Sort out the Criminal Justice System

mayotom

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0308/crime.html

Bertie is right about one thing life should mean life.
Why call it a life sentence if the ofender will be out in a few years. its pathtetic. where has the justice for victims gone.

where's the incentive not to commit crime?
How can the Guards do their job when they have to keep prosicuting the same people(they go to court and get a suspended sentence)?

I think there shoud be more prisons..
Use our offshore islands, leave them out there to fend for themselves. or at least make them work to pay for their crimes\cost of prison system.

When will this government take a stronger view on crime.

Just look at countries in other parts of the world where punishment is tough. like having your hand cut off for stealing. The crime rate in these counties is a fraction of ours, I know the meathods are extreame, I wouldn't want to see that sort of criminal law here. but something has to be done to deter crime...

bring back corporal punishment

BuffyBot

Bertie is right about one thing life should mean life.

Ah sure, isn't Bertie great to be saying things like that. You know, if he was in government for a few years I'm sure he'd have this sorted now, and not just be seen jumping on the latest bandwagon like all the other politicians.

Oh, wait a minute...

mayotom

BuffyBot wrote:

Ah sure, isn't Bertie great to be saying things like that. You know, if he was in government for a few years I'm sure he'd have this sorted now, and not just be seen jumping on the latest bandwagon like all the other politicians.

Oh, wait a minute...

I agree 100%. should be sorted out before it became a problem.

Zombrex

mayotom wrote:

Just look at countries in other parts of the world where punishment is tough. like having your hand cut off for stealing. The crime rate in these counties is a fraction of ours

Actually very few countries cut off body parts that "fit" the crime, since it is considered barbaric and against the idea the criminal being able to change after the punishment.

The Islamic-fundamentalist Northen Nigerian provences do it, and they don't exactly have a crime rate at a "fraction" of ours. In fact AFAIK they have a very high crime rate.

mayotom wrote:

I wouldn't want to see that sort of criminal law here. but something has to be done to deter crime...

Problem is that harsh(er) sentences don't really deter crime.

Why? Because most criminals don't think logically about if they are going to get caught or not. They assume they aren't going to get caught, so a 25 year sentence for armed robbery isn't going to deter them much more than a 10 year sentence because they aren't going into it think they are going to actually get caught. Add to this the drugs problem then you don't have a hope that you are going to make a drugged up scumbag think twice about knocking someone over for their hangbag because you increase the sentence from 5 to 10 years.

The reality is that money should be put into prevention and rehibilation of people already in prision. But then people in general don't like that idea much because it takes much longer and doesn't provide quick visable easy to understand answers, and it seems like hippy-lefty-handholding ("oh if we only treated the inner city scumbags a bit nicer they wouldn't rob old ladies", that kinda thing). So what ya going to do ...

Nuttzz

Wicknight wrote:

So what ya going to do ...

McWilliams (love him or loathe him) has an inetersting take on this

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=44&si=1575883&issue_id=13772

Every study of human behaviour indicates we react to incentives. Reward me for doing something and I will do it again. Punish me for something and I am not likely to repeat it.

But give me something for free and I will not value it. What about instilling a contract of citizenship with each family? The quid pro quo of a kind, generous and helpful state is a set of rules based on acceptable behaviour. It would act like any contract.

In many aspects of life, contracts govern relationships and impose responsibility and obligations on individuals.

If we introduced a contract of citizenship, with obligations on both parents and the State, we could use the State positively to change behaviour at home.

From the State's side, there would be a schedule of the benefits available and rights enshrined for all citizens below certain income levels to avail of these benefits.

The other side of the contract would spell out for the first time the duties that society expects in return for these rights.

Contract

These duties would involve general aspirations such as treating your fellow citizens as you would like to be treated yourself. It might also include specifics such as school attendance. If you want to avail of child benefit, for example, your child must miss fewer than five days a year in school.

The consequences of breaking the contract would be spelled out clearly. Citizenship based on a contract would make the deal clear to all sides.

If Wayne doesn't get the services it would be because of his personal behaviour and individual choice.

Contract-based citizenship could galvanise the nation, create buy-in across the board and reinforce muscularly the idea that we are not a bunch of individuals, but a functioning, interdependent ecosystem, commonly known as a society.

mayotom

Wicknight wrote:

Actually very few countries cut off body parts that "fit" the crime, since it is considered barbaric and against the idea the criminal being able to change after the punishment.

Why? Because most criminals don't think logically about if they are going to get caught or not. They assume they aren't going to get caught, so a 25 year sentence for armed robbery isn't going to deter them much more than a 10 year sentence because they aren't going into it think they are going to actually get caught. Add to this the drugs problem then you don't have a hope that you are going to make a drugged up scumbag think twice about knocking someone over for their hangbag because you increase the sentence from 5 to 10 years.

yes prevention is always better. but it just doesn't seem to be working too well.

I would prefer to see tougher sentences, like hard labour. use the current prisoners to build the next prison for example.

I also think life should mean life. If somebody takes another's life they shouldn't be alowed to get their life back after their relativly short sentence.
the victims familys have to endure a lifetime sentence

Hard work will put fear into these lazy scumbags, who are probably on the dole

Zombrex

Nuttzz wrote:

McWilliams (love him or loathe him) has an inetersting take on this

The problem with the kind of logic he is presenting is that it is fine in principle but only works if everyone actually follows it, all the time. And he is assuming everyone will follow it in a horse carrot kinda way. But reality is a lot different.

For example

"If you want to avail of child benefit, for example, your child must miss fewer than five days a year in school."

That would be great principle if it worked and everyone followed it. But if it doesn't work you are going to run into serious problems, and the child is going to be the one who has to bear that brunt. And you are only going to add to the risk that the child will develop in a dysfunctional enviornment, more likely to enter crime and anti-social behaviour in later life.

The idea that we punish people who do not function properly in society is great except when you realise we still have them around, and that punishement alone is not a very good life lesson. The more punishment they recieve the more anti-social they become, not the other way around.

Its like the old man hitting the scumbags with a stick for smoking on the bus. They are not going to listen to him then, and the next time they get on they are 10 times more likely to light up. It might make the old man feel better, but it isn't a solution to the problem.

The_Minister

There should be:
1) Minimum 10 years for murder
2) No TV in prisons except for programmes with positive messages
3) Solitary confinement should be brought back fully (Amnesty International sought its sidelining) and used as needed.
4) Whipping should be used for serious misdemeanors with the choice between lashing and jail being provided for a first offence
5) Death penalty should be brought back for multiple murders with names being inscribed on a monument and people encouraged to spit on it as they pass by.
6)A portion of prisoners wealth should be seized to pay for jailtime.

Zombrex

mayotom wrote:

yes prevention is always better. but it just doesn't seem to be working too well.

Well I don't think we are trying particularly hard...

mayotom wrote:

Hard work will put fear into these lazy scumbags, who are probably on the dole

No it won't. Neither hard labour, capital punishment or very long sentences have much of an impact on crime rates. So again, it might make you feel better but it isn't going to change anything.

Zombrex

Firespinner wrote:

2) No TV in prisons except for programmes with positive messages

Yes, because a large group of very bored, violent men who vastly out number the prison staff is a good idea ...

Firespinner wrote:

3) Solitary confinement should be brought back fully (Amnesty International sought its sidelining) and used as needed.

Why?

Firespinner wrote:

4) Whipping should be used for serious misdemeanors with the choice between lashing and jail being provided for a first offence

Again, why?

Unless you want to f**k up the prisioners even more. Why don't we just electricute their balls every morning. I am sure that will turn them into well rounded respectful members of society. Or violent psychotics ...

Firespinner wrote:

5) Death penalty should be brought back for multiple murders with names being inscribed on a monument and people encouraged to spit on it as they pass by.

Are there are a lot of multiple murders in Ireland (who have been repeatably caught)?

IronMan

3) Solitary confinement should be brought back fully (Amnesty International sought its sidelining) and used as needed.
4) Whipping should be used for serious misdemeanors with the choice between lashing and jail being provided for a first offence


Yes comrade, and we should also bring back the gulags to teach these people a real lesson in humility.

The_Minister

Wicknight wrote:

No it won't. Neither hard labour, capital punishment or very long sentences have much of an impact on crime rates. So again, it might make you feel better but it isn't going to change anything.

Not to be pedantic but longer sentences and capital punishment would reduce the crime rate through repeat offenders. Hard labour might reduce the cost of imprisonment.

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

Not to be pedantic but longer sentences and capital punishment would reduce the crime rate through repeat offenders. Hard labour might reduce the cost of imprisonment.

How many multipile murderers do we have in this country, who aren't covered by the good friday agreement? Theres no point in announcing a cure when we haven't got the disease.

And leaving aside the added expense of policing the quarries and roads.

Hard labour is just so people can feel secure watching a chain gang on their way to work. Its a nice PR stunt.

Tell me who's more likely to reoffend a convict who has spent ten years breaking rocks, with only intermitant whippings and solitary confinement to breaking up the sentence?

Or a convict who's recieved an education and rehabilitation?

The_Minister

Wicknight wrote:

Yes, because a large group of very bored, violent men who vastly out number the prison staff is a good idea ...

I meant they could not watch the sopranos but would have to watch Law & Order. They could only watch things that gave them a positive view of society.

Wicknight wrote:

Why?

It is one of the most effective punishments that can be given to prisoners.

Wicknight wrote:

Again, why?

Unless you want to f**k up the prisioners even more. Why don't we just electricute their balls every morning. I am sure that will turn them into well rounded respectful members of society. Or violent psychotics ...

Pain is a great teacher. This would of course be used as a last resort as a punishment, and could save on prison space as a choice.

Wicknight wrote:

Are there are a lot of multiple murders in Ireland (who have been repeatably caught)?

One murder can be done in passion. Two is cold-blooded. I was referring to gangland killers etc.

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

I meant they could not watch the sopranos but would have to watch Law & Order. They could only watch things that gave them a positive view of society.

Wow. Just wow.

Prisoner 1.
I was an angry angry man

Prisoner 2.
Yes, as was I, until I watched that episode of touched by an angel. Moved me to tears.

It is one of the most effective punishments that can be given to prisoners.

Oh Firespinner......... prove it

And detail what you mean by effective?

Pain is a great teacher.

Ladies and gentlemen, the chuck norris forum has found it's Mod. Honestly...

This would of course be used as a last resort as a punishment, and could save on prison space as a choice.

I don't know, Captain Bligh, why don't we try community service before we bring out the whip........

One murder can be done in passion. Two is cold-blooded. I was referring to gangland killers etc.

Okay, and again how many people are sent away each year for more than one murder?

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

Problem is that harsh(er) sentences don't really deter crime.

Why? Because most criminals don't think logically about if they are going to get caught or not. They assume they aren't going to get caught, so a 25 year sentence for armed robbery isn't going to deter them much more than a 10 year sentence because they aren't going into it think they are going to actually get caught. Add to this the drugs problem then you don't have a hope that you are going to make a drugged up scumbag think twice about knocking someone over for their hangbag because you increase the sentence from 5 to 10 years.

Its a problem with perception. You're looking this as being a straightforward deterrent to cime. To affect those people that are approaching crime for the first time, and wouldn't be scared of the punishments.

But the simple fact is that harsher, stricter sentencing and implementation of that sentencing would affect the crinimals themselves. They wouldn't ever want to return to prison. They wouldn't want to commit crimes that would place them back in the cell. This would reduce the numbers of repeat offenders. And lets face it, a large grouping of the people who commit crime in Ireland are repeat offenders.

As a deterrent to newcomers, I don't know what would work. Whats in place doesn't seem to be working at the moment.

Originally Posted by Firespinner
2) No TV in prisons except for programmes with positive messages

wicknight wrote:

Yes, because a large group of very bored, violent men who vastly out number the prison staff is a good idea ...

Thats what shotguns are for. or Water Hoses. Thats what isolation wards are for. The revoking of privilages. The extension of prison time.

My issue is that we're treating crinimals like normal citizens. They go into prison and with the exception of their freedom, they have most of what they have outside. They can watch TV, get an education, gamble with friends, receive visitors, etc.

Why is it that crinimals receive so many privilages? Where has the punishment gone? You're physically isolated from the world for 2-3 years.... so what? The biggest downside to prison time, is that its on your record for life, and can be a valid reason for refusal to later Jobs. Thats it. I can't really see too many other punishments being incurred.

We need a harder justice system. Harder sentences as set examples, and following through on sentencing. Limited rights to be allowed for crinimals, and the removal of 90% of the existing privilages. 3 years mean 3 years. 15 years mean 15 years. life means life. Reduction in sentencing only in the case of new evidence being admitted.

Like, come on. Do you really believe prisoners should be able to watch tv, or surf the internet?

(Edit: I could be wrong about the Internet Access, but I seem to remember hearing it a while back, but couldn't find a quick reference link)

Nuttzz

Freelancer wrote:

Or a convict who's recieved an education and rehabilitation?

thats assuming that the convict will want to avail of this.

Sheriff Joe has an interesting policy too... http://www.mcso.org/

Zombrex

Firespinner wrote:

I meant they could not watch the sopranos but would have to watch Law & Order. They could only watch things that gave them a positive view of society.

Or instead of funding a private television station that only prisioners watch you could put the money into education and rehibiliation programs, and let RTE worry about the TV schedual .... just an idea ...

Firespinner wrote:

It is one of the most effective punishments that can be given to prisoners.

"Effective" in what way? Effective in causing mental break downs and mentally scaring the prisioners even worse than they already are I'll give you that, but I fail to see other benefits.

Firespinner wrote:

Pain is a great teacher.

No, actually it isn't.

You cannot train or teach humans (adult humans at least) through systems of physical re-enforcement like you can with other animals (dogs for example). It simply doesn't work, in fact it does the opposite of the desired results.

Firespinner wrote:

I was referring to gangland killers etc.

As I said, are there are lot of killers (gangland or otherwise) who are murdering people, getting caught, being sent to prision, getting out and then going and killing someone else, then getting caught again and released and then doing it all again (the point at which the death sentence would have stopped the crime)?

BuffyBot

2) No TV in prisons except for programmes with positive messages

All hail the leader. Bertie is good. Bertie is love...

lostexpectation

for anyone suggest capital punishment jesus christ


who or what is exactly preventing longer sentences for major crimes?

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

They wouldn't ever want to return to prison.

But they never want to return to prision... thats the point. They don't think they are going to get caught. If they thought they were going to get caught they wouldn't do the crime at all since it would have no pay off except a prision sentence.

Deleted User wrote:

They wouldn't want to commit crimes that would place them back in the cell.

What criminal knows he is going to get caught and does a job anyway?

mayotom

The point I was trying to make with this thread is that the current system just isn't working( like some of you have pointed out….
The criminal Justice System needs one hell of an overhall.

It is my opinion that Punishing criminals(severly) is better than sending them to our plush hotel like prisons.

Akrasia

Here is what we should do.

1. Start young.
2. Start Young
3. Start Young.


Education at primary and preschool level should be vastly improved. the teacher pupil ration should be much lower and there should be more supports for disadvantaged children.
A large number of gangland criminals are young men in their early 20's and late teens. They start down this road when they are children and if the course isn't averted they're basically doomed to a life of crime

Community service for 'anti social behaviour' in their local area should be a central part of crime prevention. If someone is done for petty crime at a young age they should be sentenced to a period of community service in the area where they live. Picking up rubbish, mowing grass, removing grafitti, painting walls or whatever. Because they're not dangerous criminals yet they wouldn't require much supervision. If the work isn't done they should be imprisoned for a short time followed by an extention of their community service so their actions have consequences. This should be done in the areas where they live so their friends can see them. If young children see older children being punished in public they will lose some of the respect they have for those children, they are less likely to want to emulate the actions of people they don't respect. Also the prospect of losing face in front of their friends will have a bigger deterrant effect on young people than being up in court which is actually a rite of passage in some areas.

Community service also takes up their spare time and gets them used to work which means they have less time to committ crimes and they can also be taught a skill while they're being punished.

mayotom

The point I was trying to make with this thread is that the current system just isn't working( like some of you have pointed out….
The criminal Justice System needs one hell of an overhall.

It is my opinion that Punishing criminals(severly) is better than sending them to our plush hotel like prisons.

Freelancer

mayotom wrote:

The point I was trying to make with this thread is that the current system just isn't working( like some of you have pointed out….
The criminal Justice System needs one hell of an overhall.

It is my opinion that Punishing criminals(severly) is better than sending them to our plush hotel like prisons.

How are our prisons plush and hotel like, I'm aware republican terrorists get special treatment, but seriously do you have visions of wardens handing out playstations and heroin, with room service? Its not like that.

mayotom

The point I was trying to make with this thread is that the current system just isn't working( like some of you have pointed out….
The criminal Justice System needs one hell of an overhall.

It is my opinion that Punishing criminals(severly) is better than sending them to our plush hotel like prisons.

Zombrex

mayotom wrote:

The point I was trying to make with this thread is that the current system just isn't working( like some of you have pointed out….
The criminal Justice System needs one hell of an overhall.

It is my opinion that Punishing criminals(severly) is better than sending them to our plush hotel like prisons.

And the point everyone else is making is that there is no evidence that increasing sentencing, or making prision life particularly harsher than it currently is, is going to do anything except give people a false sense of instant satisfaction.

You make it sound like we have been pouring money into prevention and rehibilatation for years and years and it just isn't working. We haven't been doing anything of the kind, and any areas where serious money has been spend on education, rehibiliation and other social programs, it has worked.

mayotom

don't know why that came up 3 times

Freelancer wrote:

How are our prisons plush and hotel like, I'm aware republican terrorists get special treatment, but seriously do you have visions of wardens handing out playstations and heroin, with room service? Its not like that.

The issue is that people don't seem to mind going back into prison so there must be a good level of comfort.

I have heard of people commiting crimes because they want to go back to prison, for an easier life where they have free accomodation and are given good meals.

The rest of us have to work hard just to achive these basics.

Zombrex

mayotom wrote:

The issue is that people don't seem to mind going back into prison so there must be a good level of comfort.

Thats like saying that smokers don't mind dying of lung cancer

It doesn't work like that. Just like a smoker isn't going "Umm, lung cancer isn't actually that bad, I'll have another smoke", the criminal isn't thinking "umm, prision isn't that bad, I think I'll rob this bank". Both the smoker and the criminal are thinking "it will not happen to me".

Now I don't understand that logic, but then I don't understand how someone can justify smoking a pack of cigs every day to themselves. But millions of people do that every day, so obviously they find a way.

mayotom wrote:

I have heard of people commiting crimes because they want to go back to prison, for an easier life where they have free accomodation and are given good meals.

And some people drink and smoke because they want to kill themselves. Some people are idiots, some people are in denial, some people are mentally ill. Doesn't mean dying of liver failure or lung cancer is nice and we should be jealous because people do it.

mayotom wrote:

The rest of us have to work hard just to achive these basics.

:rolleyes:

Yes, I am so jealous of those prisioners ...

civdef

And the point everyone else is making is that there is no evidence that increasing sentencing, or making prision life particularly harsher than it currently is, is going to do anything except give people a false sense of instant satisfaction.

The deterrant value of long sentences as a means of reducing crime levels is a debatable issue, however another aspect of them isn't - if a person is locked up in jail they are not committing crimes.

A huge proportion of crime statistics is down to prolific repeat offenders. Lock them up for long sentences once their recidivist tendencies are established, and I'll wager crime rates decrease significantly.

Flex

Nuttzz wrote:

thats assuming that the convict will want to avail of this.

Sheriff Joe has an interesting policy too... http://www.mcso.org/

That guy, Joe Arpaio, has the right idea. Prison shouldnt be a 'hotel'. It should be a punishment, an unpleasant time, a prospect they absolutely dread and a hard part of the criminals life rather than 'helping' them 'realise' its not ok to sell drugs to children/ rape people/ murder people/ mug people/ abuse children/ rob shops/ etc. from now on, because its "very very bold" to do that, as if they didnt know already. I found this also about Arpaio on Google

TO THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH JOE ARPAIO -
HE IS THE MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF AND HE
KEEPS GETTING ELECTED OVER AND OVER.

THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio (in Arizona) who created the "tent city jail":

He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.

He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails. Took away their weights. Cut off all but "G" movies.

He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects.

Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination.

He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again only let in the Disney channel and the weather channel.

When asked why the weather channel he replied, so they will know how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs.

He cut off coffee since it has zero nutritional value.

When the inmates complained, he told them, "This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back."

He bought Newt Gingrich' lecture series on videotape that he pipes into the jails.

When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by a Democrat, he replied that a democratic lecture series might explain why a lot of the inmates were in his jails in the first place.

More on the Arizona Sheriff:

With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116 degrees just set a new record), the Associated Press reports: About 2,000 inmates living in a barbed-wire-surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer shorts.

On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing boxers were either curled up on their bunk beds or chatted in the tents, which reached 138 degrees inside the week before.

Many were also swathed in wet, pink towels as sweat collected on their chests and dripped down to their pink socks.

"It feels like we are in a furnace," said James Zanzot, an inmate who has lived in the tents for 1 ½ years. "It's inhumane."

Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long ago started making his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic He said Wednesday that he told all of the inmates: "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to wear full battle gear, but they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your damned mouths!"

Way to go, Sheriff! Maybe if all prisons were like this one there would be a lot less crime and/or repeat offenders. Criminals should be punished for their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for their parole, only to go out and commit another crime so they can get back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves.

mayotom

Wicknight wrote:

Thats like saying that smokers don't mind dying of lung cancer

It doesn't work like that. Just like a smoker isn't going "Umm, lung cancer isn't actually that bad, I'll have another smoke", the criminal isn't thinking "umm, prision isn't that bad, I think I'll rob this bank". Both the smoker and the criminal are thinking "it will not happen to me".

Yes, I am so jealous of those prisioners ...

I was writing about specific people who I have met, and have actually said that " they were disappointed that they didn't get a custodial sentence" because they prefer life on the inside.

This is not the way all criminals think

mayotom

Flex wrote:

That guy, Joe Arpaio, has the right idea. Prison shouldnt be a 'hotel'. It should be a punishment, an unpleasant time, a prospect they absolutely dread and a hard part of the criminals life rather than 'helping' them 'realise' its not ok to sell drugs to children/ rape people/ murder people/ mug people/ abuse children/ rob shops/ etc. from now on, because its "very very bold" to do that, as if they didnt know already. I found this also about Arpaio on Google

Isn't that the guy who was on the last word a few weeks ago.

that's what we need here

Zombrex

mayotom wrote:

I was writing about specific people who I have met, and have actually said that " they were disappointed that they didn't get a custodial sentence" because they prefer life on the inside.

This is not the way all criminals think

Yes, I understand there are people out there like that, but at the same time you cannot infer from their responses that prision life is actually not that bad.

The people you know who say this are either idiots, mentally ill, have nothing at all in life, or putting a macho front up instead of admitting they don't want to go to prision.

At secondary school I knew a group of lads who went on and on about how they were not scared of the Gardi. It was all for show, they thought it made them look tough.

Freelancer

mayotom wrote:

I have heard of people commiting crimes because they want to go back to prison, for an easier life where they have free accomodation and are given good meals.

The rest of us have to work hard just to achive these basics.

Thats infantile reasoning, and also, "my mate down the pub" is not a credible source for facts about our prison system.

civdef

Thats infantile reasoning

Indeed? Would it help if I told you I have personally seen people do exactly that?

Zombrex

civdef wrote:

Indeed? Would it help if I told you I have personally seen people do exactly that?

I've personally seen a person cut open their leg with a blunt razor to "see what happens".

That doesn't mean cutting open your leg with a blunt razor is a good idea, or a particularly enjoyable experience.

My issue with this point isn't that people do it, I am never surprised by what people will do.

But it is the assumption that mayoto is drawing that because some people do this it must mean the current prision system is actually a glorifed free hotel that I take issue at. Just because someone does something doesn't mean it isn't a really stupid decision. When I was watching my drunk idiot friend being rushed to A&E with a bleeding leg I wasn't sat there thinking "God, they really need to make a stronger warning on the razor packet, because people seem to think that slashing open your leg is fun". I was thinking "God, what an idiot". Which is exactly the same thing I think when I hear a skanger go on about how they like living in prision.

mayotom

Wicknight wrote:

The people you know who say this are either idiots, mentally ill, have nothing at all in life, or putting a macho front up instead of admitting they don't want to go to prision.

.

point taken. but civdef has a good point.

civdef wrote:

The deterrant value of long sentences as a means of reducing crime levels is a debatable issue, however another aspect of them isn't - if a person is locked up in jail they are not committing crimes.

A huge proportion of crime statistics is down to prolific repeat offenders. Lock them up for long sentences once their recidivist tendencies are established, and I'll wager crime rates decrease significantly.

.

If the this guy was behind bars (there was a bench warrent out for his arrest) then the weekend murder(assuming he is the culprit, which seems to be the case in the press) just wouldn't have happened, and he would have died and nobody would care(except of course the people close to him)

same with the Padraig Nally case a few months ago. the Victim had 4 bench warrents out for his arrest. he should have been locked up and that debate wouldn't have come up.

Freelancer

mayotom wrote:

point taken. but civdef has a good point.




If the this guy was behind bars (there was a bench warrent out for his arrest) then the weekend murder(assuming he is the culprit, which seems to be the case in the press) just wouldn't have happened, and he would have died and nobody would care(except of course the people close to him)

So your solution is more police to persue warrants or do we forbid bail and due process?

same with the Padraig Nally case a few months ago. the Victim had 4 bench warrents out for his arrest. he should have been locked up and that debate wouldn't have come up.

Is your solution that everyone who commits a crime or is charged with a crime, should be locked up?

mayotom

Freelancer wrote:

So your solution is more police to persue warrants or do we forbid bail and due process?

yes the Guardai need a lot more resourses. and they need to be backed up by the Judicial system

Freelancer wrote:

Is your solution that everyone who commits a crime or is charged with a crime, should be locked up?

If you do the crime you shoud do the time....

It is the repeat offenders which are the problem.
ther should be a clearly defined system of sentencing.
e.g.
Murder=Life(throw away the key)
stealing a chocolate bar= 10 hours community service

people will start to get the message, that crime doesn't pay

The problem now is that it does pay for some, and pays well

Zombrex

mayotom wrote:

If the this guy was behind bars (there was a bench warrent out for his arrest) then the weekend murder(assuming he is the culprit, which seems to be the case in the press) just wouldn't have happened, and he would have died and nobody would care(except of course the people close to him)

Yes but again you are suggesting totally unworkable "solutions". We can't just lock everyone up forever so they cannot physically ever commit a crime ever again. You would have a massive massive prision population with astronomical running costs.

civdef

Is your solution that everyone who commits a crime or is charged with a crime, should be locked up?

In the case of outstanding warrants, where the courts have ordered that a person be returned to custody fortwith, that should be carried out as son as possible. At the moment, that just isn't the case here. In the UK, the police have units specifically tasked to arresting people who are wanted on warrant.

In the case of prolific offenders, a person's past criminal record should decide whether they get bail before trial, and what their sentence is afterwards if found guilty.

Zombrex

civdef wrote:

In the case of outstanding warrants, where the courts have ordered that a person be returned to custody fortwith, that should be carried out as son as possible. At the moment, that just isn't the case here. In the UK, the police have units specifically tasked to arresting people who are wanted on warrant.

No problem with that, but then that wasn't what was suggested.

civdef wrote:

In the case of prolific offenders, a person's past criminal record should decide whether they get bail before trial, and what their sentence is afterwards if found guilty.

Why don't we just assume that he/she is guilty and save on the expense of a trial all together ... who needs a fair legal and justice system when we are facing an epidemic of violent crime .. oh wait, we aren't

civdef

Yes but again you are suggesting totally unworkable "solutions". We can't just lock everyone up forever so they cannot physically ever commit a crime ever again. You would have a massive massive prision population with astronomical running costs.

You might be surprised. My proposal is to give long sentences to those who are proven repeat offenders, who therefore are very unlikely to be rehabilitated, and pose a serious risk to society.

Take theft for instance, the maximum sentence for which is five years imprisonment. I see no reason why someone convicted of numerous counts of theft should not serve every day of a five year sentence.

You say that the costs of locking all offenders up for long sentences would be prohibitive, but you forget two things.

One is that the same people are in and out of jail the whole time anyway, so why not just keep them in.

The other is the high cost of the crimes committed, both socially and materially in insurance costs etc, if the crime rate went down, the savings there could justify increased jail spending.

mayotom

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but again you are suggesting totally unworkable "solutions". We can't just lock everyone up forever so they cannot physically ever commit a crime ever again. You would have a massive massive prision population with astronomical running costs.

make them work to pay for the prison system.
it currently costs over €100,000 per year per prisoner. with no contribution from the prisoners. some of these criminals have vast fortunes, I know the CAB are working on this, but its a slow process. better legislation is needed

civdef

Why don't we just assume that he/she is guilty and save on the expense of a trial all together ... who needs a fair legal and justice system when we are facing an epidemic of violent crime .. oh wait, we aren't

See now you're just making up an opposing argument that doesn't tally at all with what I argued.

I am talking about sentencing after a guilty verdict, which has no impact whatsoever on how the person receives a fair trial. How do you think awarding higher sentences to those convicted of an offence who have a huge string of prior convictions affects their chance of a fair trial?

Zombrex

civdef wrote:

who therefore are very unlikely to be rehabilitated, and pose a serious risk to society.

We don't try to really try to rehabiliate prisions so how do we know they can't be rehabilitated?

civdef wrote:

You say that the costs of locking all offenders up for long sentences would be prohibitive, but you forget two things.

No, I'm saying the only way that idea could work is if you locked everyone up forever

civdef wrote:

The other is the high cost of the crimes committed, both socially and materially in insurance costs etc, if the crime rate went down, the savings there could justify increased jail spending.

The crime rate would not go down, thats the point. Unless you locked everyone up forever, which is not practical, and breaks about a dozen human rights laws.

mayotom

Wicknight wrote:

Why don't we just assume that he/she is guilty and save on the expense of a trial all together ... who needs a fair legal and justice system when we are facing an epidemic of violent crime .. oh wait, we aren't

nobody is sugesting that we abandon the Judiciary, just thoughen up on crime

we are seeing an increase in violent crime in Ireland.

civdef

The crime rate would not go down, thats the point. Unless you locked everyone up forever, which is not practical, and breaks about a dozen human rights laws.

Maybe I should use a nice simple example to help illustrate this.

Johnny Scally is a burglar. He breaks into houses to fund a heroin addiction, requiring 50 eur per day. He usually breaks into a house every two days or so. Johnny is arrested, charged and convicted of burglary and receives a five year sentence in Mountjoy. Johnny has 13 prior convictions for theft, so it is possibly safe to assume he is not going to find God in jail and walk the path of righteousness once released.

If he receives a 15 month sentence, he'll probably be on the streets thieving again inside ten months (less time served on remand). If he gets the maximum sentence of five years and isn't released for five years, I can positively guarantee you that Johnny won't be robbing any houses for that period. A simple calculation would show that that results in 800 or so less thefts thanks to a strict sentencing policy.

And you reckon that wouldn't reduce crime figures?

Zombrex

civdef wrote:

See now you're just making up an opposing argument that doesn't tally at all with what I argued.

No, I'm pointing out that you are completely missing the reasons behind the legal safe guards such as not biasing a trial based on previous offenses.

Say someone is up on trial for armed robbery. You think they should not get bail because they have a previous conviction for assault.

Does that previous conviction mean they probably did this crime and therefore they are guilty and therefore they should not get bail?

Where does that leave the system of a fair trial?

civdef wrote:

I am talking about sentencing after a guilty verdict, which has no impact whatsoever on how the person receives a fair trial.

Actually you were talking about bail and sentencing.

The point on sentencing would be that the punishment should fit the crime, not fit the history of the person. But previous convictions are taken into consideration when sentencing takes place, so I'm not sure what more you want done?

civdef wrote:

How do you think awarding higher sentences to those convicted of an offence who have a huge string of prior convictions affects their chance of a fair trial?

It doesn't. Granting bail based on their prior convictions affects their chance of a fair trail. Or at least thats what the Bail Act 1997 says .... And the bail act still allows for limited information on previous convictions to be heard in private.

So again, both these systems are in place. What more do you want. Or were you just assuming they weren't in place?

mayotom

civdef wrote:

Maybe I should use a nice simple example to help illustrate this.

Johnny Scally is a burglar. He breaks into houses to fund a heroin addiction, requiring 50 eur per day. He usually breaks into a house every two days or so. Johnny is arrested, charged and convicted of burglary and receives a five year sentence in Mountjoy. Johnny has 13 prior convictions for theft, so it is possibly safe to assume he is not going to find God in jail and walk the path of righteousness once released.

If he receives a 15 month sentence, he'll probably be on the streets thieving again inside ten months (less time served on remand). If he gets the maximum sentence of five years and isn't released for five years, I can positively guarantee you that Johnny won't be robbing any houses for that period. A simple calculation would show that that results in 800 or so less thefts thanks to a strict sentencing policy.

And you reckon that wouldn't reduce crime figures?

well Wicknight surely you can't argue with that