You don't have to be 100% - just beyond reasonable doubt AFAIK.
I mean that the DPP should have the courage to go with the greater charge if he/she thinks that it may stick.
I would have been surprised if a jury didn't convict Sean Keogh of murder, but we'll never know.
Correct and he was then tried on the assault charges, so it seems the jury did its very difficult job. No-one has explained yet how mandatory sentencing would have changed any of these outcomes.... Sean Keogh was found not guilty of murder by the Jury as far as I know. Could be wrong on that though.
Correct and he was then tried on the assault charges, so it seems the jury did its very difficult job. No-one has explained yet how mandatory sentencing would have changed any of these outcomes.
Is this a Charlie McCreevy-type back-of-the-envelope cost benefit analysis? Please let's not base public policy on this kind of stuff any more. It has got is into serious messes in the past. If you want to make an arguement about cost/benefits, let's see some real serious data.Complete misrepresentation to say that locking people up for longer will lead to an increase in taxes. Plus, you're not taking into account the money that will be saved from processing repaet offenders through the judicial system and cost that criminal activity causes businesses and individuals i.e. robbery, vandalism, public order etc.
Prison officers are assuaulted on a regular basis, about three assaults each week last year. It mightened get much press coverage, but it does still hapen.That's not the point.
The original poster stated that he wouldn't care if murderers and rapists were segregated from other prisoners and you replied that this didn't work because Anthony Campbell & Shane Geoghegan were murdered on the outside.
As regards prison staff, when was the last time an Irish prison officer was murdered inside one of our prisons.
Again, a completely unrelated incident. How is the murder of Shane Geoghan related to increased mandatory prison sentences. On the contrary, it is more likely that if we had mandatory sentencing Shane Geoghan would still be alive.
I obviously mis-understood the whole point of the letting off steam forum on askaboutmoney. I thought it was where people could go vent about various topics However, it seems like it is where Government policy is formulated so I would ask anyone who is not an expert on the topic being discussed to refrain from offering any sort of opinion as it might be taken seriously and entered into law.
As the man in question was found not guilty, it would have made no difference whether he was locked up or not. The finding of the jury, who heard all the evidence formally presented in court and who listened to the judge's input, was that he didn't do it.... Sean Keogh would have been in prison at the time of the murder on the basis of his 75 prior convictions. ...
As the man in question was found not guilty, it would have made no difference whether he was locked up or not. The finding of the jury, who heard all the evidence formally presented in court and who listened to the judge's input, was that he didn't do it.
Is this a Charlie McCreevy-type back-of-the-envelope cost benefit analysis? Please let's not base public policy on this kind of stuff any more. It has got is into serious messes in the past. If you want to make an arguement about cost/benefits, let's see some real serious data.
The theory is fine. Are we as a society prepared for the increased taxes arising from locking people up and throwing away the key?
They tried that approach when the Dublin & Limerick gangs were picking each other off. Ah sure as long as they are shooting each other, it doesn't really matter. It didn't work out too well for Anthony Campbell and Shane Geoghan.
I've never tried to prevent discussion here on AAM. I just want to challenge the view that seems to think the country should be ruled by the bar-stool experts here on AAM. Let's face it, posters here don't have the basic facts right on the cases they are argueing. They weren't in court to hear everything that the jury heard. But they still feel empowered to pronounce their verdict based on the couple of press reports that they read. By all means, let the discussion continue, but let's not kid ourselves that it is anything more than pub talk.
It seems you have additional information that wasn't available to the Guards or the DPP and that wasn't presented to the jury in order to guide their decision-making. Maybe you could post it here in order to clarify how you conclude that the prior incarceration of someone found not guilty of a crime could have prevented the crime in question.It does make a difference because he would have been in prison and Pawel Kalite may still be alive ...
Smart guys like O'Reilly, O'Brien, Maxwell and Murdoch pay out large sums of money because they know that the means of reportage are very, very important. These guys are more powerful that most politicians, because they control the means of reportage.The actual means of reportage are irrelevant.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Hang on a second complainer, it was you who raised the issue of cost and increased taxes...
It is also uniformed imply that people who's opinion is different to yours is based upon ignorance, as unless we are employed by the courts service or the law enforcement , we can only base our opinions upon what the courts actually decide.
It seems you have additional information that wasn't available to the Guards or the DPP and that wasn't presented to the jury in order to guide their decision-making. Maybe you could post it here in order to clarify how you conclude that the prior incarceration of someone found not guilty of a crime could have prevented the crime in question.
It seems you have additional information that wasn't available to the Guards or the DPP and that wasn't presented to the jury in order to guide their decision-making. Maybe you could post it here in order to clarify how you conclude that the prior incarceration of someone found not guilty of a crime could have prevented the crime in question.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think the judge's opinion and commentary after the jury had delivered its verdict constitutes evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and your "which seems to imply" rider is hardly good enough as evidence either.... “A decision was made, which I’m convinced was to the effect in Seán Keogh’s mind to get the men involved,”
which seems to imply that Keogh was a major factor in getting Curran involved in the incident ...
The jury decided he didn't participate in murder, hence its verdict. You seem to know better so as I asked before, what additional information do you have?... he would have been unable to participate in the murder as he could not be in two places at the one time.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think the judge's opinion and commentary after the jury had delivered its verdict constitutes evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and your "which seems to imply" rider is hardly good enough as evidence either.
The jury decided he didn't participate in murder, hence its verdict. You seem to know better so as I asked before, what additional information do you have?
Have no idea what the solution is though.......
Has that worked anywhere else? Presumably the vacuum in criminal circles just gets filled up by younger (and more reckless, more violent) up and coming criminas.Building bigger jails and filling them with criminals for the rest of the living days.
Prisons are there to protect the law abiding public from criminals.
Has that worked anywhere else? Presumably the vacuum in criminal circles just gets filled up by younger (and more reckless, more violent) up and coming criminas.