10 Month Old Denied Justice

[Toland]

My only knowledge of this case comes from this thread so if my facts are wrong I am open to correction. Someone pleaded guilty to a first offence which carries a maximum sentence of 7 years. He got 3 years, none of it suspended. The suggestion is that he should have got the maximum. Now let's say that the tabloids were listened to and he got seven years. Then tomorrow someone with two or three previous convictions for the same offence is convicted again after pleading not guilty. I'll bet that the same tabloids would be howling at the injustice of the "monster" getting the same sentence as some poor fellow who pleaded guilty to a first offence.

Two final points:

1. People are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment
2. A crime (which is what we are dealing with) is an offence against the public, not against an individual. Only the public interest is relevant in sentencing.

Are you sure you're right on no 2 there?

Why are victim impact statements taken before sentencing in many criminal cases then?

[Lonewolfe]

Why a psychiatric hospital? Are you saying he was mentally ill and therefore wasn't responsibile for his actions?

Does he seem like a mentally well balanced chap to you?

[FrankSpeaks]

Does he seem like a mentally well balanced chap to you?

I'd say he is a guy who can't control his temper and not mentally ill.

[Gunthar Son of Thurgar]

Are you sure you're right on no 2 there?

Why are victim impact statements taken before sentencing in many criminal cases then?

Interesting point. I stand over my definition of crime (not just my definition). A wrong against a private individual is also recognised in law and allows you to sue for compensation. Some things are both: e.g. assault/battery but they are dealt with separately.

The victim impact statement fits uneasily into that distinction. Some people think that they should be gotten rid of, especially after a case a few years ago when someone abused the privilege of making one. Nonetheless the politicians put that provision into the law and it remains there to skew the criminal justice system, complicate explanations and make money for lawyers.

[artfoley56]

The victim impact statement fits uneasily into that distinction. Some people think that they should be gotten rid of, especially after a case a few years ago when someone abused the privilege of making one. Nonetheless the politicians put that provision into the law and it remains there to skew the criminal justice system, complicate explanations and make money for lawyers.

surprisingly enought GSOT, one of the most vocal opponents of VIS is the judge who lost control of that trial and then created a huge hullabaloo in the aftermath.

it's my belief, for right or wrong, that a VIS is not a privelege, it's a right that the victim has their say

[Diawlbach]

When it comes to crimes against children I'm and eye for an eye type.



Yet the scumbag of a judge gives this untermensch 3 years with half of that sentence commuted straight away so what this scumbag would more than likely serve 8-12 mths and be out again.

That's the UK. Not here. Remission here is, from memory, 1/4, and not as of right.

[Diawlbach]

If this is the case, then I withdraw my b*llox in post 13 about there being difficulty proving pre-meditation.

Actually, you shouldn't. The odd thing about attempted murder is that the mental element is worse than murder. Intent for murder is to kill or cause serious bodily harm; for attempted murder, it's intent to kill. So, someone who intends to kill but makes a mess of it is attempted only, but someone who only intended to beat someone up badly and gets unlucky is a murderer. Here, you charge with attempted murder, you have to prove intent to kill. Tricky. Go for what you know you'll bring home.

[louis bernard]

That's the UK. Not here. Remission here is, from memory, 1/4, and not as of right.

Remission of any sentence should be the exception and not the rule; in cases such as this where we are dealing with sub-human scum remission should be given in exceptional circumstances only. Of course it goes without saying that a maximum of 7 years for a horrible crime like this is an absolute joke.

[Gunthar Son of Thurgar]

it's my belief, for right or wrong, that a VIS is not a privelege, it's a right that the victim has their say

Without doubt its a right to the extent that the statute provides for it. But what is the justification for one member of the public to have a greater say than anyone else in a criminal trial? Not all crimes have victims (e.g. possessing drugs), but where a criminal act has a victim there is a parallel system of redress in the civil law where the public interest rightly has a limited role.

So if you punch me in the head the people of Ireland have an interest in a criminal prosecution and I have no more interest in that case than any other person in the State, but I have my own day in court when I sue you for damages. The DPP is the moving party in the criminal case (not me), and the DPP has no involvement in the civil action (its me versus you)

Tabloids and TDs have been known to confuse the two procedures.

We usually agree on the threads to which we contribute so I am interested in your views as to why the vicitim impact statement law is a good one.

[Gunthar Son of Thurgar]

That's the UK. Not here. Remission here is, from memory, 1/4, and not as of right.

Remission is a quarter of the sentence. It is a right. Temporary release is discretionary.

S.I. No. 320/1947 (scroll to Rule 38 - Daily Mail types should keep going because there are rules for hanging and flogging further down).