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

iamwhoiam

McCrack wrote: »

He's right not to let it turn into a media circus

A victim impact statement will be given by or on behalf of Ana's family

Maybe he is right but it galls to read that it is preserve the dignity of two murderers
In my opinion they lost their dignity all by themselves

Gatling

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Maybe he is right but it galls to read that it is preserve the dignity of two murderers
In my opinion they lost their dignity all by themselves

I hope that the ****heads don't get to edit the victim impact statement at all

McCrack

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Maybe he is right but it galls to read that it is preserve the dignity of two murderers
In my opinion they lost their dignity all by themselves

It's a balancing act, a very fine one and not an easy one by any stretch

What you're reading of course is selected and it's easy to draw the wrong conclusion or inference when read in isolation of what the judge is actually saying

iamwhoiam

McCrack wrote: »

It's a balancing act, a very fine one and not an easy one by any stretch

What you're reading of course is selected and it's easy to draw the wrong conclusion or inference when read in isolation of what the judge is actually saying

Then I would like to hear exactly what he did say . Have you read it in full ?

forumdedum

Judge is trying to avoid giving any opportunity for the guilty to appeal because of the way they were treated in court. imo.

abff

forumdedum wrote: »

Judge is trying to avoid giving any opportunity for the guilty to appeal because of the way they were treated in court. imo.

I think you're probably right, but it's still hard to take the level of consideration that is being expressed for those two *******s.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Maybe he is right but it galls to read that it is preserve the dignity of two murderers
In my opinion they lost their dignity all by themselves

It think it's more to protect the families of the boys in question. The kids themselves are presumably going to be locked away for a while anyway.

iamwhoiam

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It think it's more to protect the families of the boys in question. The kids themselves are presumably going to be locked away for a while anyway.

This is what the judge said , I take that to be about the two boys .Im my opinion any decision made should in the first instance be to protect the dignity of Ana Kriegel and her family .


https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/judge-restricts-media-access-to-sentencing-hearing-for-ana-kriegels-killers-959799.html

He said he decided to restrict the number of media in court based on his concern, "for the health, welfare and best interests of these children who face the most significant determination to be made in their lives".

He said the boys are under "enormous pressure" and restricting the number of journalists is necessary to ensure that the environment in court creates the "least interference to their dignity and welfare".

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

iamwhoiam wrote: »

This is what the judge said , I take that to be about the two boys .Im my opinion any decision made should in the first instance be to protect the dignity of Ana Kriegel and her family .


https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/judge-restricts-media-access-to-sentencing-hearing-for-ana-kriegels-killers-959799.html

He said he decided to restrict the number of media in court based on his concern, "for the health, welfare and best interests of these children who face the most significant determination to be made in their lives".

He said the boys are under "enormous pressure" and restricting the number of journalists is necessary to ensure that the environment in court creates the "least interference to their dignity and welfare".

Ah ok then.

As I said, for the next few decades, one would hope that they'd be in secure places anyway.

suicide_circus

is anyone aware of the legal precedent in Ireland for sentencing in cases like this? ie: murder committed by a child?

iamwhoiam

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Ah ok then.

As I said, for the next few decades, one would hope that they'd be in secure places anyway.

We can only hope , I am not convinced they will serve long sentences to be honest .Its all about them being " children " .

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

iamwhoiam wrote: »

We can only hope , I am not convinced they will serve long sentences to be honest .Its all about them being " children " .

They are, by definition, still children - it's the flip-side of having laws to protect minors.

I'm not condoning anything here, by the way - I don't see why a mandatory 20-year-minimum life-sentence shouldn't be imposed at the very least in this case - they knew what they were doing. And no release until full psychological evaluation even after that.

salmocab

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

They are, by definition, still children - it's the flip-side of having laws to protect minors.

I'm not condoning anything here, by the way - I don't see why a mandatory 20-year-minimum life-sentence shouldn't be imposed at the very least in this case - they knew what they were doing. And no release until full psychological evaluation even after that.

Not sure mandatorily 20 years is a thing here, is it not just life. Then getting out is up to minister of justice of the day

Tin Foil Hat

Everything I've heard from the judge leads me to believe he's going to be very lenient. Boy B will be out in time for college. Boy A will be out by 21.

tuxy

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

Everything I've heard from the judge leads me to believe he's going to be very lenient. Boy B will be out in time for college. Boy A will be out by 21.

Again, I ask. What do you think the judge will do that will have such a major impact on the parole boards decisions in the future?
Unless you think the judge won't even give boy B a life sentence. Is that what you are saying?

Gatling

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

Everything I've heard from the judge leads me to believe he's going to be very lenient. Boy B will be out in time for college. Boy A will be out by 21.

I believe the guideline's for child sentences suggest incarceration should be avoided if at all possible,

In this case we could In theory see a 7 year or less sentence it won't be life

iamwhoiam

Gatling wrote: »

I believe the guideline's for child sentences suggest incarceration should be avoided if at all possible,

In this case we could In theory see a 7 year or less sentence it won't be life

In my opinion as a country and a community we should not accept 7 years for Boy A . He is a viscous murderer and commited a sexual on a young girl and showed no remorse whatsoever
I personally would fear for my granddaughters if he was to walk the streets again

McCrack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

suicide_circus wrote: »

is anyone aware of the legal precedent in Ireland for sentencing in cases like this? ie: murder committed by a child?

It seems to me the sentence margin open to the court will be something between 8 and 14 years. The court has discretion to impose a life sentence however having regard to jurisprudence and the children's act I cannot see the judge imposing that.. Or if he does the court of Appeal would likely overturn it.

Tin Foil Hat

tuxy wrote: »

Again, I ask. What do you think the judge will do that will have such a major impact on the parole boards decisions in the future?
Unless you think the judge won't even give boy B a life sentence. Is that what you are saying?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

nannerby

Not a chance these are getting a life sentence not even even close to it at most 10yrs max.

Gatling

iamwhoiam wrote: »

In my opinion as a country and a community we should not accept 7 years for Boy A . He is a viscous murderer and commited a sexual on a young girl and showed no remorse whatsoever
I personally would fear for my granddaughters if he was to walk the streets again

I Totally agree with you ,

But as I've repeatedly said over many years on here our judicial system is a joke ,
There will compassion and protection given to this psycho than we and future victims will ever be given.


Don't be surprised if we hear another Christmas at home with his family again report

iamwhoiam

Gatling wrote: »

I Totally agree with you ,

But as I've repeatedly said over many years on here our judicial system is a joke ,
There will compassion and protection given to this psycho than we and future victims will ever be given.


Don't be surprised if we hear another Christmas at home with his family again report

I read far less compassion in the judges statement for Ana and her family . Surely to god they are the important ones in this . Their rights and dignity must come first

tayto lover

iamwhoiam wrote: »

In my opinion as a country and a community we should not accept 7 years for Boy A . He is a viscous murderer and commited a sexual on a young girl and showed no remorse whatsoever
I personally would fear for my granddaughters if he was to walk the streets again

If these boys get lenient sentences there should be a huge protest march to the Dail to highlight people’s disgust at the judicial system. It needs fixing.

tuxy

nannerby wrote: »

Not a chance these are getting a life sentence not even even close to it at most 10yrs max.

But aren't you contradicting yourself since a life sentence can be less than 10 years depending on the parole boards decision which is done on a case by case basis.

Road-Hog

Is there really a need for a judge to give in-depth reasons and make statements justifying his reasons.....especially when they are about as insensitive as one could imagine for the victims family to be reading and hearing. Could he not just say he was restricting the numbers of media present to show impartiality and leave it at that......or could that be basis for an appeal....does he really have to make almost ‘pleasant statements’ about these two utter degenerates.......?

iamwhoiam

Road-Hog wrote: »

Is there really a need for a judge to give in-depth reasons and make statements justifying his reasons.....especially when they are about as insensitive as one could imagine for the victims family to be reading and hearing. Could he not just say he was restricting the numbers of media present to show impartiality and leave it at that......or could that be basis for an appeal....does he really have to make almost ‘pleasant statements’ about these two utter degenerates.......?

I agree that it was totally insensitive towards Anas grieving family
I pass the house in which she died twice weekly and each time my first thought is the pain and utter devastation her family must feel . Surely this should have been the main focus in the judges mind ? Not “ preserving the boys dignity “

Hoboo

Road-Hog wrote: »

Is there really a need for a judge to give in-depth reasons and make statements justifying his reasons.....especially when they are about as insensitive as one could imagine for the victims family to be reading and hearing. Could he not just say he was restricting the numbers of media present to show impartiality and leave it at that......or could that be basis for an appeal....does he really have to make almost ‘pleasant statements’ about these two utter degenerates.......?

I'm a bit lost. I've read what he said, can't see any issue. Doesn't sit well with me that he said he needs to protect the boys dignity etc but he has a job to do. Am I missing something?

Road-Hog

Hoboo wrote: »

I'm a bit lost. I've read what he said, can't see any issue. Doesn't sit well with me that he said he needs to protect the boys dignity etc but he has a job to do. Am I missing something?

You are as insensitive as the judge so if you see nothing wrong with what he said.... Does he really have to elaborate in an almost sympathic manner towards the ‘degenerates’ / animals why he is limiting media Access to the hearing as if their crimes were accidental and didn’t know what they were doing......but that is the arrogance of the judiciary for you......how would you feel if you were a member of the Kriegel family...?

iamwhoiam

Hoboo wrote: »

I'm a bit lost. I've read what he said, can't see any issue. Doesn't sit well with me that he said he needs to protect the boys dignity etc but he has a job to do. Am I missing something?

But surely their dignity was long lost due to their own horrendous actions ? What dignity is he protecting ? I personally found that insensitive towards Anas family .
What about poor Anas dignity ? The boys did their best to ruin that even after her death

tayto lover

Hoboo wrote: »

I'm a bit lost. I've read what he said, can't see any issue. Doesn't sit well with me that he said he needs to protect the boys dignity etc but he has a job to do. Am I missing something?

They never gave Ana any dignity even after the gruesome murder. Boy B tried his best to denigrate her in his statements to the Garda.
Why is their dignity getting special treatment?