Does your local Garda no longer seem interested? Maybe this is why.

Carlos Orange · 22-10-2014 1:59pm

desertcircus wrote: »

If there's a causal link between harsher sentences and fewer crimes, then there should be hard statistical evidence. The total lack of any on this thread so far leads me to suspect that harsh sentences aren't the solution people tend to think.

Do you have any evidence that lenient sentences reduce crime?

donegal. · 22-10-2014 2:03pm

leaving aside the fact he was a guard, what sentence is normal for level of assault
(not what sentence you think they should get, but the sentence others have actually gotten )

22-10-2014 2:07pm

donegal. wrote: »

leaving aside the fact he was a guard, what sentence is normal for level of assault
(not what sentence you think they should get, but the sentence others have actually gotten )

You cannot leave aside the fact that both victims in this case are Gardaí. They were set upon because they are Gardaí.

ratracer · 22-10-2014 2:10pm

desertcircus wrote: »

I have been a victim of crime. But that's irrelevant: the entire structure of the Western legal code is based upon impartiality, which you seem to think is wrong. If you have a basis for this position, I'm all ears, but you don't get to simply assert something in direct contradiction of the accumulated centuries of jurisprudence and legal precedent without making a case for it.

That aside, does anyone have any evidence that harsher sentences reduce crime? It's not a weird question: if you think we should be reducing crime, then it's a perfectly legitimate question.

And what would your idea of suitable punishment be for someone who tries to seriously assaults another person? What would you suggest be done to make the aggressor see the error of their ways and reform? It is well and good saying that harsh incarceration sentences don't reform people, but what is the alternative? What country in the 'Western legal code' can say rehabilitation without removed freedoms has worked for them?

Also, take 'garda' out of the headline/description and substitute it with 'priest/nun/doctor', would there be uproar over these professions being attacked by scumbags for no reason?

donegal. · 22-10-2014 2:46pm

foreign wrote: »

You cannot leave aside the fact that both victims in this case are Gardaí. They were set upon because they are Gardaí.

of course you can.
I simply asked what sentence is normal if some one is assaulted (to this extent)

TheNog · 22-10-2014 2:49pm

desertcircus wrote: »

Another thread filled with people demanding harsher penalties, another thread devoid of evidence that harsher penalties do any good.

Harsh penalties are not the norm at the moment considering that on average 2 Gardai are assaulted every day. How many Gardai to be assaulted will it take before harsh punishments are the norm?

I dont know how many Paramedics or firefighters are assaulted each year but someone here may know.

TheNog · 22-10-2014 2:59pm

donegal. wrote: »

leaving aside the fact he was a guard, what sentence is normal for level of assault
(not what sentence you think they should get, but the sentence others have actually gotten )

Very tough question to answer due to the wide variances of sentencing in Ireland but if I was to hazard a guess with an assault occasioning these level injuries on a civilian would attract 3-5 years.

I base my opinion on news reports

horsebox7 · 22-10-2014 3:35pm

Two words to sum this thread up DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT

TheNog · 22-10-2014 4:14pm

horsebox7 wrote: »

Two words to sum this thread up DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT

hmm very engaging

donegal. · 22-10-2014 4:15pm

TheNog wrote: »

Very tough question to answer due to the wide variances of sentencing in Ireland but if I was to hazard a guess with an assault occasioning these level injuries on a civilian would attract 3-5 years.

I base my opinion on news reports

jesus, thats i stiff enough sentence.
i'd presume assaulting a guard you'd expect at least double that so they should have been looking at around 8 years each ?

Potential-Monke · 22-10-2014 4:30pm

horsebox7 wrote: »

Zealous reform of the justice system overall is badly needed. I really do feel for these victims who justice has escaped. I agree that demotivation among gards is understandable in situations like this but then where does that leave the general public who have to engage with the gards? Can the general public then lower their service expectations because of this demotivation? Don't get me wrong I deplore what has happened here but I think demotivation among workers in any profession that serves the public is something that needs to be addressed.

I can't think of any way to word this without it sounding bad, so i'm just going to go the direct harsh route. Tough. The Gardaí are a public service, paid by the government. That same government, through it's Judiciary and laws, are not protecting it's employees. They are letting the Judiciary get away with crazy lenient sentencing for serious crimes, and doing nothing about it. It's been well known for a long time that assaults on Emergency Services personnel needs to be reviewed and harsher sentencing needs to be applied, but it's not doing it. There also needs to be a review of the Judiciary set up, and a proper, easy appeals process set up.

Also, if the public are annoyed that Gardaí may have lost interest, well, the public should then get behind the Gardaí and insist on the same changes that they require. Instead, most seem to prefer Garda bashing and blaming (see: Irish Water). The Government is against them, the public are against them, the laws are against them. I'm not saying Gardaí have lost interest, but i'm saying it wouldn't surprise me if they have. I imagine they'll still do the work, but just enough to stay out of trouble and within the law.

desertcircus wrote: »

Another thread filled with people demanding harsher penalties, another thread devoid of evidence that harsher penalties do any good.

Lots of people have already stated it above, but a career criminal in jail cannot commit crime. Yes, Sweden is leading the way, but they have a rehabilitation system which prevents, or greatly reduces, the chances of re-offending. In Ireland, we don't. We have criminals who don't participate or engage with the probation services, or who ignore or break any bail or temporary release conditions, and nothing happens them. That needs to be changed. Until then, until we have an effective system that works, these people need to be locked up.

donegal. wrote: »

leaving aside the fact he was a guard, what sentence is normal for level of assault
(not what sentence you think they should get, but the sentence others have actually gotten )

Section 4 of the Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997

Assault Causing serious harm:

4.—(1) A person who intentionally or recklessly causes serious harm to another shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for life or to both.

In the same Act, Serious Harm is defined as:

“serious harm” means injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious disfigurement or substantial loss or impairment of the mobility of the body as a whole or of the function of any particular bodily member or organ;

To me, that includes that one Gardas eye. However, if the DPP didn't run with that (which i suspect to be the case, when has the DPP ever run with the proper charge), then it would be Section 3 Assault

Assault causing harm.

3.—(1) A person who assaults another causing him or her harm shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.

As this was heard in the Circuit Court, 2(a) does not apply, so they should be facing 5 years. Puts it a bit more into perspective.

SoapMcTavish · 22-10-2014 4:31pm

Cane em ..... cane em all !!! Like Singapore ( I'm not joking - would love to see this introduced, especially for repeat offenders ). Public caning - Saturday morning - up in the park - some popcorn or a hotdog and free entertainment.

Wiki -

Singaporean law allows caning to be ordered for over 30 offences, including hostage-taking / kidnapping,[3] robbery, gang robbery with murder, drug abuse, vandalism, rioting, sexual abuse (molest), and unlawful possession of weapons.[4] Caning is also a mandatory punishment for certain offences such as rape, drug trafficking, illegal money-lending,[5] and for visiting foreigners who overstay their visa by more than 90 days (a measure designed to deter illegal immigrant workers).

Legal basis

Sections 325 to 332 of the Criminal Procedure Code [2] lay down the procedures governing caning, including:

A convicted male offender who is between the ages of 18 and 50 and has been certified medically fit by a medical officer may be subjected to caning.
The offender will receive a maximum of 24 strokes of the cane on any one occasion, irrespective of the total number of offences committed. I.e. A man cannot be sentenced to more than 24 strokes of the cane in a single trial, but he may receive more than 24 strokes if the sentences are given out in separate trials.
If the offender is under 18, he may receive up to 10 strokes of the cane, but a lighter rattan cane will be used in this case. Boys under 16 may be sentenced to caning only by the High Court and not by district or juvenile courts.
The offender will not be caned if he has been sentenced to death.
The rattan cane shall not exceed half an inch (1.27 cm) in diameter and 1.2 metres long.

Any male criminal, whether sentenced to caning or not, may also be caned in prison if he breaks certain prison rules.
Exemptions

The following groups of people are not liable to be caned for committing offences that may warrant a caning under Singaporean law:

Women
Men above the age of 50
Men sentenced to death whose sentences have not been commuted

Bongalongherb · 22-10-2014 4:37pm

In relation to the two guards that were assaulted... 3 years in prison, and I mean the full three years done. When they get out of prison, I would be very sure they will think twice about doing it again, as they will surely not want to do another 3 years. A nice long sentence like this will work IMO, so long sentences should be implemented.

Also. The 25% the government are giving to the unemployed like myself, and the extra €5 child benefit should have been used to go to building a new prison system, and with this, there would be no need to complain about no prison spaces.

TheNog · 22-10-2014 4:49pm

donegal. wrote: »

jesus, thats i stiff enough sentence.
i'd presume assaulting a guard you'd expect at least double that so they should have been looking at around 8 years each ?

The injuries sustained I feel would quantify such a sentence whether the injured party is a Garda or not.

Assaults on any ES member is a sensitive issue here because we can all relate to it on a personal level. You could almost that every ES member posting here has been assaulted or have at least witnessed a colleague being assualted. We are also acutely aware that ES resources are finite so for every ES member on sick due to assault there are 3-4 others trying to make up that members workload to continue to provide a vital service. Obviously if assaults on ES members increases there are less and less bodies to cover the workload which therefore reduces the services we provide. That is already happening across all services but sure hey, people will give out because we couldn't get there on time to safe a life or put out the raging fire or arrest a criminal.

TheNog · 22-10-2014 4:58pm

Question:

Has there ever been a case of a member of the Coastguard being assaulted? I have never heard of it happening before.

Potential-Monke · 22-10-2014 4:59pm

donegal. wrote: »

jesus, thats i stiff enough sentence.
i'd presume assaulting a guard you'd expect at least double that so they should have been looking at around 8 years each ?

You'd presume, but no. We wanted it brought in, but it was rejected, because we don't need protection. Shur, we should expect to be assaulted while trying to uphold the peace, investigate crime, put out fires, save someones life, etc, etc, etc. The article points to legislation already in place, but it's not enough. Those members were attacked for being Gardaí. There should be very specific laws relating to that. Instead, it's the same legislation as non-members, the same non-members who would not be targeted for being Gardaí.

22-10-2014 5:23pm

horsebox7 wrote: »

Two words to sum this thread up DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT

Come on. Explain.

22-10-2014 5:27pm

TheNog wrote: »

Question:

Has there ever been a case of a member of the Coastguard being assaulted? I have never heard of it happening before.

They were attacked trying to rescue a lad in a river in cork a year or two ago. The lad died. Had been drinking with 'mates' by the river.

HeidiHeidi · 22-10-2014 5:28pm

Is S.19 of the Public Order Act never used in these cases?

I realise the penalties are more or less the same as a S.3 assault, but it would seem more appropriate.

19.—(1) Any person who—

(a) assaults a peace officer acting in the execution of the peace officer's duty, knowing that he is, or being reckless as to whether he is, a peace officer acting in the execution of his duty, or

(b) assaults any other person acting in the aid of a peace officer, or

(c) assaults any other person with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detention of himself or any other person for any offence,

shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable—

(a) having elected for summary disposal of the offence, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both,

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.

(3) Any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a peace officer acting in the execution of his duty or a person assisting a peace officer in the execution of his duty, knowing that he is or being reckless as to whether he is, a peace officer acting in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

(5) The provisions of this section are in addition to and not in substitution of any provision in any other enactment relating to assault or obstruction of a peace officer.

(6) In this section—

“peace officer” means a member of the Garda Síochána, a prison officer or a member of the Defence Forces;

“prison” means any place for which rules or regulations may be made under the Prisons Acts, 1826 to 1980, section 7 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act, 1940 , section 233 of the Defence Act, 1954 , section 2 of the Prisoners of War and Enemy Aliens Act, 1956 , or section 13 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1960 ;

“prison officer” includes any member of the staff of a prison and any person having the custody of, or having duties in relation to the custody of, a person detained in prison.

kub · 22-10-2014 6:59pm

desertcircus wrote: »

Another thread filled with people demanding harsher penalties, another thread devoid of evidence that harsher penalties do any good.

Ah sure God love all the poor prisoners, tell you what, let's open all the doors of the prisons tomorrow morning and let the poor misfortunate prisoners free, the poor things they did nothing wrong.
Have you ever been a victim of crime?

Schindlers Pissed · 22-10-2014 7:00pm

desertcircus wrote: »

If there's a causal link between harsher sentences and fewer crimes, then there should be hard statistical evidence. The total lack of any on this thread so far leads me to suspect that harsh sentences aren't the solution people tend to think.

I don't really care about rehabilitation. Not an ounce. They singled out two off duty Gardai and beat them into a state of unconsciousness……left them with lifelong injuries.

They don't deserve rehab, or sentences which will give them another chance. They need to be taught a lesson, thrown into prison and bust rocks or on a chain gang………I really don't give a ****e……..you know why?

Because as long as they are busting rocks they aren't busting my wife, or my parents, or the countless great friends I have who are Guards…….people just like that couple who were attacked.

Let them rot.

FGR · 22-10-2014 7:16pm

To all the do gooders who think that harsher sentencing doesn't statistically help 'reform' the criminals:

How about sparing a thought for the victim? How about considering that both he/she and the general public may be safer during the time these criminals are locked away?

I believe this is an ethos used in the US and it's enforced vigorously. Keeping offenders off the streets stops them having opportunities to re-offend. Letting them out without punishment is only an invitation to incite more crime.

Besides. More time in custody would allow for more courses/incentives to (possibly) help them in becoming better people.

Potential-Monke · 22-10-2014 9:37pm

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Is S.19 of the Public Order Act never used in these cases?

It couldn't in this specific case, as the members were off duty. Which is funny, because if an off-duty member does something and ends up in court, the fact that they're a Garda comes into the decision making. And by funny, i mean double standards.

wotswattage · 22-10-2014 11:51pm

desertcircus wrote: »

If there's a causal link between harsher sentences and fewer crimes, then there should be hard statistical evidence. The total lack of any on this thread so far leads me to suspect that harsh sentences aren't the solution people tend to think.

How about some hard statistical evidence that justifies not having harsh sentences?? You can't demand people put up evidence to back up their opinion while providing none to back up yours. Well you can if you're trolling...

Personally I don't think Gardai should be protected by different laws (harsher sentences) to normal citizens. Everyone should be protected by the law from being battered by a group of scumbags not knowing if you are going to be beaten to death or not.

Whether putting someone in prison or not 'rehabilitates' them is a matter for another debate, but not sending someone to prison at all -allowing them to walk the streets and face the victims the day after they have been convicted of an assault like the one in this thread is completely wrong.

Potential-Monke · 22-10-2014 11:57pm

wotswattage wrote: »

Personally I don't think Gardai should be protected by different laws (harsher sentences) to normal citizens. Everyone should be protected by the law from being battered by a group of scumbags not knowing if you are going to be beaten to death or not.

We're not looking to be treated differently, we are looking to be protected in doing a job that puts our safety at risk on a daily basis. And the reason we're looking for specific laws in relation to attacks on ES personnel is that it would be a deterrent to scum who target us for the simple fact of being in that job. We too should have the right to carry out our duties in a safe environment, and articles and sentences like this just puts the image out there that it's ok to attack us, as nothing will happen to you for it. Because that's where it is, the current view is that we're expected to get assaulted and to just put up with it.

Chief87 · 23-10-2014 2:39pm

Liberals coming out of the woodwork again..it's unreal.

How would you like the head bet off ya over the weekend coming only to see the criminal out the next day?

CramCycle · 23-10-2014 3:55pm

That judge has a serious detachment from reality, a 3 year hard sentence (ie imposed) should have been handed down (minimum, i would be all for a 10year minimum for premeditated assault that goes that far) for anyone suffering that sort of an attack. The fact that it is a member of the ES, I think would add on another 5, if judges send out signals like this, criminals and scumbags will give even less of a sh*t about how to behave in society (I am in no way insinuating they give a sh*t now).

Topper Harley · 23-10-2014 9:20pm

How about, instead of harsh sentences for these scumbags (which apparently serve no purpose), we give them financial incentives not to commit crimes. Enough so they can live a life of luxury. That'll keep everyone else safe and keep the bleeding-heart liberals happy too.

TheNog · 23-10-2014 11:27pm

Topper Harley wrote: »

How about, instead of harsh sentences for these scumbags (which apparently serve no purpose), we give them financial incentives not to commit crimes. Enough so they can live a life of luxury. That'll keep everyone else safe and keep the bleeding-heart liberals happy too.

Please tell me I am missing the sarcasm here

ectoraige · 23-10-2014 11:39pm

It's so infuriating, the "I didn't know they were Gardaí" defence doesn't really stack up with the shouts of "Garda Scum", does it?

The whole argument of detention vs. rehab is a joke in the context of the Irish prison system. We don't know the meaning of rehab. We almost need a wholly separate rehabilitation service to work alongside the prison service, such is the level of change required. Anybody who is sentenced, custodial or suspended, needs targeted supports to stop them from reoffending. Under such a system then you could perhaps understand a judge suspending sentences on the basis of no history of violence. But we don't have such a system so taking such an approach in sentencing is farcical.

Detention can do three things:
1) prevent the person from being a continued threat to society;
2) make the person not want to get caught again;
3) deter others from doing the same thing.

If people aren't handed lengthy custodial sentences, then it's less likely to achieve any of these things. This is why we see high levels of recidivism.

I'm a bleeding-heart liberal who thinks that the main goal is to ensure these people never repeat what they did, and that can best be achieved through a proper, effective, and coordinated rehabilitative service. I'm also a realist though and know we don't have one so the only option is to lock the f*ckers up.

If we're not going to do the rehab part then stiff custodial sentences is the only option.

Does your local Garda no longer seem interested? Maybe this is why.

Comments