Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Kerry footballers smash someone's head in. €400 fine.
Options
Comments
-
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.
Who cares about no previous convictions you keep banging that drum. There are serial killers who had no previous convictions. The sentence should reflect the severity of the crime, and in this case they got off scot free. 5000 is a drop in the ocean to them, some GAA sympathiser principal will no doubt open their doors up to these lads and hand them a career for life, plus they still get to play for their county and for an organisation that seems to have no problem whatsoever having 2 criminals on its membership. Can you tell me where the punishment is there? A year in jail would have knocked the corners off them and they would no doubt be in tears if a genuine hard man picked a fight with them.
Meanwhile the man they assaulted will suffer mental trauma for years to come, no doubt exacerbated by this joke of a sentence.0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »OApplying 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]
That's certainly not the only measure by which to decide if someone should receive a conviction or not.0 -
Wanderer2010 wrote: »Who cares about no previous convictions you keep banging that drum. There are serial killers who had no previous convictions. The sentence should reflect the severity of the crime, and in this case they got off scot free. 5000 is a drop in the ocean to them, some GAA sympathiser principal will no doubt open their doors up to these lads and hand them a career for life, plus they still get to play for their county and for an organisation that seems to have no problem whatsoever having 2 criminals on its membership. Can you tell me where the punishment is there? A year in jail would have knocked the corners off them and they would no doubt be in tears if a genuine hard man picked a fight with them.
Meanwhile the man they assaulted will suffer mental trauma for years to come, no doubt exacerbated by this joke of a sentence.
That is a bit hyperbolic don't you think? You have jumped from 'assault causing harm' to serial killers. No murder was committed here, nor was there even intent to kill.
The charge was 'assault causing harm' under s3 of the Non-Fatal Offences the Person Act. And the judge ruled within those parameters.
The way you are framing it is that it is close to murder. 'Criminals in their membership' you say. In the history of the GAA there have been many members of the association who who would have been classed as criminals both for murder right down to the criminal offence of drink driving, speeding and so on.
If the plaintiff is as traumatised as you claim or believe, civil action could be an alternative. You also seem to forget that the defendants will have to live with what they have done. A quick internet search and their names pop up. The community in which they live know what they have done.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
That's certainly not the only measure by which to decide if someone should receive a conviction or not.
Yeah I agree - nature of the offence, guilty plea, remorse shown, previous offences, standing in the community, character references and so on.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
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.
I am not soft on crime at all actually. But I would take each case as I find it based on the facts. If it happens again go up the gradients.
When I was younger I would of had the misguided 'lock them all up' approach they deserve it. Life is not like that there is more nuance to it and a lot more variables and consequences and future consequences that have to be factored in.
The fact is each case depends on:
1) The facts
2) The judge interpreting the facts based on the law
3) The defendants history and background
Back over 150 years ago a person could have got hard labour or few lashes for minimal offences,
Maybe some people would prefer that instead of jail or fines. But fortunately or unfortunately that is not how the system is set up.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
Advertisement
-
“It has changed my life,” he said. “I know they are well-known footballers but I am somebody too. I didn’t ask for this.”
I'm just thinking of what the victim said. No matter what sentence the two young people have received, the victim has not received justice. The judge did not address this aspect.0 -
He hasnt, he is the victim and IMO, the lads got a slap on the wrist. Its unfair.
That assault could have had more serious consequences for the victim and not enough has been done to punish these two crinimals.
They dont deserve to be involved with the GAA. These people are no rolemodels.0 -
An amateur athlete of all people should not be held up as a role model for anyone. No sports "star" should in any sport.0
-
gormdubhgorm wrote: »That is a bit hyperbolic don't you think? You have jumped from 'assault causing harm' to serial killers. No murder was committed here, nor was there even intent to kill.
The charge was 'assault causing harm' under s3 of the Non-Fatal Offences the Person Act. And the judge ruled within those parameters.
The way you are framing it is that it is close to murder. 'Criminals in their membership' you say. In the history of the GAA there have been many members of the association who who would have been classed as criminals both for murder right down to the criminal offence of drink driving, speeding and so on.
If the plaintiff is as traumatised as you claim or believe, civil action could be an alternative. You also seem to forget that the defendants will have to live with what they have done. A quick internet search and their names pop up. The community in which they live know what they have done.
You were repeating the fact that they had no previous convictions over and over again, to justify their pathetic sentence. There have been serial killers who were only caught on something minor who had no previous convictions, my point being previous behaviour is not relevant to the crime at hand. Which in this case was a shocking assault. As for your point of the victim, civil action is a matter for him .
Surely you dont dispute it was a savage attack and that the 2 criminals acted appallingly? Do you agree with their sentence and a fine of 5000?
As for having to live with it, do you really think they give a flying fcuk?? Anyone scummy enough to start laying into a complete stranger like a demented feral animal is not going to be the type of person who feels guilt or any type of introspective awareness. And they will 100% walk into teaching jobs given by a principal who also wont care about their past. You are very naive if you think this incident will bother them.0 -
He hasnt, he is the victim and IMO, the lads got a slap on the wrist. Its unfair.
That assault could have had more serious consequences for the victim and not enough has been done to punish these two crinimals.
They dont deserve to be involved with the GAA. These people are no rolemodels.
It is interesting in the Horgan case in 1999 which was very similar to the recent case the OP mentioned
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/top-rugby-star-admits-to-nightclub-assault-charge-26101953.html
The following was said by the judge in that case:
"The point is that the accused is a role model for young people...and what he did is to give scandalous example," said Judge Moran.
He noted the Christian attitude of Mr Fahy, while he had been told that there had been a substantial financial settlement.
He accepted it was isolated incident and that the accused was unlikely to reoffend."
The probation act was applied. In Horgan's case it mentioned he caused a broken cheekbone. In this McCarthy case involving the Kerry GAA lads - the injuries caused were:
"The court heard that Mr McCarthy's nose and face were very swollen after the assault - and he faces surgery on the damage caused to his septum.
The victim has experienced problems with his nose since the attack."
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/it-has-changed-my-life-victim-speaks-out-as-two-kerry-footballers-convicted-of-assault-40562953.html
But the approach by the two judges in the two cases seemed very similar over two decades apart.
I really don't see the 'outrage' level some posters are going on about. I suppose you could argue McCarthy deserved more of settlement because of the surgery required.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Wanderer2010 wrote: »Surely you dont dispute it was a savage attack and that the 2 criminals acted appallingly? Do you agree with their sentence and a fine of 5000?
As for having to live with it, do you really think they give a flying fcuk?? Anyone scummy enough to start laying into a complete stranger like a demented feral animal is not going to be the type of person who feels guilt or any type of introspective awareness. And they will 100% walk into teaching jobs given by a principal who also wont care about their past. You are very naive if you think this incident will bother them.
No I don't agree that 5000 was enough. But Mr McCarthy can take civil action to solve that in future if he wishes.
You are only assuming that the two Kerry lads (Ronan Buckley and Christopher O'Donoghue) felt no guilt - based on what exactly?
There was no mention of their demeanour in court, they pled guilty and offered 5k.
Everyone knows their names now Ronan Buckley and Christopher O'Donoghue it will always be known and it will follow them around in future.
The fella they attacked seems like a decent salt, but is it worth a year in prison?
What would it achieve? If I was the plaintiff I would much prefer money in a civil action. Jailing them would do nothing to solve anything, in fact it could make things worse in the long run.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
-
An amateur athlete of all people should not be held up as a role model for anyone. No sports "star" should in any sport.
But sports stars are. Its a fact. Whether its a fan to Ronaldo or youth player looking to a senoir player at a GAA club. Its how it is.
These lads are potential role models if they end up being allowed to represent their club or county.0 -
We all know HOW the law is, but I think the point is the law should be tougher on assaults.0
-
gormdubhgorm wrote: »No I don't agree that 5000 was enough. But Mr McCarthy can take civil action to solve that in future if he wishes.
You are only assuming that the two Kerry lads (Ronan Buckley and Christopher O'Donoghue) felt no guilt - based on what exactly?
There was no mention of their demeanour in court, they pled guilty and offered 5k.
Everyone knows their names now Ronan Buckley and Christopher O'Donoghue it will always be known and it will follow them around in future.
The fella they attacked seems like a decent salt, but is it worth a year in prison?
What would it achieve? If I was the plaintiff I would much prefer money in a civil action. Jailing them would do nothing to solve anything, in fact it could make things worse in the long run.
If it was your own son who had his head kicked in, you would ditch your kid gloves attitude to crime in a second. They deserved jail as a punishment for what they did, its as simple as that. They got off scot free.
And as for your other repetitive argument about their names forever being searched for, how exactly does that hinder them? They will both get teaching jobs regardless of this assault. Google content is not going to hinder their career. Look at Michelle de Brun, a very successful barister now but google her name and you will read all sorts about her. The only 2 people who will have a reason to look them up on the internet are prospective employers and nosy people. Nosy people have no power and we have already established that they will get jobs in a school no problem. So how exactly does having a digital imprint of this conviction hinder them?0 -
Brings back memories for me. I was stabbed in the leg in school by 2 lads from the GAA team as "a joke". This was after 2 months of bullying. My mother saw the wound when i was changing and all hell broke loose.
School was called. The lads were called in to the office and told not to do it again and one of them got student of the year went on to become a DJ on Irish radio.0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »Everyone knows their names now Ronan Buckley and Christopher O'Donoghue it will always be known and it will follow them around in future.
You have brushed aside some posters views and comments as 'subjective' and assumptions as irrelevant.
However, your comments of "it will always be known and it will follow them around in future" is comical. You are implying and assuming that their actions will echo into the future (presumably) to have a negative effect on them. That is not guaranteed.
Your assumptions are no more relevant than anyone else's and you are being subjective, its a tad hypocritical.gormdubhgorm wrote: »The fella they attacked seems like a decent salt, but is it worth a year in prison?
Notwithstanding the Law and options the Judge had due to nature of the incident, many would like to have seen a harsher punishment.
Committing an act with the explicit intent to cause harm, especially when unprovoked is inexcusable.
A first offence, or rather first known offence (to be more precise) should not be a mitigating factor in sentencing, particularly a deliberate act such as an assault.gormdubhgorm wrote: »What would it achieve?
A custodial sentence for unprovoked assault (first known offence or not) should act as a deterrent. If it was common knowledge that you are guaranteed to be jailed or heavily fined, people may think twice before committing the act.
At the moment, this case along with many others, just acts as a barometer for what you can reasonably be expected to get away with if you want to be a wanker.
"It was my first time (getting caught)" and "Here's a few quid as compensation" and showing remorse are not signs of a good character, which is what is implied and acted upon by way of leniency.
The "this will effect my future" defence is also a steaming pile of crap. If that thought wasn't good enough to stop them committing the assault, it certainly shouldn't be a factor in a reduced sentence.
The men already revealed their character, being good boys or being remorseful after the fact should never be accounted for. People are only remorseful when they realise their actions have consequences.
While the case has been made that it costs too much and we don't have adequate prison facilities to maintain an increase in custodial sentencing. If the penalty was severe enough could it be possible that we would not need increased space? Could it be possible that a guaranteed jail sentence could dissuade some of these acts?
If it's not possible, I would be in favour of building more prisons and utilising them.gormdubhgorm wrote: »If I was the plaintiff I would much prefer money in a civil action.
Irrelevant.gormdubhgorm wrote: »Jailing them would do nothing to solve anything, in fact it could make things worse in the long run.
Firstly, that's subjective.
Secondly, no matter what the outcome of this is it will either inform people of what their boundaries are if they want to commit a similar act or it will dissuade people from committing it.0 -
Again not true google ‘shane Horgan assault’ it is on the internet for the last 20 years. As will be the case in question. I think many or most posters such as yourself neither understand the law, nor understand the factors that are regularly taken into account when making a decision and applying the law. Plus not only that the practical results of any decision in future. Those who do not understand the law and its application are naturally going to react in an ‘internet mob frenzy’ fashion.Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »However, your comments of "it will always be known and it will follow them around in future" is comical. You are implying and assuming that their actions will echo into the future (presumably) to have a negative effect on them. That is not guaranteed.
But it does not change the fact that most judges would have applied the law in the same manner given the facts at issue, the defendants history/background and so on.
Basically many posters don’t have a clue and are merely reacting emotionally. not logically. Typical basic Internet forum stuff. Have you even looked at the relevant sections of the non fatal offences of the person act 1997?Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »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.'
That study isn't as conclusive as you might think:
"In 2012, the Probation Service published its study of persons who had re-offended within
two years following the imposition of a Probation Order or Community Service Order. The
two studies are not comparable as the Probation study is based on a two year period for reoffending and certain road traffic offences were excluded. However, both studies showed
that re-offending was most likely to occur in the first 12 months either after release from
prison or the imposition of an alternative sanction.
The Probation Service study showed a recidivism rate of 37.2% within two years of
the imposition of a Probation or Community Service Order.
This study shows a recidivism rate of 58.3% within two years of the completion of a
prison sentence."
Those who has a Probation or Community Service Order reoffended at the rate of 37.2%, excluding certain road traffic offences. Those who went to prison had a rate of 58.3%. That is not a huge difference, when you consider that road traffic offences were excluded. It also does not consider the point that prison sentences are more common for more serious offences, suggesting that the cohort in that study are more hardened criminals on average.
Therefore, the study should not be used to suggest that prison sentences lead to worse outcomes. One alternative possibility is that the Irish criminal justice system does not act in the whole as a significant deterral to re-offending. This may be because the risk of being caught and convicted is low, something already known to convicted criminals, hence the re-offending.
A further alternative is that the Irish criminal justice system as a whole, including the Probation Service is poor at the rehabilitation issue.0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »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?
Hard to beat a public flogging at the town square in fairness. Cheap and cheerful as they say.First they came for the socialists...
0 -
Advertisement
-
gormdubhgorm wrote: »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.'
But I didn’t argue they should be jailed. What I said was it was proper that a conviction be recorded, as it was, given they were guilty of a serious crime.0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »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.'
How does a 5k fine/compensation hurt if you're a millionaire, and if you abuse a child or a kill a police officer should 'no previous convictions' be a factor in sentencing?
Also, if the appeal successfully they won't even have a previous conviction next time.
All of which points to the idea that they will most certainly do it again if they get the chance and increases the likelihood of recidivism.
Not disagreeing with you, merely highlighting the extremely flawed logic in the law.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
Wanderer2010 wrote: »If it was your own son who had his head kicked in, you would ditch your kid gloves attitude to crime in a second. They deserved jail as a punishment for what they did, its as simple as that. They got off scot free.
And as for your other repetitive argument about their names forever being searched for, how exactly does that hinder them? They will both get teaching jobs regardless of this assault. Google content is not going to hinder their career. Look at Michelle de Brun, a very successful barister now but google her name and you will read all sorts about her. The only 2 people who will have a reason to look them up on the internet are prospective employers and nosy people. Nosy people have no power and we have already established that they will get jobs in a school no problem. So how exactly does having a digital imprint of this conviction hinder them?
On the school jobs thing,they are convicted of a serious assault,is this not a problem to getting a job teaching children?
It must be a bar to a lot of jobs never mind a job where you are supposed to be a role model to young impressionable pupils.
I dont think they would be called upon by the principal to remonstrate with any kid who has assaulted another kid which happens every day in schools or indeed if they become principals themselves.0 -
Sunny Disposition wrote: »But I didn’t argue they should be jailed. What I said was it was proper that a conviction be recorded, as it was, given they were guilty of a serious crime.
I think a conviction has to stand because it is too serious a crime to just let them off with a clean record by applying the probation act. The judge could have thrown down a 3 month suspended sentence as well just as a warning that if they do it again they are off to prison.
But letting them off scott free with no conviction when they violently assaulted someone so bad that he needs surgery has to result in a conviction and it shouldnt matter that it was their first offence. If that means they cant get into the US/Australia then so be it, thats on them. Its not like they were caught doing a non-violent crime like shoplifting, they have turned a man and his families life upside down so its a lot more serious than that.0 -
-
BorneTobyWilde wrote: »Both brought 5k with them to offer to the victim.....
wtf
That's a bribe, and it worked.
What a country
Its not a bribe. Its a compensation offer. Educate yourself.0 -
-
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »It's a bribe. It's just not the victim they're trying to bribe.
It's not limited to Kerry footballers either. Happens every week in courts up and down the country.
The main purpose is to convince the judge they're good people and are showing genuine remorse.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement