# Judge orders man to climb Croagh Patrick



## Mpsox (17 Sep 2010)

Have to admit that this story made me chuckle
[broken link removed]

I'm just wondering what other people think of punishments like this as a form of "justice". Personally, on the basis that it will cost the state nothing and it likely to have a more benificial effect on the man's behaviour (out of embarrassment as much as anything else) then a fine or suspended sentence, I'm leaning towards it being a good thing.

Are there any other similer punishments that judges could give out?


----------



## dereko1969 (17 Sep 2010)

To be honest with you I find this _type_ of punishment appropriate, however what I find disgraceful and will be making a complaint about is the fact that a Judge of this Republic is requiring a citizen to complete a religious task - and telling him to say some prayers! Outrageous.


----------



## Latrade (17 Sep 2010)

Given as an atheist I'm the same as a nazi now (or according to someone who was in the Hitler Youth, so I suppose he should know), I'm on the fence with this. On the one hand it's ingenious and judges should use their imagination more, but the problem extends from a direction by the courts to undertake a specific religious pilgrimage and complete the stations.


----------



## Caveat (17 Sep 2010)

I like this kind of idea.  Common enough in the states.

Tax evaders have the shirts forcibly removed from their backs as well as having their possessions confiscated?

Risk-taking high rolling bankers forced to play Russian roulette to see how intrepid they really are?


----------



## truthseeker (17 Sep 2010)

Latrade said:


> Given as an atheist I'm the same as a nazi now (or according to someone who was in the Hitler Youth, so I suppose he should know)


 
+1 - guess Im in the 'party' with you there 

I disagree with a Judge imposing a religious sentence. Although I do think its rather imaginative.


----------



## MrMan (17 Sep 2010)

truthseeker said:


> +1 - guess Im in the 'party' with you there
> 
> I disagree with a Judge imposing a religious sentence. Although I do think its rather imaginative.




He wanted him to climb croagh patrick to appreciate the people and county of Mayo, I think the religious element may have been more tongue in cheek. I and many more have climbed it purely to enjoy the walk and scenery. 
People getting all jumpy about the mention prayers need to get over themselves.


----------



## Mpsox (17 Sep 2010)

Caveat said:


> I like this kind of idea. Common enough in the states.
> 
> Tax evaders have the shirts forcibly removed from their backs as well as having their possessions confiscated?
> 
> ...


----------



## truthseeker (17 Sep 2010)

MrMan said:


> People getting all jumpy about the mention prayers need to get over themselves.


 
Why? There should be no place in the judicial system for religious overtones.


----------



## Latrade (17 Sep 2010)

I've climbed the same plenty of times so the act of climbing is not just about religion. If the judge had stopped there, I'd have thought it funny too, but he didn't, he specifically instructed the individual to do it as a pigrimage and to complete the stations. That's different.


----------



## pixiebean22 (17 Sep 2010)

An inventive punishment but I definitely don't agree with making it a pilgrimage and turning it into a religious sentence.


----------



## TarfHead (17 Sep 2010)

I can see the splash line in the local Donegal papers ..

"Judge shuns Donegal's own Lough Derg over Mayo for penitential sentence !"


----------



## demoivre (17 Sep 2010)

Mpsox said:


> Have to admit that this story made me chuckle
> [broken link removed]
> 
> I'm just wondering what other people think of punishments like this as a form of "justice". Personally, on the basis that it will cost the state nothing



" Man sues state after falling on Croagh Patrick while completing sentence "


----------



## Graham_07 (17 Sep 2010)

It is not clear from the report in the paper if the judge firstly asked the defendant was he a practicing catholic and, if the defendant answered in the affirmative, then perhaps it could be viewed as innovative and not inappropriate. However, to make such an order without any consideration for the persons religious beliefs, if any, is, to my mind, out of order.


----------



## callybags (17 Sep 2010)

Would the man have had to swear on the bible when he was in court?


----------



## Graham_07 (17 Sep 2010)

callybags said:


> Would the man have had to swear on the bible when he was in court?



Interesting, is there an appropriate form of swearing for atheists? Why should anyone with no beliefs be required to swear on a bible? Does anyone know the procedure in such instances?


----------



## callybags (17 Sep 2010)

Thankfully I've no idea !


----------



## dereko1969 (17 Sep 2010)

Graham_07 said:


> Interesting, is there an appropriate form of swearing for atheists? Why should anyone with no beliefs be required to swear on a bible? Does anyone know the procedure in such instances?


 
I think you can just "affirm" that you will tell the whole truth. Personally, I'd rather swear on the Constitution.

edit: actually here 
[broken link removed]
you actually have to pro-actively decide *not* to swear on a bible and notify the registrar that you will be affirming - yet more evidence of religious interference in our so-called republic!


----------



## BillK (17 Sep 2010)

Just looking at the mountain from our hotel window and would not want to be climbing it at all!


----------



## Graham_07 (17 Sep 2010)

What would a scientologist do I wonder ?


----------



## Marietta (17 Sep 2010)

Hi dereko1969,

I was shocked when I read this in the paper this morning, it was like going back to the 50's and the utter domination of the Catholic Church. I think it is a gross violation of human rights, I rather go to jail than be forced into complying with a religion I don't believe in. Surely this is a case for the European Court


----------



## Caveat (17 Sep 2010)

Swear to Ron?


----------



## mathepac (17 Sep 2010)

"I met him on a Monday at the top of the hill
I do Ron, Ron, Ron, I do Ron, Ron ...."


----------



## MrMan (18 Sep 2010)

Marietta said:


> Hi dereko1969,
> 
> I was shocked when I read this in the paper this morning, it was like going back to the 50's and the utter domination of the Catholic Church. I think it is a gross violation of human rights, I rather go to jail than be forced into complying with a religion I don't believe in. Surely this is a case for the European Court



You should organise a mass protest (pun intended). I'm hoping that you are having a laugh otherwise i just give up.


----------



## Thirsty (18 Sep 2010)

It's effectively a recommendation and not capable of being enforced - bit like the donation to the 'Court Poor Box'.  Judge wants some indication that the culprit is sorry for their actions and is prepared to show they are will to make amends.

Personally I think having offenders climb a mountain is an excellent idea.


----------



## onq (19 Sep 2010)

I note the Judge didn't require the defendant to be a Christian adopt the Christian religion, or indeed to profess or confess to any religion and he suggested he might say a few prayers, without stating to whom these should be addressed.

Most people believe in something they can pray to, even avowed atheists [their bank manager, perhaps] or Buddhists [their overself?] so all I see on this thread are a collection PC's getting their knickers in a twist because they are jumping at conclusions - read the judgement again, is my advice.

A walk up Croagh Patrick is good for one's outlook, regardless of creed or beliefs.

Its a mark of how far Ireland has come that we don't have RW religious fascists on this board wanting to prevent all atheists/protestants/jews/muslims/people from differnet faiths from going up Croagh Patrick because its "catholic".

We are an open, inclusive society, and we will allow convicted crimnials to go up Croagh Patrick if it'll do them some good.

After all, they'll need it more than the enlightened PC's who'll righteously complain about it.

ONQ.


----------



## zztop (20 Sep 2010)

Seamus hughes is a former FF TD for mayo....
So all the guards and the judges in Donegal
appear to be mayo people.


----------



## Latrade (20 Sep 2010)

onq said:


> I note the Judge didn't require the defendant to be a Christian adopt the Christian religion, or indeed to profess or confess to any religion and he suggested he might say a few prayers, without stating to whom these should be addressed.
> 
> Most people believe in something they can pray to, even avowed atheists [their bank manager, perhaps] or Buddhists [their overself?] so all I see on this thread are a collection PC's getting their knickers in a twist because they are jumping at conclusions - read the judgement again, is my advice.
> 
> ...


 
You're kind of missing the point. Most agree the inventive punishment was good, but the judge instructed the guy to complete the stations. A specific instuction to complete a Catholic ritual and to not only do them, but come back in a month and prove he did them. So it's not just a point of reflection, the guy has to complete the ritual and prove he did so. 

So climbing Croagh = good idea. Completing stations = going too far and beyond the court's remit. And that's it. This isn't Iran or any other theocrasy, he could have said climb it, reflect on what you've done and that'd be the end of it.


----------



## Firefly (20 Sep 2010)

I wonder will the same solicitor who represented him this time do so again when he falls and breaks his ankle climbing Craoker?


----------



## Deas (20 Sep 2010)

I think we should congratulate him.  I'm not religious myself and if I was punished with such, it would be punishment indeed.  It's not meant to be nice!  The jails are full enough.


----------



## Teatime (20 Sep 2010)

Croagh Patrick is a fabulous climb and I reckon every Irish person should do it. Not with bare feet and not on Reek Sunday - its mayhem that day.


----------



## onq (20 Sep 2010)

Latrade said:


> You're kind of missing the point. Most agree the inventive punishment was good, but the judge instructed the guy to complete the stations. A specific instuction to complete a Catholic ritual and to not only do them, but come back in a month and prove he did them. So it's not just a point of reflection, the guy has to complete the ritual and prove he did so.
> 
> So climbing Croagh = good idea. Completing stations = going too far and beyond the court's remit. And that's it. This isn't Iran or any other theocrasy, he could have said climb it, reflect on what you've done and that'd be the end of it.



Do you mean formally complete the stations of the cross as in saying the relevant prayers and the benedictions? I don't have a problem with that request. Its not as if he was asked to do it more than once. Its not more onerous than requiring him to see a psychiatrist for an evaluation of his mental state or signing on at his garda station every day for six months.

And if you're taking up the cudgels on behalf of this "infringement on this mans rights" as it might be styled, haw do you know he isn't a devout catholic or a practising catholic or a lapsed catholic who might benefit morally from a return to traditional values - he could be a defrocked priest for all you know?

Far too much secular preciousness in this country for my liking and I would not be surprised to find some of it comes from the same "mé-féiners" who looked the other way when Mannix Flynn used to tell us about the excesses of the priest in the reform schools - I used to be one.

Its almost like there is some pathological fear of saying "I did a bad thing", as if from childhood we should all be self-justifying liars to ourselves - I endorse the judges sentence - let us all reflect on the right and wrong of this and their relativity and context - let's open up the moral debate again after so many decades of secular and corporate ass-covering - let's make doing wrong things against people a SIN again, and lets point the finger a sinners. Let's see phalanxes of them marching up and down Croagh Patrick so we can relax and see them their punishment in this life - in public, not shut up in a jail cell with their plasm screen tv and mobile phone allowing them to run their criminal empire.

I'd love to see the Anglo executives being made run up Croagh Patrick in their smalls in the middle of a November gale - but some wallflower might think that an "unfair" punishment.

Don't let's be naive about this Latrade. The law is founded in moral compass and that is what religions professes to inform us about. They are intrinsicaly linked. Separating church and state was just another means for politicos to accrete power to themselves without being answerable to any representative of the electorate between elections.

Given what's going on in the rest of the world it might be good for this to become a standard punishment, with every former prime minister coming here for a book signing forced to do the stations on Croagh Patrick beforehand - they'd be in good company.

ONQ.


----------



## Latrade (20 Sep 2010)

onq said:


> Don't let's be naive about this Latrade. The law is founded in moral compass and that is what religious professes to inform us about. They are intrinsicaly linked. Separating church and state was just another means for politicos to accret power to themselves without being answerable to any representative of the electorate between elections. This is about freedome of politicians to act without censurem rather than freedom of individual members of the electorate to act, or be punished.
> 
> 
> ONQ.


 
I'm not taking up any cudgel, so get off that high horse. Before you get too hot under the collar and create too many straw men read again what's been said. We like the idea of the punishment, it's the specific court instruction that he must complete a specific catholic ritual that makes me uncomfortable. Not outraged, not vexed, uncomfortable. 

I'm not comfortable with a court giving a specific punishment based on any religion. Full stop. 

You're right the law is founded on a moral compass, but religion doesn't have the copyright on morals. The Pope may say it does, but it doesn't. civilisation is older than the bible, in order to be civilised there has always been morals and ethics. So no, there isn't any intrinsic link just because some books wrote down what was already considered crimes for millennia.

But that wasn't the issue or the complaint and shouldn't be used to muddy the waters. 

It isn't PC rubbish to be uncomfortable with a court punishing someone with a religious ritual. He may be a devout catholic (though christian morality to his Mayo brethren seemed to have failed him with the incident), so what? does that mean if he were muslim he'd have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca? Does that mean if he was an atheist he'd be imprisoned?


----------



## Complainer (20 Sep 2010)

onq said:


> Separating church and state was just another means for politicos to accrete power to themselves without being answerable to any representative of the electorate between elections.


Sorry, but this is rubbish. There are many, many good reasons to seperate church and state. The Church doesn't have a monopoly on morality.


----------



## pixiebean22 (20 Sep 2010)

Latrade said:


> I'm not taking up any cudgel, so get off that high horse. Before you get too hot under the collar and create too many straw men read again what's been said. We like the idea of the punishment, it's the specific court instruction that he must complete a specific catholic ritual that makes me uncomfortable. Not outraged, not vexed, uncomfortable.
> 
> I'm not comfortable with a court giving a specific punishment based on any religion. Full stop.
> 
> ...


 
+1 (if only there was a "round of applause" emoticon)


----------



## johnd (20 Sep 2010)

Latrade said:


> You're kind of missing the point. Most agree the inventive punishment was good, but the judge instructed the guy to complete the stations. A specific instuction to complete a Catholic ritual and to not only do them, but come back in a month and prove he did them. So it's not just a point of reflection, the guy has to complete the ritual and prove he did so.
> 
> So climbing Croagh = good idea. Completing stations = going too far and beyond the court's remit. And that's it. This isn't Iran or any other theocrasy, he could have said climb it, reflect on what you've done and that'd be the end of it.



I presume he assumed the guy was a Catholic since 98% of offenders in front of him are and similar numbers in our prison are Catholic too. Though what kind of Catholics they are in anyone's guess


----------



## dereko1969 (21 Sep 2010)

It doesn't matter whether he was Catholic or not, a State appointed Judge should never impose a religious sentence!


----------

