Ana Kriegel - Boys A & B found guilty [Mod: Do NOT post identifying information]

Damien360

Suckit wrote: »

I don't know for sure. I can only remember it vaguely.
It is in my head, but I can't remember where I read it.

I think this may be it - http://en.rfi.fr/general/20151029-France-unveils-bullying-hotline-students-clamp-down-harassment

But whether or not they stuck to it I have no idea.

I found that link when searching but that was just the result of the forum of 12 year olds. It encompasses companies and schools but has teeth against companies (also determines maximum damage of 32k) but nothing dealing with schools. Always back to the school and the parent boards (similar schools structure to here I think).

corpusvile

strandroad wrote: »

Do you not think that bullying is a separate (obviously very serious) issue here and not necessarily a direct cause of Ana's death or the killers' plans?

I mean, even a "popular" (I hate this phrase!) 14 year old girl would still skip happily to meet a boy she had a crush on. Do you think that they picked Ana for her vulnerability, or rather because she was developed, pretty and met the stereotype of "Russian Anastasia" they saw on porn sites?

Maybe was a combination of both, but I very strongly suspect that had they not have targeted Ana, they'd have targeted someone else anyway. I don't think bullying was necessarily a direct cause with these two specifically.

evolving_doors

corpusvile wrote: »

Maybe was a combination of both, but I very strongly suspect that had they not have targeted Ana, they'd have targeted someone else anyway. I don't think bullying was necessarily a direct cause with these two specifically.

There's no doubt they exploited a vulnerable person though. So I don't think they might have been as ready to entrap someone with a strong network of friends.
When people are marginalised then exploitation is more likely.

It probably sounds strange but I doubt they would have picked on a popular kid. Reminds me of the Anabel nightclub murder, who got killed and who ended up doing the time... Both weren't the 'popular' kids.

So maybe not a direct cause but definitely a contributing factor.

corpusvile

It quite possibly did contribute but the nature & apparent pre-planning of this murder strongly intimates they primarily wanted to murder someone & again I do believe if it wasn't poor Ana it would have been someone else.

Stop moaning ffs

Irish Daily Mail fined 25,000 euro for contempt of court during the Ana Kriégel trial. Editor, Sebastian Hamilton fined 4,500Euro - Mr J McDermott said directions Mr Hamilton had given in relation to court copy, were ignored by senior editorial staff but he as editor was responsible for this systems failure.

Proper order.

political analyst

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Irish Daily Mail fined 25,000 euro for contempt of court during the Ana Kriégel trial. Editor, Sebastian Hamilton fined 4,500Euro - Mr J McDermott said directions Mr Hamilton had given in relation to court copy, were ignored by senior editorial staff but he as editor was responsible for this systems failure.

Proper order.

Why is an editor punished at all for an act that was not just unauthorised by him but which he instructed should not have been done? Is that not like saying it's the Garda Commissioner's fault that crimes were committed by a small number of gardaí?

political analyst

evolving_doors wrote: »

There's no doubt they exploited a vulnerable person though. So I don't think they might have been as ready to entrap someone with a strong network of friends.
When people are marginalised then exploitation is more likely.

It probably sounds strange but I doubt they would have picked on a popular kid. Reminds me of the Anabel nightclub murder, who got killed and who ended up doing the time... Both weren't the 'popular' kids.

So maybe not a direct cause but definitely a contributing factor.

Actually, two were convicted on the charge of violent disorder, for which each of them served an 18-month sentence. One of the two was convicted on the charge of manslaughter but that conviction was quashed on appeal. The killing of Brian Murphy was a spur-of-the-moment crime, unlike Ana's murder.

ohnonotgmail

political analyst wrote: »

Why is an editor punished at all for an act that was not just unauthorised by him but which he instructed should not have been done? Is that not like saying it's the Garda Commissioner's fault that crimes were committed by a small number of gardaí?

because he is ultimately responsible for what gets published.

Road-Hog

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

because he is ultimately responsible for what gets published.

What offending article/material did his paper publish to merit the fine....?

splinter65

Road-Hog wrote: »

What offending article/material did his paper publish to merit the fine....?

Journalists employed by him, under his direction, answerable to him, went on the radio and broke the law.

Emme

Katherine Zappone's has suggested that children who commit serious crimes should receive counselling instead of being detained. I don't think it is appropriate in all cases. Some criminals should not be allowed in society no matter how young.

evolving_doors

splinter65 wrote: »

Journalists employed by him, under his direction, answerable to him, went on the radio and broke the law.

I thought that it was because when the paper said the footage of the boys on the CCTV was the moment she was "being led to her death". It was implying that the boys were guilty while the trial was still taking place.

Hannibal_Smith

evolving_doors wrote: »

I thought that it was because when the paper said the footage of the boys on the CCTV was the moment she was "being led to her death". It was implying that the boys were guilty while the trial was still taking place.

Was just about to say the same

Omackeral

Emme wrote: »

Katherine Zappone's has suggested that children who commit serious crimes should receive counselling instead of being detained. I don't think it is appropriate in all cases. Some criminals should not be allowed in society no matter how young.

''Instead of''. Why not ''as well as''?.

Zappone is the type of person people talk about when they refer to liberals or the left in a mocking manner. She's far too soft. I'm not an advocate for death sentences by any means but at the same time punishment must be served.

iamwhoiam

Omackeral wrote: »

''Instead of''. Why not ''as well as''?.

Zappone is the type of person people talk about when they refer to liberals or the left in a mocking manner. She's far too soft. I'm not an advocate for death sentences by any means but at the same time punishment must be served.

It also would be a huge insult to Ana and her family and to other victims if the criminals were offered counselling with no punishment as such .
As you say by all means counselling while detained . Although I think some of them are way beyond counselling being of any benefit

Emme

iamwhoiam wrote: »

It also would be a huge insult to Ana and her family and to other victims if the criminals were offered counselling with no punishment as such .
As you say by all means counselling while detained . Although I think some of them are way beyond counselling being of any benefit

People who work, are productive and contribute to the system have to pay for counselling and many who need it forego it because of the cost.

Anyone who committed, aided and abetted a murder like Ana's is beyond redemption. They should not get counselling. Save counselling for those who need it, such as children who are being bullied at school.

iamwhoiam

Emme wrote: »

People who work, are productive and contribute to the system have to pay for counselling and many who need it forego it because of the cost.

Anyone who committed, aided and abetted a murder like Ana's is beyond redemption. They should not get counselling. Save counselling for those who need it, such as children who are being bullied at school.

I an ideal world we would all be entitled to access counselling and seek help . Unfortunately Ireland is far from ideal and the balance tips in favour of the perpetrators

Vicarious Function

I don't think either of these two boys would benefit much from counselling. They would consider themselves far too smart to be influenced by any Counsellor. They are expert manipulators and many Counsellers allow themselves to be manipulated by their clients - from what we see in many Court cases.

Eric Cartman

Emme wrote: »

Katherine Zappone's has suggested that children who commit serious crimes should receive counselling instead of being detained. I don't think it is appropriate in all cases. Some criminals should not be allowed in society no matter how young.

Its the wishy washy ‘everyones good’ attitude of people like zappone that has young criminals unafraid of the legal system. If we stopped people luke this participating in the conversation and actually took a hard line on crime we might save a few lives

gozunda

Emme wrote: »

Katherine Zappone's has suggested that children who commit serious crimes should receive counselling instead of being detained. I don't think it is appropriate in all cases. Some criminals should not be allowed in society no matter how young.

She has to be joking. Her snugly wugly idea of young violent criminals is a help to no one. Neither their victims, society or indeed themselves imo.

corpusvile

I lived in a rather crappy area for several years before moving & during this time, any teen I ever seen interacting with the Gardaí had this "hit me I dare ya" attitude with them and seemed completely unintimidated by them. My partner who isn't Irish told me in no uncertain terms how the police over her way would handle things & thinks our cops are far too soft. People like Zapone live in ivory towers imho & seem to view things in abstract terms. They seem to think everything will be solved by some touchy-feely talk about your feelings rubbish & also seem to make no distinctions between certain offenders crimes, thinking a one size fits all solution will work. Boys A & B would play such types like a fiddle, I reckon.

I agree a harder line needs to be taken on crime in general but especially on crimes of this nature. I don't think offenders like Boy A & B can benefit from any form of counselling or therapy, personally.

Eric Cartman

corpusvile wrote: »

I lived in a rather crappy area for several years before moving & during this time, any teen I ever seen interacting with the Gardaí had this "hit me I dare ya" attitude with them and seemed completely unintimidated by them. My partner who isn't Irish told me in no uncertain terms how the police over her way would handle things & thinks our cops are far too soft. People like Zapone live in ivory towers imho & seem to view things in abstract terms. They seem to think everything will be solved by some touchy-feely talk about your feelings rubbish & also seem to make no distinctions between certain offenders crimes, thinking a one size fits all solution will work. Boys A & B would play such types like a fiddle, I reckon.

I agree a harder line needs to be taken on crime in general but especially on crimes of this nature. I don't think offenders like Boy A & B can benefit from any form of counselling or therapy, personally.

+1. If gardai were known for ripping 14 year old kids off scramblers and goving them a good ‘physical warning’ you’d see a lot less of them chancing their arm.

I do not believe for one second that it is ever possible to reform boy A. Should never see the light of day ever again but this isnt something our legal sustem seems capable of providing.

MadYaker

Eric Cartman wrote: »

+1. If gardai were known for ripping 14 year old kids off scramblers and goving them a good ‘physical warning’ you’d see a lot less of them chancing their arm.

I do not believe for one second that it is ever possible to reform boy A. Should never see the light of day ever again but this isnt something our legal sustem seems capable of providing.

Yeah let’s have the gardai beat up kids for riding scooters, that’s almost as ridiculous a suggestion as zapones conselling nonsense.

I think once the sentences are handed down if boy b gets a long custodial sentence he’ll appeal it and will probably be successful. Boy A needs to remain in some sort of prison for the rest of his life imo. Can the judge impose such a sentence? Does anyone actually know what the judges options are in regard to sentencing in this case?

splinter65

MadYaker wrote: »

Yeah let’s have the gardai beat up kids for riding scooters, that’s almost as ridiculous a suggestion as zapones conselling nonsense.

I think once the sentences are handed down if boy b gets a long custodial sentence he’ll appeal it and will probably be successful. Boy A needs to remain in some sort of prison for the rest of his life imo. Can the judge impose such a sentence? Does anyone actually know what the judges options are in regard to sentencing in this case?

Riding scrambler bikes and quads on the public roads is just as illegal as drunk driving or driving with no insurance.
Nobody is advocating beating children up.
But everyone including children needs to be conscious that law breaking may have negative consequences for them.
It is a valid argument to make that boy a and boy b had formed the the opinion that there would be no consequences of any kind for them because the law apparently doesn’t apply to teenagers, and people like you really don’t want them to be punished or reprimanded in anyway, irregardless of what damage they do.

Flippyfloppy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

+1. If gardai were known for ripping 14 year old kids off scramblers and goving them a good ‘physical warning’ you’d see a lot less of them chancing their arm.

I do not believe for one second that it is ever possible to reform boy A. Should never see the light of day ever again but this isnt something our legal sustem seems capable of providing.

Should adults get ripped out of their cars too for ‘physical warnings?’

ohnonotgmail

splinter65 wrote: »

Riding scrambler bikes and quads on the public roads is just as illegal as drunk driving or driving with no insurance.
Nobody is advocating beating children up.
But everyone including children needs to be conscious that law breaking may have negative consequences for them.

Ahem

If gardai were known for ripping 14 year old kids off scramblers and goving them a good ‘physical warning’ you’d see a lot less of them chancing their arm.

what do think compromises a 'physical warning'?

Eric Cartman

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Should adults get ripped out of their cars too for ‘physical warnings?’

If theyre driving around dangerously uninsured yes

corpusvile

I'm no legal expert at all but I'm not so sure if any appeal by boy b will be successful, actually. To their credit the Gardaí investigation was an almost textbook example of how to to it right. Their trial was fair & they were allowed to sit with their parents during proceedings & not in a dock or anything. The judge seemed quite fair when ruling on what evidence was admissible/not & afaik over here appeals can only be based on legal or procedural errors during trial, not on the merits of the case or evidence.

So it wouldn't surprise me if any appeal from boy b is rejected.

I think minors can be sentenced to life in Ireland but realistically I don't think that'll amount to much sentence wise, but at least they'll be on parole for natural life, which can be rescinded, assuming they get such a sentence.

Flippyfloppy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

If theyre driving around dangerously uninsured yes

So don’t impound vehicles anymore, just beat people up.

Eric Cartman

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

So don’t impound vehicles anymore, just beat people up.

Do both.

Why drag this thread completely off topic. Im saying that if the gardai were more heavy handed and dished out meaningful justice to young offenders that made them behave that perhaps they wouldnt see the gardai as a soft touch and it would save lives