Irish prisons 'in breach of human rights standards'

DarkJager

article wrote:

The Irish Penal Reform Trust has said this week's report from the Inspector of Prisons describes shocking conditions which are both unacceptable and in breach of human rights standards.

It has called on the Justice Minister Dermot Ahern to commit to addressing the urgent issues identified in the document.

The trust believes the report must act as a watershed in the Irish Penal system.

The report details how seven prisoners are accommodated in a four-bed cell with three buckets as sanitary facilities.

Tough **** really. Prison isn't supposed to be comfortable for the scumbags. If I had my way, they'd all be sleeping on the ground in puddles of their own piss. **** em. You do the crime, don't expect lush living when you get caught.

TheInquisitor

Three buckets? The scum should only have 1!

DarkJager

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Three buckets? The scum should only have 1!

With 6 or 7 holes in it!

Stuxnet

they were talking bout this on joe duffy yesterday,
alot of the new prisoners are people getting locked up for not being able to pay bills, hardly the scum of the earth now,

TanG411

I hate stories like this. Come on, there's people in that prison who did the worst things imaginable to people and human rights enthusiasts believe they don't live in adequate facilities? They should be lucky they have a bucket :mad:

It things like this that make the country a disgrace.

TestTransmission

Ya know what?**** em

Hal1

Don't take this guys bucket. :mad:

DarkJager

Larkin91 wrote: »

I hate stories like this. Come on, there's people in that prison who did the worst things imaginable to people and human rights enthusiasts believe they don't live in adequate facilities? They should be lucky they have a bucket :mad:

It things like this that make the country a disgrace.

Its the goody two shoe bleeding hearts in this country that make me sick. They think the conditions in a prison aren't "comfortable" enough, and only recently they were whinging about the new Criminal legislation that it was "too harsh" on scumbags - the same scumbags that are out robbing and murdering without a care for anyone elses "rights".

If we're ever going to take the fight to the scumbag cretins, these "guardians" of human rights would do us all a favor by just shutting the **** up.

Gummy Panda

BOBBY wrote: »

they were talking bout this on joe duffy yesterday,
alot of the new prisoners are people getting locked up for not being able to pay bills, hardly the scum of the earth now,

I thought thats why you declare yourself bankrupt?

PCPhoto

BOBBY wrote: »

they were talking bout this on joe duffy yesterday,
alot of the new prisoners are people getting locked up for not being able to pay bills, hardly the scum of the earth now,

Do you mind if I ask where you got your statement from ? ....did you listen to Joe Duffy show and just mention what you think you heard or did someone who phoned in the show "claim" that people were being locked up for non-payment...and you took it as fact.

This has already been through the courts - people cannot be jailed for not being able to pay ....however they can be jailed if they CAN afford to repay and have made little or no efforts. (off the top of my head I cant think of the names but there was a case in the courts 6-8weeks ago)

Diabhal Beag

These scumbags should suffer in prison. Who cares if its a breach of Human Rights, they are the worst thing to be associated with Humanity.

BS. people who don't pay bills should be in a separate alright prison and all the actual criminals in a shlt hole..

PCPhoto

DarkJager wrote: »

Its the goody two shoe bleeding hearts in this country that make me sick. They think the conditions in a prison aren't "comfortable" enough, and only recently they were whinging about the new Criminal legislation that it was "too harsh" on scumbags - the same scumbags that are out robbing and murdering without a care for anyone elses "rights".

If we're ever going to take the fight to the scumbag cretins, these "guardians" of human rights would do us all a favor by just shutting the **** up.

totally agree with this ..... why should someone who doesnt act like a civilised human being (ie. respect for another human) .... be treated like a human, the scum of this world do not deserve to receive to be treated with respect.

(NOTE: I'm referring to career criminals and those with multiple convictions - as its obvious the system fails them and they do not wish to mend their ways)

I've said it before and will say it again - multiple convictions should be punished by non receivership of social welfare - this includes "claims" of suffering from stress, discrimination and depression.... which are just some of the loopholes that our ignorant government cannot for see (even when its pointed out to them).

(I have stronger views on career criminals but dont think I'm awake enough to post properly.)

PCPhoto

Deleted User wrote: »

BS. people who don't pay bills should be in a separate alright prison and all the actual criminals in a shlt hole..

I feel I need to address this issue again.....

People who dont pay bills CANNOT goto prison.... people who CHOOSE to ignore debts do actually face prosecution which could result in going to prison.

if someone has a debt that they cannot make they should contact the creditor and ask for help (ie. lower payments/longer time... worst thing someone in Debt can do is ignore it)

I'm currently in debt and working my way towards paying it off - in the last 6months I have cleared off one loan and one credit card, I still have another loan and another credit card left...and hopefully ...the next 6-8months will clear them off.

PCPhoto

Gummy Panda wrote: »

I thought thats why you declare yourself bankrupt?

this is a common misconception.... declaring yourself bankrupt in this country means that you agree to pay back debts.

in effect making yourself bankrupt means that if/when you work again - you will be working to pay back debts and not making very much money....this is why so many businessmen - create limited companies so their losses are limited and if the company goes tits up then the individual and his/her property are protected.

with an Example: Carroll - we've all seen the business plea for protection from the government - however - earlier this year Carroll transferred ownership of some of his properties in the name of his wife - so he and the company are not liable - and his family do not loose their home - despite (to the best of my knowledge - open to correction with this) but I believe that the family home was used as part collateral for some of the business loans.

DarkJager

PCPhoto wrote: »

I've said it before and will say it again - multiple convictions should be punished by non receivership of social welfare - this includes "claims" of suffering from stress, discrimination and depression.... which are just some of the loopholes that our ignorant government cannot for see (even when its pointed out to them).

Multiple convictions should be punished by a 1 year sentence in complete solitary confinement, with a 1/2 hour each day to wash & eat. The other 23 1/2 hours should be nothing but darkness.

mudokon

ilovelamp2000

What exactly is that's causing prisons to be in breach of the human rights of lowlifes in Ireland ?

Is it because prison guards took away their mobile phones, 42" plasma screens and their pet budgies ?

**** the lot of them.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Threads like this always suit the usual gutter snipe bleating on about 'scumbags deserving it' and sh*t like this.

I'm totally opposed to the regime in our prison service whereby prisoners are kept in condition's which would have a dog owner brought before the courts if he/she kept their dogs in similar.

I'd rather see very long sentences for very serious crime, and stringent enforcement of ASBO's and Community Service scheme's for minor crime.

Why should a prisoner be forced to use a chamber pot for the best part of 23hrs of the day?. Or why be forced to have access to a shower only once a week? - thats bullsh*t.

Tell you what, take a tour of Kilmanham Goal - your blood would blood at what the British imposed on Irish prisoners, but then we seem to think its somehow OK to do it to our own?.

.

TheZohanS

Nicole Acidic Banner wrote: »

Why should a prisoner be forced to use a chamber pot for the best part of 23hrs of the day?. Or why be forced to have access to a shower only once a week?

So they'll appreciate their freedom when they get let out.

arybvtcw0eolkf

TheZohan wrote: »

So they'll appreciate their freedom when they get let out.

So this is why that given our present regime we don't have repeat offenders, right?.


You know Reichführer-SS Himmler used the reasoning that "Nature is cruel, therefore we are entitled to be cruel" - are you a Nazi too?.


.

Nodin

DarkJager wrote: »

Tough **** really. Prison isn't supposed to be comfortable for the scumbags. If I had my way, they'd all be sleeping on the ground in puddles of their own piss. **** em. You do the crime, don't expect lush living when you get caught.

In militaries all over the world, the harder the training, the harder the man that will come out the end of it. Likewise the harder the enviroment, the harder you have to be to survive it. Now, if you make prisons living hells, what do you think is going to come out the gates?

Kiera

Nicole Acidic Banner wrote: »

Threads like this always suit the usual gutter snipe bleating on about 'scumbags deserving it' and sh*t like this.

I'm totally opposed to the regime in our prison service whereby prisoners are kept in condition's which would have a dog owner brought before the courts if he/she kept their dogs in similar.

I'd rather see very long sentences for very serious crime, and stringent enforcement of ASBO's and Community Service scheme's for minor crime.

Why should a prisoner be forced to use a chamber pot for the best part of 23hrs of the day?. Or why be forced to have access to a shower only once a week? - thats bullsh*t.

Tell you what, take a tour of Kilmanham Goal - your blood would blood at what the British imposed on Irish prisoners, but then we seem to think its somehow OK to do it to our own?.

.

Mairt, i dont see why they should get even basic rights. They are scumbags. They're not in prison for the craic! Let them sit in a cell with their own crap, they deserve nothing more! If its a minor crime they wont be in for long or if its a serious crime they'll be living in their own **** for a long long time.

Maybe this will deter them from committing crime again? Probably not, but i wont lose sleep over them in those conditions!

ps. goal is sooooo 80's :P

TheZohanS

Nicole Acidic Banner wrote: »

So this is why that given our present regime we don't have repeat offenders, right?.


You know Reichführer-SS Himmler used the reasoning that "Nature is cruel, therefore we are entitled to be cruel" - are you a Nazi too?.


.

Nope, we have repeat offenders because there is not a strong enough focus on rehabilitation in prison.

arybvtcw0eolkf

TheZohan wrote: »

Nope, we have repeat offenders because there is not a strong enough focus on rehabilitation in prison.

Ah good, I'm glad you brought that up.

On the one hand your saying the present regime is what they deserve, and to an extent your right (if a murderer was left in these conditions for the rest of their natural life I wouldn't bat a eye lid) but how do we re-hab a prisoner by keeping him (I'm saying "him" because the women in Dochas Centre live in an entirely different world) confined to an over crowded cell full of piss and sh*t?.

You can't have it both ways.

.

Kipperhell

Kiera wrote: »

Mairt, i dont see why they should get even basic rights. They are scumbags.

Interesting, so as they shouldn't have basic rights what kind of rights do you think they should have? Basic rights include things like food so do you think we should starve them?

There are a lot of people in prison and many are not repeat offenders. There are quite a few people in prison for reckless driving or other bad judgements a lot of people are lucky enough not to get caught for. Have you really never done anything that could have given you prison time?

Kiera

Kipperhell wrote: »

Interesting, so as they shouldn't have basic rights what kind of rights do you think they should have? Basic rights include things like food so do you think we should starve them?

There are a lot of people in prison and many are not repeat offenders. There are quite a few people in prison for reckless driving or other bad judgements a lot of people are lucky enough not to get caught for. Have you really never done anything that could have given you prison time?

You know quite well what i meant!

Yup and even reckless drivers should live in a cell with their own piss.

And no, i have never done something i could have got prison time for. wtf kind of question is that? Were you expecting me to say i pistol whipped so bitch over a parking spot?

TheZohanS

Nicole Acidic Banner wrote: »

Ah good, I'm glad you brought that up.

On the one hand your saying the present regime is what they deserve, and to an extent your right (if a murderer was left in these conditions for the rest of their natural life I wouldn't bat a eye lid) but how do we re-hab a prisoner by keeping him (I'm saying "him" because the women in Dochas Centre live in an entirely different world) confined to an over crowded cell full of piss and sh*t?.

You can't have it both ways.

.

No, on the one hand I'm saying let offenders realise that the consequences of their actions and their choices have left them in sh!tty conditions, now it's up to them if they want to buy into the rehabilitation process.

If you don't then these are the conditons that you are going to face.

Put all resources into rehabilitation, not into making cells cushey.

walshb

The prison systems should have basics and not be hell holes, but nor should
they be cushy. I am not advocating Midnight Express, but I don't want Butlins either.

We have to find a middle ground on the issue.

Really, everyone can end up in prison, a wrong judgment or decision can
change a persons life. We aren't talking about evil people all the time

dlofnep

Not everyone in prison is there for dastardly deeds. Some people have been just unfortunate, or have done something very minor. Should they all have couches ro extreme comfort? Absolutely not - But they should have the required facilities to get by each day.

Everyone in this thread has immediately used the most evil people in society as a basis for this; far from rational.

TheZohanS

walshb wrote: »

The prison systems should have basics and not be hell holes, but nor should
they be cushy. I am not advocating Midnight Express, but I don't want Butlins either.

Totally agree. Treat prisoners with dignity, not like animals.

TheZohanS

dlofnep wrote: »

Everyone in this thread has immediately used the most evil people in society as a basis for this; far from rational.

No they haven't.

dlofnep

Ok, the majority have.

arybvtcw0eolkf

dlofnep wrote: »

Everyone in this thread has immediately used the most evil people in society as a basis for this; far from rational.

Seriously?.

.

af_thefragile

Aah, stupid liberals!!
Bring back the death penalty and everything will be fine!


Prison isn't a place for vacation where you can chill out with your other scum mates in there smoking weed and making new contacts.
Prison is a punishment that makes you think a million times before you ever think about committing a crime again.

dlofnep

Nicole Acidic Banner wrote: »

Seriously?.

.

I corrected myself! Stop being pedantic you auld codger

Nodin

af_thefragile wrote: »

Aah, stupid liberals!!
Bring back the death penalty and everything will be fine!

Of course when you could get the death penalty for sheep stealing, sheep were still stolen, but don't let that worry you....

Poccington

Lol @ people acting like prisons are hell etc.

How many prisoners have mobile phones? How many of them get drugs smuggled into them? How many of the more serious criminals are still able to run their little gangs on a daily basis while in prison? How many prisoners are getting away with attacking Prison Officers?


Yep, those prisoners really are up against it.

dlofnep

Poccington wrote: »

Lol @ people acting like prisons are hell etc.

Have you been to prison? How can you validate your claim on how good the conditions are?

Odysseus

Out of interest, have anyone who is calling for prisons that will not conform to basic human rights actually ever seen the inside of a prison?

I'm firmly believe that prisons should punish, but additionally they should rehabilitate. Part of my work involves working with people whilst they are detained, our prisons in my opinion are a sh!t holes, little opportunities to rehabilitate. Of course you can't force a person to change their lifestyle, but this goes both ways. Rehabilitation won't change a person if they don't won't to, but additionally, the recommendations people are making here won't change a person either.

tallaght01

To say that criminals should be made live in their own piss etc because they deserve it etc etc is just being over simplistic. It's completely ignoring the fact that they have been put somewhere to keep them away from the public until they are safe to let out.

This does not equate with treating them as being subhuman. Their punishment is to be taken out of society for a period of time. Their punishment is not having all of their liberty and dignity taken away from them.

It also ignores circumstance. There's a bloody good reason that poorer, disadvantaged people end up in prison, and a tiny minority are from privileged backgrounds. That is because circumstance dictates how your life goes.

This always sparks a stampeded of "I was poor as an Ethiopian and I didn't go to jail" responses. But anyone who knows anything about sensible argument knows that arguing by counter-example proves nothing.

I reckon put people away if they are a danger to society. If they aren't dangerous, make them work on the outside for the benefit of society. Stop them holding down any other job etc. Tag them if needed. Rehabilitate the junkies. Educate the illiterate ones. Keep the drug dealers, the murderers, the violent guys etc inside, though. But give them toilets and somewhere to wash, for jesus' sake.

I know it's not the popular AH response, but saying things like "they all deserve what they get, they're scum, they should have no rights" shows a complete an utter lack of understanding of A) How you rehabilitate people The concept of humanity and C) the societal factors which lead people to become criminals.

Even if you don't have a humanitarian bone in your body, you can't claim that the current system benefits us or the criminals.

dlofnep

tallaght01 wrote: »

To say that criminals should be made live in their own piss etc because they deserve it etc etc is just being over simplistic. It's completely ignoring the fact that they have been put somewhere to keep them away from the public until they are safe to let out.

This does not equate with treating them as being subhuman. Their punishment is to be taken out of society for a period of time. Their punishment is not having all of their liberty and dignity taken away from them.

It also ignores circumstance. There's a bloody good reason that poorer, disadvantaged people end up in prison, and a tiny minority are from privileged backgrounds. That is because circumstance dictates how your life goes.

This always sparks a stampeded of "I was poor as an Ethiopian and I didn't go to jail" responses. But anyone who knows anything about sensible argument knows that arguing by counter-example proves nothing.

I reckon put people away if they are a danger to society. If they aren't dangerous, make them work on the outside for the benefit of society. Stop them holding down any other job etc. Tag them if needed. Rehabilitate the junkies. Educate the illiterate ones. Keep the drug dealers, the murderers, the violent guys etc inside, though. But give them toilets and somewhere to wash, for jesus' sake.

I know it's not the popular AH response, but saying things like "they all deserve what they get, they're scum, they should have no rights" shows a complete an utter lack of understanding of A) How you rehabilitate people The concept of humanity and C) the societal factors which lead people to become criminals.

Even if you don't have a humanitarian bone in your body, you can't claim that the current system benefits us or the criminals.

Great post.

Odysseus

Poccington wrote: »

Lol @ people acting like prisons are hell etc.

How many prisoners have mobile phones? How many of them get drugs smuggled into them? How many of the more serious criminals are still able to run their little gangs on a daily basis while in prison? How many prisoners are getting away with attacking Prison Officers?


Yep, those prisoners really are up against it.

Quite a few, but I have no stats, do you?

Funkytown

prison is meant to be rehabilitation, the punishment is the removal from society, not the conditions of the place they are removed to.

you best judge a society by how it treats its prisoners.

TomOl

The Penal Reform Trust is made up of nice, middle class people who live in nice, middle class areas and their knowledge of crime is based on what they hear from prisioners and people like John Lonegan and Peter McVerry.
They mean well but are very innocent and trusting and a bit old fashioned. Judges, solictors, barristers and probation officers also fall into this grouping. So I would totally ignore anything they have to say - just nod at them but don't take them seriously.

On a different but related topic - I cannot understand why no male prisioner in Mountjoy has taken a case to the Equality Authority complaining about the different standards of treatment for male and female prisioners. Female have ensuite bedrooms - not cells, cook their own food, wear their own clothes, have one to one counselling and endless classes and most importantare not handcuffed when going to jail. Males, on the other hand, are paraded before the TV cameras in handcuffs to humilate them, they share cells with other inmates, even those considered dangerous, have to go to the toilet in buckets in their cells and no counselling and few classes.

I agree that prisons should be reserved for those gulity of violent crime or anti social behaviour which causes fear and anxiety to others. Driving without insurance or tax should involve the car being removed and sold, same with fines not being paid. That would free up places for thugs.

af_thefragile

Nodin wrote: »

Of course when you could get the death penalty for sheep stealing, sheep were still stolen, but don't let that worry you....

Yes but at least they won't be stolen as much.
And if you say capital punishment makes no difference then you're wrong.

Now days a lot of criminal see prisons as some sorta vacation.
Not the small tax and debt dodging criminals but the big criminals who are involved in gangs and stuff. The one's who're the real threat to society.

They go in there, meet their mates who're already in there, make new mates in there. They make new contacts and see it all as some sorta social vacation rather than a punishment.

When they get out they're even more dangerous than when they were sent in as now they've made more contacts to run their crime more effectively.

This is why majority still commit crime after getting out of prison.
The whole justice system is nothing more than a joke!!
People are more concerned about suing their local businesses to try to mint some cash out of them than they're to make sure the criminals going in don't come back out as criminals.

Any person proven guilty of a major crime such as rape, manslaughter etc should be put immediately to death so that others can think twice before they decide on doing something of such nature.

Any person proven guilty of a minor crime such as intentional theft (without reason, not out of desperation) and violence (drug/gang related) should be sent to a harsh and long sentence in prison where its made sure when they come out they don't go back to join their gangs again and continue their criminal activities.
Actually everyone associated with criminal gangs should be persecuted to hash and long sentences.

Only through putting in the fear of a capital or harsh punishment in the hearts of criminals can crime be cut down.

Kipperhell

Kiera wrote: »

You know quite well what i meant!

Yup and even reckless drivers should live in a cell with their own piss.

And no, i have never done something i could have got prison time for. wtf kind of question is that? Were you expecting me to say i pistol whipped so bitch over a parking spot?

I think I know what you mean but I don't think you know what that actually means in practice.

So a prisoner should have to risk their health added to their punishment is your view regardless of crime. Prison officers should also be put at risk too.

So you never were involved in a altercation or punched somebody, bought /took drugs, drunk in public, drove recklessly/above the speed limit etc...

The question is about how aware are you of the people who are in prison.

tallaght01

af_thefragile wrote: »

Yes but at least they won't be stolen as much.
And if you say capital punishment makes no difference then you're wrong.

That is completely and utterly untrue. Capital punishment has never had the effect of reducing crime. Even the people who sanction execution know that. It's a political issue, which costs votes if removed.

But let's not kid ourselves that it actually serves a function, other than appeasing the masses.

Nodin

af_thefragile wrote: »

Yes but at least they won't be stolen as much.
And if you say capital punishment makes no difference then you're wrong.
.

You've statistics to prove this?

af_thefragile wrote: »

Any person proven guilty of a major crime such as rape, manslaughter etc should be put immediately to death so that others can think twice before they decide on doing something of such nature..

Thats what they used do. Seemed to make little difference, except perhaps for a greater willingness to kill witnesses.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Only through putting in the fear of a capital or harsh punishment in the hearts of criminals can crime be cut down.

It didn't work when it was applied, why would it work now?

Kiera

Kipperhell wrote: »

I think I know what you mean but I don't think you know what that actually means in practice.

So a prisoner should have to risk their health added to their punishment is your view regardless of crime. Prison officers should also be put at risk too.

So you never were involved in a altercation or punched somebody, bought /took drugs, drunk in public, drove recklessly/above the speed limit etc...

The question is about how aware are you of the people who are in prison.

You asked me if i have ever done something that would land me in prison. Its a stupid question. I have done things that i could have been charged for yes but never something so serious that would send me to prison.

tallaght01

Kiera wrote: »

You asked me if i have ever done something that would land me in prison. Its a stupid question. I have done things that i could have been charged for yes but never something so serious that would send me to prison.

But you COULD have, under the right circumstances. THAT is the key.