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

Garibaldi?

Surely these murderers need to be put away and given new identities in order to obviate public outrage and a violent reaction. There are many people who know who they are although their identities have not been published in the media. Neighbors. school associates.etc.

Demosthenese

https://www.gofundme.com/f/together-for-Ana. Great cause for all that support this... Go for it!

Hoboo

Road-Hog wrote: »

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...?

I wouldn't like the laws that exist to protect juvenile offenders but I wouldn't take issue with the judge because he's following the law! That's ridiculous.

As a judge that's his duty. If you read what he said he answers your question why he did what he did.

Road-Hog

Hoboo wrote: »

I wouldn't like the laws that exist to protect juvenile offenders but I wouldn't take issue with the judge because he's following the law! That's ridiculous.

As a judge that's his duty. If you read what he said he answers your question why he did what he did.

It’s the language he used........why did he have to elaborate and show respect and almost sympathy towards these two vicious/degenerate animals..........what I’m referring to is the following .......

1. ‘The considerable toll the court case has
taken’ on the ‘children........
2. ’the boys are under enormous pressure’
3. wanting to ensue.......the ‘least interference to
their dignity and welfare.”.........
4. concerns for ‘ the health, welfare and best
interests of these children who face the most
significant determination to be made in their
lives.”

I can see no justification to use such word as those above.......it’s almost like they are the victims here.

volchitsa

tayto lover wrote: »

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?

That's not really the point. Courts don't base treatment of criminals on "an eye for an eye" any more. There's a rule of law, and if the courts don't follow it how can we expect anyone else to do so.

Anyway by that logic, we wouldn't be worrying about not respecting their dignity, we'd be beating them to death somewhere. i know it's what some people want, but as a society we've agreed not to do that. Even to murderers.

Hoboo

Road-Hog wrote: »

It’s the language he used........why did he have to elaborate and show respect and almost sympathy towards these two vicious/degenerate animals..........what I’m referring to is the following .......

1. ‘The considerable toll the court case has
taken’ on the ‘children........
2. ’the boys are under enormous pressure’
3. wanting to ensue.......the ‘least interference to
their dignity and welfare.”.........
4. concerns for ‘ the health, welfare and best
interests of these children who face the most
significant determination to be made in their
lives.”

I can see no justification to use such word as those above.......it’s almost like they are the victims here.

Because all 4 points are points of fact. He has a duty of care to them regardless of the crime, and a duty to society to fulfill his role professionally. I doubt what they did sits well with him either, but he carried out his duty professionally as we should hope he would. That's why the words are justified. He has applied Human Rights law, and your four points are his reasons for doing so. If he didn't explain why, then there's an issue.

I understand why the wording doesnt sit well, but facts are what courts rely on, and facts they are.

Whether they are victims or not is a debate I'll leave to sociologists and psychologists who are actually working with them, none of us know.

Road-Hog

volchitsa wrote: »

That's not really the point. Courts don't base treatment of criminals on "an eye for an eye" any more. There's a rule of law, and if the courts don't follow it how can we expect anyone else to do so.

Anyway by that logic, we wouldn't be worrying about not respecting their dignity, we'd be beating them to death somewhere. i know it's what some people want, but as a society we've agreed not to do that. Even to murderers.

It’s the language/ words that judge used is what the issue is........surely guys of such enormous intellect/IQ as judges could be more careful with the sentiments their words portray.......I have never advocated a mob mentality or Treatment of these two degenerates but they need serious rehab and how that is done is beyond me but one thing for sure their ‘liberty’ should be deprived for a very long time.......let them get treated and assessed etc but more than likely they will walk out of detention in 5/7 years with claims that ‘they no longer present a risk to society’

volchitsa

Road-Hog wrote: »

It’s the language/ words that judge used is what the issue is........surely guys of such enormous intellect/IQ as judges could be more careful with the sentiments their words portray.......I have never advocated a mob mentality or Treatment of these two degenerates but they need serious rehab and how that is done is beyond me but one thing for sure their ‘liberty’ should be deprived for a very long time.......let them get treated and assessed etc but more than likely walk out of detention in 5/7 years with claims that ‘they no longer present a risk to society’

I don't understand what language you want him to use - other than the language of the mob mentality that you say you don't advocate. Presumably you'd be happier if he called them "degenerates"?

As for the apparent suggestion that if only he used different language they would be less likely to get out early - well I'm really at a loss as to your thinking there.

Either that or you're making a different point entirely. It all seems rather confused anyway.

pjohnson

Protecting this vermin has always been the priority of the court. Must protect the two lil angels. Wouldnt want them facing consequences now would we?

splinter65

pjohnson wrote: »

Protecting this vermin has always been the priority of the court. Must protect the two lil angels. Wouldnt want them facing consequences now would we?

I didn’t know they’d been released and are free to go on with their lives! When did this happen pj?

iamwhoiam

splinter65 wrote: »

I didn’t know they’d been released and are free to go on with their lives! When did this happen pj?

No one said they were ? People are discussing the protection of their "dignity" .While I understand the rights of minors those particular words have irritated many who read it . My first thought was " as if these two murderers have any dignity left to protect "

Hannibal_Smith

The thread has turned into vile rubber necking. The judge is being picked apart for not using 'correct'
language now :rolleyes: .

iamwhoiam

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

The thread has turned into vile rubber necking. The judge is being picked apart for not using 'correct'
language now :rolleyes: .

Personally I see no harm in discussing it and how we feel I dont think a judge is above criticism ..Not that it matters how we feel really , it only matters how Anas family feel .

facehugger99

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

The thread has turned into vile rubber necking. The judge is being picked apart for not using 'correct'
language nyow :rolleyes: .

The mob have always been a prickly bunch. Looking for excuses to indulge in a bit of outrage venting.

monty_python

So they are being sentenced Tuesday??

splinter65

iamwhoiam wrote: »

No one said they were ? People are discussing the protection of their "dignity" .While I understand the rights of minors those particular words have irritated many who read it . My first thought was " as if these two murderers have any dignity left to protect "

No. You need to read the posts that I’m responding to.
pjjohnson insists that they’re not going to face the consequences of their actions.
They are.

iamwhoiam

splinter65 wrote: »

No. You need to read the posts that I’m responding to.
pjjohnson insists that they’re not going to face the consequences of their actions.
They are.

I hope they face enough years so . Personally I think the punishment has to fit the crime even for 13 year olds .

Hannibal_Smith

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Personally I see no harm in discussing it and how we feel I dont think a judge is above criticism ..Not that it matters how we feel really , it only matters how Anas family feel .

It's not being 'discussed' though. It's looking for any reason to be outraged.

The judge has had no part in any of the hurt caused to the Kriegel family, he is not part of the crime and he's not trying to deepen any wounds.

Hannibal_Smith

monty_python wrote: »

So they are being sentenced Tuesday??

Yes, Tuesday.

iamwhoiam

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

It's not being 'discussed' though. It's looking for any reason to be outraged.

The judge has had no part in any of the hurt caused to the Kriegel family, he is not part of the crime and he's not trying to deepen any wounds.

I know he had no part in it . My one criticism of him is the choice of words . Personally I think “ protecting their dignity “ was a poor choice of words
I don’t think that shows outrage at all , its simply a point I made . I don’t think he is beyond criticism for it . I think he did a great job in extremely difficult circumstances , but still found his choice of words strange

Road-Hog

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

It's not being 'discussed' though. It's looking for any reason to be outraged.

The judge has had no part in any of the hurt caused to the Kriegel family, he is not part of the crime and he's not trying to deepen any wounds.

Well if I was the kreigels I’d be fairly pissed off with his ‘kind words and sentiments’ that he has used towards the ‘2 x vermin’ involved here....I never once suggested that his ‘words’ would result in a more lenient sentence but he should be able to be more sensitive in his statements with His enormous IQ and life experience etc......but a lot of the judiciary are not in touch with reality.....!

pjohnson

splinter65 wrote: »

No. You need to read the posts that I’m responding to.
pjjohnson insists that they’re not going to face the consequences of their actions.
They are.

I didnt know they were getting an actual life sentence! When did that happen splinter?

banie01

I can certainly understand the anger many feel that these boys are now being treated with a degree of fairness and compassion that is far and away in excess of anything they showed Ana in her life, or her family after their death.

However, in Ireland the whole aim of the judicial process is to impose a punitive sentence whilst still allowing the criminal to be treated humanely, and lawfully.
That they have commited heinous acts, does not mean we as a society get to reciprocate in kind.
Indeed if we did, would it not make us as a society akin to them?

The courts impose a sentence, hopefully it will be the maximum the guidelines allow.
Then the boys will enter the penal system.
That system is geared towards the reform of convicts, not solely the punishment of them.

If we want to start imposing sentences of indefinite duration, corporal or capital punishment or any other fashion of restorative or indeed solely punitive rather than rehabilitive sentencing?
That to me would point more towards a failure of society, than the abberation the awful crime commited by these 2 represents.

The judge's responsibility here is a delicate one.
Justice must be served, but justice is not solely served by retribution.

nannerby

tuxy wrote: »

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.

Case by case maybe but average lifer does 20yrs now no one has done less than 10yrs this century but watch these guys walk after 7 or 8 yrs.

Skylinehead

pjohnson wrote: »

I didnt know they were getting an actual life sentence! When did that happen splinter?

You said the judge doesn't want them to face any consequences whatsoever. Not sure how you can come out with such bullshit.

forumdedum

abff wrote: »

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.

Hard to take indeed. I don't know how Ana's family copes.

Garibaldi?

Mob reaction has to be curtailed. It has nothing to do with justice for a victim. There is nothing whatsoever noble or wholesome about it. It reflects the worst tendencies in human nature. It is espoused by the lowest common denominator in society.

KWAG2019

Garibaldi? wrote: »

Mob reaction has to be curtailed. It has nothing to do with justice for a victim. There is nothing whatsoever noble or wholesome about it. It reflects the worst tendencies in human nature. It is espoused by the lowest common denominator in society.

I saw today that a man who murdered 3 soldiers in the Lebanon served 27 years and was released in 2010. 9 years a life. I think you're very confused about who the mob is; the worst tendencies in human nature are to condone savagery by excusing it.

iamwhoiam

Garibaldi? wrote: »

Mob reaction has to be curtailed. It has nothing to do with justice for a victim. There is nothing whatsoever noble or wholesome about it. It reflects the worst tendencies in human nature. It is espoused by the lowest common denominator in society.

Discussion is a healthy thing .,We do not always have to accept things as they are. We can question a decision made by a court without it being mob reaction .

padd b1975

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Yes, Tuesday.

What odds on the psychological reports etc not being completed in time?