Kerry footballers smash someone's head in. €400 fine.

BorneTobyWilde

Some neck to bribe someone in court in front of the judge, WTF

That should be another charge brought against them.

gormdubhgorm

beakerjoe wrote: »

Its happens regularly because there are no consequences. Our Justice system is flawed and I believe if you assault someone, esp in a vicious manner like this, a at year sentence isnt asking too much.

Sure I can just assault someone now, and once I "show remorse" and pay my way, I can get away with it.

Its wrong. These lads should be punished.

They have been punished they have been named and shamed - going back to the Shane Horgan incident in 1999 the information is there forever now. It will be the same with these Kerry lads in twenty years time. Any potential employer doing basic research on them can find it.

In this case they gave 5000 euro in settlement. They were fined 400 euro.
If the two lads were involved in such an incident again the consequences would be more severe. That is how the law works.

Much as I would like aspects of Islamic law implemented such as amputation for certain crimes. That is not how the common law system of jurisprudence works.

OK you would say throw them in jail for how long? It costs the state a lot of money and takes up space where other more serious crimes need the jail space.

In high security jails such as Portlaoise it cost 240k a year back in 2006
God knows what it is now.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cost-of-keeping-each-prisoner-in-portlaoise-runs-to-240000-26366573.html

beakerjoe

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Some neck to bribe someone in court in front of the judge, WTF

That should be another charge brought against them.

I dont think any bribe was made in front of a judge. :pac:

Dempo1

Four words

Wink, Nod, GAA

Disgraceful

beakerjoe

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

They have been punished they have been named and shamed - going back to the Shane Horgan incident in 1999 the information is there forever now. It will be the same with these Kerry lads in twenty year time.

In this case they gave 5000 euro in settlement. They were fined 400 euro.
If the two lads were involved in such an incident again the consequences would be more severe. That is how the law works.

Much as I would like aspects of Islamic law implemented such as amputation for certain crimes. That is not how the common law system of jurisprudence works.

OK you would say throw them in jail for how long? It costs the state a lot of money and takes up space where other more serious crimes need the jail space.

What are you on about? No one mentioned Islamic law? Now who is being hyperbolic.

If you viciously assault someone you should be in prison for at least a year sentence. Its a worthy punishment in my eyes.

I know how the law works and I am aware of the costs involved, I just believe these criminals should be more severely punished. Im not saying we sentence them to death. Get a grip.

gormdubhgorm

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Some neck to bribe someone in court in front of the judge, WTF

That should be another charge brought against them.

It is not a bribe it is compensation - a form of settlement and a demonstration of their remorse. The defendants did not have to do it. But chose to.

beakerjoe

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It is not a bribe it is compensation - a form of settlement and a demonstration of their remorse. The defendants did not have to do it. But chose to.

Yes, its a common occurrence, its up to the judge whether to take it into consideration

gormdubhgorm

beakerjoe wrote: »

What are you on about? No one mentioned Islamic law? Now who is being hyperbolic.

If you viciously assault someone you should be in prison for at least a year sentence. Its a worthy punishment in my eyes.

I know how the law works and I am aware of the costs involved, I just believe these criminals should be more severely punished. Im not saying we sentence them to death. Get a grip.

No meant amputation for the lesser crimes in Islamic law, as it is the rule for many crimes in Islamic law. Such as theft and so on.

Plus they showed remorse no previous convictions mentioned, and offered the plaintiff 5k by way of compensation.

I think the defendants have been punished - ie they are named the information is now there on the internet forever. They offered 5k to the plaintiff off their own bat. Based on the facts and their response I think is all very reasonable.

So you would sent someone to jail for a year for one assault no previous convictions at enmous cost to the state? The jails would be full in a few months and the Justice system would be looking for ways to cut costs!

beakerjoe

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No meant amputation as it is the rule for many crimes in Islamic law.

You have yet to mention what punishment you would have given the two lads as a judge based on the facts at issue.
Plus they showed remorse no previous convictions mentioned, and offered the plaintiff 5k by way of compensation.

You claim that the defendants should be punished. But you have yet to state what you would consider punishment?

I think the defendants have been punished - ie they are named the information is now there on the internet forever. They offered 5k to the plaintiff off their own bat. Based on the facts and their response I think is all very reasonable.

A one year sentence.

Remorse is subjective and its hard to determine whats genuine.

I dont think they were punished enough.

gormdubhgorm

beakerjoe wrote: »

A one year sentence.

Remorse is subjective and its hard to determine whats genuine.

I dont think they were punished enough.

So what are you going to do when the Jails are full up because if a first assault and no previous convictions means an automatic one year in jail. That is likely to happen.

Leaving no room for more serious offenders. Plus do you realise the cost of upkeeping a prison for one year? Yet you want to seem to jail offenders straight away.

https://www.thejournal.ie/prisoners-juvenile-cost-europe-3287434-Mar2017/

Over 2k per day for Juveniles 2017

Annual cost 70k per year for a prisoner in 2010

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/annual-cost-of-keeping-each-prisoner-in-jail-falls-to-77-222-1.681736

Yet you would throw a fella in jail no previous convictions. Plus are at the risk of making an otherwise decent person into a hardened criminal!

You likely would end up making the judicial system costs spiral, needing a increase in taxes/funding, while also giving one off defendants in such cases - criminal records, and maybe making them hardened criminals.

All in all it is not the wisest use of the public finances and application of the law.

If you had your way for example Shane Horgan would have been jailed for 1 year back in 2000

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/top-rugby-star-admits-to-nightclub-assault-charge-26101953.html

He is actually a solicitor over in England now. Do you think he would have had that opportunity if your draconian measures were implemented?

How would his life have turned out in the following 20 years under your system?

johnmcdnl

KevRossi wrote: »

You can bet your last fiver that if they were from a rough part of Killarney or Tralee with no talent at sport and were working in Tesco or some pub, that they'd be waking up in prison this morning. Maybe for only 2 or 3 months, but they would go down for that. The victim is well known locally and it was utterly unprovoked.

If the judge did imprison those lads he'd have hell to play for with Kerry neighbours and friends over the next few months as the business end of the GAA season is starting now.

So that sounds like a fair point, but tomorrow I'm going to open boards.ie and read a thread where some lad who has 400 previous convictions gets a suspended sentence for assaulting someone. "Because he's from a hard background, and had issues with drugs" his lawyer argues. The judge doesn't really accept it as a valid excuse but gives a sentence that avoids jail time. Cue the outrage about lenient judges.

So is there actually a bias in the system, or is it actually moreso a case of anyone could avoid jail depending on a whole host of circumstances that are never really discussed. I have no data to backup the rate of jail sentences for similar crimes for people with different backgrounds so I can't argue one way or the other but I feel like it's not as black and white as you are suggesting here.

beakerjoe

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

He is actually a solicitor over in England now. Do you think he would have had that opportunity if your draconian measures were implemented?

Whats "draconian" about wanting a prison sentence for a vicious assault?

Seriously?

gormdubhgorm

beakerjoe wrote: »

Whats "draconian" about wanting a prison sentence for a vicious assault?

Seriously?

You don't seem to get it do you? No previous convictions' plus you are disproportionately affecting a defendant for the rest of his/her life. You are creating a criminal rather than potentially preventing one immediately.

Also the charge was 'assault causing harm' not serious assault - otherwise it would be classed an an 'serious assult causing serious harm' s4.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/section/4/enacted/en/html#sec4



If you were a judge you would fine very quickly that you would be running out of portional responses if your answer is one years jail for assault no previous convictions.

The lads were charged under s3 and these were the judges two options based on the facts

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/section/3/enacted/en/html#sec3

The judge chose 3.2 (b) based on the defendants responses and history.

BluePlanet

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

You don't seem to get it do you? No previous convictions' plus you are disproportionately affecting a defendant for the rest of his/her life. You are creating a criminal rather than potentially preventing one immediately.

Also the charge was 'assault causing harm' not serious assault - otherwise it would be classed an an 'serious assult causing serious harm' s4.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/section/4/enacted/en/html#sec4



If you were a judge you would fine very quickly that you would be running out of portional responses if your answer is one years jail for assault no previous convictions.

Get over yourself.
The lads made themselves criminals by initiating criminal behaviour.
Do the crime, do the Time.
Lock them up.

beakerjoe

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

You don't seem to get it do you? No previous convictions' plus you are disproportionately affecting a defendant for the rest of his/her life. You are creating a criminal rather than potentially preventing one immediately.

Also the charge was 'assault causing harm' not serious assault - otherwise it would be classed an an 'serious assult causing serious harm' s4.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/section/4/enacted/en/html#sec4



If you were a judge you would fine very quickly that you would be running out of portional responses if your answer is one years jail for assault no previous convictions.

Creating a criminal? They are a criminal due to their own actions? They attacked someone, they are responsible? Once that act occurs they are a criminal. (once convicted).

Its an unprovoked assault, the mindset of the accused in this scenario is criminal.

If you are vicuouslly assaulted by 2 thugs for no reason, your happy for them to walk free? Get real. Stop making excuses for lowlifes.

gormdubhgorm

BluePlanet wrote: »

Get over yourself.
The lads made themselves criminals by initiating criminal behaviour.
Do the crime, do the Time.
Lock them up.

The lads were charged under s3 and these were the judges two options based on the facts

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1...d/en/html#sec3

The judge chose 3.2 (b) based on the defendants responses and history.

No previous convictions and offer of compensation.

The judge applied the law as he saw fit.

Your approach seems to be very sensationalist and tabloidesque without taking facts into account 'no previous convictions 5k offer etc'. Also what potential impact it could have on the defendants if they were convicted. That is how the law works. It deals in gradients based on the case at issue and the history of perpetrators if any. If the defendants were serial offenders the verdict would have been much harsher. Ie - 'known to gardai' and so on.

Sunny Disposition

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

They brought 5000 euro with them as compensation:

'Both pleaded guilty to the charge and brought €5,000 to court in compensation for the victim.'

Similar to the Shane Horgan case back in 1999.
The probation act was the right thing to do in that case as it would not give the accused a record.

Yes I do realise that most people can get drunk and not assault anyone. But it is more likely to happen when people are intoxicated that is a fact of life.
How many times have you witnessed altercations on a night out which the root cause was too much alcohol?

I am not excusing the behaviour just pointing out the well known fact of it.

Also you mention that the accused should have been punished more severely.

If you were the judge and looked at the two defendants, no previous convictions, showed remorse, willing to provide 5000 euro to the accused as compensation - what sentence would you think was appropriate?

To me your 'outrage' seems a bit hyperbolic. This type of incident happens regularly in Ireland taking up court time.

I think the Judge took a reasonable course, but not imposing a conviction after an assault, a fairly serious one, would have been wrong. They did do it, and it has had a serious impact on the victim.
The fact they have a conviction probably will have consequences, but that's exactly how it should be for a period of time. They don't deserve any sympathy on those grounds.

noc1980

"No previous convictions"

People with no previous convictions have received jail time in this country for not paying the tv licence. A €400 fine is pathetic. Where's the deterrent? At minimum these 2 "role models" should have got 1000 hours community service picking up rubbish in high vis vests around Kerry. The victim has been taunted on the street by GAA cultists for pressing charges. Disgraceful.

beakerjoe

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The lads were charged under s3 and these were the judges two options based on the facts

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1...d/en/html#sec3

The judge chose 23 (b) based on the defendants responses and history.

No previous convictions and offer of compensation.

The judge applied the law as he saw fit.

Your approach seems to be very sensationalist and tabloidesque without taking facts into account 'no previous convictions 5k offer etc'. Also what potential impact it could have on the defendants if they were convicted. That is how the law works. It deals in gradients based on the case at issue and the history of perpetrators if any. If the defendants were serial offenders the verdict would have been much harsher. Ie - 'known to gardai' and so on.

Im not saying they should get 10 years, Im saying 1 year.

The victim has to live the the assault and the effects to the unproked assault will most likley be with him the rest of his life, through no fault of his own.

IMO, they got off lightly. You clearly are soft on crime and thats fine, its your opinion, but I disagree.

If there were tougher punishments, it may deter others.

gormdubhgorm

beakerjoe wrote: »

Creating a criminal? They are a criminal due to their own actions? They attacked someone, they are responsible? Once that act occurs they are a criminal. (once convicted).

Its an unprovoked assault, the mindset of the accused in this scenario is criminal.

If you are vicuouslly assaulted by 2 thugs for no reason, your happy for them to walk free? Get real. Stop making excuses for lowlifes.

I am not making excuses I am merely explaining how the law works.

You have now used a subjective term 'viciously assaulted' when the charge was assault under s3 'assault causing harm' not s4 which is 'assault causing serious harm'

So it clearly must have been on the lower end of the scale in comparison to the more serious offence - ie section 4 serious assault causing harm.

Again, going back to my Shane 'Shaggy' Horgan (Former Rugby star and Meath Minor GAA player) example from 1999. No previous convictions.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/top-rugby-star-admits-to-nightclub-assault-charge-26101953.html

How do you think his life would have turned out if he had to serve a year in prison. Or 'doing the time serving the time' as you put it?

Would it have benefited him or society in the long run?

dobman88

noc1980 wrote: »

The victim has been taunted on the street by GAA cultists for pressing charges.

Where have you seen this?

Majority of people I've seen online have condemned their actions, not taunted the victim. And I havent heard of it happening around town either. Dan would be a hugely popular and likeable chap, a friends with everyone type of character so people wouldn't allow him to be taunted by anyone over this.

But if you could link me to something I'd happily stand corrected.

beakerjoe

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am not making excuses I am merely explaining how the law works.

You have now used a subjective term 'viciously assaulted' when the charge was assault under s3 'assault causing harm' not s4 which is 'assault causing serious harm'

So it clearly must have been on the lower end of the scale in comparison to the more serious offence - ie section 4 serious assault causing harm.

Again, going back to my Shane 'Shaggy' Horgan (Former Rugby star and Meath Minor GAA player) example from 1999. No previous convictions.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/top-rugby-star-admits-to-nightclub-assault-charge-26101953.html

How do you think his life would have turned out if he had to serve a year in prison. Or 'doing the time serving the time' as you put it?

Would it have benefited him or society in the long run?

Stop pedantically picking on my words.

I care not for how his life turned out, good or bad. He should have been punished more than a slap on the wrist for an assault.

I dont think we should be bending over backwards to give the accused the best chance in life.

gormdubhgorm

beakerjoe wrote: »

Im not saying they should get 10 years, Im saying 1 year.

The victim has to live the the assault and the effects to the unproked assault will most likley be with him the rest of his life, through no fault of his own.

IMO, they got off lightly. You clearly are soft on crime and thats fine, its your opinion, but I disagree.

If there were tougher punishments, it may deter others.

In section 3-2(b) there was the option for the judge to give 1 years imprisonment

3.—(1) A person who assaults another causing him or her harm shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.


But the judge chose to give a fine instead as he is entitled to.
As I assume as it was the defendants first offence. Plus the reaction of the defendants - 5k offer, remorse etc

I would agree with the judge in this instance. Because what would the point in jailing them be?

However, if they committed such an offence again I would expect the consequence to be more severe.

Also you comment that a year in prison may deter others - hardened criminals would view it as an occupational hazard. On those who are not hardened criminals and it was a one off a year in prison will only likely create a hardened criminal.

Sunny Disposition

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am not making excuses I am merely explaining how the law works.

You have now used a subjective term 'viciously assaulted' when the charge was assault under s3 'assault causing harm' not s4 which is 'assault causing serious harm'

So it clearly must have been on the lower end of the scale in comparison to the more serious offence - ie section 4 serious assault causing harm.

Again, going back to my Shane 'Shaggy' Horgan (Former Rugby star and Meath Minor GAA player) example from 1999. No previous convictions.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/top-rugby-star-admits-to-nightclub-assault-charge-26101953.html

How do you think his life would have turned out if he had to serve a year in prison. Or 'doing the time serving the time' as you put it?

Would it have benefited him or society in the long run?

I doubt prison time would have benefited him obviously, or society either.

But for society's sake a conviction should have been recorded. Allowing people to escape convictions for assaults is unfair to victims for one thing. Also not having meaningful consequences for drunken violence obviously risks it becoming more prevalent.

tritium

dobman88 wrote: »

Where have you seen this?

Majority of people I've seen online have condemned their actions, not taunted the victim. And I havent heard of it happening around town either. Dan would be a hugely popular and likeable chap, a friends with everyone type of character so people wouldn't allow him to be taunted by anyone over this.

But if you could link me to something I'd happily stand corrected.

It was reported in the victim impact statement

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40319180.html%3ftype=amp

“Every time I’m out, I get taunted. People would say sly remarks or comment about ruining the three men’s lives and how could I live with myself doing so.

“I know they are well-known footballers, but I’m someone too. I’m someone’s son, brother, father and I so desperately want my life back,” he said.

gormdubhgorm

beakerjoe wrote: »

Stop pedantically picking on my words.

I care not for how his life turned out, good or bad. He should have been punished more than a slap on the wrist for an assault.

I dont think we should be bending over backwards to give the accused the best chance in life.

I am not being pedantic I am trying to show you how the law works and how the defendants were clearly charged under s3 of the NFOPA Act 1997 - assault causing harm. Which is a less serious offence to s4 of the same act which is 'serious assault causing harm'

That to me indicates the the assault was judged by the legal system (charged by the Gardai) as been above assault as per s2 of the act, but below the level of s4 serious assault causing harm.

I was not at the scene of the incident but the Gardai were and would have given the report in court. To me it shows the assault was a middle of the road type and not 'serious' by legal definition.

Your approach although admirable in way given your tough on ANY crime approach with zero tolerance is not practical for reasons I have stated in previous posts.

The law thankfully is more nuanced than that and various factors are taken into account. No doubt if the defendants did not plead guilty, it was not their first offence, and they did not offer 5k to the plaintiff the judgement would have been a lot different. A larger fine most likely and maybe even imprisonment for a period.

When a judge makes an assessment he/she does so based on various factors it is not as simple as lock them up straight away! You must watch a lot of films?

dobman88

tritium wrote: »

It was reported in the victim impact statement

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40319180.html%3ftype=amp

Fair enough. I missed that. Anyone doing that needs to take a really hard look at themselves. I cannot stress enough how nice this man is. The only life that's had a negative impact is his own. The other lads have created the problem themselves.

Genuinely cant believe people act like that, taunting a victim. Paidi O Se was right, a pack of animals.

Oranage2

Doesn't the charge disappear after 7 years?

Scummy Boys should have got jail

Dempo1

I assume now convictions have been handed down, the victim has the option to bring a civil suit for personal injuries sustained, the €5k donation and absurd €400 fine will seem like small change

gormdubhgorm

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

I doubt prison time would have benefited him obviously, or society either.

But for society's sake a conviction should have been recorded. Allowing people to escape convictions for assaults is unfair to victims for one thing. Also not having meaningful consequences for drunken violence obviously risks it becoming more prevalent.

OK let's look at it logically the defendants get convicted jailed for a year.

They withdraw the 5k offer etc, the defendants now find it difficult to get employment because of a previous conviction. The defendants have associated with more 'experienced' criminals for a year.

Let's look at the effect prison has on criminals who convicted.

Irish prison service study 2013

https://www.irishprisons.ie/images/pdf/recidivismstudyss2.pdf


The recidivism rate is high. Many prisoners reoffend for the same offence

A recidivism rate of 62.3% within three years
Over 80% of those who re-offended did so within 12 months of release.
The recidivism rate decreased as the offender age increased.
Male offenders represented 92.5% of the total population studied and had a higher recidivism rate of than female offenders (63% for males and 57% among females).

--

You can look at that two way those who are jailed are very likely to reoffend for the same offence within one year or even three years.

Applying this to the case the OP mentions you then have to ask yourself by the judge NOT jailing the defendants does it mean that they are less likely to reoffend based on the facts of the case we were given?

I would say yes. I would also guess based on the above figures that jailing the defendants would likely mean statistically it would have the opposite effect. And they would reoffend as prison does not become a deterrent but a way of life.

From the article above:

https://www.irishprisons.ie/images/pdf/recidivismstudyss2.pdf

'the challenge then becomes how we can work together with individual offenders to reconnect them back with society and reduce the likelihood of them reoffending.'