Life sentence parole.

political analyst

jmayo wrote: »

And as for loads of life sentence parolees not re offending would someone like to tell that to either the families of Nancy Nolan in Galway (murdered by day release psycho Thomas Murray) or Bettina Poeschel from Germany (who was raped and murdered in 2001 by Mickey “The Monster” Murphy 17 years after his first victim).
And here is the kicker he has been out in Drogheda on day release and is due for release again.

A very serious error was made in the Murray case, from which lessons have been learned.

As for Michael Murphy, he was convicted on a manslaughter charge for his first killing.

political analyst

walshb wrote: »

But didn’t you say the issue of lifers being released is not just our issue?

More so in Ireland than in Britain because our judges don't have the power to set tariffs - except in cases in which the perpetrators are juveniles.

Spanish Eyes

The victims loved ones have to do a double sentence when these people are granted parole. It must be absolutely devastating.

I hate to say it but you'd nearly want to kill them yourself in a fit of anger or something and serve a few years for manslaughter yourself.

walshb

political analyst wrote: »

A very serious error was made in the Murray case, from which lessons have been learned.

As for Michael Murphy, he was convicted on a manslaughter charge for his first killing.

Signing off any lifer being released as “no risk” screams of potential error to me..

walshb

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The victims loved ones have to do a double sentence when these people are granted parole. It must be absolutely devastating.

I hate to say it but you'd nearly want to kill them yourself in a fit of anger or something and serve a few years for manslaughter yourself.

Just thinking it..

I’d do it, and spend the 17-18 years in prison if convicted of murder..or less if convicted of manslaughter.

political analyst

walshb wrote: »

Signing off any lifer being released as “no risk” screams of potential error to me..

I didn't say "no risk". It is a manageable risk - a bit like the lifting of Covid restrictions (a poor analogy but it's the best I can think of).

political analyst

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The victims loved ones have to do a double sentence when these people are granted parole. It must be absolutely devastating.

I hate to say it but you'd nearly want to kill them yourself in a fit of anger or something and serve a few years for manslaughter yourself.

Convicted murderers have been told to stay out of the areas in which the victims' relatives live except for medical appointments or visiting their own relatives - subject to Probation Service approval.

walshb

political analyst wrote: »

Convicted murderers have been told to stay out of the areas in which the victims' relatives live except for medical appointments or visiting their own relatives - subject to Probation Service approval.

Your post number 21 mentions, or at least implies a “no risk” being posed on many lifers being released...

Spanish Eyes

Apologies if this is overstepping the mark, but I have often wondered why Kathleen still calls herself Kathleen Chada, the surname of her murderer husband. Maybe legal reasons or something, but it doesn't sit well with me, not that it's any of my business, just an observation.

walshb

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Apologies if this is overstepping the mark, but I have often wondered why Kathleen still calls herself Kathleen Chada, the surname of her murderer husband. Maybe legal reasons or something, but it doesn't sit well with me, not that it's any of my business, just an observation.

It’s not at all overstepping the mark. Very normal observation..

political analyst

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Apologies if this is overstepping the mark, but I have often wondered why Kathleen still calls herself Kathleen Chada, the surname of her murderer husband. Maybe legal reasons or something, but it doesn't sit well with me, not that it's any of my business, just an observation.

It's because it was her children's surname.

political analyst

walshb wrote: »

Your post number 21 mentions, or at least implies a “no risk” being posed on many lifers being released...

I said many murderers who've been released pose no risk to the public. If the murder was committed in a street disturbance or was motivated by jealousy (e.g. a "crime of passion") or didn't personally inflict violence on the victim but was convicted because of joint enterprise (e.g. Boy B in the Ana Kriégel case) then I don't believe the murderer will kill again.

Spanish Eyes

political analyst wrote: »

It's because it was her children's surname.

Most women these days keep their pre marriage surname though, the kids usually have the Dad's or a double barrelled name to include the mother's.

Going off topic. I'll shut up now.

walshb

political analyst wrote: »

I said many murderers who've been released pose no risk to the public. If the murder was committed in a street disturbance or was motivated by jealousy (e.g. a "crime of passion") or didn't personally inflict violence on the victim but was convicted because of joint enterprise (e.g. Boy B in the Ana Kriégel case) then I don't believe the murderer will kill again.

Hold on..I know what you said..now you have repeated it..

Does posing risk mean that they won’t kill again? Is it just kill you mean, when talking about lifers posing risk?

Crime of passion , street disturbance? So, what if these type situations present themselves again?

Lifers being signed off as “no risk” surely cannot exist?

Or is this just your own personal view, that some pose no risk?

political analyst

political analyst wrote: »

I said many murderers who've been released pose no risk to the public. If the murder was committed in a street disturbance or was motivated by jealousy (e.g. a "crime of passion") or didn't personally inflict violence on the victim but was convicted because of joint enterprise (e.g. Boy B in the Ana Kriégel case) then I don't believe the murderer will kill again.

Whereas I believe that they should serve a serious amount of time in prison comparable with the crime that they were convicted of engaging in. Yup. I believe that people should be held responsible for their actions, and so, be punished for that action.

Nobody knows the genuine risks of releasing a convicted murderer back into society. I doubt the convict themselves know... but what I do believe is that unless they appreciate the actual cost for their behavior, then they'll have less inhibitions towards doing it again, than someone who has no idea.

Gregor Samsa

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Most women these days keep their pre marriage surname though, the kids usually have the Dad's or a double barrelled name to include the mother's.

Not sure if "most women" do that (some do), but regardless, she didn't.

Here's her own words on the matter:

She added: “I’m keeping the name Chada. Eoghan and Ruari were born as Chada, that is why. They were very proud of their name.

“Eoghan in particular was very proud of his Indian heritage.”

Source: https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/heartbroken-irish-mum-kathleen-chada-18206152

Spanish Eyes

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Not sure if "most women" do that (some do), but regardless, she didn't.

Here's her own words on the matter:

She added: “I’m keeping the name Chada. Eoghan and Ruari were born as Chada, that is why. They were very proud of their name.

“Eoghan in particular was very proud of his Indian heritage.”

Source: https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/heartbroken-irish-mum-kathleen-chada-18206152

Thanks for the info. I didn't intend to stir anything up about this, was just curious. Tragedy.

political analyst

walshb wrote: »

Hold on..I know what you said..now you have repeated it..

Does posing risk mean that they won’t kill again? Is it just kill you mean, when talking about lifers posing risk?

Crime of passion , street disturbance? So, what if these type situations present themselves again?

Lifers being signed off as “no risk” surely cannot exist?

Or is this just your own personal view, that some pose no risk?

In hindsight, I should have said "low risk". There are risks with everything. In cases of "crime of passion", most people probably won't even give the perpetrator the time of day and so the opportunity to re-offend would not arise. If the murder took place "in the heat of the moment" then recidivism is much less likely.

political analyst

Deleted User wrote: »

Whereas I believe that they should serve a serious amount of time in prison comparable with the crime that they were convicted of engaging in. Yup. I believe that people should be held responsible for their actions, and so, be punished for that action.

Nobody knows the genuine risks of releasing a convicted murderer back into society. I doubt the convict themselves know... but what I do believe is that unless they appreciate the actual cost for their behavior, then they'll have less inhibitions towards doing it again, than someone who has no idea.

I believe that's one of the purposes of Parole Board hearings.

walshb

political analyst wrote: »

In hindsight, I should have said "low risk". There are risks with everything. In cases of "crime of passion", most people probably won't even give the perpetrator the time of day and so the opportunity to re-offend would not arise. If the murder took place "in the heat of the moment" then recidivism is much less likely.

I understand your points here..

There are different types murders, alright. Not every murder is the same...

political analyst

political analyst wrote: »

I believe that's one of the purposes of Parole Board hearings.

Well, that's a shocker. You can state your opinion about murderers which are released as being low risk, but when I post something quite different, then it's the purpose of the parole board? You could take the above and apply it to your own previous point...
:pac:

IAmTheReign

IAmTheReign wrote: »

Because under Irish law there is very broad definition of murder and it comes with a mandatory life sentence. There is no option under Irish law to convict under a lighter sentence where there was no intent to kill, so crimes that in other countries would be considered manslaughter would result in a murder conviction.

The change to the law that's asking to get rushed through would actually remove the mandatory life sentence for a murder charge, meaning murderers could theoretically get an even shorter sentence than 7 years.

That's so wrong. Mens rea is a vital ingredient in murder. Vital. It's absence means no murder conviction.

Where did you read that?

political analyst

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

That's so wrong. Mens rea is a vital ingredient in murder. Vital. It's absence means no murder conviction.

Where did you read that?

But does the planned change in the law that IAmTheReign mentioned actually mean that the mandatory life sentence would be abolished?

Gregor Samsa

political analyst wrote: »

But does the planned change in the law that IAmTheReign mentioned actually mean that the mandatory life sentence would be abolished?

The bill in question is the Parole Bill 2016. It passed through both houses of the Oireachtas in July 2019. It hasn't been enacted yet, and this is the law Kathleen Chada said of "It feels like it’s just sitting on a desk some where".

It increases to 12 the number of years before a life-sentenced person becomes eligible for parole, as well as some other parole reforms.

It doesn't make any changes to sentencing at all, let alone the mandatory life sentence for murder. The Bill can be read here:

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2016/29/eng/ver_b/b29b16d.pdf

I'm not sure what IAmTheReign is talking about. The claim that Ms. Chada is looking for it to be "rushed though" is also false. It's went through the very normal process of being passed by both houses of the Oireachtas last year already. There's no rushing that can be done at this stage.

political analyst

political analyst wrote: »

But does the planned change in the law that IAmTheReign mentioned actually mean that the mandatory life sentence would be abolished?

I wouldn't worry too much about what iam has said on this subject. An agenda or ignorance at play

jmayo

political analyst wrote: »

A very serious error was made in the Murray case, from which lessons have been learned.

As for Michael Murphy, he was convicted on a manslaughter charge for his first killing.

A very serious error my hole.

Murray was a grade A pyscho.
And he had been on day release or work placement in Galway he had exposed himself to kids and he was a likely suspect in the murder of a female Galway taxi driver.

Yet he was allowed out on continous day release to his family, which by the way was in the same area in which he had killed 17 years previously.

And funny you should mention Murphy being only convicted of manslaughter, how the flying fook was that the charge or indeed the conviction when he was serial criminal and this was what he told Gardai.

‘I put my two thumbs down her throat and tried to choke her. Her false teeth fell out. I still kept my hand down her throat. I heard a click. I thought she was choked, but she wasn’t. She still struggled. I heard a second click. I knew she was dead,’ said Murphy.

But he is repeat business for one member of the legal profession.

Paddy McEntee defended him in 1984 and again in 2004.
He managed to get the scum bag a 12 year sentence for killing that elderly lady claiming Murphy was incoherent and not interpreting reality when he killed the 65-year-old woman.’

BTW there are a litany of repeat offenses where people kill.
Of course you, the legal professionals and associated excusors working in the criminal support industry will claim some were only manslaughters.

bobbyy gee

Very little chance of parole 7 years or 12 years

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30915065.html

Ten of Swords

Murder sentences are considered to be notoriously light in this country so it was interesting to see Arlene Foster this week comparing ROI prison terms to NI prison terms. According to her, the murder of a Police officer in NI would result in a jail sentence of less than half the length of an equivalent ROI sentence.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/jail-terms-for-ni-police-killers-too-short-says-arlene-foster-39496951.html

Ten of Swords

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Murder sentences are considered to be notoriously light in this country so it was interesting to see Arlene Foster this week comparing ROI prison terms to NI prison terms. According to her, the murder of a Police officer in NI would result in a jail sentence of less than half the length of an equivalent ROI sentence.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/jail-terms-for-ni-police-killers-too-short-says-arlene-foster-39496951.html

Try Spain. Over 77? No jail. Less than 2 years sentence? No jail. Only committed one murder? 20 years max

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

A very serious error my hole.

Murray was a grade A pyscho.
And he had been on day release or work placement in Galway he had exposed himself to kids and he was a likely suspect in the murder of a female Galway taxi driver.

Yet he was allowed out on continous day release to his family, which by the way was in the same area in which he had killed 17 years previously.

And funny you should mention Murphy being only convicted of manslaughter, how the flying fook was that the charge or indeed the conviction when he was serial criminal and this was what he told Gardai.



But he is repeat business for one member of the legal profession.

Paddy McEntee defended him in 1984 and again in 2004.
He managed to get the scum bag a 12 year sentence for killing that elderly lady claiming Murphy was incoherent and not interpreting reality when he killed the 65-year-old woman.’

BTW there are a litany of repeat offenses where people kill.
Of course you, the legal professionals and associated excusors working in the criminal support industry will claim some were only manslaughters.

It was a jury that made that decision. Can't blame the legal profession