living on the streets, but was now a mother to a young child and living with her mother and grandparents were factors that the judge took into account in sentencing -

He told her that he would impose a substantial sentence but suspend it, describing this as 'one-last chance'.

However, he said that if she breached any conditions, he would impose the entire sentence.

He then sentenced her to four years in prison for her crime and suspended it for those four years on her own bond of €100.

He said Stephens must keep the peace and be of good behaviour, and continue to engage with treatment.

She said she understood, was willing to comply with the conditions and she entered the bond.

Mr Justice White said the court had been faced with a difficult dilemma.

"The offence was serious enough that it merited a prison sentence," he said.

"But Ms Stephens is now the mother of a young child and that's the primary concern."

It's really easy to understand - justice would not have been served by imposing a custodial sentence.

Franz Von Peppercorn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The State already went one further than you're suggesting in charging her with murder. I think the term you actually mean is an accomplice, rather than an accessory (an accomplice is present at the time the crime is being committed, an accessory isn't), nothing in Irish law to say she couldn't have been charged as an accomplice either, it can in some cases carry the same sentence as murder, but the charge of murder was dismissed, and so she could only be sentenced for her part in the robbery, to which she pleaded guilty.

The fact that she had completely turned her life around in the three years since the attack and was no longer a homeless heroin addict living on the streets, but was now a mother to a young child and living with her mother and grandparents were factors that the judge took into account in sentencing -

Ok then most jurisdictions would accuse her of being an accomplice to murder. Irish law is unique. She rifled through the belongings of the guy between beatings. She didn’t try stop the beatings. He was supposedly her boyfriend and therefore she must have led the perpetrator to the homesless man. Why should people involved in a murder get away with it because they turned “their life around”?

It's really easy to understand - justice would not have been served by imposing a custodial sentence.

We actually disagree on that one. Justice would be that someone involved in robbing a man who is beaten to death during that robbery/murder deserves a custodial sentence.

One eyed Jack

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Ok then most jurisdictions would accuse her of being an accomplice to murder. Irish law is unique. She rifled through the belongings of the guy between beatings. She didn’t try stop the beatings. He was supposedly her boyfriend and therefore she must have led the perpetrator to the homesless man. Why should people involved in a murder get away with it because they turned “their life around”?

Again, she was charged with murder, and was due to go on trial for murder, but the charges were dismissed. She didn't get away with anything, and all that remains is the charge in relation to her part in the robbery, and she didn't get away with that either. She was sentenced to four years in prison, suspended on condition that she is bound to keep the peace. If she breaches the conditions of her suspension, she automatically serves a custodial sentence. There's nothing unique in any of that which wouldn't apply in any other Common Law jurisdiction.

We actually disagree on that one. Justice would be that someone involved in robbing a man who is beaten to death during that robbery/murder deserves a custodial sentence.

Can you really not see why the judge decided in this case that it wouldn't be in the interests of justice to impose an immediate custodial sentence on the woman in question in this case? It's because the judge decided it wouldn't be in the best interests of the child, and they're right, it wouldn't be, as the child would have suffered in the absence of his mother.

_Dara_

machiavellianme wrote: »

Apparently she is from a good family so it's all OK.
Especially because she's now a mother. That absolves you from all past transgressions.

I thought being from a bad family (terrible upbringing etc.) was what got you off?

_Dara_

sexmag wrote: »

The point of custodial sentences is to discourage others breaking the law.

If people see it easy to get away with robbing someone and being an accessory to murder because you got clean and had a baby,they'd all do it and get away it.

If this was a man hed be locked up

Double standards

Aaaah, not really. Threads about bullshit sentences are common on AH and they usually feature men.

SEPT 23 1989

I don't see the point of her existing in society

Franz Von Peppercorn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Again, she was charged with murder, and was due to go on trial for murder, but the charges were dismissed. She didn't get away with anything, and all that remains is the charge in relation to her part in the robbery, and she didn't get away with that either. She was sentenced to four years in prison, suspended on condition that she is bound to keep the peace. If she breaches the conditions of her suspension, she automatically serves a custodial sentence. There's nothing unique in any of that which wouldn't apply in any other Common Law jurisdiction.

I’m fully aware the charges were dismissed. I’m saying the fact that they were dismissed or she wasn’t charged with being an accomplice is what is the issue. In what other jurisdiction would that act just be a robbery?

Can you really not see why the judge decided in this case that it wouldn't be in the interests of justice to impose an immediate custodial sentence on the woman in question in this case? It's because the judge decided it wouldn't be in the best interests of the child, and they're right, it wouldn't be, as the child would have suffered in the absence of his mother.

The interests of justice demand that people who are accomplices to the most serious crime, murder, pay some penalty.

One eyed Jack

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I’m fully aware the charges were dismissed. I’m saying the fact that they were dismissed or she wasn’t charged with being an accomplice is what is the issue. In what other jurisdiction would that act just be a robbery?

In any other jurisdiction where the charges of murder are dismissed and the only charges the accused would stand trial for are their part in the robbery. That much would be the same regardless of jurisdiction.

The interests of justice demand that people who are accomplices to the most serious crime, murder, pay some penalty.

Unless the charges are dismissed, then they don't stand trial for charges they aren't accused of, only the charges that they are accused of, and they pay an even more severe penalty if they plead not guilty and the case has to go to trial, which didn't happen in this case because she plead guilty, and her guilty plea was taken into account in sentencing.

Donald Trump

Prisoner 6753 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

48?


Bitch told me she was only 38.




Please correct your sentence to "current wife 48"

Diversity for Hire

Female privilege in action.

Captain Obvious

Can someone clarify? I thought the victim of the robbery was different to the murder victim. I read it that someone killed her boyfriend and then she went with the killer and robbed a homeless guy.

One eyed Jack

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Can someone clarify? I thought the victim of the robbery was different to the murder victim. I read it that someone killed her boyfriend and then she went with the killer and robbed a homeless guy.

That's exactly what happened. She took part in the robbery of the homeless man, with the man who had murdered her boyfriend the previous night.

Captain Obvious

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's exactly what happened. She took part in the robbery of the homeless man, with the man who had murdered her boyfriend the previous night.

So has this poster got it mixed up or is he referring to something else?

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

She was involved in a robbery of a homeless person where he was also killed. Most jurisdictions would make her an accessory even if she didn’t herself murder the guy. That’s the case.

One eyed Jack

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So has this poster got it mixed up or is he referring to something else?

I can't blame Franz tbh as it's just a very badly written article.

nthclare

If you're unattractive and from a bad family, you're considered a sht bag, if you're easy on the eye from a good family you're sound...

These judges came from a privelaged background, totally detached from modern thinking and empathy.

I'd have put her away for 40 year's, out after 20

And she's supposed to be parenting and a responsible adult....

I call bllsht on this

Captain Obvious

nthclare wrote: »

I'd have put her away for 40 year's, out after 20

And she's supposed to be parenting and a responsible adult....

How would she be a parent if you've locked her away for 20 years?

Calhoun

Typical sentence for typical Ireland, it's why our judiciary needs an overhaul .

Im not asking for fire and brimstone but justice be served.

Also I would point out that at no stage did the judge think that this woman is probably a danger to her future child.