Internet Troll gets three years

nkl12xtw5goz70

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Imagine telling on yourself like this.

Indeed. I'm expecting the Gardai to be knocking on the door any second.

Annasopra

Eric Cartman wrote: »

6 months, its just words on the internet...

I suspect if it wasnt female journalists who love the victim card and turning on the crocodile tears then ut would have been more reasonable

You wouldnt be saying that if you were harassed online non stop for 6 years.

pinkyeye

splinter65 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that people should only get Disabilty for physical disabilities?

Nope, not at all, what a stupid question.

Whether or not you get granted disability allowance for a physical or mental disability you will still have to leave your house to be granted such.

That's a simple fact. And I know this from experience, not theory, so don't try with your smart arse answer with me.

Calhoun

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You wouldnt be saying that if you were harassed online non stop for 6 years.

Indeed it was fairly invasive to the point they felt they were under surveillance and at one point he sent a message after one of the ladies tweeted she would be alone (housemate went out) saying he would be right over.

I don't necessarily agree with the length but he should serve something.

Tony EH

Calhoun wrote: »

I don't necessarily agree with the length but he should serve something.

It actually could have been a longer sentence. The judge knocked off 2 years.

Calhoun

Tony EH wrote: »

It actually could have been a longer sentence. The judge knocked off 2 years.

I know, I think at least a year served with one or two suspended would have made more sense.

Tony EH

More than likely he won't serve the full term of his three years either. If he does even a year and half and gets out for being a good boy, I wouldn't be surprised.

Calhoun

Tony EH wrote: »

More than likely he won't serve the full term of his three years either. If he does even a year and half and gets out for being a good boy, I wouldn't be surprised.

With remission he will do just over 2 years.

Irish Guitarist

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Some other sentences by the same judge.

A suspended sentence for pushing a woman into traffic

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/a-never-ending-nightmare-woman-22-abused-by-cousin-from-age-of-four-tells-court-monster-ruined-her-life-36822232.html

Five months for sexually assaulting a sleeping woman

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-jailed-for-sexually-assaulting-woman-asleep-on-dublin-street-36874756.html

Six months for a father who sexually abused his five year old daughter

https://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0316/687601-roscommon-abuse/

Eighteen months for a 17 year old who had sex with a 14 year old.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/teenage-boy-who-believed-consent-was-consent-jailed-for-sex-with-girl-14-38696231.html

How he comes up with these sentences is beyond me. Apparently Attempted murder deserves no jail time. Sexual assault deserves all of five months. Raping your infant daughter for two years deserves six months in jail. A teenage boy having sex with a teenage girl three years younger than him deserves a year and a half in jail because it's so much worse than the other crimes.

Just noticed the first link is to the wrong story (although the one I mistakenly linked to is bad too). This is the one about the woman being pushed into traffic. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-who-pushed-woman-in-front-of-dublin-traffic-given-suspended-sentence-1.3471823

Ulysses Gaze

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Just noticed the first link is to the wrong story (although the one I mistakenly linked to is bad too). This is the one about the woman being pushed into traffic. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-who-pushed-woman-in-front-of-dublin-traffic-given-suspended-sentence-1.3471823

Nolan is coming under increased and repeated public scrutiny for his sentencing including at least two online petitions and a lot of sustained tweeting/posting about him and his leniency towards sexual and domestic abusers. This includes people posting pictures of him online too. Stock pictures sure but pictures nonetheless

There has even been an article in the Journal highlighting his sentencing and public "outrage" about it in the last 12 months.

There is no doubt that Doolin was guilty of what he did but sending him to prison for 3 years is ridiculous. 6 months maybe and treatment in a mental health facility would be more fitting. Particularly given that sexual abusers are getting those type of sentences, and lighter ones, by Nolan for sustained and continuous physical and sexual abuse against children/people.

The cynic in me thinks Nolan is setting down a marker and making an example of Doolin as a warning to those that continually criticise him and other judges online.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Calhoun wrote: »

Indeed it was fairly invasive to the point they felt they were under surveillance and at one point he sent a message after one of the ladies tweeted she would be alone (housemate went out) saying he would be right over.

I don't necessarily agree with the length but he should serve something.

For comparison, the British man who emailed explicit death threats to multiple MPs (including telling Heidi Allen "Your days are f**king numbered bitch. Will it be polonium or novichok? Either way you will never know, expect it soon") and also emailed racist abuse to a black Labour MP (telling him "Go back to the jungle n****r where you belong") only got 9 months.

Doolin's sentence is four times that long, and I agree with the post above pointing out the connection between this excessively harsh sentence and the increased public scrutiny of Nolan's judicial record.

charlietheminxx

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

For comparison, the British man who emailed explicit death threats to multiple MPs (including telling Heidi Allen "Your days are f**king numbered bitch. Will it be polonium or novichok? Either way you will never know, expect it soon") and also emailed racist abuse to a black Labour MP (telling him "Go back to the jungle n****r where you belong") only got 9 months.

Doolin's sentence is four times that long, and I agree with the post above pointing out the connection between this excessively harsh sentence and the increased public scrutiny of Nolan's judicial record.

Why do you keep bringing the case in the UK up? We are a different country, we have different laws. What that British man did is horrible, he should have gotten a longer sentence, but it has SFA to do with this.

charlietheminxx

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Why do you keep bringing the case in the UK up? We are a different country, we have different laws. What that British man did is horrible, he should have gotten a longer sentence, but it has SFA to do with this.

I suspect because I can't think of any other case here where someone got any sort of custodial sentence for this crime.

charlietheminxx

Deleted User wrote: »

I suspect because I can't think of any other case here where someone got any sort of custodial sentence for this crime.

Sustained digital harassment is a fairly new issue, hopefully it'll serve as a deterrent for anyone else who would behave like this.

ohnonotgmail

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Nolan is coming under increased and repeated public scrutiny for his sentencing including at least two online petitions and a lot of sustained tweeting/posting about him and his leniency towards sexual and domestic abusers. This includes people posting pictures of him online too. Stock pictures sure but pictures nonetheless

There has even been an article in the Journal highlighting his sentencing and public "outrage" about it in the last 12 months.

There is no doubt that Doolin was guilty of what he did but sending him to prison for 3 years is ridiculous. 6 months maybe and treatment in a mental health facility would be more fitting. Particularly given that sexual abusers are getting those type of sentences, and lighter ones, by Nolan for sustained and continuous physical and sexual abuse against children/people.

The cynic in me thinks Nolan is setting down a marker and making an example of Doolin as a warning to those that continually criticise him and other judges online.

all you have highlighted is that the sentencing for sexual and physical abuse is far too low. Giving this creep a lesser sentence because others got sentences that are too low is just most bizarre thinking. He fully deserved the sentence he was given.

Salary Negotiator

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

all you have highlighted is that the sentencing for sexual and physical abuse is far too low. Giving this creep a lesser sentence because others got sentences that are too low is just most bizarre thinking. He fully deserved the sentence he was given.

It is so bizarre. People complain that Nolan's sentences are too short and then use those short sentences as evidence that the sentence imposed in this case is too long.

Where's the logic?

nkl12xtw5goz70

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

It is so bizarre. People complain that Nolan's sentences are too short and then use those short sentences as evidence that the sentence imposed in this case is too long.

Where's the logic?

Is it really that difficult?

Several posters have pointed out that Nolan's sentencing seems purely random — so that violent offenders can walk free, while in this case a nonviolent mentally ill recluse goes to prison for three years.

Nolan is wholly unfit to be a judge. There is no way this sentence (or, indeed, many of his other sentences) can be justified.

Ulysses Gaze

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

all you have highlighted is that the sentencing for sexual and physical abuse is far too low. Giving this creep a lesser sentence because others got sentences that are too low is just most bizarre thinking. He fully deserved the sentence he was given.

Because there is no consistency in sentencing with this judge. That is the kernel of the issue for me.

I am using sentencing from cases of actual physical and psychological harm caused to individuals and comparing against the Doolin case and highlighting the bizarre, head-scratching sentencing disparity.

If Nolan were giving sexual and domestic abusers similar or higher sentences than Doolin, I would take no issue with the severity of Doolins' sentence.

That is why the cynic in me thinks that Nolan is making a statement to those that are becoming more increasingly critical of him online with this sentence.

Salary Negotiator

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

Is it really that difficult?

Several posters have pointed out that Nolan's sentencing seems purely random — so that violent offenders can walk free, while in this case a nonviolent mentally ill recluse goes to prison for three years.

Nolan is wholly unfit to be a judge. There is no way this sentence (or, indeed, many of his other sentences) can be justified.

If his sentences can't be justified then by that logic you can't use his previous sentences as evidence that this sentence is too harsh.

ohnonotgmail

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Because there is no consistency in sentencing with this judge. That is the kernel of the issue for me.

I am using sentencing from cases of actual physical and psychological harm caused to individuals and comparing against the Doolin case and highlighting the bizarre, head-scratching sentencing disparity.

If Nolan were giving sexual and domestic abusers similar or higher sentences than Doolin, I would take no issue with the severity of Doolins' sentence.

That is why the cynic in me thinks that Nolan is making a statement to those that are becoming more increasingly critical of him online with this sentence.

The disparity is because other sentences are too low not that this sentence is too high.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

If his sentences can't be justified then by that logic you can't use his previous sentences as evidence that this sentence is too harsh.

We can certainly use precedent from other cases.

In a 2018 case, internet troll Stephen French, who told Labour senator Lorraine Higgins "I'm also going to put bullets up your f***ing a*** and watch you bleed like a river," "When the time is right I'm not only going to fill your rat's mouth with lead, your rat's mouth is going to be so full of lead it's going to fly out the back of your neck," and "I'm going to blow your big f***ing Jew nose right off," received a six-month suspended sentence.

That's far worse than anything Doolin did.

ohnonotgmail

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

We can certainly use precedent from other cases.

In a 2018 case, internet troll Stephen French, who told Labour senator Lorraine Higgins "I'm also going to put bullets up your f***ing a*** and watch you bleed like a river," "When the time is right I'm not only going to fill your rat's mouth with lead, your rat's mouth is going to be so full of lead it's going to fly out the back of your neck," and "I'm going to blow your big f***ing Jew nose right off," received a six-month suspended sentence.

That's far worse than anything Doolin did.

the facts of that case are different. The harassment didn't take place over the course of six years. I do agree the offence was serious though and a fully suspended sentence was ridiculous.

Salary Negotiator

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

We can certainly use precedent from other cases.

In a 2018 case, internet troll Stephen French, who told Labour senator Lorraine Higgins "I'm also going to put bullets up your f***ing a*** and watch you bleed like a river," "When the time is right I'm not only going to fill your rat's mouth with lead, your rat's mouth is going to be so full of lead it's going to fly out the back of your neck," and "I'm going to blow your big f***ing Jew nose right off," received a six-month suspended sentence.

That's far worse than anything Doolin did.

On the face of it yes, but French's abuse occurred over a period of 5 weeks versus 5.5 years by Doolin. The longer duration has to be taken into consideration.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

On the face of it yes, but French's abuse occurred over a period of 5 weeks versus 5.5 years by Doolin. The longer duration has to be taken into consideration.

The abuse was in no way comparable.

The judge concluded that Doolin was "probably attempting to frighten" his targets. Saying that a criminal was "probably attempting" to do something is a dubious rationale for a three-year custodial sentence. Has anyone ever gone to jail for "probably attempting" to rob a bank?

When it comes to French's "I'm going to put bullets up your f***ing a*** and watch you bleed like a river," there's little doubt that his intent was to terrify the senator. Nobody would say that he was "probably attempting to frighten" her.

ohnonotgmail

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

The abuse was in no way comparable.

The judge said that Doolin was "probably attempting to frighten" his targets. Saying that a criminal was "probably attempting" to do something is a dubious rationale for a three-year custodial sentence. Has anyone ever gone to jail for "probably attempting" to rob a bank?

When it comes to French's "I'm going to put bullets up your f***ing a*** and watch you bleed like a river," there's little doubt that his intent was to terrify the senator. Nobody would say that he was "probably attempting to frighten" her.

You keep mentioning other instances where the sentencing was too low. That does not make the sentence in this instance incorrect.

nkl12xtw5goz70

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You keep mentioning other instances where the sentencing was too low. That does not make the sentence in this instance incorrect.

You do understand that sentencing is based on precedent and case law, right? Sentences that are too harsh or too lenient can and should be challenged based on precedent.

ohnonotgmail

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

You do understand that sentencing is based on precedent and case law, right? Sentences that are too harsh or too lenient can and should be challenged based on precedent.

Not in district court cases.

joseywhales

So if using precedent to argue the appropriate length of a sentence is not valid then how do you come up with an objectively appropriate length of sentence?

Do we put it to a popular vote? Do we let victims decide?

Are all sentences too short?

Do we at least agree that violence is worse than non violence however long we wish the median sentence to be? Or is even that challenged?

Is there any other example in Irish law of someone who got 3 years or more in jail for non contact harassment (e.g. repeated phone calls or letters) ? I think this is the question we have to ask.

I'm not suggesting the sentence is too light, just suggesting that it's not consistent with other equally bad or worse offences.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

So if using precedent to argue the appropriate length of a sentence is not valid then how do you come up with an objectively appropriate length of sentence?

Do we put it to a popular vote? Do we let victims decide?

Are all sentences too short?

Do we at least agree that violence is worse than non violence however long we wish the median sentence to be? Or is even that challenged?

Unfortunately many people would base it on their political preferences and personal biases.For example there was a case of a mother who was a GP who administered 10 times the lethal dose of medicine to her very ill child. She was found not guilty of by the jury. This was a difficult and traumatic case for everyone involved but anyone with a shred of objectivity could see she meant to end the child's life. This doesn't mean she should have gotten a custodial sentence, but clearly this was the wrong verdict.