Not Guilty, But Still Fined

[MintTrav]

Dolores O'Riordan was in Court today for something she clearly did, but the judge decided not to give her a criminal conviction, but still ordered her to make a payment to a charity administered by the Courts.

This practice has apparently evolved in the Irish courts over the years. I haven't heard of anything similar before in the UK or elsewhere and I'm not sure where I stand on it. In one way, shouldn't you be either guilty or not? Should you be fined if you haven't been found guilty? On the other hand, I can see what they are trying to do. The reality in this case is that she was guilty but was being let off lightly due to mitigating factors so, presumably, that is how is is usually used.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/12171947/Cranberries-singer-Dolores-ORiordan-fined-over-air-rage-at-Shannon-Airport.html

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_trial/court_poor_box.html

[DaveShoelace]

They do this in the States a lot, I think they may have done it with OJ.

I'm with you, kinda makes a mockery of democracy and the judicial system

[kinboshi]

.

[bobAlike]

If its in the publics interest to criminalise her then yes should be but is this really in the publics interest in this case? Assuming that she was suffering bipolar disorder of course.

[Ironside]

.

never heard of her or the group before and first time i heard that song love it

[Doobs]

.

never heard of her or the group before and first time i heard that song love it

You must have heard linger or zombie?   Wasn't a fan of the cranberries, but you can't go through life without hearing zombie.  Mind boggling.  Maybe poshalex could get away with it?