What were the extenuating circumstances pleaded for that one? Sorry for your lose.

Yea and p
On late night drinking

Your dead right. Crime must be addressed at grassroots level by Gardai with the backing of judges.

Obviously, saying this isn’t going to make me any friends around here, but what the hell. I’m a sucker for punishment.

First problem here is the tacit assumption that longer jail terms will mean less violent crime. This doesn’t follow. Easiest example to cite is the United States – 743 per 100,000 in jail, 1 in 33 either in jail or on probation supervision. That’s an imprisonment rate 7 or 8 times higher than ours.

So they must have less violent crime, you’d think? Nope, they’ve got roughly 10 times as much violent crime as we do.

Second, people seem to think that non-custodial sentences are “lenient” or “getting away with it”, when in fact they’re more effective in preventing reoffending – the old line about prison being “an expensive way of making bad people worse”. Don’t get me wrong, prison has its place, but it should be used only as a last resort, otherwise it causes more harm than good.

Third, judges aren’t actually as lenient as people think – in my experience, having attended a fair number of criminal trials, they aren’t lenient at all. It’s quite common worldwide for the public to think that sentencing is lenient, which often comes down to a lack of information about the criminal justice system and how cases are reported. For example, one Canadian study found that people asked to come up with a sentence based on real case reports took more punitive views after reading a short summary, but tended to come out with roughly the same verdict as the judge when they had more or less the same information as he had.

For sure, there are serious problems in the criminal justice system, but the kneejerk “lock ‘em up and throw away the key” stuff isn’t going to solve them.

Mike you got that right man.

unless one knows the why, the what and the relationship between the victim and the perb., how can any one have a comment that makes sense ?
loss of life is always sad but one needs the background before rational comment can be made.

What if it was in self defense?

What if the guy had a hammer and he was going to hit a friend of yours, maybe your spouse, in the head to kill them and you used whatever you had at hand to stop them?
What if theyed broken into your house and were about to walk into your kids bedroom? Is it still always life?

And instead of cutting funds to respite centers and the elderly, cut the free legal aid cahs cow.

re Ronan
every one should have legal rep., otherwise we might as well ‘just hang em high’ back to the Wild West !!
why is every one so reactive and emotional , what happened to logic ?

Patricia, why are social parasites entitled to free legal aid? While funding gets cut everywhere else?

Seeing as you brought up logic, that is a fairly logical question.

I wouldn’t qualify for legal aid. Yet, if I were charged with a crime, the costs would cripple me financially, even if a jury found me not guilty. Maybe we need a system where guilty people are forced to pay when convicted and innocent people are refunded.

No more free legal aid? And what happens to cases where someone’s accused of doing something they didn’t do but they don’t have money to defend themselves? So you want to say your guilt is totally commensurate to your financial ability to defend yourself. Lots of money? Maybe not guilty. No money at all? Oh, they’re going down. Nice.

@Ronan because if you put people before a court with no legal representation you’d have a lot more innocent people in jail. It’s possible to deal with the issue without needing to become a police state. Justice has been seen to be for sale enough of late – what you’re suggesting would lead to an obvious scenario where those without money for a defence would be essentially convicted by default.

I agree we’ve an issue that needs to be addressed but eroding or abolishing fundamental rights won’t make one jot of a difference to the crime rates – in all likelihood it will make them worse.

Is that right lenore? If you read what I said, I said if you have three previous convictions, you are on your own after that. I hardly would consider anyone innocent would be before the court again for assault or burglary after that. Jesus, softly softly has these skobies running around the place with no fear of consequenses for their bolloxology.

A lot to be said for Sharia Law. They nail you so hard for the small stuff that you never progress to the big stuff. No career criminals in the Arab Emirates !

The three strikes rubbish has people doing fifteen year stretches for the equivalent of parking on a double yellow line.

In reality, usually unless there’s serious mitigating circumstances the law will had down substantial sentences for murder. We need to mirror that with suitable sentences for other non-fatal assaults however the usual hang ‘em high crowd of morons on this and other topics screeching for some kind of Irish sharia law need to get a grip. We’re not going to be executing people in Kilmanham again and we’re not setting up a US-style justice system either.

The sharia law comment is unbelievably cretinous.

There already is a 3 strike approach to the law but it is only for the same offence AFAIK. For instance if you get caught driving with no tax you get a fine the first time, a larger fine the second time and jail the third time. If you got caught for a public order offence you would still only get a fine even though you had 2 previous convictions for no tax. I think that’s how it works anyway although that’s not much use when some guy with 30+ “minor” convictions goes out and kills someone. If you have that amount of convictions even for unrelated offences you should be locked up at some point because you clearly have an issue being part of a civilized society.

While the US 3 strikes rule has issues that doesn’t mean the concept is wrong. Continuous repeat offenders need to be removed from society for a longer period of time. I believe we should develop our own version here to tackle these repeat offenders. There was a girl raped and murdered here a few years ago by a man with 132 previous convictions. He should never have been walking the streets.

Agreed, mike. The US system has put all kinds of people in prison who shouldn’t be there at all however 132 previous convictions and still walking about is outrageous. There’s definitely a balance to be found however we’re a long way from the kind of reasoned, non-hysterical debate that’s needed to bring that about.

Just so we’re all clear on the US three strikes system – someone in their teens or early twenties can find themselves doing ten or fifteen years for two minor marijuana possession charges and a small theft. So if you double park, dodge the odd bill, have driven a car after two pints or not paid your TV licence you need to think twice about mouthing off regarding three strikes.

get a grip will ya!!

Sharia Law encourages murder and promotes barbarism; it does the opposite when it comes to crime and promotes superiority. Beheading, mutilating, and stoning people to death is ok. Blasphemy against the “Prophet” is the ultimate “evil”. Makes perfect sense.

Tony since the man hasn’t been identified yet it is probably important to know the correct area is was found in! The article could even put Kilbarrack/Donaghmede since they are always mixed up!

Donaghmedes not a kip tony. The areas a lot better than it used to be. Few bad apples and it gets dragged down. I’m from there myself and the vast majority of people are great.

may run a bit deeper than that a lot of knives are carried out of fear and for protection , and Gardai have the power to search anyone under existing laws

…unfortunately!

like what!

What does it say? This int a book of condolences, and offering kinds words pointlessly to other readers isn’t a prerequisite to airing your opinion on the story. If you meet the family, offer them your condolences.

What does it say? This isn’t a book of condolences, and offering kinds words pointlessly to other readers isn’t a prerequisite to airing your opinion on the story. If you meet the family, offer them your condolences.

Like you ,what is it ? GoGo99 ? I too am making an observation and entitled to make my fair comment .

I made a relevant comment at the top of the story. You made a comment which was simply chastising anyone who didn’t offer condolences, hence my commenting on your foolish comment.

In your opinion GoGo99. That is all it is. Hardly releveant when a boys life has been taken ,
”Unfortunately in the real world, away from mob mentality and knee jerk reaction, every case has to be judged on its own specifics, and mitigating circumstances taken into account.”
This comment ?
Huh ! Yeah right .
As I said I am entitled to express myself too .
Condolences and sorrow at the death of a 20 year old boy.
If you do not like my comment – report it !

Eileen, remove the twist from your knickers! Your comment is not offensive and worthy of reporting, just stupid! Have a nice day, you’ve made me smile!

The fact that I offered condolences to the family of a young lad who was probably murdered has made you smile? I am afraid your comment says a lot more about you than it does about me . Horrid person. Not to mention the vulgarity of your comment !

Ridiculous comment!!!!

Sorry St Donaghs is Donaghmede Dublin 13, not Kilbarrack