Sentencing for 'crimes'.

R

redbhoy

Registered User
Messages
394
Ive complained on here before about the lenient sentencing some criminals get or sometimes what they dont get, and Ive another gripe today!

Man defrauds insurance companies gets 4 years
[broken link removed],

the same sentence as someone who took a life in Cork who was sentenced fairly recently.

Is Life so cheap?

Or is it that the elite don't want little upstarts messing with their status quo at the top?
 
I really feel that it is easy to complain about lenient sentences in individual sentences but who decides how long someone should get if not a qualified judge. THat is their job and they are qualified to give these sentences. How can we say a sentence is lenient without having all the facts and be qualified in Irish Law and how it applies? Don't see that there should be any correlation between manslaughter and fraud?
 
Farmer Nally "only" got 6 years for the deliberate killing (judged to be manslaughter to the surprise of many people) of John Ward. John Gilligan got multiple 28 year sentences (reduced on appeal to a mere 20!) for trafficking (admittedly huge amounts of) hash. As fobs says none of these sentences can really be compared without reviewing all of the evidence and details of the cases, case law, precedent, mandatory and discretionary sentencing guidelines etc.
 
I like the bit
Judge Delahunt said she was also taking into account the apparent ease with which he was able to carry out his activities without much checking from the financial institutions.
Click to expand...


So if the financial institutions had had more stringent checks would his sentence have been longer?


 
In China, a number of the bigwigs in a large quoted company were found guilty of fraud & they were shot!

In the US similar bigwig got 25 yrs with no parole while some woman killed loads of people & only got 15 yrs (sorry for lack of actual details) the Bigwig appealed the sentance based on this & his sentance was reduced!
 
I just wonder do judges live in the same world or some parallel place. last week in cork a convicted criminal appealed his sentence of 15 years for drug dealing because the guard mentioned in court during his trial that 'he was known to the Gardai' this apparantly was enough of a distraction to distort justice in the eyes of the appeal judges. that fact that the convict is currently serving 15 years for a different case is apparantly not cause for the gardai or prosecution to state in court that he 'is known to the gardai. Judges are not to blame for murder, drug dealing, or other criminal activities but they sure are not a deterrent.
 
Each case must be tried on its own merits and the evidence presented. As I understand it unless the defence (for whatever reason) mention prior convictions or history of dealings with the Gardai etc. then the prosecution cannot mention it due to the danger of prejudicing the outcome. This sounds fair enough to me. The accused is innocent until proven guilty based on the evidence and anything that might cause people (in particular the jury) to prejudge the case should not be allowed. If it is deliberately or inadvertently then there may well be valid grounds for an defence appeal. It doesn't matter if the defendent is a scumbag or previously accused or convicted criminal. Each case should stand on its own merits.
 
cuchulainn said:
I just wonder do judges live in the same world or some parallel place.
Click to expand...

I think they do.

The quicker people realise that the most precious thing is Life, the better for all of us.
Money can't buy you everything.
 
There was a case a couple of years ago in Dublin where the judge gave a just convicted rapist a lenient sentence as he took into account the rapist's "consideration for his victim in wearing a condom". Bizarre!
 
Clubman, I cannot manage to get the quote to run in my reply but just to correct something in one of your posts. You say the accused is innocent until proven guilty. He/she is not. He/she is "presumed" innocent until proven otherwise. This is different and if someone commits a crime they are guilty regardless of what the courts decide. Lots of cases get thrown out of our courts on ridiculous technicalities - this doesn't mean that innocent people were in the dock in the first place.
 
Leo said:
There was a case a couple of years ago in Dublin where the judge gave a just convicted rapist a lenient sentence as he took into account the rapist's "consideration for his victim in wearing a condom". Bizarre!
Click to expand...
Can you point to specific reporting or court reports on that case?

brokeparent - point taken about the semantics. I am not a lawyer! :eek:
 
I can't see where that is implied in the snippet above to be honest.
Click to expand...
What I got from that was that if the defendant had to be more devious in his deception to get round more stringent checks by the companies then the judge would have been harder on him. Not in the least detracting from his crime but other fraud cases like (aib/ruznak) and (leeson/bearings bank) highlighted the lack of checks by financial institutions to such a level that there was a degree of blame apportioned to the companies themselves.
Does this warrant a softer sentence though?
 
ClubMan said:
Can you point to specific reporting or court reports on that case?
Click to expand...

Afraid a quick search on the indo archive returned too many hits to trawl through them all, it did cause a fuss on Joe Duffy / Marion Finucane at the time. The search did turn up these though:

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=475732&issue_id=4900
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=237580&issue_id=2535
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1329139&issue_id=12012 (http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1329139&issue_id=12012)
 
None of those reports mention this:
Leo said:
There was a case a couple of years ago in Dublin where the judge gave a just convicted rapist a lenient sentence as he took into account the rapist's "consideration for his victim in wearing a condom". Bizarre!
Click to expand...
and they all deal with different cases.
 
Nally got 6 years for killing Ward, he admitted to it from the start and co-operated with the police, O'Donaghue got 4 years for killing Robert Holahan and he hid the body which lead to one of the biggest searches in the country, fecked with the childs mothers head and generally allowed the suffering of a number of people go on for about a week. Some justice....
 
The courts are there to decide if an accused person is guilty and punish them if they are. They are not there to somehow balance the scales of grief and suffering.
I think that we are well served by our Judges and while I think that sentences are about right I have a problem with the proportion of the sentences actually served.
I also have a problem with the abysmal conditions in Mountjoy and the lack of real educational and drug rehab services in prisons.
 
Leo said:
There was a case a couple of years ago in Dublin where the judge gave a just convicted rapist a lenient sentence as he took into account the rapist's "consideration for his victim in wearing a condom". Bizarre!
Click to expand...

I remember this a few years ago too

I also remember the evening hystricals headline "concerned rapists wore condom"

[broken link removed]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top