Argumentum ad verecundiam…

“The Irish Sun had “Nothing but a paedophile” as its headline the next day.”

Then O’Donoghue’s case is with the Irish Sun. But Carney seems to be using this as a neat turn to bash the media in general, from whom reasonable questions have been asked before about his sentencing.

“By the way Paul, an early guilty plea is a standard device to reduce sentences as it means the victim doesn’t have to give evidence. ”

I’m fully aware of that, Sarah; hence I emphasised the fact that the case didn’t rest on the victim’s evidence as in most rape trials.

Neither does this explain lowering the accused’s sentence because – for example – they have a job.

P.

You said:
“…but it doesn’t guard him from the accusation that he’s more exercised about offender’s rights than victim’s rights”

To which I replied.

“He’s a judge, that’s his job!”

I should not have said that offender’s rights should be at the fore of a judge’s mind, rather that the rights of the accused, that is the rights of the innocent man, should be his primary concern.

Victims have no rights, and they should have no more rights than any other individual, at least in the courtroom. As a judge, Carney has no need to consider victims’ rights.

- the semen sample was unreliable and could’ve been Wayne’s father’s
- photographs had not been taken in the early morning and deleted
- text messages had not been made at 6am.

That’s why none of it was mentioned at the trial. That’s why she wasn’t supposed to mention it and that’s why she deliberately did not include it in her written statement. She did not lash out in a state of upset – she planned in advance to say it.

The Irish Sun had “Nothing but a paedophile” as its headline the next day.

Carney was actually very moderate by going on to argue that DESPITE the damage she had inflicted by going off-statement he still didn’t believe that defence council should have the right to censor VIS even though this was subsequently recommended by the Law Reform Commission.

I’m not spending the next half hour looking for links to defend Carney. He is the foremost criminal judge in the country. He sentences in line with precedent and guidelines. This may upset victims but attacking him is pointless.

By the way Paul, an early guilty plea is a standard device to reduce sentences as it means the victim doesn’t have to give evidence. You will have heard this referred to today regarding the sentencing of the guys who threw the petrol bomb at the car in Moyross where the children were severely burned. It doesn’t mean the judge is a pinko defender of arsonists, rapists and murderers. Its a standard legal procedure. You may not like it but that is the system not the judge.

Er, no. I think you’ll find it’s not a judge’s primary role to look after prisoners’ rights.

“I’m much rather the state let a guilty man go free, than convict an innocent one.”

Erm, where on earth did we start talking about locking up innocent people? We’re talking about disparties in sentencing. Are you saying that Carney actually gives low rape sentences because he’s afraid the convicted are innocent? Please stick to the current discussion without going all Susan Sarandon on us.

P.

He’s a judge, that’s his job! In fighting crime, our priority must be to do no further wrong. I’m much rather the state let a guilty man go free, than convict an innocent one.

People will complain about Guantanamo Bay and nod as they watch In the Name of the Father, they may even moan about the executions of innocent men in far off lands like Texas, but when it comes to everyday crime, too many Irish people fail to recognise that during a trial, the accused is innocent.

Reference? I’d be especially curious to know if the speech contains the same charged language that he uses against Majella Holohan. And I’m also not sure how the narrative that his hands are tied behind his back when it comes to sentences for rape ties in with articles such as this (a multiple rape involving breaking and entering and death threats):

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhmhkfcweygb/rss2/

“He measured sentence at the 15 years mark on the scale available to him and took into account Goncarovs’ guilty plea which was of major assistance to the couple, that he had a history of work and came to Ireland to earn money to send back home.”

So, Carney _could_ have sentenced the accused to 15 years, but knocked 5 years off because “he had a history of work” and “came to Ireland to earn money”. (Oh, let’s not forget the “pleading guilty” bit, as if the guy had any hope of not being convicted in these circumstances, caught _naked_ by Gardai after the woman’s partner escaped)

Presumably only unemployed rapists should have the full weight of the law thrown at them? Exactly whose fault other than Carney’s _is_ this sentence?

And of course, that’s not an isolated case; there’s was a whole article in the Sunday Tribune about his sentencing.

“has frequently bashed the HSE for their disgraceful failure to look after juveniles.”

It’s great that he stands up for rights of offenders so well (I’m not being sarcastic there), but it doesn’t guard him from the accusation that he’s more exercised about offender’s rights than victim’s rights.

“This man has a great track record in social justice not just penal.”

Again, this is off the point; he’s not a social worker.

“Majella is a grieving woman and I am sorry for her – but she knowingly did harm.”

I guess when you want answers about your son’s death and aren’t given them, you’re liable to get emotional. If what she said was libelous, then presumably O’Donoghue can sue her.

P.

He HAS complained about the lighter sentences but there is nothing he can do about it. He is the most well respected and experienced criminal judge in the country and has frequently bashed the HSE for their disgraceful failure to look after juveniles.

This man has a great track record in social justice not just penal.

Majella is a grieving woman and I am sorry for her – but she knowingly did harm. We are entitled to hold her to account for that. AND as Carney did the press who gained so much from her.

Also interesting to note that the learned justice doesn’t give out mandatory custodial sentences for rape merely because he thinks they would be overturned. Obviously that particular topic isn’t of enough merit to prompt him to give intemperate speeches, but then perhaps he’d rather save his ire for victims than his peers. No need to bash the rungs on the greasy ladder upwards, what?

P.