Sentencing in Ireland.

luckyboy · 12-05-2015 8:22pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Why don't we look at the best prison systems in the world and follow their lead?

Norway has one of the lowest prison populations in the world, and one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world
http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12?r=US and low rates of crime.

The 'lock em up and throw away the key' system clearly doesn't work. It's been tried over and over again.

If we focus prisons on rehabilitating prisoners instead of punishment and exacting revenge, then society as a whole will be much better off.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Breivik the mass murderer only serving a 21-year sentence because it is the maximum allowed under Norwegian law?

SummerSummit · 12-05-2015 8:27pm

luckyboy wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Breivik the mass murderer only serving a 21-year sentence because it is the maximum allowed under Norwegian law?

They built him his own gym. No joke. At least in Mountjoy the prisoners have to **** in a bucket with a few other lads in the same cell.

Akrasia · 13-05-2015 8:07am

SummerSummit wrote: »

You are twice as likely to be raped in Norway then Ireland.

And you're half as likely to be murdered. Norways Murder rate is .6 per 100,000,Ire;and is 1.2
Rape statistics are notoriously unreliable and difficult to compare across borders, but the justice system rarely prevents first offenders from committing their first crimes. What it should do is prevent first offenders from becoming repeat offenders, and Ireland's system certainly isn't doing that

Akrasia · 13-05-2015 8:11am

SummerSummit wrote: »

Prison and the justice system should be about punishment first and foremost regardless of the cost. An element of revenge is necessary for the victims of crime.

Revenge is the absolutely worst motivator for a functioning justice system

The victims of crimes don't feel any better when they are focused on revenge, the criminals don't get rehabilitated, the public isn't any safer.

Revenge causes violence, it does not solve it.

13-05-2015 8:15am

Akrasia wrote: »

And you're half as likely to be murdered. Norways Murder rate is .6 per 100,000,Ire;and is 1.2
Rape statistics are notoriously unreliable and difficult to compare across borders, but the justice system rarely prevents first offenders from committing their first crimes. What it should do is prevent first offenders from becoming repeat offenders, and Ireland's system certainly isn't doing that

Strangely if you change it to intentional homicide - which presumably means killing by any violence including manslaughter - as of 2012 Norways rate of 2.2 per 100,000 is almost double that of Ireland's 1.2...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Akrasia · 13-05-2015 8:16am

luckyboy wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Breivik the mass murderer only serving a 21-year sentence because it is the maximum allowed under Norwegian law?

His sentence is 21 years, but it can be extended if the justice system considers that he has not been rehabilitated and is unfit for release. Breivik will probably never be released from Jail, but even for Breivik, his prison acommodation is humane. He is not treated like a caged animal, he is shown compassion and this is infinitely more likely to make him see the error of his ways than some of the maximum security prison systems in other parts of the world, where violence and rape and humiliation are part of day to day life.

Akrasia · 13-05-2015 8:18am

Deleted User wrote: »

Strangely if you change it to intentional homicide - which presumably means killing by any violence including manslaughter - as of 2012 Norways rate of 2.2 per 100,000 is almost double that of Ireland's 1.2...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

That statistic is an outlier due to the actions of one man murdering 77 innocent children.

On a normal year, the Norweigan murder rate is about half of ours

13-05-2015 8:21am

Akrasia wrote: »

even for Breivik, his prison acommodation is humane. He is not treated like a caged animal, he is shown compassion and this is infinitely more likely to make him see the error of his ways than some of the maximum security prison systems in other parts of the world, where violence and rape and humiliation are part of day to day life.

I'd have had him swing off the end of a rope. I don't believe he deserved compassion or humanity. I don't care whether he sees the "the error of his ways" in killing dozens and dozens of people. If he had to face violence and rape between conviction and hanging...pffffffffffffft.

Splendour · 13-05-2015 8:26am

Agree about tougher sentencing-in certain cases.
Also, boot camp for younger offenders and hard labour for older prisoners. And education for all on life in general and on the crimes they have committed.
I don't believe in the death sentence.

Akrasia · 13-05-2015 8:37am

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd have had him swing off the end of a rope. I don't believe he deserved compassion or humanity. I don't care whether he sees the "the error of his ways" in killing dozens and dozens of people. If he had to face violence and rape between conviction and hanging...pffffffffffffft.

How would torturing and killing Breivik make amends for what he did?

In the societies that have public executions, violence is normalised.

Killing Breivik would turn him into a martyr for the crazy ideology he supported. Treating him with dignity and compassion turns him into an icon for a dignified and compassionate society.

If we want to send a message that barbarism is wrong, it makes no sense to have a justice system that deliberately inflicts torture onto people as a punishment.

For ordinary every day criminals, we're locking them up for short sentences, and when they come out, they have even fewer opportunities to transform their existence than before they went in. It's no wonder that our recidivism rate is through the roof. (62.3% within 3 years of release)
http://www.iprt.ie/contents/2516

Norway has shown that 80% of criminals can be rehabilitated if you take it seriously enough.

13-05-2015 8:45am

Akrasia wrote: »

How would torturing and killing Breivik make amends for what he did?

In the societies that have public executions, violence is normalised.

Killing Breivik would turn him into a martyr for the crazy ideology he supported. Treating him with dignity and compassion turns him into an icon for a dignified and compassionate society.

You are changing my post. I don't advocate torture as part of the penalty at all, but as I said if it happened to a serial killer whilst in prison at the hands of other prisoners it wouldn't bother me that much either.

I don't think the penalty imposed should be about "making amends". That's a personal matter for Breivik. He can make amends with his Gods or his victims however he chooses, it not for a Judge to impose on him an enforced means of making amends. I think there is more to the sanction than rehabilitation or making amends, and punishment per se is very much at the heart of it even if you don't like it. There are also issues such as the safety of society and deterrence.

I don't think he did anything to earn dignity or compassion. I don't want him turned into an icon for anything. And. I don't think the death sentence makes martyrs of people at all, no one is repulsed by the crimes of Ted Bundy but thinks his execution completely redeemed his image.

MarkAnthony · 13-05-2015 8:58am

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Who's going to pay for all these lovely new prisons?

Worth mentioning again.

whisky_galore · 13-05-2015 9:01am

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Who's going to pay for all these lovely new prisons?

Either you pay for the 'lovely new prisons' or you pay the social cost by not having 'lovely new prisons'.

Either way, you pay.

MarkAnthony · 13-05-2015 9:12am

whisky_galore wrote: »

Either you pay for the 'lovely new prisons' or you pay the social cost by not having 'lovely new prisons'.

Either way, you pay.

That's simply not the case. The cost of building new prisons is prohibitively expensive. The cost of sorting out the social problems in Ireland are similarly prohibitively expensive. Therefore the cheaper option is softer sentencing.

Of course we pay in relation to a less safe society - that said it's clear from the US model that tougher sentences does not equal a safer society, but then it could be that the social problems in the US are masking the actual effects of longer sentences.

Given that 80% of Dublin domestic burglaries are committed by Heroin addicts do you think that they're bothered whether they do 1, 3 or 5 years if caught? I'd be delighted to see them put away for a long stretch given the right treatment and rehabilitation.

If there was the money to hand down tougher sentences it would be done tomorrow. It would be wildly in effective but wildly popular, and that's what it's all about the popular option. The fact is upping income tax by 10% across the board would be wildly unpopular and that's what would be required to fund all these prisons.

whisky_galore · 13-05-2015 9:14am

Tougher (i.e. longer sentences) won't happen because PRISON SPACE.

It's like putting a 2L of milk into a 1L bottle, it simply won't happen!

mickydoomsux · 13-05-2015 9:21am

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The fact is upping income tax by 10% across the board would be wildly unpopular and that's what would be required to fund all these prisons.

Shipping containers are relatively cheap. Re-purpose them into cells and there you go, plenty more prison space at a low cost.

MarkAnthony · 13-05-2015 9:23am

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Shipping containers are relatively cheap. Re-purpose them into cells and there you go, plenty more prison space at a low cost.

Tents would probably be even cheaper.

The cost of guarding and running it is the problem rather than the infrastructure costs.

Akrasia · 13-05-2015 9:36am

Deleted User wrote: »

You are changing my post. I don't advocate torture as part of the penalty at all, but as I said if it happened to a serial killer whilst in prison at the hands of other prisoners it wouldn't bother me that much either.

What about if the violence happens to a young first time offender in jail for a non violent crime....

A prison system designed in such a way that there is an expectation that inmates are likely to face violence and sexual assault is clearly a broken system.

You're being inconsistent. If prisons are supposed to reduce crime, then they should not permit any kind of violence or rape within the prison system. A crime is a crime, inside or outside the walls of a prison.

You're not advocating torture, but you wouldn't go out of your way to prevent him from being raped and humiliated while in prison.

There is a section of society that think prisons are supposed to be violent places where people should expect to be raped and attacked by the other inmates because this somehow provides a 'deterrent' to other people committing a crime. All it does is foster an environment of domination and people come out of prison more violent and dangerous than they went in, and with almost no chance of turning their life around.

I don't think the penalty imposed should be about "making amends". That's a personal matter for Breivik. He can make amends with his Gods or his victims however he chooses, it not for a Judge to impose on him an enforced means of making amends. I think there is more to the sanction than rehabilitation or making amends, and punishment per se is very much at the heart of it even if you don't like it. There are also issues such as the safety of society and deterrence.

The punishment of incarcaration is that they are imprisoned and have their freedom taken away.
Adding elements like brutality or harsh treatment from the guards are extra judicial punishments. No Judge would ever sentence someone to 21 years of frequent rape, or 21 years of solitary confinement, or 21 years of humiliation by the prison guards.
These punishments are extra judicial, and we shouldn't permit them in a modern western justice system.

I don't think he did anything to earn dignity or compassion. I don't want him turned into an icon for anything. And. I don't think the death sentence makes martyrs of people at all, no one is repulsed by the crimes of Ted Bundy but thinks his execution completely redeemed his image.

The mark of a compassionate society is that compassion is shown by default. You don't have to earn it.

It's galling to think of prisoners being treated well if they showed no such compassion for their victims, but it's not exactly healthy for the victims of crime to be purely focused on making sure they get revenge on their attacker.

For healing to take place, the victim needs to move on. Society can help this by making sure that violent criminals are either rehabilitated as best we possibly can, or are incarcarated in Jail for our protection.

foggy_lad · 13-05-2015 9:48am

Mandatory sentencing hmmmm, we already have mandatory sentences for drug trafficking but most judges reduce the amount from the ten mandatory years to a few years with most suspended!

What is the point creating the laws if some nobhead judges are just going to ignore it for whatever fantasy that is playing out in their tiny minds?

13-05-2015 9:48am

Akrasia wrote: »

What about if the violence happens to a young first time offender in jail for a non violent crime....

A prison system designed in such a way that there is an expectation that inmates are likely to face violence and sexual assault is clearly a broken system.

You're being inconsistent. If prisons are supposed to reduce crime, then they should not permit any kind of violence or rape within the prison system. A crime is a crime, inside or outside the walls of a prison.

You're not advocating torture, but you wouldn't go out of your way to prevent him from being raped and humiliated while in prison.

Not too many end up in prison for non violent first offences. If they do, they usually end up in some remand prison like Cork, where there is no expectation of violence or rape. It's not a pleasant place, but do the crime do the time and all that. Plus the fact that it wouldn't bother me in the slightest that someone like Breivik may face violence does not mean I advocate it for all. Prisons with other murderers are tough environments, they can't complain too much that this wasn't spelled out to them before that did the crimes.

foggy_lad · 13-05-2015 9:55am

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I was going to ask where will we get all the jail space for these recividists and those who get consecutive sentences.

But of course now that the martyrs (I will go to jail before I will pay any fine) no longer have that option, there will be loads of space.

Rent out space in jails in places like Thailand and China where they know how to treat convicts!

SummerSummit · 13-05-2015 7:35pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Why don't we look at the best prison systems in the world and follow their lead?

Norway has one of the lowest prison populations in the world, and one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world and low rates of crime.

The 'lock em up and throw away the key' system clearly doesn't work. It's been tried over and over again.

If we focus prisons on rehabilitating prisoners instead of punishment and exacting revenge, then society as a whole will be much better off.

The Scottish Government did a report of recidivism rates amoung a number of countries. They determined that Norway had a recidivism rate of 54%, higher then:

Scotland - 42%
Ireland - 40%
Northern Ireland - 43%
England - 53%

http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/central/2012/nr_121107_reducing_reoffending__supp_sccjr.pdf

mynamejeff · 13-05-2015 9:49pm

SummerSummit wrote: »

The Scottish Government did a report of recidivism rates amoung a number of countries. They determined that Norway had a recidivism rate of 54%, higher then:
Scotland - 42%

Ireland - 40%

Northern Ireland - 43%

England - 53%

http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/central/2012/nr_121107_reducing_reoffending__supp_sccjr.pdf

boom !

dxhound2005 · 13-05-2015 9:58pm

foggy_lad wrote: »

Rent out space in jails in places like Thailand and China where they know how to treat convicts!

You forgot America. They are the ones who know how to do it. 716 in prison per 100,000 of the population compared to our 81. 2.25 million people locked up, plenty of them growing old into their 80's and 90's and will be there until they die.

We would have to find space for 40,000 prisoners to match that. And keep them locked up as geriatrics to satisfy the "3 strikes and you're out" (or rather in forever) type of approach favoured by some people here.

Of course that means there is no crime in America now, so well worth doing.

Eugene Norman · 13-05-2015 9:59pm

dxhound2005 wrote: »

You forgot America. They are the ones who know how to do it. 716 in prison per 100,000 of the population compared to our 81. 2.25 million people locked up, plenty of them growing old into their 80's and 90's and will be there until they die.

We would have to find space for 40,000 prisoners to match that. And keep them locked up as geriatrics to satisfy the "3 strikes and you're out" (or rather in forever) type of approach favoured by some people here.

Of course that means there is no crime in America now, so well worth doing.

Let's not go over board.

Jadaol · 13-05-2015 11:04pm

El Guapo! wrote: »

Wow. That is absolutely bananas.

Maybe. Maybe not. The states case was that the guy wasn't asleep and knew their plans to commit a felony which made him equally responsible under the law

He claimed he thought they were joking

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holle

Akrasia · 14-05-2015 8:36am

mynamejeff wrote: »

boom !

Except, the Norway recidivism rate reported in the Audit scotland report refer to the period 2003 to 2006. It measured 3 year recidivism rates and the new prison policy was only being rolled out around 2002, so most (if not all) of the people who were measured in the Audit Scotland report would have been incarcarated under the old prison system which was more or less the same as every other country at the time.

To assess Norways current system, we need to look at the current statistics, not stats that reflect prisoners who were released 12 years ago.

MarkAnthony · 14-05-2015 11:27am

Incidentally, was that audit Scotland report prompted by the multimillion pound settlements they had to pay due to the huge number of human rights abuse cases due to their prison system being an absolute farce?

By the by a prison system most frequently compared to our own.

SummerSummit · 14-05-2015 8:23pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Except, the Norway recidivism rate reported in the Audit scotland report refer to the period 2003 to 2006. It measured 3 year recidivism rates and the new prison policy was only being rolled out around 2002, so most (if not all) of the people who were measured in the Audit Scotland report would have been incarcarated under the old prison system which was more or less the same as every other country at the time.

To assess Norways current system, we need to look at the current statistics, not stats that reflect prisoners who were released 12 years ago.

Here is the current statistics from the Norway Statistics Office. Recidivism within a 4 year period is 53%. http://www.ssb.no/en/forskning/discussion-papers/_attachment/166596?_ts=14496f98d88

Sentencing in Ireland.

Comments