Enough

Zubeneschamali · 03-02-2014 2:44pm

I think drugs should be legalised. It should be legal to grow your own cannabis, and sale should be on similar terms to tobacco, with the same sort of taxation and regulation. Heroin and cocaine should be available from a pharmacy to registered addicts with a prescription.

Addicts would no longer need to rob all around them to fund their habits. Reliable grades of drugs should reduce overdoses. Clean needles and unadulterated drugs would improve health for addicts. The Gardai could chase actual criminals. Organized crime gangs would be out of business.

It's all reminiscent of Prohibition in the US and the huge boost it gave to organized crime.

walshb · 03-02-2014 2:47pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think drugs should be legalised. It should be legal to grow your own cannabis, and sale should be on similar terms to tobacco, with the same sort of taxation and regulation. Heroin and cocaine should be available from a pharmacy to registered addicts with a prescription.

Addicts would no longer need to rob all around them to fund their habits. Reliable grades of drugs should reduce overdoses. Clean needles and unadulterated drugs would improve health for addicts. The Gardai could chase actual criminals. Organized crime gangs would be out of business.

It's all reminiscent of Prohibition in the US and the huge boost it gave to organized crime.

So we just allow people to be heroin addicts so long as they're getting the heroin from a legal seller? What do we do after they leave the shop? Hope it all goes well for them and they don't create any problems?

Prohibition in the 20s in America is a little different from what you are advocating.

Zubeneschamali · 03-02-2014 2:58pm

walshb wrote: »

So we just allow people to be heroin addicts so long as they're getting the heroin from a legal seller? What do we do after they leave the shop? Hope it all goes well for them and they don't create any problems?

Again - the reason heroin addicts are a problem today is because they have to rob to fund their habits. Heroin doesn't make them attack people, black market drug prices do.

Of course, some of them will die. Same as alcohol and tobacco addicts.

artful_codger · 03-02-2014 2:59pm

The solution to our ongoing crimewave isn't gun ownership. It's to scrap Restorative Justice policies. We also need a three strikes system and zero tolerance Policing. We've tried the soft touch policies of the leftie loon Restorative Justice / Prison Abolition Movement, and they have failed spectacularly.

Zubeneschamali · 03-02-2014 3:03pm

artful_codger wrote: »

We also need a three strikes system and zero tolerance Policing.

Three strikes is a disastrous rule - if you already have two strikes, sure you might as well leave no witnesses, you're screwed if you're caught, so kill them all.

walshb · 03-02-2014 3:47pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Again - the reason heroin addicts are a problem today is because they have to rob to fund their habits. Heroin doesn't make them attack people, black market drug prices do.

Of course, some of them will die. Same as alcohol and tobacco addicts.

Not specifically speaking about them attacking people. But there's a bit of a difference between a person enjoying a pint or enjoying a cigarette compared to someone ingesting or injecting heroin into their veins.

walshb · 03-02-2014 3:49pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Three strikes is a disastrous rule - if you already have two strikes, sure you might as well leave no witnesses, you're screwed if you're caught, so kill them all.

So where do you draw the line? Keep letting them out to cause pain and misery? Anyway, the 3 strike rule isn't just about serious crime. It doesn't have to be about killing people, for example.

artful_codger · 03-02-2014 4:09pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Three strikes is a disastrous rule - if you already have two strikes, sure you might as well leave no witnesses, you're screwed if you're caught, so kill them all.

So a burgar is going to murder all of the householders if they disturb him while robbing the place? That's some assumption!

Here's a more likely sequence of events: the burglar knows he is on his second strike and knows what will happen if he's caught again, so he decides against it.

Zubeneschamali · 03-02-2014 4:14pm

walshb wrote: »

Not specifically speaking about them attacking people. But there's a bit of a difference between a person enjoying a pint or enjoying a cigarette compared to someone ingesting or injecting heroin into their veins.

Yes, the cigarettes are more addictive.

You can read about Heroin assisted treatment at wikipedia.

walshb · 03-02-2014 4:20pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, the cigarettes are more addictive.

You can read about Heroin assisted treatment at wikipedia.

Maybe the cigarettes are more addictive. I am not arguing as to which is the more addictive. I am sure coffee is just as addictive as heroin.

oscarBravo · 03-02-2014 4:27pm

jank wrote: »

Why do we therefore jail people who commit a crime?

To remove them from society for a period of time. Depending on your view of the aim of incarceration, the period of time is either until (a) they have been rehabilitated and are less of a threat to society, or (b) they've suffered enough to "pay" for their crime.

We do not jail people to rehabilitate them first and foremost...

...and then we're all shocked - shocked, I tells ya! - when they re-offend once they've been released.

Well Norway is full of Norwegians first and foremost.

Norwegians are better people than Americans?

I am sure most Norwegians will not be happy when Andres Breivik will be released in 20 years.

Anders Breivik won't be released until the courts have decided that he's not a threat to society. Once he's not a threat to society, why would there be a problem with him being released?

The one shoe fits all model would not work in most other countries.

Who's proposing a "one shoe fits all" model?

walshb wrote: »

We still need to jail people.

I'm not sure who you're arguing with, because I haven't seen a single suggestion in this entire thread that we not jail people.

walshb · 03-02-2014 4:33pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure who you're arguing with, because I haven't seen a single suggestion in this entire thread that we not jail people.

Not arguing. Just reiterating. Your saying that jail time (punishment) alone is not a deterrent is what is being debated.

walshb · 03-02-2014 4:35pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Anders Breivik won't be released until the courts have decided that he's not a threat to society. Once he's not a threat to society, why would there be a problem with him being released?
.

Are you for real? You seem completely anti punishment. 20 years inside is hardly punishment considering what that man did. I wonder would it not be a problem had he butchered one of your loved ones? Nobody can definitively know whether or not he remains a threat to society. Anyway, that is besides the point. Even if we did know that man should never see the light of day again.

Zubeneschamali · 03-02-2014 4:40pm

walshb wrote: »

Maybe the cigarettes are more addictive. I am not arguing as to which is the more addictive. I am sure coffee is just as addictive as heroin.

Cool, so we should allow Heroin to be legal like cigarettes, and cut the legs out from under organized crime.

walshb · 03-02-2014 4:42pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Cool, so we should allow Heroin to be legal like cigarettes, and cut the legs out from under organized crime.

I don't think so. Heroin and cigarettes have one thing in common; they're addictive. It ends there.

Zubeneschamali · 03-02-2014 5:07pm

walshb wrote: »

I don't think so.

Why not?

Defund organized crime, clear out prison space, court time and Garda resources, addicts get safer, cleaner drugs, and we can all stop worrying about getting mugged by a junkie with a syringe.

Wins all around.

walshb · 03-02-2014 5:14pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Why not?

Defund organized crime, clear out prison space, court time and Garda resources, addicts get safer, cleaner drugs, and we can all stop worrying about getting mugged by a junkie with a syringe.

Wins all around.

You're nearly swaying me!:)

oscarBravo · 03-02-2014 5:35pm

walshb wrote: »

Not arguing. Just reiterating. Your saying that jail time (punishment) alone is not a deterrent is what is being debated.

I'm saying that incarceration for the sole sake of punishment makes society less safe than incarceration for the purpose of rehabilitation. You're saying that rehabilitation shouldn't be the goal of prison; that revenge is more important than making society safer. I'm disagreeing with that assessment.

walshb wrote: »

Are you for real? You seem completely anti punishment. 20 years inside is hardly punishment considering what that man did.

Punishment, punishment, punishment. It doesn't matter what makes society safer; it doesn't matter what's the more humane thing to do. What matters is revenge.

If you value revenge over all other considerations, fair enough. I don't.

I wonder would it not be a problem had he butchered one of your loved ones?

I hope I never have to find out how I'd respond under those circumstances, but I try to approach things rationally. It's usually a better idea than letting anger be my primary motivating force.

Nobody can definitively know whether or not he remains a threat to society.

Nobody can definitively know whether or not anyone is a threat to society. By that argument, everyone should be locked up for life in case they murder someone.

Anyway, that is besides the point. Even if we did know that man should never see the light of day again.

So why not just kill him? What's the point in letting him live?

walshb · 03-02-2014 6:39pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm saying that incarceration for the sole sake of punishment makes society less safe than incarceration for the purpose of rehabilitation. You're saying that rehabilitation shouldn't be the goal of prison; that revenge is more important than making society safer. I'm disagreeing with that assessment.

Punishment, punishment, punishment. It doesn't matter what makes society safer; it doesn't matter what's the more humane thing to do. What matters is revenge.

If you value revenge over all other considerations, fair enough. I don't. I hope I never have to find out how I'd respond under those circumstances, but I try to approach things rationally. It's usually a better idea than letting anger be my primary motivating force. Nobody can definitively know whether or not anyone is a threat to society. By that argument, everyone should be locked up for life in case they murder someone. So why not just kill him? What's the point in letting him live?

What has locking everyone up got to do with releasing a man who murdered scores of people? He has a proven record for murder. Until "everyone" commits murder there's no valid reason to lock them up for life.

I too approach things rationally. That doesn't preclude anger. Wouldn't any normal person feel anger if their loved one was butchered? Being angry doesn't necessarily stop a person from thinking rationally, does it? Wanting revenge? Again, it's something we as humans possess. Is it always wrong to want revenge? We're not robots. We can't flick switches to stop us feeling a certain way. You are striving for a world that doesn't exist.

BTW, what is wrong with locking up a murderer for life? Does this somehow mean that this decision was down to anger and revenge, and not morally a correct decision? Why can't it be down to the law of the land. Take a life, then yours is taken, or your freedom is taken. Do you believe that a person who is sentenced to life for murder has been hard done by? If the authorities see him as no longer a real threat to society, but still keep him locked up for murder, is this wrong?

As for killing Anders. Well, if the country does not have the death penalty then that is not an option. Not sure why you brought that up. Next best thing is a life removed from society.

Prison serves several goals. For me the first gaol is to remove folks from society who deserve to be removed. Anything after that is up to society to say what happens.

oscarBravo · 03-02-2014 7:29pm

walshb wrote: »

I too approach things rationally. That doesn't preclude anger. Wouldn't any normal person feel anger if their loved one was butchered? Being angry doesn't necessarily stop a person from thinking rationally, does it? Wanting revenge?

Do you think a judge should be allowed to preside over the trial of someone who's accused of murdering a member of his family?

Anger prevents rational thought, and shouldn't inform a judicial system.

Again, it's something we as humans possess. Is it always wrong to want revenge? We're not robots. We can't flick switches to stop us feeling a certain way. You are striving for a world that doesn't exist.

I'm not saying it's wrong to want revenge; I'm saying that it's a motivation that leads to a less safe society. If you believe that a less safe society is an acceptable price to pay for revenge, fair enough: I've already said I disagree with you.

BTW, what is wrong with locking up a murderer for life? Does this somehow mean that this decision was down to anger and revenge, and not morally a correct decision?

Yes, that's pretty much what it means. I have no problem with keeping someone locked up if they remain a danger to society. I don't see what society gains from locking someone up if they're no longer dangerous.

Do you believe that a person who is sentenced to life for murder has been hard done by? If the authorities see him as no longer a real threat to society, but still keep him locked up for murder, is this wrong?

Let me turn it around: if someone commits a murder in a moment of rage at the age of 18, but is filled with remorse immediately afterwards, you still think that he should be forced to spend anything up to the next eighty years locked up for that crime, and to die behind bars?

How does society benefit in any way from that?

As for killing Anders. Well, if the country does not have the death penalty then that is not an option. Not sure why you brought that up. Next best thing is a life removed from society.

But why bother feeding him? Why bother giving him shelter? Why not just chain him to a rock and let him die of starvation or exposure, rather than keeping him alive with the sole intention that he'll die behind bars in a few decades' time? What's the point?

Prison serves several goals. For me the first gaol is to remove folks from society who deserve to be removed. Anything after that is up to society to say what happens.

For me the only purpose of prison should be to make society safer. When we're agreed on that, we can start talking about how it can do that, but as long as you're determined that prison should be a form of punishment, even at the cost of a less safe society, we can't have that conversation.

walshb · 03-02-2014 7:40pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's the point? For me the only purpose of prison should be to make society safer. When we're agreed on that, we can start talking about how it can do that, but as long as you're determined that prison should be a form of punishment, even at the cost of a less safe society, we can't have that conversation.

And isn't removing people that are a danger to society making society safer? Is it punishment? To the person locked up, of course it is. Why try to remove that from the equation? It is what it is. I believe prison is there as a punishment/deterrent and as a place that protects decent people from not so decent people. What happens inside that prison can also be useful to create a safer society, that is, a place for healing and rehabilitation.

As to the 18 year old who commits murder. Sorry or not, he/she should spend the rest of their life in prison.

oscarBravo · 03-02-2014 8:00pm

walshb wrote: »

And isn't removing people that are a danger to society making society safer?

That's a trite and simplistic approach. If you take that approach in isolation, the best approach to a penal system is to lock everyone up for life if they commit any crime at all.

Now, is that a good idea? No, it's self-evidently stupid. Why? Because removing people from society has negative consequences. If you accept that nuance for non-murderers, then it's logically inconsistent to refuse to accept it for murderers (or rapists, or drug dealers, or people who download illegal movies, or whatever your arbitrary threshold for extreme punishment is). And once you accept that there are nuances to the question, it becomes necessary to explore the question of life imprisonment from an overall cost-benefit perspective.

Is it punishment? To the person locked up, of course it is. Why try to remove that from the equation?

Yet again, if you could find one single post in this entire thread where anyone has suggested the removal of punishment, you might have a point. As it is, you're beating the stuffing out of yet another pointless straw man.

It is what it is. I believe prison is there as a punishment/deterrent and as a place that protects decent people from not so decent people. What happens inside that prison can also be useful to create a safer society, that is, a place for healing and rehabilitation.

Why would you bother rehabilitating people you are never going to release? For that matter, why would you bother feeding them? You ignored that question.

As to the 18 year old who commits murder. Sorry or not, he/she should spend the rest of their life in prison.

How does that benefit society in any way?

walshb · 03-02-2014 9:08pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a trite and simplistic approach. If you take that approach in isolation, the best approach to a penal system is to lock everyone up for life if they commit any crime at all.

Now, is that a good idea? No, it's self-evidently stupid. Why? Because removing people from society has negative consequences. If you accept that nuance for non-murderers, then it's logically inconsistent to refuse to accept it for murderers (or rapists, or drug dealers, or people who download illegal movies, or whatever your arbitrary threshold for extreme punishment is). And once you accept that there are nuances to the question, it becomes necessary to explore the question of life imprisonment from an overall cost-benefit perspective. Yet again, if you could find one single post in this entire thread where anyone has suggested the removal of punishment, you might have a point. As it is, you're beating the stuffing out of yet another pointless straw man. Why would you bother rehabilitating people you are never going to release? For that matter, why would you bother feeding them? You ignored that question. How does that benefit society in any way?

How is locking up everyone for life for committing any crime relevant? I am talking about life sentences for murderers.

As for rehabilitating people yet not releasing them. I didn't ignore that question. It was mentioned earlier about education in prison etc. Why bother feeding them? Well, to be somewhat humane? Just because I don't think a murderer should ever be released doesn't mean I want them tortured.

As for not releasing an 18 year old murderer nd how does this benefit society? How does releasing a murderer benefit society? That's what should be shown, not the other way around.

oscarBravo · 03-02-2014 9:16pm

walshb wrote: »

How is locking up everyone for life for committing any crime relevant?

I'll wait for you to figure out what my point was.

Why bother feeding them? Well, to be somewhat humane?

Why? You want them permanently removed from society. You want to see an eighteen-year-old who made a terrible mistake to be punished for more than four times longer than he has been alive. What's humane about that? That's, frankly, horrible.

Just because I don't think a murderer should ever be released doesn't mean I want them tortured.

Sure - as long as you don't consider being deprived of your liberty for the rest of your life as cruel and unusual punishment.

As for not releasing an 18 year old murderer nd how does this benefit society? How does releasing a murderer benefit society?

How does releasing a burglar benefit society? How does releasing someone who assaulted another person benefit society? How does releasing a white collar criminal benefit society?

walshb · 03-02-2014 9:38pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I You want to see an eighteen-year-old who made a terrible mistake to be punished for more than four times longer than he has been alive. What's humane about that? That's, frankly, horrible. ?

As horrible, as say, taking someone's life? Not talking about a traffic accident here. Murdering someone. Deciding to end their life. What's this about a mistake? How do you "mistakenly" murder someone? He still gets to live, doesn't he? In many countries he'd be put to death. I would rather feel a little more concerned for the victims of the murderer(s).

walshb · 03-02-2014 9:40pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure - as long as you don't consider being deprived of your liberty for the rest of your life as cruel and unusual punishment.

What about being deprived of life, period? Again, maybe a little more thought about the victim is needed.

walshb · 03-02-2014 9:46pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I How does releasing a burglar benefit society? How does releasing someone who assaulted another person benefit society? How does releasing a white collar criminal benefit society?

Well, how?

oscarBravo · 03-02-2014 9:58pm

walshb wrote: »

As horrible, as say, taking someone's life?

That's the standard we should set for our criminal justice system? As long as the punishment isn't as bad as the crime, anything goes?

walshb wrote: »

What about being deprived of life, period? Again, maybe a little more thought about the victim is needed.

How is locking someone up for the rest of their life going to help the victim in any way?

walshb wrote: »

Well, how?

Once again, I'll wait here while you figure out what point I was trying to make.

walshb · 03-02-2014 10:01pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

How is locking someone up for the rest of their life going to help the victim in any way?
.

Then don't lock them up at all. Sure isn't the victim dead? One day or 10000 days. It means nothing to the victim...

djpbarry · 04-02-2014 1:13pm

walshb wrote: »

Drug dealing/smuggling is an absolute cancer to society. It destroys whole communities.

And alcohol abuse doesn’t?

walshb wrote: »

But there's a bit of a difference between a person enjoying a pint or enjoying a cigarette compared to someone ingesting or injecting heroin into their veins.

Well sure, they’re all different. But two are legal only because society has deemed those two to be more acceptable than the other. Remember, it’s not that long ago that opiates were relatively easy to obtain legally for recreational use.

djpbarry · 04-02-2014 1:14pm

walshb wrote: »

I too approach things rationally. That doesn't preclude anger. Wouldn't any normal person feel anger if their loved one was butchered? Being angry doesn't necessarily stop a person from thinking rationally, does it? Wanting revenge? Again, it's something we as humans possess. Is it always wrong to want revenge? We're not robots. We can't flick switches to stop us feeling a certain way. You are striving for a world that doesn't exist.

There’s a staggering contradiction between the above and the following...

walshb wrote: »

As horrible, as say, taking someone's life? Not talking about a traffic accident here. Murdering someone. Deciding to end their life. What's this about a mistake? How do you "mistakenly" murder someone?

walshb · 04-02-2014 1:38pm

djpbarry wrote: »

There’s a staggering contradiction between the above and the following...

Where's that?

walshb · 04-02-2014 1:39pm

djpbarry wrote: »

And alcohol abuse doesn’t?
Well sure, they’re all different. But two are legal only because society has deemed those two to be more acceptable than the other. Remember, it’s not that long ago that opiates were relatively easy to obtain legally for recreational use.

I never said alcohol is always safe and harmless. I am well aware of the social problems the abuse of alcohol can create.

djpbarry · 04-02-2014 2:38pm

walshb wrote: »

Where's that?

It's ok for society to exact revenge, but any individual who does so, in a moment of madness, should be locked away from said society for life?

walshb · 04-02-2014 2:50pm

djpbarry wrote: »

It's ok for society to exact revenge, but any individual who does so, in a moment of madness, should be locked away from said society for life?

I never mentioned revenge as regards the act of murder. Murder is clearly defined in law and there's a "clear" punishment/sentence for it. You're coming out with stuff that is just not there.

Murder is a premeditated act. That is what it is. Not a mistake, or an accident, or a lapse of judgment. Can it be committed for revenge purposes? Yes. This has nothing to do with how society deals with persons who commit murder. We catch them, try them and convict them. They are sent away for this crime. It's really that simple. Is that us exacting revenge? I guess it is in a way. So what?

Are all murders moments of madness? And, what if they are, does this mean that the murderer deserves a pass, or less than a life sentence?

If a person commits the act of murder, IMO that person's life deserves to be restricted. We do not have a death penalty. For me a life sentence is what a convicted murderer deserves.

djpbarry · 04-02-2014 3:32pm

walshb wrote: »

Murder is a premeditated act. That is what it is. Not a mistake, or an accident, or a lapse of judgment.

Every single murder conviction falls under that definition?

walshb wrote: »

Are all murders moments of madness?

All? No. Any? Yes, definitely.

walshb wrote: »

And, what if they are, does this mean that the murderer deserves a pass, or less than a life sentence?

Maybe.

walshb · 04-02-2014 3:39pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Every single murder conviction falls under that definition?
All? No. Any? Yes, definitely.
Maybe.

There we have it. It's just a disagreement on the sentencing. As far as I am aware only a life sentence can be handed out for the crime of murder in Ireland.

I know well some murders are more appalling or heinous than others, as in they can have more of an effect on one's thinking, but the law is clear on the sentence.

I am not all right with the likes of say, Sean Courtney or Malcolm McCarthur being free men for their crimes of murder.

Life should mean life!

BTW, maybe I am wrong, but in Ireland does the act of murder have to be premeditated in order for it to be called murder? I thought it did.

djpbarry · 05-02-2014 11:02am

walshb wrote: »

BTW, maybe I am wrong, but in Ireland does the act of murder have to be premeditated in order for it to be called murder? I thought it did.

Whether or not a killing was premeditated is often open to interpretation – it’s impossible to know what the perpetrator was thinking. They themselves may not even be able to recall what they were thinking. So, while the law may be clear on the issue of sentencing, what constitutes “premeditated” is often for the jury to decide.

walshb · 05-02-2014 2:27pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Whether or not a killing was premeditated is often open to interpretation – it’s impossible to know what the perpetrator was thinking. They themselves may not even be able to recall what they were thinking. So, while the law may be clear on the issue of sentencing, what constitutes “premeditated” is often for the jury to decide.

I agree with what you say about premeditated. A lot of things in life aren't 100 percent clear.

Anyway, my view is that a murderer should spend his/her life behind bars. We'd get nothing done if we were sitting around trying to 100 percent say when a person did or did not premeditate. That is why we have courts and juries. They decide on the case and return the verdict after hearing the evidence.

Do you think a clear cut premeditated murderer should spend his/her life behind bars? Anders Brehvik being one example.

johnnyskeleton · 10-02-2014 12:19am

walshb wrote: »

BTW, maybe I am wrong, but in Ireland does the act of murder have to be premeditated in order for it to be called murder? I thought it did.

Up until 1964 it was murder with malice aforethought (usually first degree murder in the USA). In 1964 they codified the intention (but not the offence).

So now it is murder if there is malice, and malice means with the intention to kill or cause serious harm. So it doesn't need to be premeditated, nor does the person intend to kill. It's enough to intentionally, even at the spur of the moment, want to give someone a serious injury.

Do you think a clear cut premeditated murderer should spend his/her life behind bars? Anders Brehvik being one example.

I do (anyway), but the rationale behind the mandatory sentence for murder is not that every single murderer deserves to go to jail for life, but rather than it is society's way of saying that murder is one of the most serious offences in the State.

As to a pre-meditation argument, the Law Reform Commission have suggested that we could perhaps have a first and second degree murder system. The reason being that it is felt that juries will too often acquit of murder and convict of manslaughter if they feel sympathy for someone that they feel clearly did it but in sympathetic circumstances, or that they might be sufficiently certain for the beyond reasonable doubt test, but because of the stark all or nothing nature of the sentence will acquit altogether. I don't entirely agree with this, because for all its flaws you have to either accept that jurys do their jobs or else abolish the system and start again.

jank · 10-02-2014 4:58am

oscarBravo wrote: »

Norwegians are better people than Americans? .

That is not what I said, however do you deny that people in a nation who share a similar trait, culture, personality can be sometimes better at things than others? The Germans are good at paying taxes and are generally good at governing... the Greeks, Italians even the Irish would not share those traits, yet we know of course how to have a good time and not take things too seriously. The point of course that there is always a flaw when people cream themselves when they look at the Scandinavian model for some domestic policy be it education, taxes, immigration, health or so on and say 'lets do that here!!' If only it were that easy. The thing is though, it may work for them, it does not necessarily work for us or others. Simple reason of course is that Ireland is full of Irish people, not dour, serious, frugal, obedient Finns or Germans.. that is the problem when people point a the 'utopian' Scandinavian model.

oscarBravo · 10-02-2014 11:02am

I agree that you can't just take a Scandinavian model and impose it here, and I agree that it's because people will reject it - that's actually the entire thrust of my argument here.

We don't want to do things in the Norwegian way because, as a society, we still have the feeling that the first and primary purpose of a criminal justice system is vengeance, with all other considerations (including what's best for society as a whole) deemed less important. That's a horrible, nasty aspect to our society, and until we get over it, we won't reap the benefits of a more humane criminal justice system that the Norwegians do.

This is true of most things we could learn from other societies, such as Finland's world-class education system. We will never be able to implement them until we understand that at their core is the belief that if something benefits society as a whole, then it's worth overcoming the short-term objections and gut feelings in order to work towards it.

By the way, if you think Germans and Scandinavians don't know how to have a good time, you haven't met enough Germans and Scandinavians.

walshb · 10-02-2014 12:00pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

As to a pre-meditation argument, the Law Reform Commission have suggested that we could perhaps have a first and second degree murder system.

I think that could be brought in. I am in no doubt that there are different types of murder. Many do involve a spur of the moment act of madness or rage. Then there are the intentional and devious and planned taking of a person's life. The latter IMO definitely deserve to never be released from prison.

djpbarry · 11-02-2014 10:39am

jank wrote: »

Simple reason of course is that Ireland is full of Irish people, not dour, serious, frugal, obedient Finns or Germans..

You've not been to Rock am Ring then?

Stavros Murphy · 13-02-2014 8:48am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If an armed gang shows up to rob you, the thing to do is to give them the money.

The armed robbers association of Ireland said thanks - that makes their lives much easier.

Or how about not giving them the money? How about making it a 99% certainty that they will be resisted, caught and imprisoned? Ireland is small, there's not too many places to hide. Most criminals are already convicted but are out on bail. Why make their lives easier? Make it harder for them - impose longer sentences, revoke bail, make bail hard to get, publicise, promote and encourage active resistance.

I live in a very crime free area, surrounded by crime plagued areas. Why? Because if someone comes here to rob, they're getting a hot and heavy welcome. The last armed raiders were chased, rammed off the road and held until the gards arrived. By local farmers.. unarmed farmers. The raiders were relieved to see the gards arrive. Lying down is not the answer. It only takes the good men to do nothing for the bad to prosper.

Zubeneschamali · 13-02-2014 9:56am

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

Or how about not giving them the money? How about making it a 99% certainty that they will be resisted, caught and imprisoned?

We get it, you're Batman.

But perhaps you should have read a little further into the thread before posting: the gang who provoked this thread were caught within 2 days without any help from vigilantes dressed as rodents.

Just as I predicted they would be.

Stavros Murphy · 13-02-2014 8:34pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We get it, you're Batman.

But perhaps you should have read a little further into the thread before posting: the gang who provoked this thread were caught within 2 days without any help from vigilantes dressed as rodents.

Just as I predicted they would be.

Yeah? Great. Remind me again of the sentence they face? Oh, right, bail. Grand so.

Big Tom Mainliner · 14-02-2014 9:58pm

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

The armed robbers association of Ireland said thanks - that makes their lives much easier.

Or how about not giving them the money? How about making it a 99% certainty that they will be resisted, caught and imprisoned? Ireland is small, there's not too many places to hide. Most criminals are already convicted but are out on bail. Why make their lives easier? Make it harder for them - impose longer sentences, revoke bail, make bail hard to get, publicise, promote and encourage active resistance.

I live in a very crime free area, surrounded by crime plagued areas. Why? Because if someone comes here to rob, they're getting a hot and heavy welcome. The last armed raiders were chased, rammed off the road and held until the gards arrived. By local farmers.. unarmed farmers. The raiders were relieved to see the gards arrive. Lying down is not the answer. It only takes the good men to do nothing for the bad to prosper.

Sounds a small bit fantastical... its like something out of a comic book.

Stavros Murphy · 14-02-2014 10:22pm

Big Tom Mainliner wrote: »

Sounds a small bit fantastical... its like something out of a comic book.

Yup, Marvel.

Big Tom Mainliner · 14-02-2014 11:01pm

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

Yup, Marvel.

Well remember what Uncle Ben said to Peter Parker... with great power comes great responsibility. ..

Bear that in mind the next time you're ram-raiding criminals off the road in your crime-free enclave...

Enough

Comments