10 Month Old Denied Justice

[Mossy Heneberry]

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

No, he's an evil f*cker.

[johnny365]

The Irish legal system cares for the "Rights" of the criminals more than it does for victiims. Its amazing anytime a new law is brought in dealing with crime we have civlil liberties groups up in arms about eroding criminals rights, yet when victims have their rights taken from them on a daily basis without so much as a peep from civil liberties groups.

[artfoley56]

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.

I appreciate where you are coming from, but by and large i think that a victim has more interest in the criminal proceedings than in the civil ones, and, indeed, if they were take civil proceedings, most times the perpetrator is not a mark for damages. and besides if all victims of crime went for civil proceedings, the courts woulod be clogged up with PI

i see it as a form of audi alterem partem, the state speaks of the crime, the perp speaks of his personal situation, be it drugs, drink and so on and how jail will impact on his life and this is where the VIS should come in, to humanise what judges refer to as the scale.

[Radix]

"In some countries, it would have been okay for him to do all this and then kill the boy, as long as it was in his mother's womb at the time, only a few short months earlier." Complete and utter ratshyte!! He would have been charged with grievous bodily harm with intent on the mother you tool!

Twelve or more months earlier than this, the victim would have been in his mother's womb.

For an abortionist to carry this out, would indeed constitute "grievous bodily harm", but we choose not to call it that in many 'civilised' societies!

Think before you blink Aindriu.

We rightfully rail against what we see as a minor sentence for the violent harm to a newly born baby, but at the same time it would seem that we practise double standards where pre-birth killing in the abortion 'industry' is concerned.

Society has many lessons to learn, where child protection is concerned.

I suggest we start learning those lessons from the beginning!

[artfoley56]

I suggest we start learning those lessons from the beginning!

which beginning?

big bang or adam and eve ?

[FrankSpeaks]

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.

We should have sentencing guidelines and I would like to see these set out on a statutory basis. The max sentence for this kind of crime should be raised, the punishment must fit the crime.

[FrankSpeaks]

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.

Please excuse my ignorance but why do I read about judges looking for compensation for victims in criminal court cases?

I read stuff like, "unless you have €2,000 here next month then I will jail you"!

[PeeMac]

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.

I think in an instance like this the fact that it is a first offence is irrelevant. I can understand how someone who shoplifts because they are down on their luck should receive a more lenient sentence than someone who makes a living out of it, but to suggest that someone who does this to a child once is less of a danger to society than someone who has done it twice, three times or a hundred is not true. Anyway, he didn't do it once, he seems to have carried out a number of assaults over a three week period. Each of those assaults should have been charged separately and he should have been given the maximum sentence for each of them. And don't get me started on concurrent sentencing.

[Gunthar Son of Thurgar]

Please excuse my ignorance but why do I read about judges looking for compensation for victims in criminal court cases?

I read stuff like, "unless you have €2,000 here next month then I will jail you"!

The theory is that when a criminal pays compensation he is acknowledging his crime and making redress. His rehabilitation is advanced to that extent and he needs less of a sentence to complete it. A judge might indicate that a borderline custody case can be brought to the non-custodial side of the line if the criminal starts rehabilitating himself by paying a sum in compensation.

[Gunthar Son of Thurgar]

I think in an instance like this the fact that it is a first offence is irrelevant. I can understand how someone who shoplifts because they are down on their luck should receive a more lenient sentence than someone who makes a living out of it, but to suggest that someone who does this to a child once is less of a danger to society than someone who has done it twice, three times or a hundred is not true. Anyway, he didn't do it once, he seems to have carried out a number of assaults over a three week period. Each of those assaults should have been charged separately and he should have been given the maximum sentence for each of them. And don't get me started on concurrent sentencing.

What you are suggesting is very dangerous. An offender has no incentive not to stop an assault if he is going to get the maximum sentence anyway.

If I read your post correctly you are stating that he should receive a consecutive seven year sentence for each assault. He could conceivably spend the rest of his life in prison. Anyone in that situation with a plurality of brain cells would kill each potential witness so as to reduce the risk of being apprehended. Upside of mass murder of witnesses to an assault: not spending the rest of his life in prison; downside: none because he is going to prison for life anyway if any witness talks.

What you are proposing is a licence for murder. If your law is passed I will have to give serious consideration to emigrating for my own safety.