Internet Troll gets three years

As far as I can tell from the admittedly poor article this guy had never been before the courts before.

In that case I really think a 3 year custodial sentence was an excessive sentence - especially compared to sentences for other far more serious crimes.

A suspended sentence would have been more appropriate, along with a restraining order - and some sort of mandatory therapy for his fixation with these women. Break that and it's off to jail. That would have been fair and made sense IMO.

Suggesting these women brought it upon themselves is clearly ridiculous, and Permabear isn't saying that.

joseywhales

So if I understand, this sentence is not consistent with other sentences, particularly those that are for violent offenses but also other cases of harrassment.

However the length of the sentence is correct, it is just that other sentences are too lenient.

Why are other sentences too short and why is this sentence correct, objectively?

Aside:
Also I have read here that "I have asked many time why certain posters continue to downplay this crime" I have read this statement a few times but I have never actually read the question anywhere? Perhaps buried pages ago?If anyone were to answer such a question they would have to implicitly admit that they are downplaying, so I am sure that is why you have not been answered.

I will give my answer for the question that was not asked:

Why are all sentences more lenient than you expect or think they should be?

Incarceration is very expensive, I don't want to pay for it.
Incarceration is not very effective at rehabilitating criminals
Incarceration is only necessary to protect law abiding citizens from violent criminals that are likely to reoffend
A year in prison is a serious punishment, I don't think people realise how terrible living in constant fear of actual demonstrable violence, having no community and no freedom or choice is.

Given the above facts I do not believe that a man who did not commit actual violence and seems incapable of doing so, should be incarcerated at our expense for three years.

nkl12xtw5goz70

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It's the same logic. The person is to blame for the illegal actions of another person because of their behaviour .

It's highly questionable whether Googling images on the internet constitutes an "illegal action."

Also, she wasn't named in the pictures he found online. Does that suggest she wanted them to be "googleable" or that she posted them herself?

I have no idea who posted them, and I don't think it matters. A puts an image of B on the internet and C finds it? Happens all the time.

I haven't even made any comment about the sentencing and whether I think its excessive.

Well, the entire thread is about the three-year prison sentence and how excessive it is (and, not coincidentally, how it was handed down by a judge who is currently under scrutiny for his lenient sentencing in far more serious cases). I also haven't said that he did "nothing wrong" — my point is that three years behind bars for relatively minor nonviolent offences is ridiculous and without precedent.

Beasty

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Some creeps in here.

Jesus Christ.

Comment on the topic, not the posters

Any questions PM me

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

A suspended sentence would have been more appropriate, along with a restraining order - and some sort of mandatory therapy for his fixation with these women. Break that and it's off to jail.

That's pretty much what he did, he broke his bail conditions when awaiting sentence and surprise surprise it didn't work out too well for him.

Maybe read up on the case before commenting on it so extensively.

Suggesting these women brought it upon themselves is clearly ridiculous, and Permabear isn't saying that.

Nonetheless he is seeking to downplay the actions of this criminal at every turn. It is bizarre.

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Cork-teen-was-sexually-assaulted-by-her-dad-on-Christmas-day-If-you-cant-trust-your-dad-who-can-you-trust-c4862914-245a-4085-98b7-372b3c7bd720-ds

Two years for raping your daughter on Christmas Day.

Tony EH

^
Your whataboutery became tiresome many pages back.

Ronin247

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

Well, the entire thread is about the three-year prison sentence and how excessive it is (and, not coincidentally, how it was handed down by a judge who is currently under scrutiny for his lenient sentencing in far more serious cases). I also haven't said that he did "nothing wrong" — my point is that three years behind bars for relatively minor nonviolent offences is ridiculous and without precedent.

Herein lies the problem PRECEDENT. Sentences in Ireland are governed by precedent. If someone gets a sentence of 10 years for murder then it seems an equivalent crime can never get more because a precedent has been set. Sentences only seem to be able to go one way.

This is a new type of crime and so as you rightly say it is without precedent. 3 years is perfect for him, the next one will only get 30 months because of precedent.

While the dogooders and snowflakes tell us that incarceration does nothing to rehabilitate prisoners I would like to point out that incarcerated assholes do not harm the public, do not rob houses and do not breed as many benefit for life babies.

joseywhales

Ronin247 wrote: »

Herein lies the problem PRECEDENT. Sentences in Ireland are governed by precedent. If someone gets a sentence of 10 years for murder then it seems an equivalent crime can never get more because a precedent has been set. Sentences only seem to be able to go one way.

This is a new type of crime and so as you rightly say it is without precedent. 3 years is perfect for him, the next one will only get 30 months because of precedent.

While the dogooders and snowflakes tell us that incarceration does nothing to rehabilitate prisoners I would like to point out that incarcerated assholes do not harm the public, do not rob houses and do not breed as many benefit for life babies.

Ah they are a "type" this criminal and they should not breed, I see.

I will let you elect to pay extra tax to incarcerate non violent criminals, if only I could opt out.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Ronin247 wrote: »

I would like to point out that incarcerated assholes do not harm the public, do not rob houses and do not breed as many benefit for life babies.

Recluses who never leave the house do none of those things either, it should be noted.

Boggles

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

Recluses who never leave the house do none of those things either, it should be noted.

Ah. He did harm members of the public for years.

Salary Negotiator

Boggles wrote: »

Ah. He did harm members of the public for years.

But those women were asking for it.
What did they expect.
Sure rapists get off scot-free.
It's only words on the internet.
He never left his house.
Its not real harassment.

victor8600

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

But those women were asking for it.
What did they expect.
Sure rapists get off scot-free.
It's only words on the internet.
He never left his house.
Its not real harassment.

Are you serious? I hope that was a sarcasm.

Let's assume for your sake that it was. And what you really wanted to say is that that guy Doolin got what he deserved.

I have read the whole thread through. NOBODY suggests that Doolin is some kind of free speech hero who did nothing wrong.

But I see many holier-than-thou people who would hang and quarter this disturbed individual for his crime. It is so freaking easy to become outraged and get "likes" demanding harsher and harsher sentence.

All the sense of proportionality goes out of window.

Tacitus Kilgore

victor8600 wrote: »

Are you serious? I hope that was a sarcasm.

Let's assume for your sake that it was. And what you really wanted to say is that that guy Doolin got what he deserved.

I have read the whole thread through. NOBODY suggests that Doolin is some kind of free speech hero who did nothing wrong.

But I see many holier-than-thou people who would hang and quarter this disturbed individual for his crime. It is so freaking easy to become outraged and get "likes" demanding harsher and harsher sentence.

All the sense of proportionality goes out of window.

You may check the batteries in that detector there

Boggles

victor8600 wrote: »

But I see many holier-than-thou people who would hang and quarter this disturbed individual for his crime. It is so freaking easy to become outraged and get "likes" demanding harsher and harsher sentence.

All the sense of proportionality goes out of window.

I haven't seen anyone suggest he should be cut to pieces.

Most reasonable people suggest the sentence he got inflicting 6 years of torment on multiple victims is reasonable. The max sentence is 7 years.

He couldn't even stick to his bail conditions and continued the harassment and had to be locked up to prevent him doing it.

One victim even offered to get him help.

What more could anyone do?

victor8600

Boggles wrote: »

He .... had to be locked up to prevent him doing it.
....
What more could anyone do?

Make him pay a fine, switch off his internet access, forbid to use the internet for 3 years, make him sign up every day at a Garda station and get the psychiatric help?

Or is it too lenient? Sure, let's make him a hardened criminal in the prison instead.

Boggles

victor8600 wrote: »

Make him pay a fine, switch off his internet access, forbid to use the internet for 3 years, make him sign up every day at a Garda station and get the psychiatric help?

Or is it too lenient? Sure, let's make him a hardened criminal in the prison instead.

Are you misreading what I am saying or ignoring it?

As part of his Bail conditions he was ordered by the court not to contact anyone in relation to the case, he couldn't do it, therefore he was locked up.

What would make you think he would cease doing it if he got

A. A fine
B. Some wishy washy device ban which would be impossible to enforce and as evidenced he would ignore anyway.

You think people should just tolerant his BS because he chose to live is life as an pathetic incel?

Hotblack Desiato

victor8600 wrote: »

Or is it too lenient? Sure, let's make him a hardened criminal in the prison instead.

:rolleyes: he'll end up in an open prison. Add in remission and TR and he'll probably be out next year.

victor8600

Boggles wrote: »

...B. Some wishy washy device ban which would be impossible to enforce and as evidenced he would ignore anyway.

Yeah, fair enough. It is reasonable to assume that he would ignore it.

Boggles wrote: »

.You think people should just tolerant his BS because he chose to live is life as an pathetic incel?

Not at all. What gave you this idea? It's good that Doolin got his punishment.

But there are better alternatives to the prison. You have pointed a flaw in my technological solution. Cool, that won't work.

Do you think Doolin's incarceration will make him a better citizen when he gets out? Or is it likely that he will re-offend, but get smarter in covering his tracks?

Boggles

victor8600 wrote: »

Do you think Doolin's incarceration will make him a better citizen when he gets out? Or is it likely that he will re-offend, but get smarter in covering his tracks?

I can't tell the future.

What it will definitely do and I know for an absolute fact is it will give the victims of his crimes some peace for at least the amount of time he is incarcerated.

victor8600

Boggles wrote: »

What it will definitely do and I know for an absolute fact is it will give the victims of his crimes some peace for at least the amount of time he is incarcerated.

It's easy to lock him up, and it will probably prevent him from e-mailing nasty stuff for some time. He seems like quite an inept individual who won't be able to smuggle a smartphone into the prison.

But the way I see it, Doolin has a psychological problem. Something made him to become obsessed to the point that he could not stop even after he was put on bail. He needs to get his head fixed, or the same thing or worse will happen again.

Boggles

victor8600 wrote: »

It's easy to lock him up, and it will probably prevent him from e-mailing nasty stuff for some time. He seems like quite an inept individual who won't be able to smuggle a smartphone into the prison.

But the way I see it, Doolin has a psychological problem. Something made him to become obsessed to the point that he could not stop even after he was put on bail. He needs to get his head fixed, or the same thing or worse will happen again.

Doesn't matter, he could differentiate between right and wrong.

Been agoraphobic, compulsive, etc does not excuse criminal behavior nor does it preclude him from criminal justice.

He can't be locked up in a psychiatric institution nor can he be compelled to seek and comply with help.

Reading the few snippets I have, he seems intelligent, articulate and I would guess he was getting gratification from "terrorizing" his victims.

At the end of the day, his problems are his not innocent members of the public who he was a menace to.

Hopefully he does engage with help and doesn't re-offend but quite frankly I have zero sympathy for him.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

^
Your whataboutery became tiresome many pages back.

The whole legal system is based on whataboutery.

Tony EH

Precedent in a particular case that matches another of similar circumstance is not whataboutery.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

where does it say he has agoraphobia?