My lord what an incredibly dull post.
Key point in bold above. He’s been found guilty of no such thing.
The therapy thing is a bit of a white elephant tbh. If he had therapy, would you think ah sure that’s grand, he’s probably better now?
legislation was changed one year into his sentance, but because he was already in prison at the time, they say they can not enforce the new jurasticions on him. personally, I think that is a load of shite.
No, but I would think that at least he has taken responsibility for his actions and wants to change at least.
Of course he wasn’t found guilty of any such crimes, and I am engaging in suspicion, but this is a measure of the person that we could be dealing with. Also given the heinous natue of his crime, 10 and a half years is not long enough.
One of the biggest digraces in Ireland in recent years was the granting of day release to Thomas Nolan over in Galway, despite him exposing himself to kids on another day release. He went on to bludgeon some poor retired school teacher to death and went back to prison again.
Tinnion, you’re right. This isn’t about Dermot Ahern intervening and keeping Murphy banged up, this is about enforcing legislation changes.
Yeah, I don’t really believe in therapy for coonts like this I have to say. Longer sentences are the way to go alright but then you get into the “how long is enough” argument.
Yer man who killed Manuela Riedo (sp?) in Galway should’ve been in prison when he committed his crime too. Always going to re-offend.
Longer sentences aren’t the answer. The death penalty is the way forward.
really, is it?
the problem is, an inarticulate social misfit like your yourself from the bog who has an addiction to posting pictures of naked women on the interenet in an obsesseive fashion probably has many of the traits that would fit the profiile of someone who would go abducting young women in the midlands, i think thats the real issue on here and there probably is reasonable scope for an inquiry based on your your online behaviour,
+1
rattled.
ah lovely,
Oh my. This is most disappointing. Well, they can’t say I didn’t try improve my fellow man. You are on your dull own mickee.
Actually no clarkey, attending therapy would be an indicator of good behaviour, the grounds of his remission, also sickening to hear ahern go on about his right to remission. The amount of work taken to put this cunt behind bars and then he saunters free for supposed good behaviour. The same burden of proof should be there for remissiom as it is for conviction. I.e they should have to show they will behave upon release beyond a reasonable doubt. Alternatively you could treat him, riedos killer and the granny rapist from tipp like the animals they are and put them down
A further illustration of why the forum is gone to shite above. A reasonable bit of debate turns into posters slagging each other and passing it off as banter. Fook’s sake.
Don’t let it stop you ClarkeyCat, like a pile of vomit in the middle of a Coppers toilet, just step around it and continue your business.
Therapy might indeed be an additional indicator of good behaviour but he’s already met whatever criteria he has to in order to be released. In theory it’s not right that he’s being let out but in law it is.
I’ll make the same point to you that I made to farmer above. Imagine the burden of proof for remission did exist - if he had attended therapy would it prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he would behave upon release? Or how would you intend to prove that?
he met criteria that was there when sentenced in 2000. if he had been sentenced in 2001 he wouldnt have met the criteria. the way law is here is shite. it shouldnt be whatever law is in place when you enter jail, it should be meet the conditions when you come out. but I suppose the liberals will say its not right to change the rules when someone is already jailed under different terms, but fook that. who would have a problem with it in this case?
You hit the nail on the head there with your last question.
I would, for the reason you’ve outlined.
legislation was changed after him to stop further things like what he did happening and make sure proper punishement was handed out. what it failed to do was stop him. because he set the precedent, sentencing changed after him. but yet it doesnt affect him. how is that right?
and you would have a problem with him having to undergo rehabilitation and be placed on sex offenders list? just because the law was enforced as a result of his actions the year after?
Something to do with being punished retroactively is it? I think it’s unconstitutional.
o be quite frank about it clarkey, i wouldnt be trying to prove it. Remission should be there as the exception rather than the rule. the current situation, in circumstances where we have one of the highest rates of recidivism in the western world, where you automatically get 25% off your sentence without having attempted rehabilitation is a failed policy. If a person owns up to what they did, attempts to make amends for what they have done, and has successfully undertaken therapy and education, then yes, they may be a candidate for remission.
There are certain types of criminals who are just animals and should be treated as such, i’m thing murphy, riedo’s killer and the granny rapist in tipp. they should just be put down.
also, i would seriously advocate sentenciing by a jury of your peers, enough of this crap from brussels saying that multiple murderers have to be given determinate sentence. we dont want rapists and murderers (and by murderers i mean murderers, not manslaughterers) back on the street.