boards.ie Mobile
Page 30 of 30
« First < 20282930
After Hours>Harsh sentence
GreeBo 21:48 12-02-2019 (1 Thanks)
Originally Posted by One eyed Jack:
That’s part of it, plus the fact that even after being found guilty after putting everyone through a trial, he still seemed to refuse to acknowledge he’d done anything wrong, leaving the Judge with not much choice in passing the sentence they did.

Now, if that were most other people in similar circumstances where someone objected to their private parts being touched, we’d apologise and that’d likely be the end of it, because we’d know we made a bad call. This fella doesn’t seem to understand what he did was wrong still, and I know it might not bother you if someone had touched your junk and then claimed they didn’t do anything wrong, but surely you can see how it would bother someone else?
I guessthe problem is we don't know what went on afterwards. I postedit earlier in the thread but perhaps he did apologise and yet the victim was labelling him as a sex pest up and down the town. In that instance i can see why the accused might not be so contrite.
This is his sister dragging him through the public courts remember.
[Quote] [Thank]
Dante7 21:49 12-02-2019 (1 Thanks)
Originally Posted by batgoat:
Question, why do you keep referring to the 2 and a half year sentence? He will face likely less than a year.... Seems pretty fair given his lack of remorse and the impact upon the victim, it may also actually result in him considering the impact upon the victim.
Because his sentence was two and a half years. 18 months were suspended, but the actual sentence is two and a half years and is relevant to the debate about whether it was harsh.
[Quote] [Thank]
Dante7 21:50 12-02-2019
Originally Posted by GreeBo:
I guessthe problem is we don't know what went on afterwards. I postedit earlier in the thread but perhaps he did apologise and yet the victim was labelling him as a sex pest up and down the town. In that instance i can see why the accused might not be so contrite.
This is his sister dragging him through the public courts remember.
Sister? Wtf?
[Quote] [Thank]
GreeBo 21:56 12-02-2019
Originally Posted by Dante7:
Sister? Wtf?
“I trusted you like a brother."
Works both ways.
[Quote] [Thank]
batgoat 21:58 12-02-2019 (1 Thanks)
Originally Posted by GreeBo:
probably bee cause that wad the sentence he received?
The majority of his sentence was suspended. So the time he is actually due to serve would seem far more relevant. The poster has happily pointed out when other sentences were suspended...(within this thread) So it would seem the shock value is what he's aiming for.

The man was found to be guilty, showed no remorse and has significantly impacted the well being of another via a crime. That is what he was sentence for. It would likely have been a shorter sentence if he showed an ounce of remorse.

Originally Posted by Dante7:
Because his sentence was two and a half years. 18 months were suspended, but the actual sentence is two and a half years and is relevant to the debate about whether it was harsh.
But happy to point out when a sentence is suspended when it suits....

Originally Posted by Dante7:
I hope you are correct in that the reporting of this case is incomplete. Because, as presented it does seem harsh and would exhibit a disparity among the judiciary in how justice is administered.
Rape a child -two and a half years.
Stab someone - suspended sentence
Break into a house and beat them - Eighteen months
Touch someone's vagina - two and a half years.

[Quote] [Thank]
Dante7 21:59 12-02-2019 (1 Thanks)
Originally Posted by GreeBo:
“I trusted you like a brother."
Works both ways.
Ah! I thought for a minute there was some extraordinary angle to the case which would help explain it further. I'd love to see the full court transcripts. I just can't help but think that there has to be more going on here.
[Quote] [Thank]
GreeBo 22:01 12-02-2019
Originally Posted by batgoat:
The majority of his sentence was suspended. So the time he is actually due to serve would seem far more relevant. The poster has happily pointed out when other sentences were suspended...(within this thread) So it would seem the shock value is what he's aiming for.

The man was found to be guilty, showed no remorse and has significantly impacted the well being of another via a crime. That is what he was sentence for. It would likely have been a shorter sentence if he showed an ounce of remorse.
Your very first sentence answers your own question. The sentence is the sentence.
[Quote] [Thank]
One eyed Jack 22:35 12-02-2019
Originally Posted by GreeBo:
I guessthe problem is we don't know what went on afterwards. I postedit earlier in the thread but perhaps he did apologise and yet the victim was labelling him as a sex pest up and down the town. In that instance i can see why the accused might not be so contrite.
This is his sister dragging him through the public courts remember.

I get what you’re saying, and it’s entirely plausible - brazen it out in front of his family and friends, brazen it out in the community, but when shìt gets serious and he tries to brazen it out in front of a Judge after being found guilty? That’s just begging for the book to be thrown at him like.

I get what you mean too about it being his sister dragging him through the courts, but then it goes back to if she regarded him like a brother, naturally she expects that if he makes a mistake, he understands what he did was wrong. He doesn’t appear to think there was anything wrong with what he did, so either he’s not the sharpest pencil in the box, or he’s just so brazen that he genuinely thinks there was nothing wrong with what he did.
[Quote] [Thank]
batgoat 22:39 12-02-2019 (1 Thanks)
Originally Posted by One eyed Jack:
I get what you’re saying, and it’s entirely plausible - brazen it out in front of his family and friends, brazen it out in the community, but when shìt gets serious and he tries to brazen it out in front of a Judge after being found guilty? That’s just begging for the book to be thrown at him like.

I get what you mean too about it being his sister dragging him through the courts, but then it goes back to if she regarded him like a brother, naturally she expects that if he makes a mistake, he understands what he did was wrong. He doesn’t appear to think there was anything wrong with what he did, so either he’s not the sharpest pencil in the box, or he’s just so brazen that he genuinely thinks there was nothing wrong with what he did.
Also that sort of brazen means they could knowingly do it and not see fault with it tbh.
[Quote] [Thank]
GreeBo 22:53 12-02-2019 (1 Thanks)
Originally Posted by One eyed Jack:
I get what you’re saying, and it’s entirely plausible - brazen it out in front of his family and friends, brazen it out in the community, but when shìt gets serious and he tries to brazen it out in front of a Judge after being found guilty? That’s just begging for the book to be thrown at him like.

I get what you mean too about it being his sister dragging him through the courts, but then it goes back to if she regarded him like a brother, naturally she expects that if he makes a mistake, he understands what he did was wrong. He doesn’t appear to think there was anything wrong with what he did, so either he’s not the sharpest pencil in the box, or he’s just so brazen that he genuinely thinks there was nothing wrong with what he did.
I think you misunderstood my point completely!

I'm not saying he brazens it out, I'm saying he apologises profusely for his honest mistake but she is telling any one who will listen the he is some pervert who took advantage and abused her, culminating in taking him to court.
In that scenario in going to find it hard to appear contrite.
[Quote] [Thank]
One eyed Jack 23:19 12-02-2019
Originally Posted by GreeBo:
I think you misunderstood my point completely!

I'm not saying he brazens it out, I'm saying he apologises profusely for his honest mistake but she is telling any one who will listen the he is some pervert who took advantage and abused her, culminating in taking him to court.
In that scenario in going to find it hard to appear contrite.

I get your point, that’s why I said it’s entirely plausible that what you’re suggesting could have happened, but that wouldn’t explain why he would still maintain that he didn’t do anything wrong in three instances - when he’s appearing before the investigating officers, when he’s appearing in court before a jury, and finally of course at the sentencing hearing. He doesn’t have to appear contrite towards someone who is accusing him of all sorts, the problem is that he still maintains after being found guilty that he doesn’t agree he is guilty of committing an offence.

A jury already found him guilty, his innocence is no longer in question, what matters at a sentencing hearing is whether or not he is prepared to acknowledge his guilt, and he wasn’t. The best the judge could come up with as mitigating factors in suspending part of his sentence are his previous good character and employment history. That’s a Judge trying their best to be fair in spite of what appears to be yer mans best efforts to attract a much more severe sentence.
[Quote] [Thank]
AllForIt 00:34 13-02-2019
Originally Posted by One eyed Jack:
A jury already found him guilty, his innocence is no longer in question, what matters at a sentencing hearing is whether or not he is prepared to acknowledge his guilt, and he wasn’t. The best the judge could come up with as mitigating factors in suspending part of his sentence are his previous good character and employment history. That’s a Judge trying their best to be fair in spite of what appears to be yer mans best efforts to attract a much more severe sentence.
Maybe what he doesn't want to acknowledge is not whether he is guilty but that his actions warranted being a crime in the first place. That's what is sounds like to me.

Edit: In case I was taken up wrong, what he did was wrong no doubt. I'm just trying guess his point of view.
[Quote] [Thank]
GreeBo 07:46 13-02-2019 (1 Thanks)
Originally Posted by One eyed Jack:
I get your point, that’s why I said it’s entirely plausible that what you’re suggesting could have happened, but that wouldn’t explain why he would still maintain that he didn’t do anything wrong in three instances - when he’s appearing before the investigating officers, when he’s appearing in court before a jury, and finally of course at the sentencing hearing. He doesn’t have to appear contrite towards someone who is accusing him of all sorts, the problem is that he still maintains after being found guilty that he doesn’t agree he is guilty of committing an offence.
I see a difference between someone denying they sexually assaulted someone but freely admitting to the facts of what happened on the night in question, which from my reading of the report is what happened here.

Put it another way, would you expect a different sentence for someone who denies the event took place at all but has the same "good character"?
The accused could have denied the entire event and then its a "he said-she said" as there were no other witnesses. But he didnt, he described exactly what happened and why and what his response was. For that to get the same sentence as the person who knowingly assaults someone to me is indicative of something wrong with the system.
[Quote] [Thank]
Page 30 of 30
« First < 20282930


Back to Forum
Google Analytics

Share Tweet