Do you know anyone with a criminal record?

TheBoyConor

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Ah look, would you go on out of it. Only look at the defences offered in some cases where it would be plain to see that the accused would be on legal aid. You'd hear things like Mr X has suffered additions issues and appeals for leniency while he gets his affairs in order or some defence shpiel about a chaotic lifestyle and writing a letter of apology. A level of defence that anyone with a brain cell could muster.

And i suspect that the reason Hanrahan and so on go for legal aid cases is because they are handy, clear cut cases where the accused is a gobshíte who obviously did whatever it was, and more importantly, the Dept of Justice will pay up on the legal aid no questions asked - unlike a private client where you might have to go chasing them to pay the legal bill.

Do you actually know anything about these people or just blame them because their client was caught red handed and had a million convictions already?

Who do you think is a quality operator from experience?

mick087 wrote: »

Yes correct anyone who cannot afford legal help then can apply for legal aid.

I am not suggesting nothing.

Im stating the rich and powerful will always be able to put up better defence with there expensive legal team for a crime than that of someone on a low wage or unemployed.

Opposite can be true. When the state is paying there's no issue with the cost or the numbers. Additional solicitor, barrister? No problem.

Chasing a private client who went to jail for years? Not such a straight forward affair.

Again, who are these legal eagles winning cases left right and center privately?

I would also point out that a prominent solicitor currently before the courts himself is using a legal aid colleague.

bodyguard1

mr_fegelien wrote: »

I'd say the average boardsies would be hard pressed to know anyone with a record or anyone who has been to prison. The average middle class person isn't the one usually committing crimes.

But still, know any family, friends, coworkers who did stupid **** and were hit with the full force of the law?

Everyone in prison

stevek93

Had a neighbour that had a weekend binge up on Charles Haughey's private yacht apparently in the 90s he got 3 years.

Rubberchikken

No. Don't know anyone and I don't want to.
ignorance is bliss imo.

mick087

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Some of the most respected legal minds in the country are legal aid.

Cahir O'Higgins, Bambury, staines, finnucane to name a few in Dublin. Buttimar in cork would get very high profile cases privately for to his record and abilities but takes legal aid too.

Michael Hanahoe, probable one of the highest and most respected legal minds in the country is almost exclusively legal aid by choice.

Of course you are going to get some outstanding people in legal aid.

One eyed Jack

I know a few people alright who have criminal records or are doing time for various reasons.

Most of them are alright, some I have great time for, and some I have no time for at all.

TheBoyConor

Just look at how many convictions there are and the type of defence arguments for general scumbaggery assault involving addicts and low lifes who spend their lives in and out of prison.

Then look at the defences put forward by the defence teams for the likes of the rich boys in the Club Anabel case. A gang of posh rich boys literally kicked the absolute head off of that poor young fella while he lay unconscious and defenceless in front of a crowd of about 50 onlooking witnesses and they more or less got away with it after making different appeals.

If you swapped the posh boys for 4 strung out Anto, Deco, Johno types with 50 previous convictions, do you think they would have gotten off as handy?

They kicked and stomped an 18 year old boy to death got away with no more than a slap on the wrist because of their privileged status, wealth, and no doubt somewhere along the line there were connections, probably indirect, with people in the legal and judicial sphere who probably aided and advised behind the scenes to help get them off the hook.

Your average street addict or "aww, i dunno why i dunnit" type low life simply isn't going to have the same high profile influential connections who can discreetly aid their cause from behind the scenes by having a word with their barrister friend who knows a judge who played rugby with them years ago type scenarios and getting their opinion on it that gets fed back to the defence team in a sort of "right, this is what you are gonna get the defence barrister to say" type thing.

If you have money and connections to powerful people. You can have a much better chance of wriggling your way out of a bad situation.

Randy Archer

mick087 wrote: »

Yes correct anyone who cannot afford legal help then can apply for legal aid.

I am not suggesting nothing.

Im stating the rich and powerful will always be able to put up better defence with there expensive legal team for a crime than that of someone on a low wage or unemployed.

Ah, but you see, you are saying something and you don’t realise it. You are talking nonsense


Anto the scumbag criminal, whose on legal aid, will have access the the same barristers and solicitors who specialise in criminal law , as those rich folk up for a crime

You have issues with the quality of service of the solicitor or barrister in a case, you can report it to their respective professional bodies and to the legal aid board

For many many many criminal law specialists, legal aid clients are their core work

Are the rich and powerful getting charged with petty assault ps and theft ? Drug offences ? How many times was the rich and powerful before a court for other offences ?

Randy Archer

mick087 wrote: »

Of course you are going to get some outstanding people in legal aid.

The vast majority of criminal law socialists are on the legal aid panel. Name solicitors and barristers Who specialise In Criminal law That are not on the legal aid panel

ohnonotgmail

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Just look at how many convictions there are and the type of defence arguments for general scumbaggery assault involving addicts and low lifes who spend their lives in and out of prison.

Then look at the defences put forward by the defence teams for the likes of the rich boys in the Club Anabel case. A gang of posh rich boys literally kicked the absolute head off of that poor young fella while he lay unconscious and defenceless in front of a crowd of about 50 onlooking witnesses and they more or less got away with it after making different appeals.

If you swapped the posh boys for 4 strung out Anto, Deco, Johno types with 50 previous convictions, do you think they would have gotten off as handy?

people from working class backgrounds with a long list of convictions get soft sentences regularly. there are threads on here constantly complaining about it.

mick087

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Opposite can be true. When the state is paying there's no issue with the cost or the numbers. Additional solicitor, barrister? No problem.

Chasing a private client who went to jail for years? Not such a straight forward affair.

Again, who are these legal eagles winning cases left right and center privately?

I would also point out that a prominent solicitor currently before the courts himself is using a legal aid colleague.

Would you rather we did not have legal aid for those who could not afford it? Yes the state must foot the bill if the individual is not able to afford legal aid.

No i would argue its not a straight forward affair chasing money owed.

I have not stated anything about legal eagles.

The prominent solicitor currently before the court using legal aid could we have more details please? it would be interesting to compare the outcome to similar cases.

weldoninhio

Know quite a few from massive drugs busts to murder to small time drug dealing. I'm very lucky i never got any. Was in college with the guy who recently shot the Gardai.

Immortal Starlight

Of course I do. It’s not that unusual.

ilovemuffin

mr_fegelien wrote: »

But still, know any family, friends, coworkers who did stupid s​hit and were hit with the full force of the law?

It's not necessarily stupid s​hit. The law is not always fair. Smoking cannabis for example should not be outlawed. It's a plant medicine and can heal many things, and open a person up to life in whole new ways. I don't advocate strong skunk or leafy herb though as it can cause psychosis. But hashish/pollen has lots of CBD in it that can counter the often energetic and panicky/psychotic aspects of leafy green.



The Irish government should just decriminalize it, tax it, then move on.

fleet_admiral

I've worked in pubs since 96 so I've met a fair few. The pub I worked in in Harold's Cross was full of very dangerous people who were always 'on holiday'

Bobtheman

Rubberchikken wrote: »

No. Don't know anyone and I don't want to.
ignorance is bliss imo.

Stay away from bankers then.

Bobtheman

Criminal record often means what the middle class decide what's a crime. Lending to idiots and then taking the house off them after you got your bonus is not a crime.
Allowing insurance companies to ride the Irish public bareback is not a crime either it seems.
I could go on but I think most of you get the picture.

Harryy

I have in the North for political activities

Harryy

Harryy wrote: »

I have in the North for political activities

Was that before you defected from the UVF and went rogue?

Randy Archer

Bobtheman wrote: »

Criminal record often means what the middle class decide what's a crime. Lending to idiots and then taking the house off them after you got your bonus is not a crime.
Allowing insurance companies to ride the Irish public bareback is not a crime either it seems.
I could go on but I think most of you get the picture.

Eh the “wurkers” parties , the true blue of the earth TDs play a role in legislating in criminal law . Of course, whether the rest of the House listens to them is another matter

But yep, you are right about what’s a crime or not

God , imagine if those headbangers actually led the law making procedure ? The horrors . It’s be a crime to make a profit

mick087

mick087 wrote: »

Would you rather we did not have legal aid for those who could not afford it? Yes the state must foot the bill if the individual is not able to afford legal aid.

No i would argue its not a straight forward affair chasing money owed.

I have not stated anything about legal eagles.

The prominent solicitor currently before the court using legal aid could we have more details please? it would be interesting to compare the outcome to similar cases.

What are you talking about? Seriously.

You are the one trying to say that legal aid equals inferior defences. Not me. You back your argument.

You are actually agreeing with me about private clients and again I ask, based on your knowledge, who is a very good solicitor to employ for criminal defence?

If you don't know the solicitor in question, you don't know the legal system and those that work within it as it was common knowledge, he spoke about it himself and it was in the papers

ilovemuffin

ilovemuffin wrote: »

It's not necessarily stupid s​hit. The law is not always fair. Smoking cannabis for example should not be outlawed. It's a plant medicine and can heal many things, and open a person up to life in whole new ways. I don't advocate strong skunk or leafy herb though as it can cause psychosis. But hashish/pollen has lots of CBD in it that can counter the often energetic and panicky/psychotic aspects of leafy green.



The Irish government should just decriminalize it, tax it, then move on.

Probable a good thing no one goes to jail for simple possession so.

I agree re legal and tax it but I don't think it will be the perfect solution that people expect. Illegal activity will still happen and criminals will still be involved.

The regulating of liquor and tobacco still takes a lot of time for Gardai and customs for example.

Randy Archer

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Just look at how many convictions there are and the type of defence arguments for general scumbaggery assault involving addicts and low lifes who spend their lives in and out of prison.

Then look at the defences put forward by the defence teams for the likes of the rich boys in the Club Anabel case. A gang of posh rich boys literally kicked the absolute head off of that poor young fella while he lay unconscious and defenceless in front of a crowd of about 50 onlooking witnesses and they more or less got away with it after making different appeals.

If you swapped the posh boys for 4 strung out Anto, Deco, Johno types with 50 previous convictions, do you think they would have gotten off as handy?

They kicked and stomped an 18 year old boy to death got away with no more than a slap on the wrist because of their privileged status, wealth, and no doubt somewhere along the line there were connections, probably indirect, with people in the legal and judicial sphere who probably aided and advised behind the scenes to help get them off the hook.

Your average street addict or "aww, i dunno why i dunnit" type low life simply isn't going to have the same high profile influential connections who can discreetly aid their cause from behind the scenes by having a word with their barrister friend who knows a judge who played rugby with them years ago type scenarios and getting their opinion on it that gets fed back to the defence team in a sort of "right, this is what you are gonna get the defence barrister to say" type thing.

If you have money and connections to powerful people. You can have a much better chance of wriggling your way out of a bad situation.

Re Anabel case. The option was murder or manslaughter. There was no evidence from the case, which the witnesses decide , that there was intention to kill. The people got charged and prosecuted for their culpability In the incident ; ie manslaughter and serious assault respectively

They used the same defences available to scumbags from Tallaght, had they done the same

As for the penalty for the convictions, the judge will take into account their background,Their age , previous records and their conduct during the incident and after it, what happened - was it an intentional affair or boys will be boys scrap that went horribly wrong

It’s gob****es in the media and Class warriors On sites like this of the time, that risked Brining the case into disrepute and making seriously prejudicial statements against the people who had yet to be tried.

You ask us to look at the defence of the Anabel case. Instead, you focus more on them being posh rugger buggers than the fact that lads from both fighting sides had a bit of drink in them, goaded each other, the victim got lippy and he got slapped and everyone lost control of themselves. Someone died. There wasn’t proof that it was intentional . Scum baggery year , but there’s a difference between murder and manslaughter .

The appeals were primarily based on the legality of the investigation By the Gardai ,after the event . The Gardai properly screwed up on the warrants , trying to be smart and fast and loose with the suspects . Evidence was unable to be submitted to the court because it was obtained illegally .

Those defences would have been available to Anto the Scum bag if the Gardai tried similar tactics


ANto’ s 50 plus convictions has ZERO relevancy on the court deciding whether Anto is guilty of the crime that he’s charged with, ZERO. IT only has relevancy if he’s convicted and when sentencing is considered

Talking utter nonsense .

bmc58

mr_fegelien wrote: »

I'd say the average boardsies would be hard pressed to know anyone with a record or anyone who has been to prison. The average middle class person isn't the one usually committing crimes.

But still, know any family, friends, coworkers who did stupid **** and were hit with the full force of the law?

Are you for real?I would class myself as an "average boardie" and I know a lad who did time.Many of these "average boardies" do go out in the real world from time to time.

TheBoyConor

Randy Archer wrote: »

The appeals were primarily based on the legality of the investigation By the Gardai ,after the event . The Gardai properly screwed up on the warrants , trying to be smart and fast and loose with the suspects . Evidence was unable to be submitted to the court because it was obtained illegally .

Those defences would have been available to Anto the Scum bag if the Gardai tried similar tactics

Yes, the the Gardai might have screwed up their investigation and of course the defence would be available to anyone, posh or junkie. But if we were not dealing with the Tarquin brigade, but with the Anto gang on free legal aid, would the defence bother to investigate or bring up whether there had been failings in gathering evidence. I mean, if they loose the case and he gets convicted, what difference does it make to the defence team. They still get paid by the DoJ. No skin off their nose, so why bother busting themselves with effort trying to find a way out when they could just say "yeah, poor upbrinigng, chaotic lifestyle, we are appealing for leniency and he'll write a letter of apology and make a donation to the court poor box". Meanwhile, all their hard effort and time spared there on the FLA cases is better spend defending private clients.

I wonder did the Club Anabel Head Kickers have free legal aid?

My point is, there is one way of applying the law for the poor and another for the rich and influential. Anyone who thinks we are all equal before the law is comically naïve.

mick087

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

What are you talking about? Seriously.

You are the one trying to say that legal aid equals inferior defences. Not me. You back your argument.

You are actually agreeing with me about private clients and again I ask, based on your knowledge, who is a very good solicitor to employ for criminal defence?

If you don't know the solicitor in question, you don't know the legal system and those that work within it as it was common knowledge, he spoke about it himself and it was in the papers

Parts i would may agree parts i would not.

I would not agree that the justice system is fair. I would argue it would favour the rich and powerful.

I would agree that getting clients to pay up may not always be easy.

No i dont know the particulars on this case hence i asked you for some more information.

ohnonotgmail

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Yes, the the Gardai might have screwed up their investigation and of course the defence would be available to anyone, posh or junkie. But if we were not dealing with the Tarquin brigade, but with the Anto gang on free legal aid, would the defence bother to investigate or bring up whether there had been failings in gathering evidence. I mean, if they loose the case and he gets convicted, what difference does it make to the defence team. They still get paid by the DoJ. No skin off their nose, so why bother busting themselves with effort trying to find a way out when they could just say "yeah, poor upbrinigng, chaotic lifestyle, we are appealing for leniency and he'll write a letter of apology and make a donation to the court poor box". Meanwhile, all their hard effort and time spared there on the FLA cases is better spend defending private clients.

I wonder did the Club Anabel Head Kickers have free legal aid?

My point is, there is one way of applying the law for the poor and another for the rich and influential. Anyone who thinks we are all equal before the law is comically naïve.

The difference it makes is that future prospective clients will pick a different solicitor on the legal aid panel so they will lose work. what solicitor would want a reputation as one that doesnt do a good job?

TheBoyConor

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Yes, the the Gardai might have screwed up their investigation and of course the defence would be available to anyone, posh or junkie. But if we were not dealing with the Tarquin brigade, but with the Anto gang on free legal aid, would the defence bother to investigate or bring up whether there had been failings in gathering evidence. I mean, if they loose the case and he gets convicted, what difference does it make to the defence team. They still get paid by the DoJ. No skin off their nose, so why bother busting themselves with effort trying to find a way out when they could just say "yeah, poor upbrinigng, chaotic lifestyle, we are appealing for leniency and he'll write a letter of apology and make a donation to the court poor box". Meanwhile, all their hard effort and time spared there on the FLA cases is better spend defending private clients.

I wonder did the Club Anabel Head Kickers have free legal aid?

My point is, there is one way of applying the law for the poor and another for the rich and influential. Anyone who thinks we are all equal before the law is comically naïve.

Are you under the belief that Criminal cases of murder are on a no win no fee basis when private?

mick087

mick087 wrote: »

I would not agree that the justice system is fair. I would argue it would favour the rich and powerful.

I know you would but you are basing it on nothing. You don't actually know as you have no experience within.

Your knowledge comes from the TV where we watch overburdened public defender lawyers for entertainment.

In Ireland the only one overburdened is the prosecution. There's no public defender, they are all private. The only question is who pays them.

mick087

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I know you would but you are basing it on nothing. You don't actually know as you have no experience within.

Your knowledge comes from the TV where we watch overburdened public defender lawyers for entertainment.

In Ireland the only one overburdened is the prosecution. There's no public defender, they are all private. The only question is who pays them.

I would base this on things that i have witnessed.

I would not be a fan of tv to be honest.

Maybe the prosecution is overburdened and maybe it's time for a full review of the justice system and wealth it creates in parts of the said sytem.

What would you think of a capped salary for solicitors clerks barristers judges etc? If we could have a more equal pay strcture, not only for those involved with the justice system but those who enforce the law, then maybe we could have a more equal and fair society as well better fairer justice system.

I know a few,who would

Everything from drunk and disorderly to capital murder


A young lad,i know got caught with 50 grand of coke,during lockdown....so i guess he's going away for few years too


Its an easy,easy life to get sucked into,wouldnt judge anyone too harshly for it....im just thankful,i never did.....i see lads i went to school with,lives are ruined with it now

mr_fegelien

Deleted User wrote: »

I know a few,who would

Everything from drunk and disorderly to a very distant relative who got done for capital murder


A young lad,i know got caught with 50 grand of coke,during lockdown....so i guess he's going away for few years too


Its an easy,easy life to get sucked into,wouldnt judge anyone too harshly for it....im just thankful,i never did.....i see lads i went to school with,lives are ruined with it now

What's an easy life to get sucked into? Drugs or crime?

Can I ask, did you grow up in a rough area in Ireland or middle class/upper middle class?

Strumms

Deleted User wrote: »

I know a few,who would

Everything from drunk and disorderly to a very distant relative who got done for capital murder


A young lad,i know got caught with 50 grand of coke,during lockdown....so i guess he's going away for few years too


Its an easy,easy life to get sucked into,wouldnt judge anyone too harshly for it....im just thankful,i never did.....i see lads i went to school with,lives are ruined with it now

I think education for some time has been pretty good and proactive in flagging up the dangers and immorality of the drugs trade. Anyone caught with a load of coke, a class A drug, for whatever purpose be it manufacture, sale, distribution, use or just ‘minding it’..I think it’s fairly obvious that they know the difference between cocaine and a few boxes of counterfeit cigarettes. If we just end up writing hall passes for everyone because of whatever background etc, whatever hardships they suffer, no, sorry personal responsibility...

mr_fegelien

mr_fegelien wrote: »

What's an easy life to get sucked into? Drugs or crime?

Yes....its hard to describe it really.....kinda like having kids,theres a whole lifestyle that geos with it,people are unaware of fully (terrible comparison i know)

Can I ask, did you grow up in a rough area in Ireland or middle class/upper middle class?

I grew up.in normal area??,lad in my class in national school,family regularly appears in irelands top 50 richest families......while others parent work as binmen........it deosnt matter,who/where your from,anyone can become caught up bad sh1t

bmc58

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Yes ,myself

Lost a case ,foolishly didn't appeal, paid the fine ,conviction struck out following the fine being paid but it would go against me were I to find myself before the courts again

Happened fifteen years ago

So you know yourself! Not really the question the OP asked.

Demonique

Augeo wrote: »

I know a few, armed robbery, larceny, burglary, dangerous driving, criminal damage and assault. Most have drug convictions too of course.
One chap was murdered over 10 years ago.

Most of them appear decent enough lads to be fair ........... a few are total scrotes too of course.

I wouldnt describe anyone who commits armed robbery, larceny, burglary, dangerous driving, criminal damage or assault as fairly decent

Demonique

Frankx wrote: »

I'm on the spectrum myself

Autistic people communicate more telepathically

We recognise emotions but don't process them the same as others

Im autistic myself, this is the first thing I've heard about us communicating telepathically? You mean so say if I think hard enough at my snakes I'll be able to tell them not to poop and piddle on me?

Agree with the rest of your post

Mad_maxx

bmc58 wrote: »

So you know yourself! Not really the question the OP asked.

Yes , i know myself pretty well

mick087

mick087 wrote: »

I would base this on things that i have witnessed.

I would not be a fan of tv to be honest.

Maybe the prosecution is overburdened and maybe it's time for a full review of the justice system and wealth it creates in parts of the said sytem.

What would you think of a capped salary for solicitors clerks barristers judges etc? If we could have a more equal pay strcture, not only for those involved with the justice system but those who enforce the law, then maybe we could have a more equal and fair society as well better fairer justice system.

Caps exist when they work for the public sector. Private sector, caps are against free trade and competition. If you are good, up should be paid appropriately.

Caps in regards fees exist albeit loose. Hand on heart, I don't know how the cap allows for being a great solicitor or a bad one. Probable just means the big guns can charge at the top of the cap.

I think legal aid should be limited but that's against your argument. My reasoning for that is simple, because it's a gravy train, they look for remand dates they don't need to charge more whereas if it's a private client, the client won't accept that.

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Caps exist when they work for the public sector. Private sector, caps are against free trade and competition. If you are good, up should be paid appropriately.

Caps in regards fees exist albeit loose. Hand on heart, I don't know how the cap allows for being a great solicitor or a bad one. Probable just means the big guns can charge at the top of the cap.

I think legal aid should be limited but that's against your argument. My reasoning for that is simple, because it's a gravy train, they look for remand dates they don't need to charge more whereas if it's a private client, the client won't accept that.

there is a set fee schedule for legal aid work. do you have a source that backs up the part in bold?

Godeatsboogers

I did 3 years in Limerick prison around 15 years ago, i thought it was good laugh but i was very, very lucky. Mainly because i didnt have a girlfriend or kids at the time, jail is the hardest mentally for those guys. My luck in prison was second to none. I started off in A wing, bad wing, old, slopping out, but i met a screw who knew my mother after my first night and he got me moved to C wing, much nicer wing, clean, toilets in cells, cushty.

At C wing i was in a double cell by myself for lunch, then after lunch a guy from one of the single cells offered me his cell as he wanted to move in to the double with a buddy of his, a single cell is one of the biggest privileges you can have. Chatting to the landing officer after getting his permission to switch cells and he says he can get me a job in the kitchen which i took, best decision i made, the kitchen was a great laugh. Plus the majority of time we werent eating the same food as the rest of the population, we'd make theres and ours different, and the difference was massive.

Around a week into working in the kitchen, a few of the C3 lads (I was on C2), were teliing me members of a notorious gang were shouting down for me, they were the power on the wing and I didnt know any of them personally so i was slightly worried. I was in for drugs and my supply came from people close to both sides of the feud, but more so the other side. As it turned out it was the cousin of a guy i worked with who id met a few times in the work yard, he told me to walk around the yard once with him and his buddies and i wouldnt have any problems.

Largely, peoples tax is being wasted, not all prisoners had it as handy as myself, but for the majority, its a walk in the park. Violence was rare but it was brutal. If you can handle mild boredom, and keep to yoursef a bit, doddle. Tv with 13 channels, ps2, 3 meals a day, at least one was decent usually. Mentally and physically id never been stronger than i was in prison and for a long time after i got out.

Wanderer2010

I know a few but that was for minor offenses from years ago and which doesnt define who they are nowadays. They grew and learned from their experiences.

Mad_maxx

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Yes ,myself

Lost a case ,foolishly didn't appeal, paid the fine ,conviction struck out following the fine being paid but it would go against me were I to find myself before the courts again

Happened fifteen years ago

Your conviction wasn't struck out. You were convicted but benefited from the probation act. Section 1(1). Judges often say they will "dismiss" the case and people take that up wrong.

It's a court warning. Doesn't show on vetting but Gardai and courts are aware of it.

eviltwin

A sibling spent time in prison

Lundstram

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

I think mr_fegelien perhaps struggles a bit with conversations etc.

I've seen this sort of behaviour before, where people ask question after question because they struggle to get involved with normal back and forth conversations and interactions.

I guess if enough people engage with his threads, he feels like he's interacting with those people in some way. Even though in truth, he rarely gets involved or contributes much beyond actually starting the thread.

Love how this disgusting post is totally acceptable because it's aimed at mr_fegelien.

Bully.

I Am Nobody

Godeatsboogers wrote: »

I did 3 years in Limerick prison around 15 years ago, i thought it was good laugh but i was very, very lucky. Mainly because i didnt have a girlfriend or kids at the time, jail is the hardest mentally for those guys. My luck in prison was second to none. I started off in A wing, bad wing, old, slopping out, but i met a screw who knew my mother after my first night and he got me moved to C wing, much nicer wing, clean, toilets in cells, cushty.

At C wing i was in a double cell by myself for lunch, then after lunch a guy from one of the single cells offered me his cell as he wanted to move in to the double with a buddy of his, a single cell is one of the biggest privileges you can have. Chatting to the landing officer after getting his permission to switch cells and he says he can get me a job in the kitchen which i took, best decision i made, the kitchen was a great laugh. Plus the majority of time we werent eating the same food as the rest of the population, we'd make theres and ours different, and the difference was massive.

Around a week into working in the kitchen, a few of the C3 lads (I was on C2), were teliing me members of a notorious gang were shouting down for me, they were the power on the wing and I didnt know any of them personally so i was slightly worried. I was in for drugs and my supply came from people close to both sides of the feud, but more so the other side. As it turned out it was the cousin of a guy i worked with who id met a few times in the work yard, he told me to walk around the yard once with him and his buddies and i wouldnt have any problems.

Largely, peoples tax is being wasted, not all prisoners had it as handy as myself, but for the majority, its a walk in the park. Violence was rare but it was brutal. If you can handle mild boredom, and keep to yourself a bit, doddle. Tv with 13 channels, ps2, 3 meals a day, at least one was decent usually. Mentally and physically id never been stronger than i was in prison and for a long time after i got out.

I actually had to read that twice,still in disbelief.Is the prisons here still that soft?I spent 7 years in a Fed prison in TN,and we were given nothing except meals for free.If you wanted a radio or tv you had to rent it.Stamps/stationary you had to buy.And so on,plus most of the inmates were various minorities.

And they always took over the rec room,even walking in the yard was touchy.So you pretty much visited a few friends for a few minutes.But mostly stayed in your cell.

You had to achieve trustee status to get any kind of job,in the kitchen or chapel.And after a year or two it was tough to stay by yourself and not get involved with the different dynamics.Depending on your skin colour,you were expected and at times demanded to join their groups.The Aryan Brotherhood are bastards for that if your white.

Stabbings between the groups were daily,and despite what they show on tv,rapes were few.So yeah I would of loved to have your experiences.

Mad_maxx

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Your conviction wasn't struck out. You were convicted but benefited from the probation act. Section 1(1). Judges often say they will "dismiss" the case and people take that up wrong.

It's a court warning. Doesn't show on vetting but Gardai and courts are aware of it.

Yes ,that sounds right , deeply regret not appealing it,ridiculous day in court which any appeal would have overturned, having good legal representation is vital ,plus placing more value on long term reputation

Mad_maxx

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Yes ,that sounds right , deeply regret not appealing it,ridiculous day in court which any appeal would have overturned, having good legal representation is vital ,plus placing more value on long term reputation

I wouldn't know but a 1.1 is hardly a dent in your reputation.

_Brian

Nephew was convicted of intent to supply, proper little scrote.

Lad I was at school with in the joy for man slaughter.

Know a chap who did time for death by dangerous driving. Killed a wee girl and he off his head with drink behind the wheel.

Randy Archer

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Ah look, would you go on out of it. Only look at the defences offered in some cases where it would be plain to see that the accused would be on legal aid. You'd hear things like Mr X has suffered additions issues and appeals for leniency while he gets his affairs in order or some defence shpiel about a chaotic lifestyle and writing a letter of apology. A level of defence that anyone with a brain cell could muster.

And i suspect that the reason Hanrahan and so on go for legal aid cases is because they are handy, clear cut petty crime and assault cases where the accused is a gobshíte who obviously did whatever it was, no-body really gives a crap about the outcome, and most importantly, the Dept of Justice will pay up on the legal aid no questions asked - unlike a private client where you might have to go chasing them to pay the legal bill.

What defences ? “A level of defence that anyone with a brain could muster”

Well, it’s a damn shame that you don’t know what a defence is ! Those you utter ain’t one

What you are talking about are the mitigating factors , which are heard AFTER the conviction and are made during the process where the judge considers the appropriate sentence for the crime they have been found guilty of committing

A defence is where one succeeds in either defeating the charge against them or to lower ones culpability of the charge against them

Legal aid is available to ALL accused where their liberty is at risk, no lawyer , be it a barrister or solicitor , worth their salt , would offer a lesser service in defending an accused ,simply because ones a peasant or one is a rich person or one is on legal aid or one is paying. The courtroom judge and fellow lawyers would see right through it and it be bad for reputation (I am talking about outright negligence or clear lack of effort by someone well known to be an excellent lawyer )

How can you waffle about “defences” when you don’t provide the charged that you refer to. Defences are based on the facts to be proven and unproven , so their availability will be there (or not) regardless of the socio economic background of the accused

What you are talking about, the mitigating factors can be entirely unique to the person. Some crimes are committed by junkies (regardless of their background ) where it’s accepted that they have an illness and it’s the reason behind it;
And genuine remorse maybe shown; some crimes are committed Win where there was a complete disregard For the victim and they were utterly intentional

So you claim legal aid claims are “handy , clear cut” etc

You clearly have never been in a court room. (Good for you)

Legal aid concerns the persons ability to pay their lawyers, to defend them in cases where there’s a risk of their liberty (there are some other grounds for it too) it covers petty crimes to rape and murder ,to charges of treason ..everything . The socio economic background has little to do with it

Most lawyers will do legal aid , just like many doctors will take medical card holders as patients, cause, the majority that come into a criminal court will need legal aid to assist them .

Many of these petty crimes go to trial . Some are even acquitted, even if it was more on technicalities eg cops ****ing up eg Anabel Case (convicted on lesser charges )

What utter nonsense you spouted