Zero Tolerance much?

You Suck!

I think it's fair to say that there are some fairly recurring themes in AH mostly complaining about the Social ills of the country and the woeful state it's in......

So given how high feelings generally are, I think it's a fair question to ask how you might feel about zero tolerance policing like New York?

It personally wouldn't be my cup of tea, bit of a libertarian when it comes to the interaction between the state and the individual, but it's a worthy question of if it could work or even if a modified version would work. Afaik, part of New Yorks success was partially based on a national decrease in crime and policies put in place by the previous administration, but still It's hard to ignore police presence. In Amsterdam, the cops keep the centre very safe by utilising all forms of transport available to be ubiquitous in their presence thus ensuring their presence deters petty crime despite the presence of drug addicts and organized crime in the area.

So yay or nay?

omahaid

I hate the phrase "something something much?". You can replace something with either "zero tolerance", "stereotype", "generalise", "racist" or many more.

omahaid

But to answer your question, I do not know enough on the subject to give an informed opinion

AnonoBoy

omahaid wrote: »

I hate the phrase "something something much?". You can replace something with either "zero tolerance", "stereotype", "generalise", "racist" or many more.

First post rob much?

NothingMan

Set your batons to womp boys.

Eh chief, mines stuck on twirl!

I definitely think in some cases the Gardai should be given more discretion to deal more heavy handedly with thugs and petty scumbags. A good wack to the kidney if they give back any cheek or just being a nuisance will keep em in check.

omahaid

AnonoBoy wrote: »

First post rob much?

AAGGGHHH

You Suck!

But to answer your question, I do not know enough on the subject to give an informed opinion

But...thats exactly the kind of opinion we need around here!!! :pac:

DeVore

Zero Tolerance does not work.

Read Freakonomics. Its a myth and political football. It made no difference at all.


DeV.

genericguy

we just need hardcore sentencing, with hard labour being a major component of any custodial sentence. this would give us a return on the tax moneys spent on housing and feeding the vermin in our prisons.

Biggins

You Suck! wrote: »

I think it's fair to say that there are some fairly recurring themes in AH mostly complaining about the Social ills of the country and the woeful state it's in......

So given how high feelings generally are, I think it's a fair question to ask how you might feel about zero tolerance policing like New York?
...So yay or nay?

Yay.

genericguy

NothingMan wrote: »

Set your batons to womp boys.

Eh chief, mines stuck on twirl!

I definitely think in some cases the Gardai should be given more discretion to deal more heavy handedly with thugs and petty scumbags. A good wack to the kidney if they give back any cheek or just being a nuisance will keep em in check.

the problem with this is that too many saps who were bullies/bullied in school become gardaí purely so they can act the hard man, and they'd be very selective about the criminals who's heads they kick in.

amacachi

DeVore wrote: »

Zero Tolerance does not work.

Read Freakonomics. Its a myth and political football. It made no difference at all.


DeV.

Any bits and pieces of Freakonomics I have read have been very silly and inconsistent. When it suits the theory being put forward correlation=causation but not when it doesn't suit.

Not zero tolerance but certainly persistant criminals really need harsher punishment.

hooradiation

amacachi wrote: »

Any bits and pieces of Freakonomics I have read have been very silly and inconsistent. When it suits the theory being put forward correlation=causation but not when it doesn't suit.

Not zero tolerance but certainly persistant criminals really need harsher punishment.

The theory in question is that Row V Wade in the states led to the drop in crime.

It's interesting, but not exactly a irrefutable fact.

Biggins

All for it - even if it means this:

(From here: http://tinyurl.com/ycnfmgr)

Victor_M

Enforcement, enforcement, enforcement! We have more laws than we need, get the allegedly under resourced doughnut eaters onto the streets instead of typing reports back in the stations and a lot of the petty stuff would be resolved right away. We already have a zero tolerance 3 strike policy, which unless the bad guy can come up with a really good excuse (I'm not joking, i come from a broken home etc.) he gets to go to court to have it thrown out by a judge.
A larger presence would make a huge difference, but the boys in blue feel threatened any time any reforms are suggested - Remember the panic amongst the force when the Gardai volunteer program started

the_syco

Meh. We need more prisons to send people to. At the moment, lesser criminals get a slap on their wrist, and continue being thieving scumbags, as hardened criminals take up jail space.

genericguy

Biggins wrote: »

All for it - even if it means this:

(From here: http://tinyurl.com/ycnfmgr)

ha, personally i think scumbags should put in stocks along o'connell street for a day for acting the maggot. give them 50 lashes for robbing a mobile phone/shoplifting/drunk in public and see how big they are.

hooradiation

hooradiation wrote: »

The theory in question is that Row V Wade in the states led to the drop in crime.

It's interesting, but not exactly a irrefutable fact.

WHAT???

Roe (not Row) v Wade is a decision on privacy and abortion. It has nothing to do with crime. Unless there is some coincidentally similar case name on another issue that I cannot find.

Dev is right though, zero tolerance does not work.

Oh, and the poster who said "Harsher punishments are needed for persistent offenders". That is nonsense. The reasons persistent offenders continue to offend has very little to do with the punishments available and there are mountains of papers and studies on that one.

hooradiation

genericguy wrote: »

ha, personally i think scumbags should put in stocks along o'connell street for a day for acting the maggot. give them 50 lashes for robbing a mobile phone/shoplifting/drunk in public and see how big they are.

The fantastic thing about people advocating all these stupid punishments is they assume that they'd never be on the receiving end, and that they're model citizens.

A typical night out in any town in Ireland will show you hundreds of people who'd be prime candidates for the stocks who'd have no problem the next day going on about how we need to be tough on "all dem scumbags!"

also - protip:
Have a proper read up of what happened to people in stocks before advocating their use, the reality is far less savoury than what you've imagined.

hooradiation

Deleted User wrote: »

WHAT???

Roe (not Row) v Wade is a decision on privacy and abortion. It has nothing to do with crime. Unless there is some coincidentally similar case name on another issue that I cannot find.

Sorry yes, i meant roe.

Roe V Wade essentially legalised abortion in the states, the authors of Freakanomics assert that the drop in crime from the high of mid 80's America can be explained by the fact that people who in general commit crimes tend to come from single mother families in poor parts of town, and the people who were most having abortions after roe V wade were single mothers from poorer parts.

Essentially, they postulate that abortion was pre-emptive crime prevention.


as i said, It's interesting, but not exactly unassailable fact.

Bandit12

Back breaking labour all the way

hooradiation

hooradiation wrote: »

Sorry yes, i meant roe.

Roe V Wade essentially legalised abortion in the states, the authors of Freakanomics assert that the drop in crime from the high of mid 80's America can be explained by the fact that people who in general commit crimes tend to come from single mother families in poor parts of town, and the people who were most having abortions after roe V wade were single mothers from poorer parts.

Essentially, they postulate that abortion was pre-emptive crime prevention.


as i said, It's interesting, but not exactly unassailable fact.

I apologise, I thought you were implying it was a criminal decision.

Prof.Badass

Against it. Zero tolerance just makes it easier for the state to hand out unfair punishments, especially for things that shouldn't even be crimes.

bakkiesbotha

hooradiation wrote: »

Sorry yes, i meant roe.

Roe V Wade essentially legalised abortion in the states, the authors of Freakanomics assert that the drop in crime from the high of mid 80's America can be explained by the fact that people who in general commit crimes tend to come from single mother families in poor parts of town, and the people who were most having abortions after roe V wade were single mothers from poorer parts.

Essentially, they postulate that abortion was pre-emptive crime prevention.


as i said, It's interesting, but not exactly unassailable fact.

I would have thought the last thing a prospective single mother from a poor area would do is have an abortion.

hooradiation

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

I would have thought the last thing a prospective single mother from a poor area would do is have an abortion.

You'd be wrong, apparently.

seraphimvc

are you kidding me??!!people here are the most tolerant people i have ever known!!!

they are just moaners :pac:

genericguy

hooradiation wrote: »

The fantastic thing about people advocating all these stupid punishments is they assume that they'd never be on the receiving end, and that they're model citizens.

A typical night out in any town in Ireland will show you hundreds of people who'd be prime candidates for the stocks who'd have no problem the next day going on about how we need to be tough on "all dem scumbags!"

also - protip:
Have a proper read up of what happened to people in stocks before advocating their use, the reality is far less savoury than what you've imagined.

how do you know what i've 'imagined'?

i don't promote savoury punishments for cnuts. i want our criminals to suffer, and suffer heavily. and no, i would never end up in such a situation, because i treat people with respect, and never commit offences against other people.

genericguy

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh, and the poster who said "Harsher punishments are needed for persistent offenders". That is nonsense. The reasons persistent offenders continue to offend has very little to do with the punishments available and there are mountains of papers and studies on that one.

I would advocate extremely harsh punishments for first offences. if you lost your thumbs for stealing a car, there's not a fcuking chance you'd consider doing it again.

Porkpie

New York was mentioned earlier. I was there a few months ago on holidays and felt 10 times safer walking around at night than I do in Dublin. If zero tolerance really has worked there then I think it could work here. The law is too lax at present anyway IMO, especially when it comes to little scumbags who commit crimes and are let off the hook because of their age.

Porkpie

genericguy wrote: »

I would advocate extremely harsh punishments for first offences. if you lost your thumbs for stealing a car, there's not a fcuking chance you'd consider doing it again.

Or ever be able to hitchike!

No seriously, I'm all for tough sentencing and all that, but even the above suggestion is a little too barbaric for me. Sounds too much like Sharia law!

foxyboxer

<rant>

40 lashes. yes, that's right.
tied to a post, in the freezing cold and 40 cracks for minor offences.
Let's see those scummers giving the "the up yours" salute to RTE cameras after a whipping. Now that I'd pay to see.
Scummers need to be conditioned. You'd think twice about re-offending after that pain.
Fining them won't help.
Jailing them doesn't work.

Oh and forget about their rights, they conveniently forget those in the first place.

</rant>

hooradiation

genericguy wrote: »

and no, i would never end up in such a situation, because i treat people with respect, and never commit offences against other people.

Ahh, now it starts.

Constant redefinitions of who'd be suitable for your "lashes, stocks and less than two thumbs" program until you're absolutely sure you could never possibly be a victim of your own barbarous system.

typical.

DeVore

Roe vs Wade was 18 years before the Zero Tolerance program began, the assertion is that since single mothers in poor areas were the largest group to take up the new freedoms provided by Roe vs Wade and since young men from single parent families in poor areas are the primary offenders in the US, that it was reasonable to postulate that the drop in crime was because the criminals were not there to commit the crimes. (official crime figures only being recorded when the offender is 18+).

To make a case for this he examined other cities which didnt invoke a Zero Tolerance program and there had been a similar crime drop.

The point is moot for this country anyway, we could make BREATHING illegal tomorrow and we'd all be safe because there isnt enough police to enforce the laws we DO have and there arent enough prisons to put the criminals in anyway.

DeV.

Kipperhell

Considering the cost of keeping somebody in prison it would seem to make sense that if you could spend the same money and make the prisoner productive would make more sense.

If it takes the tax from three people to keep one person in prison I wonder where the money will come from to pay for the extra prisoners?

It is very simplistic to think that a punishment is a deterrent in itself when all figure suggest it doesn't work. I don't think a drug addict is going to decide not to rob because of the possible punishment.

I raised a poll on this yesterday and people seemed to want a working system rather than punishment.

Many people think murder/manslaughter deserves the death penalty but I don't think there is a high rate of repeat offenders on that.

Cianos

Instead of trying to bring in more harsh and more strict laws, (that won't really be followed anyway, because generally those who commit crimes do so without thinking rationally during the act) or enforced (the police and judicial system are finding it hard enough to follow through on punishments within the current frame), there should be more focus put on preventative measures. Better infrastructure, better amenities, better facilities and better programmes for the high risk bracket will help to cut crime at the root rather than just bringing in measures that are just another propellant for the current state of affairs.

But of course, doing those things actually takes initiative, planning and hard work so we can't really expect that to happen can we?

spylon

I think most of us probably dream about living in a police state from time to time, just so that everyone from the minor irritants to the social pollutants that litter our society could see what it feels like to be properly punished and humiliated for a change.

The problem, as others have pointed out, is that once you go down that route it can be difficult to control the outcome.

And just consider the hoor-shytes who currently run the country - would you really trust them with a dictatorship??

Kernel

I posted a thread on this a year or two ago. In order for such a policy to work, you need a lot more cops, and a lot more prison space. Not an option for this country now.

Caoimhín

DeVore wrote: »

Zero Tolerance does not work.

Read Freakonomics. Its a myth and political football. It made no difference at all.


DeV.

Mmm, the chances of this lot reading Freakonomics are quite slim.

Kernel

Caoimhín wrote: »

Mmm, the chances of this lot reading Freakonomics are quite slim.

Why?

RMD

Little to no point. Not intending to stereotpye every Garda out there but it seems the majority of them are pussies, pretty evident by the countless junkies through inner-city Dublin who aren't dealt with, yet as soon as a group of teenagers become a nuisance it's straight away with the "go home lads or you'll be arrested".

Kernel

Here's my old thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055262953.

52 yay, 17 nay, 17 undecided but supportive of trying it.

Kernel

RMD wrote: »

Little to no point. Not intending to stereotpye every Garda out there but it seems the majority of them are pussies, pretty evident by the countless junkies through inner-city Dublin who aren't dealt with, yet as soon as a group of teenagers become a nuisance it's straight away with the "go home lads or you'll be arrested".

How can junkies be dealt with? Is it a crime to be a drug addict?

RMD

Kernel wrote: »

How can junkies be dealt with? Is it a crime to be a drug addict?

I mean the people sitting on the side of the street drinking, the ones who are clearly homeless and more than likely drug addicts by the looks of them. Walk down Marlborough street and you'll see plenty of them, blocking the path in groups, drinking in the open and pissing people off in general.

Kernel

RMD wrote: »

I mean the people sitting on the side of the street drinking, the ones who are clearly homeless and more than likely drug addicts by the looks of them. Walk down Marlborough street and you'll see plenty of them, blocking the path in groups, drinking in the open and pissing people off in general.

Drinking in public = €100 fine issued by the council. If they cause a public order problem, that's a different matter. Of course, such matters need to be reported by people.

EDIT: Also, because they are homeless they generally can't/don't pay the fine making it a moot threat. A solution would be to have the fine automatically deducted from social welfare payments.

You Suck!

Caoimhín wrote: »

Mmm, the chances of this lot reading Freakonomics are quite slim.

It's just a book, not a bible and yes I've read it.

With regards to Zero tolerance, it raised the point that there was a overall national drop in serious crime and that zero tolerance co-incideded with this as well as policies put in place by the previous city and police administrations.

What it does not address is the effect of zero tolerance on petty crimes and particularly crimes taking place within the city center. Fact is a police presence will discourage petty crime, add to that an ability to punish activities such as begging, tagging, and general anti-social behavior and at the very least you move the crime out of the city center.

This doesn't affect the overall crime rate, but does reduce crime in an area that population density is high and makes people feel safer as they go about their daily business. And from what I see round here, that is what is complained about most.

Executive Steve

Kernel wrote: »

EDIT: Also, because they are homeless they generally can't/don't pay the fine making it a moot threat. A solution would be to have the fine automatically deducted from social welfare payments.

...which you don't get if you're homeless.