Man gets 10 months for threatening to send personal pics

Delighted with this sentence but puzzled by it also. The same judge has given less punishment to violent rapists and child molesters.

He had a number of unrelated previous convictions from the District Court, the court heard

Obviously factored into the sentencing.

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/arid-41388106.html

Previous precedent. Longer sentence.

Hilarious people are trying to make this a freedom of sreech case.

He deserves it 100%. It’s a sick thing to threaten somebody with. It’s great to see a proper sentence for once. I think there should be minimum sentences for domestic abuse, rape, coercive control, child abuse etc. Don’t give the judges a choice but to hand the scumbags lengthy sentences. An example would be Paul Moody, he should have got life in jail for what he did, all the evidence in the world and he gets 3 years. About time these sick c***s see that they can’t get away with it using their “hard upbringing, addiction etc.” bull***t excuses.

It's fairly harsh imo, I wonder will he appeal it? If he got 6 months with three suspended I think that would still be 'sending a message'

It's about assessing the nuance of what is a proportionate sentence for the crime committed.

The OP has been pretty clear what they think, I don't see much nuance TBF.

However, 10 months in prison for essentially saying something he shouldn't have is absolutely preposterous

The OP seems to have a remedial view on the crime itself and most importantly the effect this type of crime can have on it's victims.

The criminal in this case was in possession of intimate pictures of the victim and threatened to send them to others. So the narrative that he was jailed merely for saying something is both utterly false and idiotic. It's blackmail to inflict harm.

As whether the sentence is appropriate or not that is decided by numerous factors.

Legislation.

Victim Impact.

Previous Convictions.

Previous sentencing for similar crimes.

Probation report.

Etc, etc.

That is the nuance you seem to be demanding but haven't engaged in.

There is certainly an argument he shouldn't be confined to prison at all, given his circumstances he should be confined to a facility that can address his issues, "cure" him somewhat so his chances of reoffending are minimised and the public in the future are safer.

But the mere suggestion of that will get you labelled a soft on crime lunatic by the some nutters who think black mailing someone is a violation of ones freedom of speech.

No, it's not. Looking at this thread, some people seem to think that this is harmless enough, it's not. With the growing level of abuse received by many online (especially teenage girls), this message needs to be hammered through. It's wrong to harass and threaten to send personal images of women and girls online. If you do so, you will be severely punished.

He's 45 years old, a bit old to be blaming his parents or his upbringing for why he did this.

A 45 year old man dating a 20 something year old woman and he threatens her like this and some people would like to think he is the victim because she reported it and he got a custodial sentence. He was lucky half of it was suspended.

Only on Boards.

No sympathy, guy sounds like a piece of dirt, the problem though, as always, is inconsistency in sentencing

Not too good on humour, I see.

For the avoidance of doubt, I wasn't being entirely serious, seeing as I said that 10 months seemed reasonable.

I simply mean that in general, this sort of crime is often not taken seriously, as illustrated by a number of posts on here, and that it should be. The fact that attempted murder or rape sometimes get insufficient punishment is not justification for dismissing this as "just words". Inadequate sentences for violent crimes need to be dealt with by adjusting sentences, not by letting other crimes go unpunished.

So you think nearly two years is an appropriate sentence for once threatening to share intimate images. What would be appropriate if he had been holding this threat over her for months? What sentence should he receive if he actually shared them, with one person? with multiple people?

For the avoidance of doubt, I think it should be a crime, and he should be punished for it, just think maybe the judge got a new toy to play with (new law, no precedent in sentencing) and got a bit carried away.

Nolan’s doesn’t deal with violent rapists. He’s a circuit court judge. They’re sentence in the Central

just think maybe the judge got a new toy to play with (new law, no precedent in sentencing) and got a bit carried away.

I already linked to an example of recent precedent on this thread. You must have missed it, so here it is again.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-41387989.html

A 26-year-old man has been jailed for a year for threatening to post intimate images of his former partner online.

At Cork Circuit Criminal Court, Judge Jonathan Dunphy imposed a sentence of two and a half years on the accused, with the final 18 months suspended

You also seem to be leaving out the fact the guy sentenced to 20 months had multiple previous convictions, which I suppose is on purpose because it doesn't suit the conspiracy.

The law is quite explicit, can only be published with the permission of the participant otherwise it's a crime. The fact it was in his possession is immaterial.

It does set an interesting precedent though:

It isn't the precedent.

are we going to see a surge in cases of women being sent to prison for threatening their cheating partners with castration/murder ?

Bizarre tangent to try and shoe horn in.

Of course. It's rarely worked to reduce crime though.

Why? If we as a society have decided that the threat of committing a crime against someone is worthy of a jail sentence, then why only a particular type of crime? And why would the threat of a more serious crime not receive a higher jail sentence?

There's enough adverts on the telly and radio about how threats like this are 100% illegal. The judge giving him a 20 month sentence is reflective of how much distress he caused and how he should have known better. The length of the sentence will set a precedence and stop any copycat criminals from thinking of doing similar.

The suspension of half the sentence for a guilty plea and admissions of remorse is also a good one as no victim wants a lengthy trial. If this was his first conviction perhaps a greater suspension could be warranted but he has been convicted of other offences before so I am glad to see him behind bars

Yep...that would be my query too

How is this worse than some of the stuff he has let people off for?

Someone posted earlier the offence was from before tha ads....not that it shoukd make much of a difference