Karen Harrington jailed for life for the murder of Santina Cawley

I think we all get this...issue is how it is being portrayed

Harrington responsible for physically ending the poor child's life. Parents responsible for allowing their child to be alone in the company of this thing on that deadly night. Alone full well knowing the chaos and volatility and anger that the child was surrounded by.

Yep, I'd agree with you here.

Addicts often have very little control over their actions. That's why they are so dangerous, and why people often object to injections centers or addict support services in their local area. The details of that case are horrific, the reports of the neighbours downstairs hearing the sliding door slam over and over again sent a chill down my spine. Of course the poor child was screaming and crying, with no sleep and being injured. Which only enraged the out of control woman further.

It's an awful. Addiction isn't an easy problem to solve in society, once it gets established, which it sadly has in Cork at the moment.

That's not an absolution of responsibility, she was absolutely guilty of that murder. But in addition to jailing her, perhaps we could consider measures to prevent others repeating this, such as focused action on addiction and drug supply.

We have teams and teams of great people working tirelessly with drug addicts and the like.

Working many many years now. It is not something that can ever be fully solved. People and societies are very complex.

And, forgetting drugs and alcohol etc, sometimes people are downright bad and nasty.

I don’t think a case of pure badness can be discounted.

The woman seemed to meticulously torture the child to death.

This does not seem like a moment of madness due to rage/hallucinations /drugs/alcohol that resulted in death. She was heard taunting the child.

Was it pure badness/spite toward the father, due to their mad relationship?

Mad and bad is what this monster is!

Re-offending? What about pure punishment she deserves? 20 years of loss of freedom for beating a toddler to death? Sounds not near enough for me.

There is no rehabilitation here, addiction issues or not she was well aware of what she was doing.

They didn't murder the child but they sure as hell were complicit in it. Absolute dregs of society the lot of them. The country is full of that type at the moment with kids being given no hope in life at all. Disgusts me that we the taxpayer pay for their scumbag behaveour.

Not much here I'd disagree with but earlier you said you would 'hold him more responsible for the child's death'

That's where we disagree as I don't.

Do all your screen shots from this article. It has the facts and lays them all out plain to be seen: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/the-complete-story-of-karen-harrington-s-trial-for-murder-of-santina-cawley-2-1.4880066

So what is a life sentence, will she be out in less than 20 years?

Some crimes deserve a whole life sentence and this is the punishment she should get.

Reading your post and seeing you refer to her by her first name reads all wrong. Almost like she’s just your ordinary woman. Just an observation.

I’ve been using “that thing.”

How so?

Feel free to disagree, but you might want to put across a point.

you think addicts and those off their faces on booze are beautiful souls who can do no wrong?

This stinks of the whole “sh1t happens” attitude.

and this world we live in is not some perfect world (like your post wants to try portray). Hence why people need to be careful and responsible.

Whilst that thing ended the poor child’s life, her parent left her alone with that thing, who was clearly agitated, angry, under the influence and pretty much a ticking time bomb. The night in question full of chaos.

this take that “I did nothing wrong. I left her with her. Nothing to do with me,” stinks.

that poor child would have probably been safer and stood a better chance had she been left alone with a pit bull.

And, you can bet (and rightly so) had it been a case like leaving a child alone with a dog, the parents would be condemned if something terrible happened. So the father absolutely should shoulder responsibility for his child’s welfare.

Your point really isn’t clear, but I hope I am misinterpreting and you are not bringing a pro-drug argument in here? “plenty of people” do the same. What the heck, Who? … You?

This little girl, a toddler , was beaten to death over a fairly prolonged period by someone who claims to not even remember doing it.

The whole lot of them were drunk, loaded, off their face, whatever you want to call it.

Another thing I always think when I see these horrific cases is that human beings actually work to get these people off. How could any human being stand up and defend and fight for acquittal here?

is there some law that says a defender must represent these people?

if I was a defender/lawyer and after reading the absolute depravity here, as well as it being pretty much clear cut that this thing did this, I’d go to prison before attempting to defend her.

what kind of person/mindset says “I’ll take this case?”

I wonder if an accused could not get anyone to represent them what would happen?

Would the judge compel or order a solicitor/barrister to represent the accused?

Or would the case have to be dismissed because without representation the accused couldn't reasonably get a fair trial, especially in a case where the accused doesnt have the capacity to represent themselves as would be the case with addicts, or people with substance issues.

I'm not even sure a barrister can refuse. I think we have a list system and if you are 'next person up' then it's your sworn duty to represent the person to the best of your ability. The same can apply in reverse - if the list system made you the prosecution barrister then you have to represent the state's case even if you have nagging doubts about the defendant's guilt.

As a general point (and not applying to this case specifically) there have been many cases worldwide which looked like 'guilt beyond doubt, vile criminal, who would defend them' at an initial glance, and only afterwards (sometimes decades afterwards) do we realise the defendant was innocent. So it's fundamentally good that every defendant has someone on their side looking for holes in the case.

I don't think that is how it works

you can choose your own and pay or if you can't the judge will assign you a solicitor from the panel (you may get some choice there if there is availability), the barrister just works on your behalf when it gets to court and the solicitor will arrange that

not all solictors or barristers will work on free legal aid etc ( the best ones)

I am not an expert, but I think if you are entitled to free legal aid, a solicitor can be appointed for you.

I have often sat in to observe cases in court, where a defendant for drink/drug offences would turn up without a clue or a legal rep - the judge would often take a look around the court room, while the solicitors waiting for their own cases to be called would either suddenly look very busy... or avoid eye contact, until the judge would call one by name and ask them to take on the case - then adjourning for 15 mins to allow for the newly appointed solicitor to consult with their new client.

Judges do not like hearing cases where someone without a clue has no financial means of defending themselves. Solicitors sometimes have no option when asked to help out by the judge - they have to give and take to maintain their working relationship with the court system.

The more you think about it a realize that we the taxpayer fund this type of living and scumbaging it really sickens you. And now a child ends up dead indirectly due to these scumbags getting their free money and houses etc. That's how they afford to live like this. Somethings got to give.