Sentences are fucked up
Yesterday a fucking scumbag from Corduff, shown spitting his way into court, was jailed for 7 years (with the last 3 suspended) for an assault on a man outside his own home. The man, foolishly, tried to stop a group of scumbags from stealing his car while his son’s first birthday party was going on inside. They beat him so badly he was in a coma for 6 weeks. He is lucky to be alive but at least he is alive.
Unlike Robert Houlihan who was murdered, sorry, manslaughtered by student Wayne O’Donoghue. O’Donoghue then dumped the body, went home and played Playstation then went out again and moved the body of Robert Houlihan somewhere else before pouring petrol on him and burning the corpse. He got a 4 year sentence.
There’s something very wrong there. Now, I’m not suggesting the scumbag who beat the guy into a coma should be given a lesser sentence but maybe, just maybe, the lad who killed a boy of 11, dumped the charred body in a ditch, played Playstation and went about his business while a frantic 10 day (I think) search went on merits slightly more than the 4 years he was given.
And those are just two examples of many. We have paedophiles being given 1 year sentences for years of buggery and sexual assault on minors, people who download child porn getting away with a fine like that’s supposed to be some kind of punishment and a man being given a 4 year sentence for rape and threatening to kill his victim with the judge saying “it was only rape”.
The main problem, as far as I can see, is that most judges are hapless cretins who are so far removed from reality that when asked to actually do the judging part of their jobs they’re fucking shit at it. They’re the ones who decide the sentences so how is they get it so wrong so often?
If you went out on the street tomorrow and conducted a poll asking what a suitable punishment might be for a member of the clergy who systematically abused young boys over a period of 40 years I think a lot of people might choose:
b) 10 years in jail - or
c) 20 years in jail and having his bollocks chopped off.
I suspect that only other members of the clergy would choose:
a) 1 year which in reality won’t even be one year.
Yes, there are people who have an input into the sentencing but in the end it is left to the discretion of the judge. Maybe we need to introduce fixed sentences for various crimes:
Rape - 10 years
Murder - life, where life means life
Armed robbery - 10 years
Child abuse - 20 years and castration
All the above used as examples of course. That way if a judge has a child molester in his court he can’t give him a pathetic sentence or he can’t let a rapist off with a 4 year suspended sentence because “it was only rape.” Let him get sodomised by a man with an enormous cock and see then whether he might be inclined to dish out a meatier sentence.
If that doesn’t work (the fixed sentences, not the judge raping) then maybe sentencing needs to be decided by people who actually have some connection with the real world. In fact, my God, why didn’t we think of this sooner?
A TV3 news style poll:
If you’d like this kiddie fiddling piece of shit sentenced to 10 years text 54310, 20 years txt 54312 and if you’d like us to cut his meat and two veg off as well txt 54311.
Anyway, fuck it. We’re all going to die of bird flu in the end.
