Should judges be sacked...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

z104

Guest
You often hear that people are released or given parole after their 36th, 20th,19th,58th conviction, should judges be sacked for not giving proper sentences to repeat offenders.

I personally think they are keeping the door revolving to keep their mates and themselves in a job.

don't even get me started on concurrent sentences.

All opinions welcome.
 
If a judge uses his influence to interfere with the outcome of a trial (as did a famous judge - now in the papers again for a nobler reason) then his action should be deemed as serious as nobbling a jury/intimidating a witness. Resigning (while still maintaining his innocence) should be a non runner. Mountjoy would stop this crime. And to guarantee his safety, solitary confinement.
 
I don't think judges are involved in the decision to parole a prisoner. That's down to the prison service afaik.
 
No recollection of a High Court judge some years back ......... after a fatal accident near Tallagh???
 
Judges know the facts.
The person on the street reading the facts from some outraged journalist in a tabloid doesn't.
So unless you've sat in the court for every single second of the trial do you know better?

For high profile cases you often have people screaming murder. But if you've a basic knowledge of the law you'd know it couldn't possibly be murder, just manslaughter at best.
Ok the result was the same and someone died but you can't cry murder when it wasn't.
There have been cases when the media went way overboard here. And this is what judges have to deal with.

If judges could be easily sacked then they how are they supposed to give a fair sentance to someone who have already been convicted in "trial by media"

I do agree, what's with people racking up 30 plus convictions but the system is there for a reason.

The OP asked for all opinions, that's just mine
 
Last edited:
"But does he still get a full pension. "

I don't actually know; But what would you suggest as the alternative? That he resume practicing law? And if you are going to take this line, would you extend it to all state sector employees who engage in illegal acts? The blue flu? wildcat strikes at Dublin Airport? Or is it just those who have been tried by the media that should be thrown to the wolves?
 
Are you insinuating that most people get found out doing their first bit of chicanery?
Overlapped with MOB. This was ntended for Ubi.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you insinuating that most people get found out doing their first bit of chicanery?
Overlapped with MOB. This was ntended for Ubi.

I'm insinuating nothing. Are you insinuating that everyone who gets caught for a minor misdemeanour is really guilty of a major crime? Thank heavens you're not a judge :)
 
Hey listen Ubi. Gotta leave to earn a crust. Perhaps I was too harsh on this poor fellow (who only jumped after being told he would be pushed - from a great height). Perhaps I am the weakest legal link. Goodbye!:);):D
 
Why shouldn't he? In what other job does one lose one's job AND one's pension for one mistake? Would you like this to happen to you?


I was asking does he continue to get a full pension. Which was not answered only quiestioned. As far as i am concerned if a public servent breaks the law they should no longer be entiteld to the public sector pension increases each year. They should obviously retain their benefits paid and thats it.
 
Last edited:
Or maybe have their pension stopped when they break their contracts. To me a contract would be contingent on the person fulfilling his/her duties in a rightful way.
 
Its worth noting that Judge O'Flaherty (1) resigned voluntarily; and (2) was never tried nor convicted of any crime in relation to the circumstances which led to his resignation, and as such any attempt to deprive him of his pension or other entitlements on the basis of stated wrongdoing would be fruitless. In other words, he has the same rights as the rest of us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top