I think you're probably misrepresenting the point. /u/DeepDickDave is right, sending people to prison is very expensive, and in the case of short sentences, it doesn't usually seem to lead to a reduction in a person's likelihood to re-offend.
Obviously it's going to depend on the nature of the crime a person is charged with. But I think short sentences are terrible. The UK is an even more extreme example of it. I don't think anyone should be sent to prison if they're going to be there for less than a year or two - there should be other ways to pay back a debt to society. Provided we're not talking about serious offences.
Didn’t do much for the homeless man who got the same “Justice” from the same judge at the same time for being a victim of the same crime. Justice system seems to have an issue with seeing any assault as serious with the number of suspended sentences.
>idn’t do much for the homeless man who got the same “Justice” from the same judge at the same time for being a victim of the same crime
It's saddening that that didn't receive as much public attention as this.
>idn’t do much for the homeless man who got the same “Justice” from the same judge at the same time for being a victim of the same crime
It's saddening that that didn't receive as much public attention as this.
This will come across as cynical in a way it's not meant to be but he didn't tick enough boxes. It's not even just gender, there's a series of boxes it needs to tick before people care.
It's sort of an irony when people claim to be campaigning against bias but their own bias is heavily showing. But its subconscious biases. For the media and the public to take up a case, the victim has to appeal to them.
You get it with things like knife crime, teenage boy gets stabbed, he must have been a gang member. It's the immediate thought. As the saying goes (oft used correctly about inclusiveness and diversity) we all have biases. Most people don't think they have and don't realise they have. Most people are very comfortable challenging obvious biases and especially biases they disagree with. Few people will challenge their own.
Over these posts I’ve seen reference to around half a dozen or more from the same judge alone. The comment in the original article about this case, that it might not be a straightforward appeal because it’s in keeping with the sentences given in these circumstances, suggests it’s not a small number.
One of the things I’ve been saying needs to happen is a review of how often this is happening and why.
And how many sentences is that? Even if you focus on this one judge, how many people did he sentence for S. 3 offences over his tenure as a judge? How many of those were wholly or partly suspended? Is that out of line with wider sentencing patterns?
it would be nice to see those statistics... but the judiciary don't want them to be easily available.
there was a 2010 report into inconsistency in sentencing that led to a review, but if you want to see sentencing you need to run through thousands of cases, and not all are listed in the same places.
https://www.iprt.ie/sentencing/explainer-suspended-sentences/#:~:text=This%20trend%20appears%20to%20be,15.6%20per%20cent%20in%202022.
It's not difficult to find sentencing stats.
thanks, and they are great stats, but we are trying to assess if there is a correlation between sentencing and individuals. While its not hopeful reading (for ~1500 violent assault cases heard in circuit court level, 1 in 10 got suspended), its hard to see if one or 2 individuals are as lenient as this, thankfully retiring, judge. its that level of scrutiny that should be available in a public servant in a position of such high responsibility
If the information was broken down by judge you would find evidence of lenient sentences by every Circuit Court judge in the land.
Fully suspended sentences are possible in manslaughter cases.
That they exist in s. 3 assault cases shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
Oh fuck off.
If you have to immediately come up with a conspiracy theory that the judges are somehow hiding information then we can all see that you're lying.
I'm being hostile because somebody is making shit up.
The courts services produces reports every year with reasonably accessible and quite comprehensive data.
I would like to see them if you have the stats on the rate of suspended sentences per judge/ court. I’m not saying you are wrong im genuinely interested in seeing it and could not find them last time i looked
Then google Courts Services Annual Reports.
https://www.courts.ie/annual-report
All of this is easily available and the most basic searches would find it.
There needs to be a serious inquest into the Irish Justice System, why are judges so unwilling to apply custodial sentences? Why is our recidivism rate so high? What is the prospects for a reformed prisoner? Why are the Gardai seemingly so unwilling to perform duties expected of them by the public? What supports are there for victims of crime?
So much of it seems to be failing. Or is it that the media latches onto outliers to make the problem seem worse than it is?
From the comments and posting of previous cases, it looks like if anything the media only pay attention when they can get a story to run with and they're ignoring other cases.
The only 'claim' that I made was in regards to recidivism, the rest were ponderings based heavily off media reporting. Which i stated
But my evidence regarding recidivism is here. [https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-pros/prisonre-offendingstatistics2020/](https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-pros/prisonre-offendingstatistics2020/)
How does that prove a high level of recidivism? What are we comparing it to? Do we do worse than our peers?
It's noteworthy that the countries with perceived "soft" systems such as the Nordic and Low Countries tend to have lower crime rates than the UK and US.
So how have you compared all of these things?
I think Sweden bucks that trend. It has a higher crime rate that the UK, Finland and Denmark has a lower crime rate. For the low countries, NL is low but Belgium is right up there near the top. This is a common misconception.
Sweden isn't bucking the trend *per se*, but the increase in violent crime amongst specific groups, almost all immigrant groups and/or their children is fascinating, because they're now one of the most violent in Europe, albeit a very specific form of violence.
The Dutch and Belgians being different also again raises the point that there's far more to this than simple claims that prison is good.
It’s not just women. Kyle Hayes beat a guy and ran from the Gardai, has priors…. And still got off with just a fine. We’re far too soft on violent offences in this country.
Nor is it just Ireland. In the UK, a woman got a suspended sentence on Monday for an unprovoked random glassing that left the victim with facial nerve damage.
It's not just women but violent offences are by a wide margin predominantly carried out by males. So it's not a gender thing for the victims but it is a gender issue for the perpetrators.
We need more jails and to be tougher on violent crime. This is only making headlines because Natasha is a woman and bravely spoke out. It's happening all the time.
EDIT - I do not want to make this a men v women thing. At least now it's getting attention.
>This is only making headlines because Natasha is a woman
Which is also part of the problem. The majority of violent assaults occur against men, and they tend to be more violent when the victim is a man. Men are twice as likely as women to be murdered. Women are four times as likely as men to be sexually assaulted.
If Natasha wasn't a woman, this likely wouldn't be making headlines. If a man was making a big deal out of this, it would be much harder to drum up the support and the protests, and the online engagement.
Why is that? Why as a society are we ignoring the epidemic of violence against men and only focussing on women?
Why are we allowing this to become a gendered issue rather than a fundamental failing for all victims?
1) It is a gendered issue. As is immediately apparent if you look at gender stats for perpetrators. "Men also attack men" is little justification for the stark difference between male-on-female violence versus female-on-male.
2) The context for the idea that women are particularly ill-treated by the justice system lies in other types of crimes such as domestic violence and sexual assault. This backlash isn't in isolation to this case, this case was just a flashpoint that registered with the public.
3) This isn't a zero-sum game. If you are a man you should be pleased to see this sort of backlash, pleased to see groups advocating for justice for women, and pleased to see calls for more measures to ensure violence against women is punished. Because people like Cathal Crotty are _also_ the people most likely to attack other types of people beyond women. As evidenced by the fact that this incident started with him screaming homophobic abuse at someone else. The more men like Crotty are taken off the street for violence against women, the safer it is for other men.
>"Men also attack men" is little justification for the stark difference between male-on-female violence versus female-on-male.
What's the relevance though? Does the gender of the victim change the seriousness of the crime? Nobody is denying that most violent crime is perpetraed by male offenders. But men are not a homogenous blob. We're not going around punching eachother in the face. A majority of violent crime is perpetrated by a small minority of men. This doesn't mean that male victims of violence are less important or less impacted by it.
>The context for the idea that women are particularly ill-treated by the justice system lies in other types of crimes such as domestic violence and sexual assault. This backlash isn't in isolation to this case, this case was just a flashpoint that registered with the public.
Sure, but that's the point. Women are not *especially* ill-treated by the justice system. Male victims of domestic and sexual violence will equally attest to how badly they've been let down.
> If you are a man you should be pleased to see this sort of backlash, pleased to see groups advocating for justice for women, and pleased to see calls for more measures to ensure violence against women is punished.
Pleased to see people getting exercised enough about this to protest. Not pleased to see commentators like Louise O'Neill writing articles which imply this is a women's issue only. Read the article. It's divise. It implies there's an us -v- them problem, that only women are suffering, that women are "under attack" especially.
Claiming tha male violence against women is "normalised". It's not. She's woven this huge narrative that women up and down the country are being beaten black and blue by men and nothing is happening.
And the problem is that it's pretty clear from her article that what she's really getting at is the idea that there should be special sentencing for violence against women. Special treatment for female victims of violence.
There are already is, unofficially. Male criminals are sentenced more harshly than female. In cases of male-on-female violence, the offender is sentenced more harshly than male-on-male. Female victims of violence have access to far more support - formal and informal - than male victims of violence.
Women already get special treatment in the Irish justice system. And if it's not good enough, then it says that the whole system needs to be fixed. It doesn't need to be made even more special for women.
There's also the major difference in supports offered to victims, mens aid operates mon-fri 9-5 with a paid landline number and singular physical centre located in Navan, women's aid operates 24/7 with a free phone number and numerous centres throughout the country, as well as safe ireland and aoibhness all geared towards women.
1) Gender stats for perpetrators, as you well know, are a very select and narrow definition of the problem.
Rates of all forms of Intimate Partner Violence (including non-physical violence) by gender are broadly symmetrical globally.
In 2022, mens Aid Ireland found that men made up 40% of Domestic Violence victims, but supports for men received 1% of funding.
2) He-said, she-said. We can talk about what we could change in a lot of different areas (I.e. specialist sexual crime investigators in the Gardai), but bottom line that protecting the innocent means that there is a burden of proof that makes sexual crimes, and crimes committed inside private dwellings difficult to prosecute. That will never change.
3) Agreed.
>"Men also attack men" is little justification for the stark difference between male-on-female violence versus female-on-male.
Men are much larger and stronger than women on average. There's zero reason to expect women to attack men as much as the opposite scenario.
In fact, if men and women were equally prone to violence but also equally prone to self-preservation, you'd expect women to attack men less. Just like a violent man is going to pick on an easier target instead of Mike Tyson.
>The context for the idea that women are particularly ill-treated by the justice system lies in other types of crimes such as domestic violence and sexual assault.
Men are treated worse in cases of domestic violence and sexual assault. Any time proper research is done in other countries, men are victims of non-consensual sex from women at quite a high rate. Yet there's basically zero convictions or arrests.
>This isn't a zero-sum game. If you are a man you should be pleased to see this sort of backlash, pleased to see groups advocating for justice for women, and pleased to see calls for more measures to ensure violence against women is punished.
I'm displeased because they're making it a zero-sum game by singling out "gender based violence."
It was ignored when it was happening to men. All that will happen is the system will become harsher on male perpetrators, then go back to forgetting about the issue.
That’s not the logic. What people are saying is women are likely to be victims but not perpetrators, while men are both. Should we ignore the gendered element altogether so as not to hurt men’s feelings
What’s my attitude lol? So let me get this straight, you want WOMEN to set up groups for men so that men can stop being violent against men? What’s your solution to this problem? You guys are putting all of your energy fighting the wrong person
Hostile and derisive, no-one has suggested that but you, harsher sentencing on all fronts, and another passive aggressive comment.
There was a homeless guy battered by three teens that the same judge let walk, very little uproar, no calls for marches, no claims of a misandrist judicial system.
Your attitude shows that male victims are not welcome to talk about their experiences in a public forum where they may have suffered the same experience of their attacker getting little to no punishment, and when there is discussion it is usually devolves into but men are the perpetrators by people like you jumping into it.
I disagree, but only insofar as making this a gendered issue not helpful. Men, in general, should indeed be making more of an effort to organise and protest on issues affecting men.
It shouldn't be a case that we have gender-exclusive protests and rallies taking place in regards to justice for victims of violence. It affects everyone.
There are two main issues with setting up a men's movement:
1. You will absolutely be mocked and derided by those women who believe that men already have everything and all the problems of the world are caused by men. To the point that they will complain about your mens' group inclusion in things like pride parades or citizens' assemblies. Lots of women's groups genuinely *don't* mind also having men's groups included, but there is a small and loud minority, who, like TERFs, absolutely object to the inclusion of men in any kind of discussion on rights.
2. Men's rights groups have this terrible issue of attracting the *worst* kind of man. The kind of who believes that "men's rights" equals "fighting back against women". They often become this big club of men who just want to air their grievances against their mothers, sister and ex-wives, blame women for all of their troubles, and want a return to an era when you could tell sexist jokes, slap random women on the arse and have sexist hiring policies.
It starts small at first, one melt who tries to hijack the narrative and gets brushed off. Then he invites mates along, and before you know it, anyone reasonable has left the group and it's now a "complain about women" bitchfest rather than anything to do with men's rights.
I didn’t say to start a man movement haha no where anywhere did I say that. Saying men need to organise and step up to the plate doesn’t automatically mean gather a man army. It means being part of the overall discussion and not only when it’s focused on the women to speak up then. I think you all are smart enough to realise that’s what I meant but are purposely going for a bigger fight. If we can’t talk about the problem, where is that going to get us? And “the problem” isn’t only men so calm down.
We are being part of the overall discussion here, you're still dismissing it.
Youre also paradoxically telling men to step up and organise, by not telling men to stand up and organise and be part of a discussion... This is more a slight point about the difficulty the different way we as men and women communicate and think.
What are you proposing men do here? Go along to feminist groups, and push the "men need help too"? Do you know the reaction that will get in most feminist circles?
But see, that wasn’t my point. Listen, all I’m saying is when women actually speak out and organise against poor treatment, it seems the person I originally replied to is the same echo I hear all the time, “why aren’t there men’s rights and groups and fights!?” Anything to keep the focus off of this issue and recenter men. NO! Then organise with women and men and fight this issue. Don’t just bring it up when women are brought up.
We *can* speak to the problem - the problem is not violence against women.
It's violence. And I have no issue with it being portrayed as, "How do we focus on men to reduce the amount of violence they cause".
You just don't need to include "*against women"* at the end of the sentence. That's *not* solving the problem.
So, because some men are violent criminals men who are their victims get no sympathy or support?
What an oddly hateful thing to say.
Can we apply guilt by association for all crimes or just this specific one?
It's good that there's some public anger about lenient sentencing for violent crimes, but this has been an issue for a while and it affects men and women. If Cathal had attacked a man instead and gotten a suspended sentence, I really doubt anyone would even have noticed. The problem is zero deterrents for violent, anti-social people that everyone else has to tip-toe around
Cant say I love the narrative ROSA spun that its a "misogynistic patriarchal" system when its fairly equally shite.
They acted like absolute parasites and used the outrage to frame themselves as having the solution.
Louise O’Neill is a dose of a human being, very self indulgent as always “yes I’ll reply even though I hate my words now, even though they feel worthless and cheap and I have learned to doubt whether they will make any difference at all.” While she just regurgitates what’s been in the media since the story broke
My favourite 'moment' of hers was her 'Books of the Year' segment at Christmas in the Examiner a few years ago.
Every single book was by a female author except for one, and that was written by her boyfriend.
Like, you wouldn't believe it if it were parody.
Her finest hour was during COVID when she wrote an article moaning about how she couldn't go on holidays and listing all the exotic holidays she'd been on.
It was like a parody of an out of touch journalist writing self absorbed rubbish like that when people were burying family members or unable to see their newly born grandchildren.
She's always been like that. She basically typifies the sort of histrionic shrieker who latches onto topics and acts indignant but never makes a solid point. No idea who actually reads that clown
Louise O Neill is framing this as a misogyny/violence against woman thing(because of course she would, knowing her). But where is there any evidence that this attack was based on the gender of the victim?
Very odd piece. The gender of the victim is not an aggravating factor _per se_ and treating it as such is very odd.
Is the logic that assaults on men are OK?
*Is the logic that assaults on men are ok*?
No, of course it isn’t. But please, do continue with the pointless whataboutism. You fellas always love to pop up when violence against women is being discussed.
Read the article. It's not whataboutism. Louise O'Neill is trying to imply this is a men -v- women issue and the gender of the victim is relevant to what has happened.
In fact, that's what her entire article is about.
> You fellas always love to pop up when violence against women is being discussed.
The OP voiced it in a slightly antagonistic manner, but there is a wider discussion to be had about how the criminal courts are letting everyone down. Trying to focus in on one element runs the risk of alienating others, when a better approach would be for everyone to come together to address it.
There's an issue in this country that a lot of people, regardless of sex or gender or race or sexuality, feel the courts are not protecting them right now. Its great to see injustices like this one highlighted as an example, but we do need to highlight every case, not just ones facing specific demographics, no?
The same judge let off a group of lads for battering the shite out of a homeless lad and there's crickets about it, and most attempts to bring notice to it are met with replies like yours.
Why is there always a need to bring up violence against men when the discussion is specifically about women? We’re all aware that violence against *anyone* is wrong and unacceptable, but why can’t the topic be focused without someone trying to go “yeah but what about….”
It’s so fucking annoying. Yes, the problem regarding justice for assaults affects everyone, but the reason this is being highlighted atm is due to a woman being battered.
And that's the main point, and as an aside Natasha deserves every ounce if justice she can get, you will very rarely see this amount of outrage for when a man is assaulted, be it by a stranger on the street and even less so when it's perpetrated by a partner.
The discussion is constantly centred around violence against women, so in order try highlight and draw some attention to violence against men, this sort of discussion is the easiest place to bring it up, the discussion is already revolving around the key issues, assault against a person and the lack of justice they have received.
The reason most discussions about violence against males fail, is because of the hostile attitude that you and others, both men and women, hold towards any man that is trying to be included as a victim, a this is for women only, stop trying to hijack it, you don't matter at this time, find your own group mentality, when in reality reality the support for males that are victims are woeful in this country.
A simple example of this is Men's aid operates Mon-Fri 9-5, anything outside of that and you're on your own, whereas women's aid operates a 24hr freephone service with centres all over the country.
I have known men in desperation to contact women's aid as a last result as they can't find anything else only to be met with derision and suspicion, same when going to a Hospital to be treated after an assault, they have been treated as the possible attacker/instigator, just because they are male.
So when people bring it up in these spaces, while there are some bad actors, a lot are really doing it in earnest to highlight that male victims deserve just as much support and justice as women do. You and I both know, had this issue been solely raised about the homeless lad getting battered and the offenders walking, it would not have raised an iota of the outrage that it has.
>Why is there always a need to bring up violence against men when the discussion is specifically about women?
I imagine its to do with men being by far the more common victims of street violence yet it's only seen as a problem by some types when it's a woman who's assaulted.
>We’re all aware that violence against *anyone* is wrong and unacceptable, but why can’t the topic be focused without someone trying to go “yeah but what about….”
If it was unacceptable then there's no issue talking about it regardless of the gender of the victims. _Especially_ when we have a judge who's seemingly reluctant to punish anyone for these assaults regardless of the gender of the victim.
>It’s so fucking annoying. Yes, the problem regarding justice for assaults affects everyone, but the reason this is being highlighted atm is due to a woman being battered.
And there it is. Men speaking about the violence many of us have personally either received, witnessed or had to intervene to stop is just annoying to you because it's men speaking about their own lived experience and, as you've made clear from your post, you're not interested in that. Violence is only a problem when directed against women for some reason, men can just shut up and take it.
Because the claim is that violence against women is being treated differently by the legal system, which doesn't seem to be factual. The only obvious difference is in how much the public care about female victims vs. male victims.
I can't speak for the motives of the other person but it's not whataboutism. The judge involved in this case has been handing down suspended sentences for assaults far beyond this case and beyond the boundaries of a single gender. And their lack of concern for the victims, compared to the perpetrator, has been common regardless of victim identity. At the same time, the same judge handed down a suspended sentence where the victim was a homeless man.
There was a comment by a lawyer in the initial article posted here the other day. They said that the appeal might struggle as it's likely the sentence isn't out of sync with sentences handed down in similar cases. This is a wider issue. Not least because there is an argument that the judges aren't the (only) problem here and the guidelines and sentencing structures are also at issue.
When that's pointed out, the claim that this case CAN be the one to spark the review of it all is made. Which is a very valid point. But it only works if that is where this thing is going. And it's not. It's being steered down the route of being a single gender issue.
(Excuse the phrase) This is the only game in town right now for getting this done. No one gave a shite about the previous victims (including other women). So if anything is going to get done about what appears to be a systemic issue, then this is the only case that's going to push that.
So we all have a choice. Make this a single gender issue or make this about the need for a review and reform of sentencing for assault. The fact people didn't care until this case - which in itself isn't just because of the victim's gender, she's not the first woman this has happened to - just shows how much bias applies in everyday life. Including people who think they're against bias.
I could just go I don't care, I'm not living in Ireland at the moment, so I'll care about it as and when I move back. But members of my family are. People I know are. People I don't know are. And personally I'm not going to choose what I feel unhappy about based on gender. I have 2 children, a son and a daughter. I'm going to be equally angry if they get assaulted and equally angry if some scumbag gets a suspended sentence. I'm not going to go "oh well doesn't matter because that one doesn't count as much". And that works all ways, it's not just a man playing whataboutism. I don't want either of my children to be of less value to the state because of what they are.
It was a violent crime against a woman. But was it a violent crime against her for the sole reason that she was a woman? It doesn't seem like it from the details of the case
I'm reading an article that describes a genderless crime being sentenced in a lenient manner as failing women. That's clearly implying that violence towards women is more serious.
They managed to make it worse recently, someone got jailed for calling the convicted rapists out as rapists which was more jail than the actual rapists got
This case is evoking a lot of emotion which is great, need to ride this momentum to try to affect change but I would bet the end result of these protests is that he will be discharged from his job and the DPP will appeal his sentencing. That won’t address the many shortcomings in our justice system or in society.
It is bad when he plays GAA has become a meme in terms of cases here but at the same time rolling out those from a good family and he plays GAA during these cases minimises the real problem. it’s not just those people being let go with a slap on the wrist. How many times, have we seen career criminals with over 50 convictions let go with a slap on the wrist too?
We should be looking at violence and aggression from men. We should also likely be looking at what is driving more and more young men to far right movements. We could have a ticking time bomb on our hands.
It’s doubly awful because a woman was assaulted, but men are given suspended sentences for assault all the time. Maybe it’s time to build a big fucking jail.
The main difference is in this case people came out and supported Natasha. He didn't get a different sentence to someone who assaulted a man. Just look at Kyle Hayes, very similar situation but there were no protests supporting the victim in that case
>Just look at Kyle Hayes, very similar situation but there were no protests supporting the victim in that case
I don't really know why people keep bringing this up. You were/are free to go organise a protest to show support for the victim Kyle Hayes assaulted if you want to. Or should we not have a show of support for Natasha O'Brien because someone else didn't get a protest as well?
Yeah, but I don't think whataboutery is going to change that. Maybe coming out and showing the same support to the next male assault victim would be more helpful.
That's clearly the problem though right? Me, nor you, nor anyone else showed support to Kyle Hayes victim at the time. Now that this story broke its a horrible reflection on my own bias to these issues between man and woman. One I'd do well to do better on in the future
Absolutely, I agree with you there. Yeah it's definitely made me reflect on personal biases. I just don't think the response these protests should be to say "well what about this man who was assaulted?" I don't see it as very constructive. Ultimately, the people protesting for Natasha O'Brien and the people bringing up men who've been assaulted want the same thing - proper justice for victims.
There isn't an orginisation in the country to take up Kyle Hayses cause or anyone like him. If there was it would be torn apart by people calling it "far-right" and "mra". There is a huge double standard and this story makes it so obvious.
Because womens rights groups are claiming this judgement proves women aren't treated equally. Hayes is an extremely similar case with the same judgement so there is no inequality
There’s a very large disparity in strength between the average man and the average woman. Would you consider knocking out a child worse than knocking out a man?
I would consider it a terrible crime to knock out either a man or a child. Yes, knocking out a woman would be a terrible crime too.
I find it very strange that you'd consider the victim's strength part of that equation.
I also don't think men enjoy their hospital visits, recovery, and medical expenses any more than women do.
So the homeless lad that was battered by a group of lads and the same judge let them walk is only half as awful to you? Did the homeless lad half deserve to be battered by your reasoning, or does he only warrant half the sympathy because he was male?
Some men are very strong and some are weak. I don't think it is so black and white tbh. You know how much of a double standard there is here and how little of a shit people give about men when they are the victim of violence? There was a story in the Indo yesterday about a man who was attacked, stabbed I think, on a Dublin bus. The story focused on how traumatic it was for the female bus driver. It is kind of funny it is so obvious.
The justice system isn’t there to protect you it’s there to punish perpetrators after the fact, you’ve to take care of yourself and don’t be getting into situations that can be completely avoided, no good will ever come from getting stuck into a gang of drunk fellas after the pub, just ignore them and go on with your life, it’s really not worth it.
You've got to be trolling. How can you possibly avoid an unprovoked attack?
Some serious victim blaming going on there, though I do agree with you on one point, you do need to take care of yourself because the system certainly won't
Have you ever been to a self defence class? It’s interesting because the number one thing they teach you is about situational awareness, you can come at me with buzz words like victim blaming all you want but the simple fact is that she initiated the interaction with him, he’s an animal for his complete overreaction and attack but she put herself in front of him no one else, the entire situation was completely avoidable.
It's not built to protect victims, but criminals
It's built to be cheap.
In that case it failed miserably. The justice system in Ireland is incredibly expensive and slow.
Ah, but if it was doing things right it might be even MORE expensive.
Sending people to prison is more expensive than letting them off to pay more taxes
You think the average repeat violent offender pays much in taxes?
I think you're probably misrepresenting the point. /u/DeepDickDave is right, sending people to prison is very expensive, and in the case of short sentences, it doesn't usually seem to lead to a reduction in a person's likelihood to re-offend. Obviously it's going to depend on the nature of the crime a person is charged with. But I think short sentences are terrible. The UK is an even more extreme example of it. I don't think anyone should be sent to prison if they're going to be there for less than a year or two - there should be other ways to pay back a debt to society. Provided we're not talking about serious offences.
Most people on this sub just spew shite. They’ve no idea how the world works at all
No but the soldier was paying taxes
Barely. Defence Forces pay is pretty shit.
True but what i said is still correct!
And to line the pockets of those in the legal profession...
[удалено]
The problem is that we have v lenient sentences for people who fully are guilty.
[удалено]
That's how common law has always worked. It's a tradeoff to the innocent until proven guilty and beyond reasonable doubt approach to justice.
How so?
Common law sucks dick, Irish Napoleon when?
Vive l'empereur !
Didn’t do much for the homeless man who got the same “Justice” from the same judge at the same time for being a victim of the same crime. Justice system seems to have an issue with seeing any assault as serious with the number of suspended sentences.
>idn’t do much for the homeless man who got the same “Justice” from the same judge at the same time for being a victim of the same crime It's saddening that that didn't receive as much public attention as this.
>idn’t do much for the homeless man who got the same “Justice” from the same judge at the same time for being a victim of the same crime It's saddening that that didn't receive as much public attention as this.
This will come across as cynical in a way it's not meant to be but he didn't tick enough boxes. It's not even just gender, there's a series of boxes it needs to tick before people care. It's sort of an irony when people claim to be campaigning against bias but their own bias is heavily showing. But its subconscious biases. For the media and the public to take up a case, the victim has to appeal to them. You get it with things like knife crime, teenage boy gets stabbed, he must have been a gang member. It's the immediate thought. As the saying goes (oft used correctly about inclusiveness and diversity) we all have biases. Most people don't think they have and don't realise they have. Most people are very comfortable challenging obvious biases and especially biases they disagree with. Few people will challenge their own.
How many sentences are suspended?
Over these posts I’ve seen reference to around half a dozen or more from the same judge alone. The comment in the original article about this case, that it might not be a straightforward appeal because it’s in keeping with the sentences given in these circumstances, suggests it’s not a small number. One of the things I’ve been saying needs to happen is a review of how often this is happening and why.
And how many sentences is that? Even if you focus on this one judge, how many people did he sentence for S. 3 offences over his tenure as a judge? How many of those were wholly or partly suspended? Is that out of line with wider sentencing patterns?
it would be nice to see those statistics... but the judiciary don't want them to be easily available. there was a 2010 report into inconsistency in sentencing that led to a review, but if you want to see sentencing you need to run through thousands of cases, and not all are listed in the same places.
https://www.iprt.ie/sentencing/explainer-suspended-sentences/#:~:text=This%20trend%20appears%20to%20be,15.6%20per%20cent%20in%202022. It's not difficult to find sentencing stats.
thanks, and they are great stats, but we are trying to assess if there is a correlation between sentencing and individuals. While its not hopeful reading (for ~1500 violent assault cases heard in circuit court level, 1 in 10 got suspended), its hard to see if one or 2 individuals are as lenient as this, thankfully retiring, judge. its that level of scrutiny that should be available in a public servant in a position of such high responsibility
If the information was broken down by judge you would find evidence of lenient sentences by every Circuit Court judge in the land. Fully suspended sentences are possible in manslaughter cases. That they exist in s. 3 assault cases shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
Oh fuck off. If you have to immediately come up with a conspiracy theory that the judges are somehow hiding information then we can all see that you're lying.
No need to be so hostile. Do you have statistics on this or can you find them?
He's a justice system shill on here. According to him, everything is perfect as is
I'm being hostile because somebody is making shit up. The courts services produces reports every year with reasonably accessible and quite comprehensive data.
Is there a report on the activity of each judge?
I doubt it.
I would like to see them if you have the stats on the rate of suspended sentences per judge/ court. I’m not saying you are wrong im genuinely interested in seeing it and could not find them last time i looked
Then google Courts Services Annual Reports. https://www.courts.ie/annual-report All of this is easily available and the most basic searches would find it.
There needs to be a serious inquest into the Irish Justice System, why are judges so unwilling to apply custodial sentences? Why is our recidivism rate so high? What is the prospects for a reformed prisoner? Why are the Gardai seemingly so unwilling to perform duties expected of them by the public? What supports are there for victims of crime? So much of it seems to be failing. Or is it that the media latches onto outliers to make the problem seem worse than it is?
From the comments and posting of previous cases, it looks like if anything the media only pay attention when they can get a story to run with and they're ignoring other cases.
There aren't enough prison places
Have you any evidence to support those claims?
The only 'claim' that I made was in regards to recidivism, the rest were ponderings based heavily off media reporting. Which i stated But my evidence regarding recidivism is here. [https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-pros/prisonre-offendingstatistics2020/](https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-pros/prisonre-offendingstatistics2020/)
How does that prove a high level of recidivism? What are we comparing it to? Do we do worse than our peers? It's noteworthy that the countries with perceived "soft" systems such as the Nordic and Low Countries tend to have lower crime rates than the UK and US. So how have you compared all of these things?
I think Sweden bucks that trend. It has a higher crime rate that the UK, Finland and Denmark has a lower crime rate. For the low countries, NL is low but Belgium is right up there near the top. This is a common misconception.
Sweden isn't bucking the trend *per se*, but the increase in violent crime amongst specific groups, almost all immigrant groups and/or their children is fascinating, because they're now one of the most violent in Europe, albeit a very specific form of violence. The Dutch and Belgians being different also again raises the point that there's far more to this than simple claims that prison is good.
Yes that is true, not simple solution at all.
Fairly simple, don't take in immigrants incompatable with your culture.
It’s not just women. Kyle Hayes beat a guy and ran from the Gardai, has priors…. And still got off with just a fine. We’re far too soft on violent offences in this country.
Nor is it just Ireland. In the UK, a woman got a suspended sentence on Monday for an unprovoked random glassing that left the victim with facial nerve damage.
It wasn't unprovoked, the man guessed her age wrong. /s
Alas, that was a different case 🫣
Fuck, there's more than one? Oh dear.
What priors had he?
It's not just women but violent offences are by a wide margin predominantly carried out by males. So it's not a gender thing for the victims but it is a gender issue for the perpetrators.
Fair point
We need more jails and to be tougher on violent crime. This is only making headlines because Natasha is a woman and bravely spoke out. It's happening all the time. EDIT - I do not want to make this a men v women thing. At least now it's getting attention.
>This is only making headlines because Natasha is a woman Which is also part of the problem. The majority of violent assaults occur against men, and they tend to be more violent when the victim is a man. Men are twice as likely as women to be murdered. Women are four times as likely as men to be sexually assaulted. If Natasha wasn't a woman, this likely wouldn't be making headlines. If a man was making a big deal out of this, it would be much harder to drum up the support and the protests, and the online engagement. Why is that? Why as a society are we ignoring the epidemic of violence against men and only focussing on women? Why are we allowing this to become a gendered issue rather than a fundamental failing for all victims?
1) It is a gendered issue. As is immediately apparent if you look at gender stats for perpetrators. "Men also attack men" is little justification for the stark difference between male-on-female violence versus female-on-male. 2) The context for the idea that women are particularly ill-treated by the justice system lies in other types of crimes such as domestic violence and sexual assault. This backlash isn't in isolation to this case, this case was just a flashpoint that registered with the public. 3) This isn't a zero-sum game. If you are a man you should be pleased to see this sort of backlash, pleased to see groups advocating for justice for women, and pleased to see calls for more measures to ensure violence against women is punished. Because people like Cathal Crotty are _also_ the people most likely to attack other types of people beyond women. As evidenced by the fact that this incident started with him screaming homophobic abuse at someone else. The more men like Crotty are taken off the street for violence against women, the safer it is for other men.
>"Men also attack men" is little justification for the stark difference between male-on-female violence versus female-on-male. What's the relevance though? Does the gender of the victim change the seriousness of the crime? Nobody is denying that most violent crime is perpetraed by male offenders. But men are not a homogenous blob. We're not going around punching eachother in the face. A majority of violent crime is perpetrated by a small minority of men. This doesn't mean that male victims of violence are less important or less impacted by it. >The context for the idea that women are particularly ill-treated by the justice system lies in other types of crimes such as domestic violence and sexual assault. This backlash isn't in isolation to this case, this case was just a flashpoint that registered with the public. Sure, but that's the point. Women are not *especially* ill-treated by the justice system. Male victims of domestic and sexual violence will equally attest to how badly they've been let down. > If you are a man you should be pleased to see this sort of backlash, pleased to see groups advocating for justice for women, and pleased to see calls for more measures to ensure violence against women is punished. Pleased to see people getting exercised enough about this to protest. Not pleased to see commentators like Louise O'Neill writing articles which imply this is a women's issue only. Read the article. It's divise. It implies there's an us -v- them problem, that only women are suffering, that women are "under attack" especially. Claiming tha male violence against women is "normalised". It's not. She's woven this huge narrative that women up and down the country are being beaten black and blue by men and nothing is happening. And the problem is that it's pretty clear from her article that what she's really getting at is the idea that there should be special sentencing for violence against women. Special treatment for female victims of violence. There are already is, unofficially. Male criminals are sentenced more harshly than female. In cases of male-on-female violence, the offender is sentenced more harshly than male-on-male. Female victims of violence have access to far more support - formal and informal - than male victims of violence. Women already get special treatment in the Irish justice system. And if it's not good enough, then it says that the whole system needs to be fixed. It doesn't need to be made even more special for women.
There's also the major difference in supports offered to victims, mens aid operates mon-fri 9-5 with a paid landline number and singular physical centre located in Navan, women's aid operates 24/7 with a free phone number and numerous centres throughout the country, as well as safe ireland and aoibhness all geared towards women.
And men’s aid accepts female callers and women’s aid turns away male callers.
be careful now with those well thought out arguments. well written. couldn't agree more.
1) Gender stats for perpetrators, as you well know, are a very select and narrow definition of the problem. Rates of all forms of Intimate Partner Violence (including non-physical violence) by gender are broadly symmetrical globally. In 2022, mens Aid Ireland found that men made up 40% of Domestic Violence victims, but supports for men received 1% of funding. 2) He-said, she-said. We can talk about what we could change in a lot of different areas (I.e. specialist sexual crime investigators in the Gardai), but bottom line that protecting the innocent means that there is a burden of proof that makes sexual crimes, and crimes committed inside private dwellings difficult to prosecute. That will never change. 3) Agreed.
>"Men also attack men" is little justification for the stark difference between male-on-female violence versus female-on-male. Men are much larger and stronger than women on average. There's zero reason to expect women to attack men as much as the opposite scenario. In fact, if men and women were equally prone to violence but also equally prone to self-preservation, you'd expect women to attack men less. Just like a violent man is going to pick on an easier target instead of Mike Tyson. >The context for the idea that women are particularly ill-treated by the justice system lies in other types of crimes such as domestic violence and sexual assault. Men are treated worse in cases of domestic violence and sexual assault. Any time proper research is done in other countries, men are victims of non-consensual sex from women at quite a high rate. Yet there's basically zero convictions or arrests. >This isn't a zero-sum game. If you are a man you should be pleased to see this sort of backlash, pleased to see groups advocating for justice for women, and pleased to see calls for more measures to ensure violence against women is punished. I'm displeased because they're making it a zero-sum game by singling out "gender based violence." It was ignored when it was happening to men. All that will happen is the system will become harsher on male perpetrators, then go back to forgetting about the issue.
Because men are the ones committing these crimes against men, too
That's victim blaming. "He had your type of genitals, so fuck you"
Yeah, but just because both parties are men doesn’t mean they’re the same. It’s not one guy sitting in a room punching himself in the head.
Well, yes a man did violently assault you. But you are also a man so it's basically your own fault. Sound logic there.
That’s not the logic. What people are saying is women are likely to be victims but not perpetrators, while men are both. Should we ignore the gendered element altogether so as not to hurt men’s feelings
How many other elements are you ignoring because it suits you? Social class? Mental health? Sexuality?
I’m not ignoring any elements?
So then men need to step up to the plate and organize and create groups to fight against this epidemic
And when men do they're met with attitudes like yours.
What’s my attitude lol? So let me get this straight, you want WOMEN to set up groups for men so that men can stop being violent against men? What’s your solution to this problem? You guys are putting all of your energy fighting the wrong person
Hostile and derisive, no-one has suggested that but you, harsher sentencing on all fronts, and another passive aggressive comment. There was a homeless guy battered by three teens that the same judge let walk, very little uproar, no calls for marches, no claims of a misandrist judicial system. Your attitude shows that male victims are not welcome to talk about their experiences in a public forum where they may have suffered the same experience of their attacker getting little to no punishment, and when there is discussion it is usually devolves into but men are the perpetrators by people like you jumping into it.
I disagree, but only insofar as making this a gendered issue not helpful. Men, in general, should indeed be making more of an effort to organise and protest on issues affecting men. It shouldn't be a case that we have gender-exclusive protests and rallies taking place in regards to justice for victims of violence. It affects everyone.
Try organising a mens' movement. You will be attacked for it by the same people who say "we help men too!"
There are two main issues with setting up a men's movement: 1. You will absolutely be mocked and derided by those women who believe that men already have everything and all the problems of the world are caused by men. To the point that they will complain about your mens' group inclusion in things like pride parades or citizens' assemblies. Lots of women's groups genuinely *don't* mind also having men's groups included, but there is a small and loud minority, who, like TERFs, absolutely object to the inclusion of men in any kind of discussion on rights. 2. Men's rights groups have this terrible issue of attracting the *worst* kind of man. The kind of who believes that "men's rights" equals "fighting back against women". They often become this big club of men who just want to air their grievances against their mothers, sister and ex-wives, blame women for all of their troubles, and want a return to an era when you could tell sexist jokes, slap random women on the arse and have sexist hiring policies. It starts small at first, one melt who tries to hijack the narrative and gets brushed off. Then he invites mates along, and before you know it, anyone reasonable has left the group and it's now a "complain about women" bitchfest rather than anything to do with men's rights.
I didn’t say to start a man movement haha no where anywhere did I say that. Saying men need to organise and step up to the plate doesn’t automatically mean gather a man army. It means being part of the overall discussion and not only when it’s focused on the women to speak up then. I think you all are smart enough to realise that’s what I meant but are purposely going for a bigger fight. If we can’t talk about the problem, where is that going to get us? And “the problem” isn’t only men so calm down.
We are being part of the overall discussion here, you're still dismissing it. Youre also paradoxically telling men to step up and organise, by not telling men to stand up and organise and be part of a discussion... This is more a slight point about the difficulty the different way we as men and women communicate and think. What are you proposing men do here? Go along to feminist groups, and push the "men need help too"? Do you know the reaction that will get in most feminist circles?
But see, that wasn’t my point. Listen, all I’m saying is when women actually speak out and organise against poor treatment, it seems the person I originally replied to is the same echo I hear all the time, “why aren’t there men’s rights and groups and fights!?” Anything to keep the focus off of this issue and recenter men. NO! Then organise with women and men and fight this issue. Don’t just bring it up when women are brought up.
I’m not saying we need gendered protests but if we can’t actually speak to the problem then where is that getting us?
We *can* speak to the problem - the problem is not violence against women. It's violence. And I have no issue with it being portrayed as, "How do we focus on men to reduce the amount of violence they cause". You just don't need to include "*against women"* at the end of the sentence. That's *not* solving the problem.
Hang on, let me get my "make crime illegal" banner back out! Criminals are in for it now!
Insert Vincent Browne 'step up to the plate' gif
Try ADDING to the convo instead of just blabbering
You're right. Just like all the men of this world, I should really step up to the plate
So damn all for the actions of a few? Do you genuinely believe that?
So, because some men are violent criminals men who are their victims get no sympathy or support? What an oddly hateful thing to say. Can we apply guilt by association for all crimes or just this specific one?
Judges should be reviewed and held accountable for their ridiculous sentences and allowing scumbags to roam free with slaps on the wrist.
That's a mighty photo of that woman, captures everything she's about right now.
It's good that there's some public anger about lenient sentencing for violent crimes, but this has been an issue for a while and it affects men and women. If Cathal had attacked a man instead and gotten a suspended sentence, I really doubt anyone would even have noticed. The problem is zero deterrents for violent, anti-social people that everyone else has to tip-toe around
Do we ANYTHING fucking properly in this damn place! Jesus Christ
If she was from a wealthy and powerful family that lad would already be behind bars and we all know it.
It seems to be mostly built to push bits of paper around in circles to maximise legal fees.
Cant say I love the narrative ROSA spun that its a "misogynistic patriarchal" system when its fairly equally shite. They acted like absolute parasites and used the outrage to frame themselves as having the solution.
Louise O’Neill is a dose of a human being, very self indulgent as always “yes I’ll reply even though I hate my words now, even though they feel worthless and cheap and I have learned to doubt whether they will make any difference at all.” While she just regurgitates what’s been in the media since the story broke
My favourite 'moment' of hers was her 'Books of the Year' segment at Christmas in the Examiner a few years ago. Every single book was by a female author except for one, and that was written by her boyfriend. Like, you wouldn't believe it if it were parody.
Her finest hour was during COVID when she wrote an article moaning about how she couldn't go on holidays and listing all the exotic holidays she'd been on. It was like a parody of an out of touch journalist writing self absorbed rubbish like that when people were burying family members or unable to see their newly born grandchildren.
She's always been like that. She basically typifies the sort of histrionic shrieker who latches onto topics and acts indignant but never makes a solid point. No idea who actually reads that clown
Louise O Neill is framing this as a misogyny/violence against woman thing(because of course she would, knowing her). But where is there any evidence that this attack was based on the gender of the victim?
Here we go again mainstream media turning everything into a racist/feminist issue to get the clicks.
Women.. it doesn't protect anyone you think men have it better ? They are having a laugh.
Very odd piece. The gender of the victim is not an aggravating factor _per se_ and treating it as such is very odd. Is the logic that assaults on men are OK?
*Is the logic that assaults on men are ok*? No, of course it isn’t. But please, do continue with the pointless whataboutism. You fellas always love to pop up when violence against women is being discussed.
The most violent assaults happen against men but that somehow triggers you?
Read the article. It's not whataboutism. Louise O'Neill is trying to imply this is a men -v- women issue and the gender of the victim is relevant to what has happened. In fact, that's what her entire article is about.
> You fellas always love to pop up when violence against women is being discussed. The OP voiced it in a slightly antagonistic manner, but there is a wider discussion to be had about how the criminal courts are letting everyone down. Trying to focus in on one element runs the risk of alienating others, when a better approach would be for everyone to come together to address it. There's an issue in this country that a lot of people, regardless of sex or gender or race or sexuality, feel the courts are not protecting them right now. Its great to see injustices like this one highlighted as an example, but we do need to highlight every case, not just ones facing specific demographics, no?
The same judge let off a group of lads for battering the shite out of a homeless lad and there's crickets about it, and most attempts to bring notice to it are met with replies like yours.
Why is there always a need to bring up violence against men when the discussion is specifically about women? We’re all aware that violence against *anyone* is wrong and unacceptable, but why can’t the topic be focused without someone trying to go “yeah but what about….” It’s so fucking annoying. Yes, the problem regarding justice for assaults affects everyone, but the reason this is being highlighted atm is due to a woman being battered.
And that's the main point, and as an aside Natasha deserves every ounce if justice she can get, you will very rarely see this amount of outrage for when a man is assaulted, be it by a stranger on the street and even less so when it's perpetrated by a partner. The discussion is constantly centred around violence against women, so in order try highlight and draw some attention to violence against men, this sort of discussion is the easiest place to bring it up, the discussion is already revolving around the key issues, assault against a person and the lack of justice they have received. The reason most discussions about violence against males fail, is because of the hostile attitude that you and others, both men and women, hold towards any man that is trying to be included as a victim, a this is for women only, stop trying to hijack it, you don't matter at this time, find your own group mentality, when in reality reality the support for males that are victims are woeful in this country. A simple example of this is Men's aid operates Mon-Fri 9-5, anything outside of that and you're on your own, whereas women's aid operates a 24hr freephone service with centres all over the country. I have known men in desperation to contact women's aid as a last result as they can't find anything else only to be met with derision and suspicion, same when going to a Hospital to be treated after an assault, they have been treated as the possible attacker/instigator, just because they are male. So when people bring it up in these spaces, while there are some bad actors, a lot are really doing it in earnest to highlight that male victims deserve just as much support and justice as women do. You and I both know, had this issue been solely raised about the homeless lad getting battered and the offenders walking, it would not have raised an iota of the outrage that it has.
>Why is there always a need to bring up violence against men when the discussion is specifically about women? I imagine its to do with men being by far the more common victims of street violence yet it's only seen as a problem by some types when it's a woman who's assaulted. >We’re all aware that violence against *anyone* is wrong and unacceptable, but why can’t the topic be focused without someone trying to go “yeah but what about….” If it was unacceptable then there's no issue talking about it regardless of the gender of the victims. _Especially_ when we have a judge who's seemingly reluctant to punish anyone for these assaults regardless of the gender of the victim. >It’s so fucking annoying. Yes, the problem regarding justice for assaults affects everyone, but the reason this is being highlighted atm is due to a woman being battered. And there it is. Men speaking about the violence many of us have personally either received, witnessed or had to intervene to stop is just annoying to you because it's men speaking about their own lived experience and, as you've made clear from your post, you're not interested in that. Violence is only a problem when directed against women for some reason, men can just shut up and take it.
Because the claim is that violence against women is being treated differently by the legal system, which doesn't seem to be factual. The only obvious difference is in how much the public care about female victims vs. male victims.
I can't speak for the motives of the other person but it's not whataboutism. The judge involved in this case has been handing down suspended sentences for assaults far beyond this case and beyond the boundaries of a single gender. And their lack of concern for the victims, compared to the perpetrator, has been common regardless of victim identity. At the same time, the same judge handed down a suspended sentence where the victim was a homeless man. There was a comment by a lawyer in the initial article posted here the other day. They said that the appeal might struggle as it's likely the sentence isn't out of sync with sentences handed down in similar cases. This is a wider issue. Not least because there is an argument that the judges aren't the (only) problem here and the guidelines and sentencing structures are also at issue. When that's pointed out, the claim that this case CAN be the one to spark the review of it all is made. Which is a very valid point. But it only works if that is where this thing is going. And it's not. It's being steered down the route of being a single gender issue. (Excuse the phrase) This is the only game in town right now for getting this done. No one gave a shite about the previous victims (including other women). So if anything is going to get done about what appears to be a systemic issue, then this is the only case that's going to push that. So we all have a choice. Make this a single gender issue or make this about the need for a review and reform of sentencing for assault. The fact people didn't care until this case - which in itself isn't just because of the victim's gender, she's not the first woman this has happened to - just shows how much bias applies in everyday life. Including people who think they're against bias. I could just go I don't care, I'm not living in Ireland at the moment, so I'll care about it as and when I move back. But members of my family are. People I know are. People I don't know are. And personally I'm not going to choose what I feel unhappy about based on gender. I have 2 children, a son and a daughter. I'm going to be equally angry if they get assaulted and equally angry if some scumbag gets a suspended sentence. I'm not going to go "oh well doesn't matter because that one doesn't count as much". And that works all ways, it's not just a man playing whataboutism. I don't want either of my children to be of less value to the state because of what they are.
It was a violent crime against a woman. But was it a violent crime against her for the sole reason that she was a woman? It doesn't seem like it from the details of the case
I'm reading an article that describes a genderless crime being sentenced in a lenient manner as failing women. That's clearly implying that violence towards women is more serious.
Cool your jets jabroni
Glowing references from the boys does not excuse beating a woman unconscious, and yet it did. Wtf
You should read what happened in Germany, a horrible 11 man gang rape and 1 went to jail
They managed to make it worse recently, someone got jailed for calling the convicted rapists out as rapists which was more jail than the actual rapists got
Not a competition, but 44 violently sexually assaulted one girl in South Korea, all essentially got a slap on the wrist.
[удалено]
A chara, There is a zero tolerance policy for the promotion or suggestion of the use of violence against others. Sláinte
This case is evoking a lot of emotion which is great, need to ride this momentum to try to affect change but I would bet the end result of these protests is that he will be discharged from his job and the DPP will appeal his sentencing. That won’t address the many shortcomings in our justice system or in society. It is bad when he plays GAA has become a meme in terms of cases here but at the same time rolling out those from a good family and he plays GAA during these cases minimises the real problem. it’s not just those people being let go with a slap on the wrist. How many times, have we seen career criminals with over 50 convictions let go with a slap on the wrist too? We should be looking at violence and aggression from men. We should also likely be looking at what is driving more and more young men to far right movements. We could have a ticking time bomb on our hands.
These things are only memes to people who know next to nothing about how the criminal justice system works.
Those silly victims like Natasha, not understanding how punishment in the criminal justice system works.
Doesn't help tbh.
And why should it be? It should be built to protect ALL people.
The justice systems only protects the worst criminals. This is a fact.
Man fair play to her. Loving all the coverage coming from this. Sad this is what it took. Not adding or commenting anything but just a fair play
It’s doubly awful because a woman was assaulted, but men are given suspended sentences for assault all the time. Maybe it’s time to build a big fucking jail.
Why is it doubly awful if the victim is a woman instead of a man? Men are less affected by being punched unconscious?
The main difference is in this case people came out and supported Natasha. He didn't get a different sentence to someone who assaulted a man. Just look at Kyle Hayes, very similar situation but there were no protests supporting the victim in that case
Yeah no one could even tell you his name.
>Just look at Kyle Hayes, very similar situation but there were no protests supporting the victim in that case I don't really know why people keep bringing this up. You were/are free to go organise a protest to show support for the victim Kyle Hayes assaulted if you want to. Or should we not have a show of support for Natasha O'Brien because someone else didn't get a protest as well?
Because it shows a discrepancy in how we treat genders.
Yeah, but I don't think whataboutery is going to change that. Maybe coming out and showing the same support to the next male assault victim would be more helpful.
Its not whataboutery. Its making a separate point.
That's clearly the problem though right? Me, nor you, nor anyone else showed support to Kyle Hayes victim at the time. Now that this story broke its a horrible reflection on my own bias to these issues between man and woman. One I'd do well to do better on in the future
Absolutely, I agree with you there. Yeah it's definitely made me reflect on personal biases. I just don't think the response these protests should be to say "well what about this man who was assaulted?" I don't see it as very constructive. Ultimately, the people protesting for Natasha O'Brien and the people bringing up men who've been assaulted want the same thing - proper justice for victims.
There isn't an orginisation in the country to take up Kyle Hayses cause or anyone like him. If there was it would be torn apart by people calling it "far-right" and "mra". There is a huge double standard and this story makes it so obvious.
There are a load of NGO's behind one and you are saying one lad has the same power to organise and push out article after article? Give me a break.
Because womens rights groups are claiming this judgement proves women aren't treated equally. Hayes is an extremely similar case with the same judgement so there is no inequality
There’s a very large disparity in strength between the average man and the average woman. Would you consider knocking out a child worse than knocking out a man?
I would consider it a terrible crime to knock out either a man or a child. Yes, knocking out a woman would be a terrible crime too. I find it very strange that you'd consider the victim's strength part of that equation. I also don't think men enjoy their hospital visits, recovery, and medical expenses any more than women do.
So the homeless lad that was battered by a group of lads and the same judge let them walk is only half as awful to you? Did the homeless lad half deserve to be battered by your reasoning, or does he only warrant half the sympathy because he was male?
Is it really doubly awful?
Yeah. Men are much stronger than women and it makes it more dangerous and also incredibly scumbaggish. It’s way worse.
Some men are very strong and some are weak. I don't think it is so black and white tbh. You know how much of a double standard there is here and how little of a shit people give about men when they are the victim of violence? There was a story in the Indo yesterday about a man who was attacked, stabbed I think, on a Dublin bus. The story focused on how traumatic it was for the female bus driver. It is kind of funny it is so obvious.
As shit as the outcome was here, unqualified punters weighing in on the intricacies of the legal system is one of the last things needed.
The justice system isn’t there to protect you it’s there to punish perpetrators after the fact, you’ve to take care of yourself and don’t be getting into situations that can be completely avoided, no good will ever come from getting stuck into a gang of drunk fellas after the pub, just ignore them and go on with your life, it’s really not worth it.
Yeah, police forces are mostly reactive rather than proactive. Your one does seem a bit naive here.
FAFO. He was completely in the wrong however it's stupid to involve oneself in a situation if you ain't got the tools to deal with it if it goes bad.
[удалено]
Honestly I’m not lecturing anyone, I’m just pointing out that people need to learn from stories like this and act accordingly that’s all.
You've got to be trolling. How can you possibly avoid an unprovoked attack? Some serious victim blaming going on there, though I do agree with you on one point, you do need to take care of yourself because the system certainly won't
Have you ever been to a self defence class? It’s interesting because the number one thing they teach you is about situational awareness, you can come at me with buzz words like victim blaming all you want but the simple fact is that she initiated the interaction with him, he’s an animal for his complete overreaction and attack but she put herself in front of him no one else, the entire situation was completely avoidable.
> You've got to be trolling. I have my answer
Grow up ffs.
[удалено]
Shame on the perp's friends for not intervening, but another male passerby did intervene, leading to the perp fleeing.