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

McCrack

iamwhoiam wrote: »

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

Dignity in the context of your understanding is not what the judge means. There are certain constitutional and human rights that every person has regardless of how bad they are or the terrible things acts they have committed. It's part of the rule of law we abide by as a civilised and democratic society.. And if you don't like that you can move to north Korea or somewhere

..... Article 1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights states that: 'Human dignity is inviolable. ... The Irish Constitution is also based on the notion of 'the dignity and freedom of the individual'. Similarly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is founded on the principle of the 'dignity and worth of the human person'.

iamwhoiam

McCrack wrote: »

Dignity in the context of your understanding is not what the judge means. There are certain constitutional and human rights that every person has regardless of how bad they are or the terrible things acts they have committed. It's part of the rule of law we abide by as a civilised and democratic society.. And if you don't like that you can move to north Korea or somewhere

..... Article 1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights states that: 'Human dignity is inviolable. ... The Irish Constitution is also based on the notion of 'the dignity and freedom of the individual'. Similarly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is founded on the principle of the 'dignity and worth of the human person'.

Thanks for the article it does go someway in explaining the choice of wards , ( though I dont really think it helps to be sarcastic about it )

Gadgetman496

padd b1975 wrote: »

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

They are complete & the Judge is in possession of them.

KWAG2019

McCrack wrote: »

Dignity in the context of your understanding is not what the judge means. There are certain constitutional and human rights that every person has regardless of how bad they are or the terrible things acts they have committed. It's part of the rule of law we abide by as a civilised and democratic society.. And if you don't like that you can move to north Korea or somewhere

..... Article 1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights states that: 'Human dignity is inviolable. ... The Irish Constitution is also based on the notion of 'the dignity and freedom of the individual'. Similarly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is founded on the principle of the 'dignity and worth of the human person'.

It’s always worth repeating that human rights are an invented entity. They can be amended and added to or altered by that which brought them into existence, human reason. There is a semi theological reverence for the concept nowadays that simply ignores their origin and development.

As an Interesting aside, Trump and his sidekick Pence want to move all this back to “natural law” basis which to them is based in Christian belief. The argument that the US constitution was founded in such and as such, interpretation of the constitution should be based there too. Religious loons haven’t gone away you know.

In the Ana case and the convicted criminals, the judge wants to preserve the legal construct of their dignity. True. But his role and the balance of his role in the eyes of any sane society is to take serious account of the violation of Ana Kriegel’s dignity, both as legal construct and actual reality, a permanent and irreversible violation as it involved the destruction of her life.

Hoboo

KWAG2019 wrote: »

It’s always worth repeating that human rights are an invented entity. They can be amended and added to or altered by that which brought them into existence, human reason. There is a semi theological reverence for the concept nowadays that simply ignores their origin and development.

As an Interesting aside, Trump and his sidekick Pence want to move all this back to “natural law” basis which to them is based in Christian belief. The argument that the US constitution was founded in such and as such, interpretation of the constitution should be based there too. Religious loons haven’t gone away you know.

In the Ana case and the convicted criminals, the judge wants to preserve the legal construct of their dignity. True. But his role and the balance of his role in the eyes of any sane society is to take serious account of the violation of Ana Kriegel’s dignity, both as legal construct and actual reality, a permanent and irreversible violation as it involved the destruction of her life.

His role is to pass sentence and he will use that opportunity to reflect the seriousness of the crime, his role is not to ignore the law or apply the law in an impartial manner. A society that fails to recognise that may be sane, but completely ignorant. How random jury's still exist is beyond me.

KWAG2019

Hoboo wrote: »

his role is not to ignore the law or apply the law in an impartial manner.

I haven’t seen anyone call for the law to be ignored. Changed perhaps. The place the law was ignored in this case was when two criminals lured an innocent young child to a deserted house bear her sexually assaulted her and then beat her to death.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt about “Impartial” and assume you meant the opposite.

Random juries are there to ensure that the common sense of ordinary people is applied to determine guilt or innocence. They have judges to direct and guide about the law. If you hold ordinary people in contempt then juries are to be derided.

tayto lover

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.

Nobody’s talking about an eye for an eye.
They stole any dignity Ana had and brutally murdered her.
They left her body lying in a derelict house, sexually assaulted, battered and bruised.
Boy B even denigrated her in his statements and in court in front of her parents.

Yet their dignity I’d first and foremost in your mind.
Sad.
And we wound beating them to death, where did anyone say that?

volchitsa

tayto lover wrote: »

Nobody’s talking about an eye for an eye.
They stole any dignity Ana had and brutally murdered her.
They left her body lying in a derelict house, sexually assaulted, battered and bruised.
Boy B even denigrated her in his statements and in court in front of her parents.

Yet their dignity I’d first and foremost in your mind.
Sad.
And we wound beating them to death, where did anyone say that?

Try to reply to what I said please, not to what you imagine I said. Never mind what you imagine is in my mind.

Then you might even get a reply in turn.

Rodin

Whatever sentence they get won't be enough.

F..k rehabilitation.

Prison should be there to protect decent people from the scum of society.

Hal3000

Don’t be expecting any proper justice in this case. Sure we live in a country that lets people view child abuse material without any sentence ? Seriously, I can’t see these boys getting any sort of stiff sentence.

tayto lover

volchitsa wrote: »

Try to reply to what I said please, not to what you imagine I said. Never mind what you imagine is in my mind.

Then you might even get a reply in turn.

Then you shouldn’t twist what people said either.
Anyway there are many who see the decisions of judges from time to time as bafflingly lenient. Judges following the rule of law is often questionable.

volchitsa

tayto lover wrote: »

Then you shouldn’t twist what people said either.

I didn't say they said it though. I said that was the same logic - because it is: if you refuse to treat someone with dignity because they didn't treat their victim with dignity, that is an eye for an eye. Only in this case it's the stupid version, because it's picking one part of their crime to punish them by, while not punishing them according to the most significant aspect of their crime, the actual murder.

You OTOH decided you know what's first and foremost in my mind, and yet I can assure you you are entirely wrong. And I think I should know shouldn't I?

tayto lover wrote: »

Anyway there are many who see the decisions of judges from time to time as bafflingly lenient. Judges following the rule of law is often questionable.

The first part is a completely different point, and without evidence that those "many" are right, it's just bluster. I don't know what the second sentence means - that judges probably don't follow the rule of law? Or that they do but shouldn't, as results are questionable?

nannerby

Hal3000 wrote: »

Don’t be expecting any proper justice in this case. Sure we live in a country that lets people view child abuse material without any sentence ? Seriously, I can’t see these boys getting any sort of stiff sentence.

They wont and more than likely will never see the inside of Arbour hill/wheatfield/mountjoy.

Hannibal_Smith

tayto lover wrote: »

Then you shouldn’t twist what people said either.
Anyway there are many who see the decisions of judges from time to time as bafflingly lenient. Judges following the rule of law is often questionable.

The judge hasn't even passed a sentence yet....

tayto lover

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

The judge hasn't even passed a sentence yet....

I never said he did. I was talking about many judicial decisions that seem very lenient for the seriousness of the crimes.

Hal3000

tayto lover wrote: »

I never said he did. I was talking about many judicial decisions that seem very lenient for the seriousness of the crimes.

Agree. I think a lot of posters here are going to be very angry when they see the sentence. Our justice system has form in being more concerned for perpetrators as opposed to victims. If I’m proven wrong I’ll be happy but it’s highly unlikely in this country.

Road-Hog

<snip>

So what are people’s guess as to what these two ‘degenerates’ will be handed tomorrow.....less than 10 years....which will comprise of 3 in the oberstown place and then 7 in a real prison when they reach 18....? Parole board will then based on assessments at year 7 deem them reformed and no longer a threat, give them new identities and release them back to society

RoryMac

How long have each of the boys spent in Oberstown already? That will come off the sentence too I guess.

I'd say 10 years is probably the max they'll get and won't serve anything like that unfortunately

salmocab

Road-Hog wrote: »

So what are people’s guess as to what these two ‘degenerates’ will be handed tomorrow.....less than 10 years....which will comprise of 3 in the oberstown place and then 7 in a real prison when they reach 18....? Parole board will then based on assessments at year 7 deem them reformed and no longer a threat, give them new identities and release them back to society

I think they will be getting life sentences but with some caveats due to age they will probably have to do extra assessments.
You don’t put degenerates in inverted commas because that suggests you don’t think they are which I assume isn’t what you were aiming at.

pjohnson

Road-Hog wrote: »

So what are people’s guess as to what these two ‘degenerates’ will be handed tomorrow.....less than 10 years....which will comprise of 3 in the oberstown place and then 7 in a real prison when they reach 18....? Parole board will then based on assessments at year 7 deem them reformed and no longer a threat, give them new identities and release them back to society

Gotta keep the angels safe.

Road-Hog

salmocab wrote: »

I think they will be getting life sentences but with some caveats due to age they will probably have to do extra assessments.
You don’t put degenerates in inverted commas because that suggests you don’t think they are which I assume isn’t what you were aiming at.

Just to clarify, the inverted commas are put there in sarcasm as some posters have hinted that I’m being inhumane by referring to the boys inappropriately

Lackey

tayto lover wrote: »

I never said he did. I was talking about many judicial decisions that seem very lenient for the seriousness of the crimes.

A petition and Facebook page that has been recently set up ‘calling the resignation of ‘judge’ Martin Nolan’ was shared with me this morning.
Makes for grim reading.

The two in this case will be out soon
Anyone who thinks they’ll ‘serve time’ is fooling themselves.

Hal3000

Lackey wrote: »

A petition and Facebook page that has been recently set up ‘calling the resignation of ‘judge’ Martin Nolan’ was shared with me this morning.
Makes for grim reading.

The two in this case will be out soon
Anyone who thinks they’ll ‘serve time’ is fooling themselves.

I’ll have no problem signing that.

Garibaldi?

Horrific incidents like Ana's murder invariably have another consequence.They draw from the woodwork violent and dysfunctional personalities who would like to do violence with impunity. Or better still to have others do it on their behalf. Witness the ugly, immoderate and high inappropriate comments that surface on social media sites. These are of no comfort to the tragically bereaved. Such individuals generally back off like scalded cats when seriously called out on their extreme language. As soon as they actually have something to lose!

Hal3000

Garibaldi? wrote: »

Horrific incidents like Ana's murder invariably have another consequence.They draw from the woodwork violent and dysfunctional personalities who would like to do violence with impunity. Or better still to have others do it on their behalf. Witness the ugly, immoderate and high inappropriate comments that surface on social media sites. These are of no comfort to the tragically bereaved. Such individuals generally back off like scalded cats when seriously called out on their extreme language. As soon as they actually have something to lose!

Fair enough and I agree that we shouldn’t engage in savagery, but this anger is also fueled by a total lack of accountability and justice in the Irish system. Enough is enough. We can’t go on like this any longer. We must have accountability for serious - violent crimes.

iamwhoiam

Hal3000 wrote: »

Fair enough and I agree that we shouldn’t engage in savagery, but this anger is also fueled by a total lack of accountability and justice in the Irish system. Enough is enough. We can’t go on like this any longer. We must have accountability for serious - violent crimes.

And accountability for corporate crimes too . People are angry and rightly so about lack of justice and accountability on many levels

KWAG2019

Hal3000 wrote: »

Fair enough and I agree that we shouldn’t engage in savagery, but this anger is also fueled by a total lack of accountability and justice in the Irish system. Enough is enough. We can’t go on like this any longer. We must have accountability for serious - violent crimes.

The problem isn’t just accountability. It’s the knee jerk ideological defence of a system that has failed countless families and society. It’s the attempt to stifle debate with melodramatic pronouncements and mis characterization of those seeking change by focusing on extreme views.

Rather than petitions about judges those who are unhappy with the system must visit or contact their TDs in large numbers. And it must be an election issue. The groups which influence policy and have created this system must be held up to transparent scrutiny. They may be funded by the taxpayer. They may have ideological biases and goals that need to be made clear. They may benefit in some manner from the system as is. Whatever happens on Tuesday this debate must never go away again.

donkeykong5

Lackey wrote: »

A petition and Facebook page that has been recently set up ‘calling the resignation of ‘judge’ Martin Nolan’ was shared with me this morning.
Makes for grim reading.

The two in this case will be out soon
Anyone who thinks they’ll ‘serve time’ is fooling themselves.

I signed that petition ages ago. Absolutely nothing was done about it. He still sits in court daily and either let's paedophiles off with a suspended sentence or a friendly warning.

abff

m

donkeykong5 wrote: »

I signed that petition ages ago. Absolutely nothing was done about it. He still sits in court daily and either let's paedophiles off with a suspended sentence or a friendly warning.

Are you saying that he has a reputation for being too light on criminals when sentencing?

jay1988

abff wrote: »

m

Are you saying that he has a reputation for being too light on criminals when sentencing?

Its quite well known that he has let many child sex offenders off with very light sentences/suspended sentences.

A bloke i used to work with was caught by gardai in the act of downloading child porn when they raided his house, also found a lot more already downloaded material, this joker let him off without ever seeing the inside of a jail cell because he had a good work history and came from a good family.

He's a disgrace.