Enough

djpbarry · 27-01-2014 3:09pm

jmayo wrote: »

I think you need to stop watching Quentin Tarantino movies.
...
You are disregarding the type of breakin/robberies that are sadly all too common enough in rural Ireland.
Those are the ones where people breakin to a house with elderly people and proceed to tie them up, beat them and almost torture them to extract some money from them.

Eh, who needs to stop watching Tarantino movies?

jmayo wrote: »

And it appears you and others think that prision should be some sort of readjustment centre where punishment never comes into it.

The primary purpose of a criminal justice system is to protect society. The best way to protect society is to reform criminals, is it not?

jmayo wrote: »

Where is the use in rehabilitation when it is the persons 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc time in prison ?

You’re missing the obvious contradiction in your question.

Niall Keane · 27-01-2014 3:25pm

playing Devil's Advocate.....

How much does it cost to imprison someone for a year?

How much does it cost to build a prison?

How much would it cost to provide opportunities to disadvantaged communities rife with criminal element?

What kind of lack of opportunity and poverty drives someone to risk 3-5 years locked up for the takings of a till, probably less than a months salary for most here?

Once "criminalised", having a record, how does that look on a Job application?

Could repeat offending be not just a learned behaviour but perhaps a necessity?

If the average poster here was thus "given a record" and so outcast to the dole for life on 9.5K a year, would they happily oblige society and not take what they cannot earn? Particularly for their children?

Are prisons universities for criminals?

Worse still, are prisons "the masons" for criminals, a closed business network?

What is the difference regarding damage to society, between say selling alcohol and drugs?

Why does society abhor the criminal who raids a till, which is probably insured, and yet that same culture has films glorifying "Robin Hood"? (one could argue that the criminal introduces cash to our economy, and so stimulates growth?)

Could thieves simply be frustrated people denied opportunity by social contract but with the "drive" to be more successful than simply sitting on their rear on the dole?

Is this simply natural animal behaviour? a direct form of competing for resources? No one calls for cookoos to be caged because they steal the resources of other birds to the detriment of their offspring? Is "stealing" a deviant behaviour? or is the system that allows for such disparity of wealth, resources and opportunity the thing that is deviant?

If criminals disregard law and carry weapons in any case, who does it serve to disarm the general public?

Many call for the right to shoot thieves etc. but they never consider that retaliation may follow, and if a class war breaks out, the "have-nots" have the numbers!!! Perhaps such anarchy would be more natural?

If one robs a till one is branded a criminal, if one robs a country one is called a banker?

Nothing is black and white!

BillyBoy13 · 27-01-2014 3:55pm

jmayo wrote: »

You have gone to an extreme which actually rarely if ever happens.

I used an extreme example to get the point across.

jmayo wrote: »

You are disregarding the type of breakin/robberies..........where people breakin to a house with elderly people and proceed to tie them up, beat them and almost torture them to extract some money from them.

Im not disregarding anything.

Like I said, there is no one size fits all when it comes to reasonable force.

Everything has to be considered. For example was Mike Tyson the house owner or was it a frail old lady. Did the home owner attack first even if there was no need, or did they feel threatened and then attack.

If they used a weapon why did they use a weapon and how did they use it and what way did they use it.

Again, extreme example, but if Mike Tyson comes down stairs after his shower and finds a 15 year old intruder who comes running swinging punches and Mike pulls out a shotgun and blows him away- its hard to say reasonable force.

If its a frail old granny in the country and the 15 year old comes running swinging punches and she blows him away with a shotgun then yes she can argue it was reasonable.

jmayo wrote: »

Do you suggest the elderly victims do nothing if they have a chance to protect themselves.

No I dont. I suggest everybody (not just elderly) do whatever they can to protect themselves- just so long as its reasonable.

jmayo wrote: »

A number of years ago I recall an incident in Galway where some such lowlifes broke into an eldlerly farmer one night.
He told them he had a gun and would shoot them if they came into the bedroom.
They did and he shot at one of them and hit him.
He fled but ended up in hospital.

Thats an excellent example of reasonable force and how it should work.

walshb · 27-01-2014 6:08pm

Damien360 wrote: »

There should be a limit and then you disappear for many years. Not quite 3 strikes and you are out, b
s.

Why? Once a mistake, twice is careless and three times is absolute deliberate and with malice.

walshb · 27-01-2014 6:10pm

I only read an article in the Irish Daily Mail yesterday about a 60 something con artist with 124 convictions and he's been up till recently robbing pensioners. 100 plus convictions. Vermin like that need to be permanently taken out of society.

For Reals · 27-01-2014 6:11pm

walshb wrote: »

Why? Once a mistake, twice is careless and three times is absolute deliberate and with malice.

Class bias. Three strikes could be a burglary, parking fine, TV licence. All it takes is an upper middle class judge with no idea of working class life....yeah unlikely I know

walshb · 27-01-2014 6:18pm

For Reals wrote: »

Class bias. Three strikes could be a burglary, parking fine, TV licence. All it takes is an upper middle class judge with no idea of working class life....yeah unlikely I know

Maybe bring in a 3 strike rule for a class of crimes?

Anyway, I have never had faith in our sentencing laws here. There's far too many instances where real scum are not punished effectively and fairly. Take murder, the most heinous of crimes. Average time spent in prison is 17 years. That is disgusting.

Niall Keane · 28-01-2014 11:32am

walshb wrote: »

Maybe bring in a 3 strike rule for a class of crimes?

Anyway, I have never had faith in our sentencing laws here. There's far too many instances where real scum are not punished effectively and fairly. Take murder, the most heinous of crimes. Average time spent in prison is 17 years. That is disgusting.

I believe there are problems with that in the US, where rapists become murderers after number 2 and armed robbers - killers, as in both cases "witnesses" present a problem!!!

Niall Keane · 28-01-2014 11:41am

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/food-poverty-affects-457-000-people-across-the-state-1.1630073

no need for me to comment!

jmayo · 28-01-2014 12:15pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Eh, who needs to stop watching Tarantino movies?

Yer man Bill the kid (BillyBoy13) below.

djpbarry wrote: »

The primary purpose of a criminal justice system is to protect society. The best way to protect society is to reform criminals, is it not?
You’re missing the obvious contradiction in your question.

Maybe the best thing is to just shoot the worse of them ala Russia or China.
Please tell me one reason the likes of gerard barry should ever be allowed free again ?

What good is he doing sitting in jail wasting resources that could be spent on someone that might contribute more to society than pain and suffering ?

Our justice system is not protecting people, that is the problem.
Look at the list of murderers who have committed multiple offences.
Look at the list of rapists who have committed multiple offences.

My point is some people are beyond reform, if you rape and kill a young innocent girl, after having raped another girl, after having led a gang to kick someone to death, then you don't deserve anything bar incarceration‎ for the rest of your life.

If a young fellow is in for first offence and it aint rape or murder then fine try to rehabilitate them.
The younger that a potential career criminal is helped the better.
But lets not waste resources on a career criminal who has bludgoened some poor sod to death and is on his 50 conviction.

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

... Again, extreme example, but if Mike Tyson comes down stairs after his shower and finds a 15 year old intruder who comes running swinging punches and Mike pulls out a shotgun and blows him away- its hard to say reasonable force.

I would say the 15 year old deserved it for being muppet enough to start swinging at old Mike.
Think Darwins Law and all that.

For Reals wrote: »

Class bias. Three strikes could be a burglary, parking fine, TV licence. All it takes is an upper middle class judge with no idea of working class life....yeah unlikely I know

I absolutely hate this cr** about working class.
Most of those who come from certain areas are not working class, they are the "never work class".
Of course that is the fault of everyone else bar themselves.

walshb · 28-01-2014 1:06pm

djpbarry wrote: »

The primary purpose of a criminal justice system is to protect society. The best way to protect society is to reform criminals, is it not?
.

I agree it's best to reform criminals, but do you believe a convicted murderer should ever see the light of day again?

AlekSmart · 28-01-2014 2:08pm

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

No I dont. I suggest everybody (not just elderly) do whatever they can to protect themselves- just so long as its reasonable.

Thats an excellent example of reasonable force and how it should work.

An excellent example indeed.

However,the reality of current life in Ireland is one where the victims of aggrivated burglaries and other such attacks on the person are not afforded time to carry out the risk-assessment which this "Reasonable" response requires.

The majority of us are not walking about wearing Flak-Jackets to cope with known threats to our wellbeing,as we have an expectation that we can live our lives without let or hinderance from others (except,perhaps The Revenue Commissioners),as long as we show similar respect to others.

High minded arguements regarding the merits of Rehabilitation and Punishment are quite enjoyable until the situation rocks up on your own doorstep,whereupon one is forced to stare sheer unpredictable evil straight in the eye whilst wondering if he takes sugar in his tea.

What tends to annoy,and perhaps worry,a great many reformists is the regularity with which the necessary leniency and understanding is availed of simply to further the criminal CV many of these criminally inclined types in the first place.

The ability of the Court Reports to throw up ever more impressively long "Previous" lists surely cannot be ignored or simply put down to our uncaring nature ?

What is most glaringly obvious to the young criminally inclined,is a ready availability of excuses,get-out clauses,and associated mechanisms which allow such people to dabble and get a feel for how it works.

The ratio of such dabblers who proceed to enter mainstream criminality would appear to be a good indicator of how well the system is working.....for the criminally inclined.

AlekSmart · 28-01-2014 2:24pm

Niall Keane wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/food-poverty-affects-457-000-people-across-the-state-1.1630073

no need for me to comment!

Indeed Niall,indeed....

Whilst at first reading it would appear a "Newsy" article,but with the bit of personalisation,it reaches a wider,perhaps more "Socially Concerned" audience with its big-number headline.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/kitty-holland-7.2276472

It may well reflect the writers own area of interest more accurately than the greater society it purports to ..?

BillyBoy13 · 28-01-2014 4:04pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

An excellent example indeed.

However,the reality of current life in Ireland is one where the victims of aggrivated burglaries and other such attacks on the person are not afforded time to carry out the risk-assessment which this "Reasonable" response requires.

Look, Im only trying to help people understand what reasonable force is. As I said there is no one size fits all and Im not getting into an debate about this. So this is the last Im going to say on the matter.

Generally speaking, when you are using force on a person, when you are no longer attacking them because of fear, but are attacking them because of anger, generally speaking, that's the point when you have gone from reasonable force to assault.

Niall Keane · 28-01-2014 10:32pm

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Look, Im only trying to help people understand what reasonable force is. As I said there is no one size fits all and Im not getting into an debate about this. So this is the last Im going to say on the matter.

Generally speaking, when you are using force on a person, when you are no longer attacking them because of fear, but are attacking them because of anger, generally speaking, that's the point when you have gone from reasonable force to assault.

Fear and Anger have no place in using the art of violence successfully. A fearful person will be slower in reaction, I read somewhere this is the body's way of taking in and "recording" everything to make sure you learn never to enter such a situation again, it is why boxers etc. remember clearly their losses and are vague about their wins. Anger and going apesh1t means "big" and "wide" movements which are easily read, dodged, blocked and utilised against you.

I believe as the law stands we no longer must retreat in our homes? and can use deadly force when we believe we or our family etc are in danger?

The problem with "reasonable force" is that it is a concept born from those with no clue about violence, personally if I was on a jury say, I would find nearly any case of using lethal force to defends one's home "reasonable", even against a sole intruder. Is he armed? How strong is he? Does he do martial arts as a hobby making trying to "restrain" him a gamble (coming from someone with experience - mistakes happen!) Is he really alone?

There is an important concept known to fighters called "the immediacy of combat", coupled with the fact that technique suffers under pressure, the only reasonable thing to do is to take any advantage you can in the situation, and disable him as quickly and easily as you can, great if its a knock out - fantastic and lucky for you both, ends fast and chances are, he will recover! BUT - Will you have the opportunity to be that "clean"! (It can take a world class pro boxer a few rounds to pull it off!!!) And how many people here have been training their KO skills?

Don't have the power or trained skill? Normally people don't, SO what then? well the obvious equaliser is a weapon. Especially when the intruder could be armed, and got in the kitchen window beside your knife rack. SO I take it everyone here has been training their blade skills? Evasion, footwork and targeting are second nature right? Otherwise you might as well hand over the knife as you all know right?

A gun!!! point and squeeze!!! KEEP your eyes open!!! You get one shot! But wait, this is Ireland, you law abiding people with shotguns for hunting must keep your guns locked up and your ammunition in another area of the house by law! SO no guns then! even for those besieged rural citizens.

Like I said, seems anything you can do in such a sh1t situation has to be considered "reasonable"?

Witcher · 28-01-2014 10:53pm

Niall Keane wrote: »

A gun!!! point and squeeze!!! KEEP your eyes open!!! You get one shot! But wait, this is Ireland, you law abiding people with shotguns for hunting must keep your guns locked up and your ammunition in another area of the house by law! SO no guns then! even for those besieged rural citizens.

There is no law that requires ammunition to be kept seperately from a firearm. You don't even need a safe for a shotgun either.

AlekSmart · 29-01-2014 12:10am

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Look, Im only trying to help people understand what reasonable force is. As I said there is no one size fits all and Im not getting into an debate about this. So this is the last Im going to say on the matter.

Generally speaking, when you are using force on a person, when you are no longer attacking them because of fear, but are attacking them because of anger, generally speaking, that's the point when you have gone from reasonable force to assault.

Accepted....however "Generally Speaking" we are presented with ever more cases where totally innocent passers-by,householders and the likes are physically attacked,often with extreme force,by individuals out on bail after strikingly similar assaults.

Are "We" (rehabilitation sceptics) expected to keep turning cheeks until we run out of them,in the hope that these assailants will experience a Pauline conversion which might see them sparing us next time around ?

The Reasonable actions of a Reasonable Man are only such,when carried out within accepted boundaries of reason itself.....I'm suggesting that allowing individuals the freedom to amass three figure convictions yet remaining free to continue that process is as good a definition of Unreasonableness as you'll find ?

BillyBoy13 · 29-01-2014 12:30am

AlekSmart wrote: »

Accepted....however "Generally Speaking" we are presented with ever more cases where totally innocent passers-by,householders and the likes are physically attacked,often with extreme force,by individuals out on bail after strikingly similar assaults.

Are "We" (rehabilitation sceptics) expected to keep turning cheeks until we run out of them,in the hope that these assailants will experience a Pauline conversion which might see them sparing us next time around ?

The Reasonable actions of a Reasonable Man are only such,when carried out within accepted boundaries of reason itself.....I'm suggesting that allowing individuals the freedom to amass three figure convictions yet remaining free to continue that process is as good a definition of Unreasonableness as you'll find ?

Why are you trying to link reasonable force with rehabilitation..?? There is no connection between the two.

To be totally frank, Im not a huge fan of rehabilition myself but Im still a firm believer in reasonable force.

walshb · 29-01-2014 10:02am

There really is no link between reasonable force and rehabilitation. A person defending themselves doesn't stop to think or to ask the other person if they've committed violent crimes before. They do what they have to do to survive.

I am all for rehabilitation for certain crimes. Other crimes, not so much. A murderer may well "deserve" rehabilitation, but they can be rehabilitated whilst also being kept incarcerated for life. He/she deserves a life behind bars.

djpbarry · 29-01-2014 12:56pm

Niall Keane wrote: »

The problem with "reasonable force" is that it is a concept born from those with no clue about violence, personally if I was on a jury say, I would find nearly any case of using lethal force to defends one's home "reasonable", even against a sole intruder. Is he armed? How strong is he? Does he do martial arts as a hobby making trying to "restrain" him a gamble (coming from someone with experience - mistakes happen!) Is he really alone?

There is an important concept known to fighters called "the immediacy of combat", coupled with the fact that technique suffers under pressure, the only reasonable thing to do is to take any advantage you can in the situation, and disable him as quickly and easily as you can, great if its a knock out - fantastic and lucky for you both, ends fast and chances are, he will recover! BUT - Will you have the opportunity to be that "clean"! (It can take a world class pro boxer a few rounds to pull it off!!!) And how many people here have been training their KO skills?

Don't have the power or trained skill? Normally people don't, SO what then? well the obvious equaliser is a weapon. Especially when the intruder could be armed, and got in the kitchen window beside your knife rack. SO I take it everyone here has been training their blade skills? Evasion, footwork and targeting are second nature right? Otherwise you might as well hand over the knife as you all know right?

A gun!!! point and squeeze!!! KEEP your eyes open!!! You get one shot! But wait, this is Ireland, you law abiding people with shotguns for hunting must keep your guns locked up and your ammunition in another area of the house by law! SO no guns then! even for those besieged rural citizens.

All of which is based on the premise that the intruder has not fled the scene on being discovered and is therefore looking for a fight - pretty much anything falls under the heading of "reasonable self-defence" in such a scenario.

Zubeneschamali · 29-01-2014 2:07pm

Niall Keane wrote: »

A gun!!! point and squeeze!!! KEEP your eyes open!!! You get one shot!

Congratulations! You just shot your husband sneaking in from the pub after a few!

laoch na mona · 29-01-2014 2:35pm

the problem is that there is no attempt to address the root causes of crimes such as social degradation. if we want crime levels to stay at low levels then we need to stop people becoming criminals. prevention is always better then the cure

walshb · 29-01-2014 3:30pm

laoch na mona wrote: »

the problem is that there is no attempt to address the root causes of crimes such as social degradation. if we want crime levels to stay at low levels then we need to stop people becoming criminals. prevention is always better then the cure

That can work for normal and average people. Evil people is a different story!

Niall Keane · 29-01-2014 4:16pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-143147/Father-jailed-killing-burglar.html

Does this guy "deserve" a jail sentence?

Two kids under 4!!!

12 stab wounds can happen in seconds, under 5 seconds in capable hands, certainly less than 10. Do you think the man was in full capacity of his senses with an intruder in his childrens home, enough to deal out "reasonable force"? Can adrenalin be flushed out so easily and quickly that we may all rest assured we will act in the "proper" manner? Do you think abstract concepts such as legal thresholds (front door) entered his mind during the confrontation?

Is he a danger to society? (or just to people who burst in doors and enter homes with his small children inside?)

What do other mammals such as Bears and Lions do when their young are threatened? How ridiculous to assume a relatively recent intellectual concept such as common law can negate millions of years of evolution! Who's being unreasonable?

Zubeneschamali · 29-01-2014 4:54pm

Niall Keane wrote: »

12 stab wounds can happen in seconds, under 5 seconds in capable hands, certainly less than 10.

How long does it take to chase the guy out of your house, catch him outside and repeatedly stab him in the back?

djpbarry · 29-01-2014 5:45pm

Niall Keane wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-143147/Father-jailed-killing-burglar.html

Does this guy "deserve" a jail sentence?

Yes. He chased the guy out of the house and stabbed him repeatedly. That goes way, way beyond self-defence.

Niall Keane wrote: »

What do other mammals such as Bears and Lions do when their young are threatened? How ridiculous to assume a relatively recent intellectual concept such as common law can negate millions of years of evolution! Who's being unreasonable?

You? "Humans are animals" could be used to defend pretty much anything.

laoch na mona · 30-01-2014 10:45am

walshb wrote: »

That can work for normal and average people. Evil people is a different story!

considering that human nature is socially constructed and behaviour is learned we can safely say there are no "evil" people, well not born evil anyway

walshb · 30-01-2014 12:01pm

laoch na mona wrote: »

considering that human nature is socially constructed and behaviour is learned we can safely say there are no "evil" people, well not born evil anyway

You know that for sure? That a person cannot be born evil? How can we explain people with very good upbringings and privilege who come from decent and good families who commit heinous crimes?

Do you believe that some humans are evil? I do. We are part of the animal kingdom. A very complex creature.

oscarBravo · 30-01-2014 12:36pm

walshb wrote: »

Do you believe that some humans are evil? I do.

The idea that some people are "evil" is a rather dated one. If someone is evil, in the sense of being inherently and irretrievably malevolent, wouldn't it be better to kill them? We could burn them at the stake or something.

jmayo · 30-01-2014 7:51pm

laoch na mona wrote: »

considering that human nature is socially constructed and behaviour is learned we can safely say there are no "evil" people, well not born evil anyway

Well maybe if you re-label it as being a personality disorder, would that make you happy.

Some people have absolutely no empathy or feelings of remorse and they see no difference between "right" and "wrong".
Some people label those people as "evil".

Ever notice how the signs exhibited by serial killers are sometimes visible from a very young age.

And please don't try and pedal the line "bad" people are always a product of their upbringing or are somehow constructed through society.

A lot of the people who led and were involved with the Einsatzgruppen death squads on the Eastern front in WWII were highly qualified supposedly well adjusted upstanding members of society before they oversaw actions which could only be described as "pure evil".

oscarBravo wrote: »

The idea that some people are "evil" is a rather dated one. If someone is evil, in the sense of being inherently and irretrievably malevolent, wouldn't it be better to kill them? We could burn them at the stake or something.

Well some people do add little to society or would you argue the deaths of the likes of andrei chikatilo (Russia), ian brady (UK), fred west (UK), jeffrey dahmer (US) are a loss to man/womankind ?

Can we just consider evil to be an old religious term that has been replaced by more hip psychoanalytic theoretical terms.
No matter what way you label it, some people do some very bad things to other people.

And I wish to feck some people would cop on that some so called "evil" people are beyond help.
And there are some of those in Ireland.
I have on numerous occassion drawn attention to one such person in an Irish jail who has killed elderly neighbours on two separate occassions separated by a period of incarceration.

Mrs Nancy Nolan's son and five daughters sat in the Central Criminal Court today still trying to make sense of their mother's murder. Thomas Murray was on a day release from Castlereagh Prison when in mid-afternoon on St Valentines Day, he bludgeoned 80-year-old Mrs Nolan to death with a lump hammer. A retired national school teacher, she had taught Murray and had always been kind to him when he returned to Ballygar on temporary release from prison. There was no known motive for his attack on her.

In 1981, when he was just 17 years old, Murray had stabbed William Mannion, an elderly man, to death also in Ballygar. Again there was no motive or reason for the murder. After today's conviction Mrs Nolan's brother questioned the unsupervised temporary release that Murray was enjoying when he carried out his second murder in less than 20 years.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/1205/10615-roscommon/

Now who thinks this guy should be allowed out again ?
And who thinks our criminal justice system protected Mrs Nolan ?

Enough

Comments