Justice denied

[ClubMan]

Defence Forces begins proceedings after Crotty conviction

The Defence Forces has begun internal proceedings in relation to a serving soldier who pleaded guilty to beating a woman unconscious in a random street attack for which he received a fully suspended sentence.

www.rte.ie

 

[johnwilliams]

do we have a military prison like the united states Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

 

[johnwilliams]

think if this guy stays in the army he is going to get a lot of toilet cleaning duty from now on

 

[joer]

think if this guy stays in the army he is going to get a lot of toilet cleaning duty from now on

And the judge should be made to join the army and hold his mop...

 

[cremeegg]

I don't have an issue with the superior attending to attest to conduct within the context of their service, and to gather information that can then be used in a subsequent disciplinary hearing.

That’s very reasonable, but is that actually what he was there for.

According to the press reports

Commandant Paul Togher, gave evidence that Crotty was an “exemplary”, “courteous”, “professional” and “disciplined” officer.

Now if it actually says in his army file that Crotty is an exemplary soldier that’s fair enough, but it smells of Togher being in court to support his fellow soldier.

 

[Leper]

That’s very reasonable, but is that actually what he was there for.

According to the press reports

Commandant Paul Togher, gave evidence that Crotty was an “exemplary”, “courteous”, “professional” and “disciplined” officer.

Now if it actually says in his army file that Crotty is an exemplary soldier that’s fair enough, but it smells of Togher being in court to support his fellow soldier.

1. The army officer Comdt Togher was in court (a) to give a character reference a nd (b) to hear first hand of any evidence that could lead to possible disciplinary action later, This is normal procedure in any government department or public body. The officer certainly was not there to give any support whatsoever to Private Crotty.
2. In the public service I have seen people suspended from duty and subsequently sacked for bringing the service into disrepute by being found guilty and the decision of the court.
3. Many on here have issues on the statements of character references. Perhaps some legal minded person on here can supply the reason(s) as to why character witnesses can address courts and why they are allowed to say whatever in the first place?
4. This case is dreadfully serious and all the consequences have yet to be played out. If the assault had not been captured on cctv there’s a good chance it wouldn’t have seen the light of day. The victim Natasha O’Brien deserves all the praise given for pursuing her action.

 

[cremeegg]

1. The army officer Comdt Togher was in court (a) to give a character reference a nd (b) to hear first hand of any evidence that could lead to possible disciplinary action later, This is normal procedure in any government department or public body. The officer certainly was not there to give any support whatsoever to Private Crotty.

Toner could have attended court to hear first hand what happened without appearing as a witness. So it is a bit disingenuous to mix that up with his role as a witness.

If his Crotty’s service record describes him as an exemplary soldier, then it is entirely proper for Toner to say so.

If however ‘exemplary soldier’ is not a phrase which appears in Crotty’s service record, then for Toner to appear as a witness and describe him as such is certainly an effort to provide support.

 

[Purple]

3. Many on here have issues on the statements of character references. Perhaps some legal minded person on here can supply the reason(s) as to why character witnesses can address courts and why they are allowed to say whatever in the first place?

They address the judge, not the jury. Their statement is made after conviction but prior to sentencing. I suppose the logic is that the judge is a member of the establishment and a "good sort", sorry, that the judge is a professional, and so can't be influenced by the mutterings of a commoner.

I've no problem with character witnesses but they should be open to cross examination by the defence team. I wonder what the Commandants answer would have been to the question "Having heard the evidence and the testimony of the witnesses do you still hold Mr. Crotty in high esteem and do you think it is appropriate that such an individual should serve as an officer in the Army?"

 

[mathepac]

"Having heard the evidence and the testimony of the witnesses do you still hold Mr. Crotty in high esteem and do you think it is appropriate that such an individual should serve as an officer in the Army?"

What is Crotty's rank? He is described above as an officer but other reports have him as a "private soldier". He can't be both.

Was there evidence about him having consumed alcohol or other drugs? Was he tested? If not why not?

If he in his sober senses, assaulted a vulnerable civilian to the extent stated, and accepted in evidence, then the only option open to the army is to dismiss him on grounds of unsuitability. If he was a drunken civilian, I believe he'd have been jailed. If he was a drunken soldier on the night in question, I see no reason to treat him differently.

A member of the Defence Forces? Not in his case if civilians can't safely share public space with him.

 

[mathepac]

Was there evidence about him having consumed alcohol or other drugs? Was he tested? If not why not?

Drinking in report in Post No 1.

 

[mathepac]

Soldiers should be held to a higher standard, they are trained by the state to fight and kill, but more importantly in the skills of deescalation and the avoidance of conflict where ever possible. The fact that an individual can exhibit restraint in the face or challenging training environment designed to provoke should mean more is expected.

It all comes to naught when the soldier is intoxicated.

 

[Purple]

It all comes to naught when the soldier is intoxicated.

Not really. I've been intoxicated plenty of times and I've never attacked anyone, verbally abused anyone or even got into a row.
The actions of someone when they are drunk is usually a reflection of their character as alcohol removes inhibitions thereby lessoning our concerns about consequences, and so we are more likely to show our true selves.

 

[odyssey06]

Not really. I've been intoxicated plenty of times and I've never attacked anyone, verbally abused anyone or even got into a row.
The actions of someone when they are drunk is usually a reflection of their character as alcohol removes inhibitions thereby lessoning our concerns about consequences, and so we are more likely to show our true selves.

exactly.

I read something to the effect that in ancient Greece and committing a crime while being drunk was actually seen as more incriminating, and punished accordingly, once for loss of control, once for the act itself.

 

[mathepac]

The old "in vino veritas" argument, which is nonsense. Some people should never drink or become intoxicated by other means. The very term gives a hint as to what is going on - under the influence of a toxic substance, the body's systems, mental and physical, react in abnormal and unpredictable ways to the presence of the intoxicant.

 

[Leper]

1. I have read the newspaper article highlighted in the first post on this thread. It was gruesome reading on many issues. I wish Ms OBrien only the best in her recovery.
2. What do you think is the proper sentence for Pte. Crotty?
3. Were there other people involved in the attack? If so, will they be charged? Did anybody present come to Ms OBrien’s aid?
4. I attend various courts from time to time as a mere observer. The only people I see being prosecuted for assault are from the poor. No doubt, there are people from the rich community who have assaulted somebody, but these seem never to see the light of day in court. Why is this? There is even a thread on AAM about a case where only the legal representative of the defendant is named on the newspaper report. No reason was given, of course.
5. What about Zero Tolerance? Should there be a mandatory custodial sentence for all assaults?
6. A lone female Garda was assaulted near Cork a few years ago. Onlookers were too busy taking videos on their mobile phones rather than coming to her aid.
7. All serious assaults should be treated fairly by our system. It appears only some are prosecuted.

 

[cremeegg]

2. What do you think is the proper sentence for Pte. Crotty?

Two years in jail might be appropriate.

The fact that judge took into consideration that he might loose his job is particularly galling. Do the unemployed deserve harsher sentences.

 

[Knuttell]

5 years, serve every day. Sentencing is a joke in this country.

Need to get rid of poor boxes

Need to get rid of character references

Build 5 or 6 more prisons

Need proper Judges who are Dickensian in their approach to crime and punishment

 

[Purple]

5 years, serve every day. Sentencing is a joke in this country.

Need to get rid of poor boxes

Need to get rid of character references

Build 5 or 6 more prisons

Need proper Judges who are Dickensian in their approach to crime and punishment

Most sentences are appropriate and long sentences do not act as a deterrent.
We certainly need more prisons, if only to alleviate the terrible over crowding in the prisons we have now, but the last thing we need are Dickensian judges or American style sentencing.
The primary goal of the justice and prison system is to make society safer. Brutalising people doesn't make society safer.

 

[Knuttell]

Long sentences do keep them out of the way of decent law abiding citizens though.

Life sentence should mean exactly that, if the crime is abhorrent by societal standards then you are not fit to partake in decent society.

I'm not convinced that murderers get out at circa 12 years served is fair on either the victim or their families.

I'm no advocate for criminals (reformed or not) and have no sympathy for them. I'll save it for the victims.

If it were down to me, I'd have all murderers rapists and paedophiles hanged. My only reservation is fear that an innocent person would die.

 

[Purple]

Long sentences do keep them out of the way of decent law abiding citizens though.

Life sentence should mean exactly that, if the crime is abhorrent by societal standards then you are not fit to partake in decent society.

I'm not convinced that murderers get out at circa 12 years served is fair on either the victim or their families.

I'm no advocate for criminals (reformed or not) and have no sympathy for them. I'll save it for the victims.

If it were down to me, I'd have all murderers rapists and paedophiles hanged. My only reservation is fear that an innocent person would die.

So you would hang a man who, on the night of his 18th birthday, has consensual sex with his 16 years, 11 months and 29 days old girlfriend?
Legally he's a rapist and a paedophile.

What about someone who murders the person who kidnapped, raped and murders their child? Would you hang them?

Most crime is committed by people who have very difficult and traumatic childhoods and suffer from addiction and/or mental health issues.
In that group you also have addicts who are forced to commit crimes because of drug debts.

Plenty of crime is also committed by people who should know better and have had none of those issues. I have sympathy for the former but none for the latter.