Leading lawyers call for Bill on gangs to be withdrawn

nesf

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0708/1224250237824.html?digest=1

Worthy of debate, I find one part of their letter odd though. Specifically:

The Minister’s intention to abolish jury trial for gangland cases, to let gardaí of any rank give opinion evidence about the existence of a gang, and not to require corroboration of such evidence are “the most pressing” reasons for “real and serious concern”, the lawyers say in their letter.

The right to jury trial is enshrined in the Constitution, they say, and is only taken away in cases where ordinary courts are “inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice, and the preservation of public peace and order.

The Minister would seem to want to abolish jury crime for gangland cases precisely because the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice etc. It's following the same line of argument behind the Criminal Assets Bureau, i.e. that there exists in Ireland a class of criminal more than willing to threaten, and quite possibly harm, juries to the extent that jury trials simply cannot work.

I'd fully echo their concern about the broadness of the opinion part of the bill, to allow a Garda of any rank this kind of privilege seems excessive, surely it would be enough to limit it to top ranking Garda who presumably would take the responsibility more seriously?

From a liberty point of view the bill is definitely treading very close to the line but as my father-in-law put it: "Juries can be gotten at". In such cases where this is a very real risk surely the benefits outweigh the costs of such special criminal courts?

Darragh29

Would this be the same gang of privilaged pea balled marble mouthed prostitutes that you can see down in Courts 40-44 of the Dublin District Court in the Bridewell every hour of every day, defending the absolute indenfensible, lying through their teeth about their clients trying to "rehabiliate" themselves as the client openly sniggers at the judge... All these gangland characters start out in the District Court, they don't just become gangland figures overnight, and maybe if the legal profession didn't continually lie about the chances of their clients reoffending and getting them through the revolving door system, then maybe we might not have as big as problem as we do have with gangland crime.

Honestly, if you ever want to see a pure fu*king charade in full swing, go down to the Dublin District Courthouse in the Bridewell in Dublin...

Executive Steve

Darragh29 wrote: »

Would this be the same gang of privilaged pea balled marble mouthed prostitutes that you can see down in Courts 40-44 of the Dublin District Court in the Bridewell every hour of every day, defending the absolute indenfensible, lying through their teeth about their clients trying to "rehabiliate" themselves as the client openly sniggers at the judge... All these gangland characters start out in the District Court, they don't just become gangland figures overnight, and maybe if the legal profession didn't continually lie about the chances of their clients reoffending and getting them through the revolving door system, then maybe we might not have as big as problem as we do have with gangland crime.

Honestly, if you ever want to see a pure fu*king charade in full swing, go down to the Dublin District Courthouse in the Bridewell in Dublin...

I think the lawyers are being remarkably altruistic here!

They dined out on tribunals all though the celtic tiger years, every planning fiasco, the beef tribunals, the mahon tribunal, etc etc... Clearly even THEY think the amount of money the state is going to have to spend gluing the shattered bits of constitution back together and fixing Ireland's soon to be destroyed international credibility is too much for the nation's beleagured finances to bear!


*edit*


although the fact that i am attempting to engage in calm rational debate on a politics forum with someone who thinks the concept of a fair trial is pinko liberal business would suggest i've stayed up too late again...

Nodin

nesf wrote: »

I'd fully echo their concern about the broadness of the opinion part of the bill, to allow a Garda of any rank this kind of privilege seems excessive, surely it would be enough to limit it to top ranking Garda who presumably would take the responsibility more seriously?

Indeed. Its open to abuse.

lostexpectation

yerman was on the radio this morning was like fine dermot show us a jury verdict that was perverse, ie against the weight of the evidence. and we might have the beginnings of discussion on this thing,

its like blasphemy.

dermot is going ah sure ye knows it happening.

nah. that ain't good enough

Nodin

There's been intimidation of witnesses in some cases certainly, but I've seen no convincing case for widespread interference with Juries.

walshb

I am no fan of lawyers and I am so anti crime, as are most, but this move is a typical
example of how we here jump head first into something without thinking.
This is setting a dangerous precedent and maybe if the Gardai got off their
arses and did their job, we wouldn't be asking for this ridiculous bill.

So, now we are expected to trust the "opinion" of a garda as opposed to actual hard
and corroborative evidence. So, they can't get the evidence, but hey, your "opinion" will
suffice. We will indeed be shamed throughout Europe with this silly attitude.

Gardai in the past have been proved to be liars and cheats, not all, but still some, so NO,
I don't believe that any person should be hung out to dry based on the sole "opinion" of a garda.

Darragh29

We need to get real here, these people need to be dealt with no, WHATEVER the cost. If someone finds that they are being held in custody by the state, then the constitution has provided a mechanism for them to apply to the High Court for an inquiry on foot of a Haebus Corpus application.

Think about this for a minute, how can you deal with these people fairly when they have no issue whatsoever with shooting dead a witness or a jury member for that matter. These people live in a coked out world where anyone can have their head blown open for anything!

walshb

I'm all for dealing with these scum, but seriously dropping standards
and bringing in any old "evidence" is not the way to go.
It is said that even RETIRED members of the force can give
their "opinion." Now, does this also include those who may have
been sacked from the gardai or those who retired in disgrace?

It's simply this country panicking and bringing in silly
policies to deal with very serious issues. Tackle it head on, with
full force and commitment and passion and bring in
serious prison time for gangland crime, any gangland crime,
but this is just plain silly and dangerous, and shows a lack
of energy on the part of the country.

"Ah feck it, we have no real evidence here, just convict the sod
on the coppers opinion.":rolleyes:

Spudmonkey

It would be nice to move those lawyers into some place like St Mary's Park or South Hill and see how long it takes them to change their tune.

walshb

Spudmonkey wrote: »

It would be nice to move those lawyers into some place like St Mary's Park or South Hill and see how long it takes them to change their tune.

So, you think it's right that a person can be locked away purely based
on the "opinion" of a person? Garda or not, he/she is still a person who
may have it wrong and may know they have it wrong, and may lie
thru their teeth as well.

Riskymove

Nodin wrote: »

There's been intimidation of witnesses in some cases certainly, but I've seen no convincing case for widespread interference with Juries.

I believe that's their point alright

lostexpectation

Darragh29 wrote: »

Think about this for a minute, how can you deal with these people fairly when they have no issue whatsoever with shooting dead a witness or a jury member for that matter. These people live in a coked out world where anyone can have their head blown open for anything!

wow now theres some evidence you can go to court with daragh's fantasies

walshb

As far as I am aware it is a coppers view on whether or not a person is
a member of a criminal gang and whether or not a gang exists.

Aherne is on Kenny RTE now saying this

cornbb

My concerns with this bill have already been covered here. We are basically throwing away fundamental principles of justice in order to lazily tackle a problem which could be tackled using a little more thought from the legislators, and a little more hard work from the justice system.

To those of you who claim we should do "ANYTHING" in order to tackle gangs, I wonder whether you've fully thought through what "anything" could extend to, and thought about how legislation like this could start to lead us down slippery slopes. What's next? Curfews? Martial law? Internments in an Irish Guantanémo bay?

There's no reason why we should sacrifice basic liberties for security. If the government could actually put a little serious thought and a little more sweat into it, we should have both.

Spudmonkey

walshb wrote: »

So, you think it's right that a person can be locked away purely based
on the "opinion" of a person? Garda or not, he/she is still a person who
may have it wrong and may know they have it wrong, and may lie
thru their teeth as well.

No I don't. But what I do know is that a lot of these people that pass opinions on these laws are those who don't have to go home and live beside these people. I've heard stories (from where my girlfriend works), of where a manager left a certain person rob their store because they live in the same housing estate. This is how afraid some people are of these thugs. They don't want to confront them because they know they will make life awkward for them.

I find a lot of the people who disagree with these new laws are from places far away from all the trouble. All I'm saying is just try living in one of these areas for a week, see if you still against this legislation after that.

seamus

I was initially reasonably supportive of this bill, but after hearing various pieces and seeing the groups opposed to it/concerned by it, I'm no longer all that convinced that it's necessary nor will it stand up to scrutiny.

Pat Rabbitte pointed out during the week, that we don't need a new bill in order to have juryless trials. The DPP as it stands has the option to prosecute in the special criminal court without a jury where they believe that juries would face intimidation in the normal courts. So if they need to be able to have juryless trials for these scum, why aren't they doing that now under the existing legislation?

There's nothing stopping us from completely anonymising a jury - remove them from the court and put them in a separate room with several live video feeds from the courtroom. So jury intimidation can be mitigated without any legislation. I think the primary concern here is witness intimidation. By lowering the standard of evidence required to be given in the special criminal court, they're effectively removing the need for proper witnesses. But witness intimidation has been going on since the court system was conceived. Surely we've learned some lessons on dealing with it beyond abandoning the entire point of having witnesses in the first place?

There are valid criticisms and concerns, and would like to hear more from civil liberties groups on it.

I'm not sure anyone is going to get enthused at the site of 'leading lawyers' leading the attack though.

I wonder if that list was correlated with 'lawyers who make most on free legal aid' what the results would be. Not that I am suggesting for one moment that money would be a concern...

walshb

I hear it is NOT only defence lawyers who are anti the bill, but also the prosecutors.
This is telling! I really am all for coming the heavy, but this attitude of "we cannot get
them fairly, so let's resort to desperate and unsafe methods," is not the answer.

If the authorities we pay really put their heart and soul into this disease, then maybe
we can get this scum. The main problem to me seems to be that the coppers were allowing these scum to blow each other away and were happy to, but in allowing this, it has simply escalated so much and now we have innocents being butchered.

Seriously, how many gangland murders were solved? Feck all. That is not a coincidence, it's a lack of caring and passion to solve the bloody murders. Okay, maybe the cops don't give a toss about these murders, but for training and solving purposes, they should have put more effort into catching the killers.

Now, we have innocent people being killed too and suddenly the authorities are panicking and are trying to rush thru a bill with little thought, typical way we do
things here

Boston

nesf wrote: »

From a liberty point of view the bill is definitely treading very close to the line but as my father-in-law put it: "Juries can be gotten at". In such cases where this is a very real risk surely the benefits outweigh the costs of such special criminal courts?

And Gardai can be corupt. More then one innocent man ended up behind bars due to garda testimony.

Besides that, I can't help but feel this is all very miss leading. They can't protect witnesses so they've invented this threat against jurors to try mislead us into thinking they're being proactive. Also I can't help but think that some people in the Gardai and the Government might feel it will be easier to convict a criminal if you only need to convince one judge.

If this bill gots through, what's to stop them taking about everyone's right to a jurry trial? I know if I was accused of something, it's what I'd want.

Nodin

Darragh29 wrote: »

We need to get real here, these people need to be dealt with no, WHATEVER the cost.

No, actually. Knee jerk reactions are the kind of thing that will see their sentences overturned.

Spudmonkey

Nodin wrote: »

No, actually. Knee jerk reactions are the kind of thing that will see their sentences overturned.

Precisely, this is exactly what will happen. They will get off on some "technicality", like they always do. Besides, putting the head guy in some criminal guy away doesn't automatically kill the gang, you have to get all of them because there are others coming up the ranks.

So tell me how are you going to get evidence and get someone to testify against a full criminal gang?

And forget about blaming the guards, there was a gun raid on a house(s) in St Mary's Park in Limerick this morning, so they are catching the criminals.

They won't be put away because the problem is with the legislation, not the gardai.

FTA69

Spudmonkey wrote: »

I find a lot of the people who disagree with these new laws are from places far away from all the trouble. All I'm saying is just try living in one of these areas for a week, see if you still against this legislation after that.

Says you. Do you "live in one of these areas" or are you relying solely upon the experience of your "girlfriend's manager in work" while insinuating those opposed to this crap are upper-class pinkos? I come from a working-class area, and have been on the negative end of drug dealing scumbags and general sh*theads in the past, probably a lot more than most to be honest. It think this bill is complete and utter nonsense, the concept of a guard (of any rank) having the power to designate someone guilty of gang-membership and to have that admitted as "evidence" is nothing shy of a disgrace. Especially considering the shenanigans the cops themselves get up to. Ireland already has a raft of legislation to deal with the gang problem, legislation more draconian than most EU countries at that.

Manic Moran

to allow a Garda of any rank this kind of privilege seems excessive, surely it would be enough to limit it to top ranking Garda who presumably would take the responsibility more seriously?

I disagree with you on this bit. Eventually you end up talking about levels we call 'echelons above reality.' I would submit that a humble Garda who has been assigned to the Gang Division, and has worked a specific location with a specific focus for some time is liable to be far better versed in the realities than the District Superintendent, who not only has to focus on everything, but also is likely to get his information from the exact same person you suggest should not testify. Instead of 'from the horse's mouth', or as near as you can get, you end up with the same information which has been filtered/disorted through one or two layers of reports, and a witness who oftentimes will have to reply to a question with "I do not have that information at this time, I need to research it" and will then go and ask the same humble Garda for the information which might be otherwise presented on the spot.

NTM

Spudmonkey

FTA69 wrote: »

Says you. Do you "live in one of these areas" or are you relying solely upon the experience of your "girlfriend's manager in work" while insinuating those opposed to this crap are upper-class pinkos?

No I am relying on her first hand account as the person in question was thrown out of the store while flinging a torrent of abuse at her. My girlfriend doesn't get paid enough for that crap.

FTA69 wrote: »

It think this bill is complete and utter nonsense, the concept of a guard (of any rank) having the power to designate someone guilty of gang-membership and to have that admitted as "evidence" is nothing shy of a disgrace. Especially considering the shenanigans the cops themselves get up to. Ireland already has a raft of legislation to deal with the gang problem, legislation more draconian than most EU countries at that.

I know there are some guards who know where the problem lies, they can't do anything. They could probably drive around the problem estates and point out who is living in which house, how they are all related, what position they hold in the gang, etc.

Yeah Ireland has a raft of legislation alright, what a huge success that has been to say they need to introduce more.

In my opinion, people like those who shot Roy Collins, abdicated their humans rights the second the pulled the trigger. I can't help feeling there are people on this board who feel otherwise.

Boston

Spudmonkey wrote: »

I know there are some guards who know where the problem lies, they can't do anything. They could probably drive around the problem estates and point out who is living in which house, how they are all related, what position they hold in the gang, etc.

Yeah Ireland has a raft of legislation alright, what a huge success that has been to say they need to introduce more.

In my opinion, people like those who shot Roy Collins, abdicated their humans rights the second the pulled the trigger. I can't help feeling there are people on this board who feel otherwise.

What makes you think more legislation will solve the problem then? It's not the legislation thats stopping the gardai but rather the resources to get the evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. Even when they do get convictions the sentences often don't represent value for money. If anything this new legislation will simply lessen the burden of evidence required without address the true issue, chronic under resourcing and miss management of existing resources.

Mr.Micro

The Minister’s intention to abolish jury trial for gangland cases, to let gardaí of any rank give opinion evidence about the existence of a gang, and not to require corroboration of such evidence are “the most pressing” reasons for “real and serious concern”, the lawyers say in their letter.

This proposal is a step backwards IMO and the Gardai are not above a bit of corruption as we have seen in the past. A Garda points the finger at someone "he is in a gang " and in probability that will be enough for the law. Its incredible and outrageous. It would not be enough though for the crook politicians and developers that have plagued our country for the last 20 years in tandem with the gangs. Absolutely It goes against the principles of real justice and our constitution. It is a primitive response to a major problem ie gang crime/warfare that has been allowed by this Government to proliferate without check in the last 20 years. Do it the proper way Ahern and get to grips with the problem and get a proper police task force to deal with it and do not change the law.

Dirk Gently

What's the definition of a gang? 3 or more people whom any Garda suggests is involved in crime? I can see this being wide open for abuse tbh. Are there any checks to prevent it being used against people who aren't hardened criminals, for example a protest group or picket line, should any random Garda feel like forming an opinion on their activities?

I'm not saying it would be used in that way, just wondering if there is a line, or if that line is simply up to the Gardai to decide.

Spudmonkey

Boston wrote: »

What makes you think more legislation will solve the problem then? It's not the legislation thats stopping the gardai but rather the resources to get the evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. Even when they do get convictions the sentences often don't represent value for money. If anything this new legislation will simply lessen the burden of evidence required without address the true issue, chronic under resourcing and miss management of existing resources.

Its the fact that the legislation thats there is pretty much useless IMO, it needs to be tougher.

Like I said there was a gun raid on a house in Limerick this morning. These people will probably be back on the street by lunchtime. It wasn't resources in this case was it?

I'm fed up of hearing about some thug up in court, with 40-odd previous convictions. I mean come on, if someone has 40 something previous convictions, what is he doing on the street in the first place? Someone like that should be locked away, not out commiting other crimes.

I mean why are people so fearful that gardai will target them? Are they on the fringes of doing something illegal?

Mr.Micro

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Its the fact that the legislation thats there is pretty much useless IMO, it needs to be tougher.

I mean why are people so fearful that gardai will target them? Are they on the fringes of doing something illegal?

Its the fact that corroborated proof is enshrined in our law and no reasonable doubt in criminal law in our democracy and this law will reduce that to the word of a Garda. Gangs now who is next? The law should be equal for all.

Boston

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Its the fact that the legislation thats there is pretty much useless IMO, it needs to be tougher.

Like I said there was a gun raid on a house in Limerick this morning. These people will probably be back on the street by lunchtime. It wasn't resources in this case was it?

I'm fed up of hearing about some thug up in court, with 40-odd previous convictions. I mean come on, if someone has 40 something previous convictions, what is he doing on the street in the first place? Someone like that should be locked away, not out commiting other crimes.

I highly doubt they'll be back on the street if caught with guns. But leave that aside, what in the currect bill do you think would effect them getting released? Theres a huge problem with witness intimidation in the country, but rather then deal with that problem we're going to bring in legislation which allows the word of a gardai (based on who knows) to be used as evidence.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

I mean why are people so fearful that gardai will target them? Are they on the fringes of doing something illegal?

Because everyone makes mistakes, the word of one person should be enough to take away anyones rights. If they know these people are in gangs, why can't they provide documented evidence to support it? I think all this is smoke and mirrors to account for the poor job the Gardai are doing.

Spudmonkey

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Its the fact that corroborated proof is enshrined in our law no reasonable doubt in criminal law in a democracy and this law will reduce that to the word of a Garda. Gangs now who is next? The law should be equal for all.

So what finding guns in someones house isn't proof? What kind of evidence do the guards need? All it seems to get you in this country is a slap on the wrist!

"Now go off and be a good lad, don't be getting involved with those types"

Boston

Spudmonkey wrote: »

So what finding guns in someones house isn't proof? What kind of evidence do the guards need? All it seems to get you in this country is a slap on the wrist!

"Now go off and be a good lad, don't be getting involved with those types"

Now you're just being flippant. You don't know what was found, nor do you know what they've been charged with. They certainly haven't been sentenced. If they do get a slap on the wrist it will be nothing this bill will fix but rather to do with min sentencing and prison resources. You seem to think this Bill is something it very clearly isn;t/

Mr.Micro

Spudmonkey wrote: »

So what finding guns in someones house isn't proof? What kind of evidence do the guards need? All it seems to get you in this country is a slap on the wrist!

"Now go off and be a good lad, don't be getting involved with those types"

As I posted earlier gang crime is a major problem that I do not dispute but we cannot go down the road of making the law unequal and give the Police the opportunities to fit up suspects and throw away the key if they so desire or via pressure from the Government. The law should ge fair and equitable no matter what.

Spudmonkey

Boston wrote: »

I highly doubt they'll be back on the street if caught with guns. But leave that aside, what in the currect bill do you think would effect them getting released? Theres a huge problem with witness intimidation in the country, but rather then deal with that problem we're going to bring in legislation which allows the word of a gardai (based on who knows) to be used as evidence.

Yeah because people connected to witnesses are being killed. Check this out. It was a pretty big story down here a few months back.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0410/1224244362861.html

Tell me, would you testify against someone if they would likely target someone you know, no way would I, regardless of the promises made to me by the legal system.

Boston wrote: »

Because everyone makes mistakes, the word of one person should be enough to take away anyones rights. If they know these people are in gangs, why can't they provide documented evidence to support it? I think all this is smoke and mirrors to account for the poor job the Gardai are doing.

Why do you know someone who was drafted into a criminal gang recently but found out it wasn't for them?

I'm sure some sort of evidence would have to be provided as well, I doubt its going to be a case of a guard not liking the look of ya.

I think the guards do a fine job, I just don't think they have proper legal backing to finish it off.

Sparks

I love the way that it's taken as read that witnesses and juries can be intimidated or otherwise tampered with, but simultaenously it's assumed that judges are both above temptation and are somehow invulnerable to threats as well...

Mr.Micro

Sparks wrote: »

I love the way that it's taken as read that witnesses and juries can be intimidated or otherwise tampered with, but simultaenously it's assumed that judges are both above temptation and are somehow invulnerable to threats as well...

Or the Gardai for that matter. The whole proposal is open to widespread abuse.

Executive Steve

Spudmonkey wrote: »

It would be nice to move those lawyers into some place like St Mary's Park or South Hill and see how long it takes them to change their tune.

To be perfectly honest, I'd imagine that if our politicians had had the foresight to go down there and cast their eyes around some years ago we mightn't be in the situation we're in now..

These places aren't exactly wonderful suburban utopias waiting to happen as soon as you round up all the gangs - they've been systematically excluded and deserted and underinvested by the authorities for the entire duration of one of the biggest booms ever experienced by a modern european nation. As a society we have failed them; and now, instead of admitting that, we are going to trample all over our constitution and throw the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial out of the window to the detriment of our the very fabric of our society.

Executive Steve

...and please don't think i'm excusing the actions of the vermin who perpetrate these heinous crimes; it's just that there's more to justice than criminal justice.

Sparks

Frankly, it's not surprising this bill is such a mess. The detailed look at the Misc.Provisions Bill which has been going on in the Shooting forum since it was first mooted (the Misc Bill is also being guillotined through this week) has shown that the Minister may be a good career politician, but he's a fairly lousy legislator.

Executive Steve

I just think it beggars belief that a minister in a government this unpopular is able to come out with this much dreadful legislation and get it passed without a hiccup!

The blasphemy law was bad enough, this one here has sailed through the Dáil in 10 days from start to finish!

wes

I don't think things are really so bad, that we need to abolish jury trials. Surely, there is a less drastic and dangerous method on tackling the gang problem?

To me, the proposed cure, is almost as bad as the disease.

Wheely

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Its the fact that the legislation thats there is pretty much useless IMO, it needs to be tougher.

Hang on there, it's a "fact" or its your "opinion" cos eh, they're not the same. Or in your opinion it's a fact....? :rolleyes:

Wheely

Spudmonkey wrote: »

I mean why are people so fearful that gardai will target them? Are they on the fringes of doing something illegal?

Eh because history has shown us time and time and time again what happens when too much power is given to the State, particularly its policing apparatus. The citiizen always losses out. Remember Martin Niemoller

First they came for the gangs........

Wheely

Spudmonkey wrote: »

I'm sure some sort of evidence would have to be provided as well, I doubt its going to be a case of a guard not liking the look of ya.

.

Aren't you missing the whole point of the argument here. That the Bill does NOT require "some sort of evidence as well" and that one of the distinct dangers is that it MIGHT be a case of a guard not liking the look of you?:rolleyes:

Spudmonkey

Wheely wrote: »

Hang on there, it's a "fact" or its your "opinion" cos eh, they're not the same. Or in your opinion it's a fact....? :rolleyes:

"Its that the legislation thats there is pretty much useless IMO, it needs to be tougher."

I re-phrased it for you...

Wheely wrote: »

Eh because history has shown us time and time and time again what happens when too much power is given to the State, particularly its policing apparatus. The citiizen always losses out. Remember Martin Niemoller

First they came for the gangs........

Comparing Ireland to Nazi Germany? A little on the extreme don't you think?

Wheely wrote: »

Aren't you missing the whole point of the argument here. That the Bill does NOT require "some sort of evidence as well" and that one of the distinct dangers is that it MIGHT be a case of a guard not liking the look of you?:rolleyes:

I haven't read the bill. I don't know the details. What I am trying to say is, take these people who are so strongly against legislation that targets these criminals, from behind their desks, wrapped in cotton wool, and put them out on the street against these thugs, I just like to see if their attitude would change.

From what I've heard, many of the details in this bill seem to be changed on a whim.. I.e. from any guard to only ranking gardai.. If it can change this easily I don't believe it can made watertight and passed in Europe.

I don't believe the problem lies with resources, I think it lies with the quality of the legislation in place at the moment. I think these people need to be handled different to petty criminals, I don't think witnesses can be used in trying their cases and I do think evidence is needed.

Wheely

Spudmonkey wrote: »

"

Comparing Ireland to Nazi Germany? A little on the extreme don't you think?

Absolutely not. I'm not saying Ireland is anything like Nazi Germany, I'm merely pointing out what has ALWAYS happened throughout history when the State is given too much power. And it doesn't have to become Nazi Germany for people rights to get trampled on. A for instance-high profile murder, say a mother and two kids caught in the cross-fire, hugh public pressure on the cops to take someone down for it, but they don't know who did it. This legislation would allow them to pick out anyone involved in a gang, marginally or not, or maybe not at all and have them locked up for 15 years. You think that's possible? Or am I being extreme again? Never in a Western democracy right...?

Spudmonkey wrote: »

"
I haven't read the bill. I don't know the details. What I am trying to say is, take these people who are so strongly against legislation that targets these criminals, from behind their desks, wrapped in cotton wool, and put them out on the street against these thugs, I just like to see if their attitude would change..

OK SERIOUSLY, not having read the Bill, I can stomach, but in fairness its only 34 pages long it wouldn't kill ya to read it. But you don't even know the details? And you come on to a message board defending it, or criticising those who come out against it as "behind their desks wrapped in cotton wool" without even knowing the basic details of what they're protesting against!!!! Jesus man, the Bill could provide for waterboarding and internment for all you know about it and you think you've the right to criticise those who've bothered to take the time to read it and voice their legitimate concerns.

Here's an idea, maybe at least read a newspaper article covering the basci elements of the Bill before you come on here mouthing off about those who have.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

From what I've heard, many of the details in this bill seem to be changed on a whim.. I.e. from any guard to only ranking gardai.. If it can change this easily I don't believe it can made watertight and passed in Europe.

I don't believe the problem lies with resources, I think it lies with the quality of the legislation in place at the moment. I think these people need to be handled different to petty criminals, I don't think witnesses can be used in trying their cases and I do think evidence is needed.

Yeah from what you've heard.........
Whatever, from what I've heard you don't have clue what your talking about, I'll wager your knowledge of the "legislation in place at the moment" is on a par with your knowledge of the proposed legislation you are discussing at the moment. That is to say BUPKISS.

passed in Europe?
handled different than petty criminals?
No witnesses?
Evidence is needed?

What are you talking about exactly?

Joey the lips

Do you know what this says to the govt... Up yours you stupid fools to the batt o keaffes, ned o keaffes, mary harneys and of course the minister intended this says wake up and enact propper legislation instead of the "Program for govt" sh1t you constantly spout!

nesf

Boston wrote: »

If this bill gots through, what's to stop them taking about everyone's right to a jurry trial? I know if I was accused of something, it's what I'd want.

The Constitution. In most criminal cases it would be impossible to argue that normal courts can't prosecute them and juryless trials would be open to successful challenge in court. Now if that part of the Constitution was reworded into something looser then, maybe the above would be a problem but as is, no.

Het-Field

Darragh29 wrote: »

Would this be the same gang of privilaged pea balled marble mouthed prostitutes that you can see down in Courts 40-44 of the Dublin District Court in the Bridewell every hour of every day, defending the absolute indenfensible, lying through their teeth about their clients trying to "rehabiliate" themselves as the client openly sniggers at the judge... All these gangland characters start out in the District Court, they don't just become gangland figures overnight, and maybe if the legal profession didn't continually lie about the chances of their clients reoffending and getting them through the revolving door system, then maybe we might not have as big as problem as we do have with gangland crime.

Honestly, if you ever want to see a pure fu*king charade in full swing, go down to the Dublin District Courthouse in the Bridewell in Dublin...

You are an absolute joker. Your attitudes towards the legal profession are some of the most ignorant I have ever seen. The constitution has rights (specified and unspecified) towards natural justice. We also live in a system where by the "presumption of innocence" prevails. If you want that removed, call a referendum. If not, be quiet. People are entitled to a defence under the fundamental protection of our constitution.

The behaviour of ganglords has nothing to do with Lawyers. There is a culture which they are born into, and this is reflected in the actions of people like Liam Keane (at the age of 17). Blaming it on the lawyers is the single greatest cop out I have ever come across.

You are a piece of work.

In terms of the Bill itself, the provisions dealing with uncorroborated Garda evidence is some of the most worrying I have ever seen. I would almost see it as more proportionate to intern these lads until the investiagtion has run its course. This provision MUST be referred to the Supreme Court or to the Presdient in the context of the right to a "Fair Trial".

StopTheDrugWar!

"ANYTHING?"

If you want to get rid of gangland crime, the only way you can do it is by first legalising drugs. You may think that sounds extreme. But to me it doesn't sound as extreme as eliminating trial by jury.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Comparing Ireland to Nazi Germany? A little on the extreme don't you think?

I'd think not, that is the way we are heading. So basically a gang is any group of 3 people committing a crime. If a garda "suspects" someone is in a gang they are allowed interrogate them for a week and then if they "know" you're in a gang (the way people always "know" things and are wrong) you get sent to a juryless trial and the gaurds opinion is used as evidence against you.

It's more than just gang bosses who could be affected by this. Basically anyone who has any dealings in contraband could be subjected to trial without jury, unless it can be proven they made the contraband themselves striclty for personal use. Otherwise they are "part of a criminal organisation".

Then if the government bans more stuff, anyone who subverts their oppressive laws is refused the right to a jury.


A jury of the people is the last line of defence a democracy has against oppressive laws.

Jury nullification has happened before, and it will happen again. This law is quite simply a blow to democracy. A comparison to nazi germany is highly appropriate.