Criminals getting out early for good behavour

lfc86

Why do criminals get out of prison for good behavour ?? I know someone who is the lowest of the low who has been locked up before for murder and beating up childdren for no reason. He is now getting out 2 years early for good behavour. Why should people like him be let out early for good behavour.

Silverfish

Moved from PI.

imstrongerthanu

lfc86 wrote: »

Why do criminals get out of prison for good behavour ?? I know someone who is the lowest of the low who has been locked up before for murder and beating up childdren for no reason. He is now getting out 2 years early for good behavour. Why should people like him be let out early for good behavour.

No room in prisons.

minidazzler

What is he in for?

He is probably being given TR (Temporary Release) which comes with a few conditions such as No drinking or Drugs, and report to the Prison on a certain date (when it will be extended if you were good).

TBH though, they shouldn't be released if they were in for a crime that hurts other people. This to me includes drugs offences.

Crucifix

To incentivise good behaviour

lfc86

minidazzler wrote: »

What is he in for?

He is probably being given TR (Temporary Release) which comes with a few conditions such as No drinking or Drugs, and report to the Prison on a certain date (when it will be extended if you were good).

TBH though, they shouldn't be released if they were in for a crime that hurts other people. This to me includes drugs offences.

Well right now he's locked up 4 beating up 3 children all under the age of 10 with a belt and electrical flex , it was all over the papers a few years back , then before that he murdered an old man (has a lot more convictions) its scum like that who should never be let out again

Bob the Seducer

I always found early release for good behaviour an oxymoron.
If someone was an exponent of "good behaviour" they wouldn't be in prison in the first place...

monkeypants

lfc86 wrote: »

Why do criminals get out of prison for good behavour ??

No idea. You're in there for bad behaviour and if you misbehave, you stay in longer. How's that for an incentive?

Greyfox

It wouldn't be so bad if it was only given to a small percentage of prisoners but the fact is when someone gets sentenced their pretty much guarenteed to get time off for good behaviour, just as long as you don't commit another major crime, were a country thats very soft of criminals and this will never change!

Eliot Rosewater

It seems the general attitude amongst people is that justice should be about "make 'em pay and crush them to the ground, theyre only criminals, after all." This view is, in my opinion, based solely on anger towards the criminal and not on any rational discourse on what attitude is best to take.

The fact is, if you throw a 17 year old kid into prison, and treat him like crap, hes going to come out bitter as hell and with a hatred of the Gardai and the justice system. Youve made him a worse criminal, for sure. And yet this is exactly the kind of system people who hate crime want.

Justice should be about making criminals see the error of their ways, and ensuring they never commit crime again. Cutting prison time for good behavior gives the criminal a reason/incentive to change his ways. The better he is, the less time he serves.

Yet if I am to interpret the legal system you propose (throw him in jail and keep him there no matter what) I see no reason why a criminal would be bothered to mend his ways. Can you explain why on earth a criminal is going to be motivated to change for the better in your system?

Notorious

lfc86 wrote: »

He is now getting out 2 years early for good behavour. Why should people like him be let out early for good behavour.

The idea behind the getting out early clause is to try and ensure that the prisoner stays on their best behaviour while they're inside. I've been told that in most cases the judge decides on a base sentence, then increases that sentence to allow for bad behaviour (can be up to a increase of 25% depending on the conviction).

The idea of prison is to reform, not repress.

Greyfox

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

This view is, in my opinion, based solely on anger towards the criminal and not on any rational discourse on what attitude is best to take.

The fact is, if you throw a 17 year old kid into prison, and treat him like crap, hes going to come out bitter as hell and with a hatred of the Gardai and the justice system. Youve made him a worse criminal, for sure. And yet this is exactly the kind of system people who hate crime want.

Justice should be about making criminals see the error of their ways, and ensuring they never commit crime again. Cutting prison time for good behavior gives the criminal a reason/incentive to change his ways. The better he is, the less time he serves.

Yet if I am to interpret the legal system you propose (throw him in jail and keep him there no matter what) I see no reason why a criminal would be bothered to mend his ways. Can you explain why on earth a criminal is going to be motivated to change for the better in your system?

No I just want to live in a society where if a man rapes and murders a 15 year old girl this man does not automatically have the right to get off early for good behaviour, it should be genuinely earned and not something they can count on!

I want crininals properly punished for a crime and us to actually think of the victims for a change rather then the focus been on "oh it was their first offence" and "their bad backround" etc Some crininals deserve a second chance but a lot of them don't!

Let them see the error of their ways by making then serve their full sentence, that way they know if they commit another crime they know they'll be shown no leneancy! What about those criminals that aren't going to change regardless of wheter or not they get out early for good behaviour? Some criminals will never change no matter what and the only thing we can do is keep them locked up as long as possible!

monkeypants

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Can you explain why on earth a criminal is going to be motivated to change for the better in your system?

Aye, I can: if he doesn't, he goes back to the big house.

I think people are just getting sick of reading about court cases where the offence was committed while the accused was out on bail for another offence or where the accused has 40/50/60/70/80+ convictions. There should be a point where you don't get any further chances and you just get locked up for a long, long time.

Eliot Rosewater

monkeypants wrote: »

Aye, I can: if he doesn't, he goes back to the big house.

Your looking at this from the point of view of someone not in prison.

When a person is in prison, their immediate goal is to get out of prison. Presumably, at least. If they know they will have to serve the full time in prison regardless of how much they change there will be little incentive to do so. Except you suggest they will fear another sentence. This is not true, both anecdotally from the way prisoners do recommit crime (you mentioned 80 convictions?) despite being under fear of further sentencing, and from the reasoning here:

The fact is that when your in prison you wont be thinking about the next potential sentence in prison because a) its not in the immediate future and b) its not a certainty. On the other hand getting out early for good behavior is a) in the immediate future and b) a certainty.

Criminals, by and large, don't think long term, I think. The drug dealers I went to school with are probably richer than me now, but when I graduate and get a full time job ill over take them pretty fast. The decision to become a drug dealer is a short term decision. As is murdering someone, or thieving etc. In the short term there are potentially large advantages, but in the long term other avenues would have proven to be more lucrative, such as going to college.

Going back to prison isnt a certainty either, far from it in fact. What do you think the conviction rate for raping is? Ive heard its pretty small. When a criminal rapes someone they're not worried about the "big house" because statistically they probably wont end up there.


The second major issue with your incentive to reform being further sentencing, is that said reform doesn't necessarily happen in prison. If the motivation to change is a negative event sometime in the future after prison is over, the criminal is as likely to change his ways in prison than outside prison. The problem with this is that when hes out of prison he is presumably surrounded by his fellow criminal friends, engaging in lucrative criminal activity, and therefore very hesitant about changing his ways.

The advantage of good behavior rewarding is that the reform must happen inside prison, where the criminal is not engaging in crime and will be living in controlled circumstances.

actuallylike

lfc86 wrote: »

Why should people like him be let out early for good behavour.

Maybe, and I'm just throwing this up in the air now, but maybe...his behaviour had changed? It can happen, jail shouldn't be seen as a punishment, obviously nobody wants to be there so people see it as a punishment but they're going to get out at some point, you can't lock them up forever so if you treat them well perhaps they'll respond and treat people well also on their release and that's the whole point of prison, to make an attempt at changing people's ways for the better.
Just giving them an awful time in prison and then releasing them is only going to ensure that they don't change their ways, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

apologies for the honey/vinegar comment, tis a bit shít

irish_bob

actuallylike wrote: »

Maybe, and I'm just throwing this up in the air now, but maybe...his behaviour had changed? It can happen, jail shouldn't be seen as a punishment, obviously nobody wants to be there so people see it as a punishment but they're going to get out at some point, you can't lock them up forever so if you treat them well perhaps they'll respond and treat people well also on their release and that's the whole point of prison, to make an attempt at changing people's ways for the better.
Just giving them an awful time in prison and then releasing them is only going to ensure that they don't change their ways, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

apologies for the honey/vinegar comment, tis a bit shít

whats this awfull time , relativley speaking , prisoners in ireland are treated well , from reading the posts on this thread , one would think they deserve to be in the shellbourne , they are there by choice at the end of the day , choice being somethign their victims did not have , this thread is jammed with bleeding heart liberals who think they know better

actuallylike

irish_bob wrote: »

whats this awfull time , relativley speaking , prisoners in ireland are treated well , from reading the posts on this thread , one would think they deserve to be in the shellbourne , they are there by choice at the end of the day , choice being somethign their victims did not have , this thread is jammed with bleeding heart liberals who think they know better

You can't really say they're there by choice, that's a bit ridiculous and it's using the term choice very loosely. I'm just saying that if someone is in jail for say 10 years and they say they may be out after 8 if you're on good behaviour, then that may give the prisoner something to strive for, to change his ways and then hopefully he'll keep the attitude when he's released?
I personally would prefer a well behaved prisoner released after 8 years than a poorly behaved prisoner released after 10.

Joycey

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Your looking at this from the point of view of someone not in prison.

When a person is in prison, their immediate goal is to get out of prison. Presumably, at least. If they know they will have to serve the full time in prison regardless of how much they change there will be little incentive to do so. Except you suggest they will fear another sentence. This is not true, both anecdotally from the way prisoners do recommit crime (you mentioned 80 convictions?) despite being under fear of further sentencing, and from the reasoning here:

The fact is that when your in prison you wont be thinking about the next potential sentence in prison because a) its not in the immediate future and b) its not a certainty. On the other hand getting out early for good behavior is a) in the immediate future and b) a certainty.

Criminals, by and large, don't think long term, I think. The drug dealers I went to school with are probably richer than me now, but when I graduate and get a full time job ill over take them pretty fast. The decision to become a drug dealer is a short term decision. As is murdering someone, or thieving etc. In the short term there are potentially large advantages, but in the long term other avenues would have proven to be more lucrative, such as going to college.

Going back to prison isnt a certainty either, far from it in fact. What do you think the conviction rate for raping is? Ive heard its pretty small. When a criminal rapes someone they're not worried about the "big house" because statistically they probably wont end up there.


The second major issue with your incentive to reform being further sentencing, is that said reform doesn't necessarily happen in prison. If the motivation to change is a negative event sometime in the future after prison is over, the criminal is as likely to change his ways in prison than outside prison. The problem with this is that when hes out of prison he is presumably surrounded by his fellow criminal friends, engaging in lucrative criminal activity, and therefore very hesitant about changing his ways.

The advantage of good behavior rewarding is that the reform must happen inside prison, where the criminal is not engaging in crime and will be living in controlled circumstances.

By and large I agree with what youve said in the thread, though not the part about a criminal (or anyone else) being motivated primarily by money, the difference being between a "criminal" and someone who doesnt commit crime is that they are more short-sighted. There are all kinds of other factors at play, like status which accords to such a person (in terms of fear, respect among peers etc), same sex role models which surround the child, lack of educational support from home/school etc, all which tend to predispose kids from poorer neighbourhoods to end up following a path which society at large deems criminal.

The question I wanted to ask though, was how you intend to allow for the support and reformation of the criminal? I understand from your posts in another thread that you are an economic libertarian, or at least to the right in terms of economic policies. My primary suggestion would be to immediately increase social spending in areas like social support for kids who have neglectful/abusive families, after school care, increased spending on education and facilities provided free of charge in worst affected areas by crime. Then, for the already incarcerated, provide much much much better psychological support, less crowded prisons, schemes whereby employment is offered in public works by the state upon leaving prison etc. Essentially turning prison from a "punishment hole", which does absolutely sweet f*ck all for anyone in society, except for people who simply want to see criminals suffer and costs massive amounts of money anyway, into a kind of training for functioning in a normal society.

If all the above seems impossible to you because "taxation is theft" or whatever, then what do you instead propose as a way of rehabilitating those who commit crimes?

Eliot Rosewater

Joycey wrote: »

There are all kinds of other factors at play, like status which accords to such a person (in terms of fear, respect among peers etc), same sex role models which surround the child, lack of educational support from home/school etc, all which tend to predispose kids from poorer neighbourhoods to end up following a path which society at large deems criminal.

I know that but I didnt say that short sighted people naturally became criminals, I said that criminals were generally short sighted. Theres a large difference there. Crime in a lot of cases seems to be short sighted, though Im open to correction there. My point was thus that criminals dont think of a prison sentence down the road, they are only thinking of the one they are serving now. So the threat of further sentencing doesn't act a large incentive to change (as supported by the huge number of repeat offenders).

In terms of rehabilitation I dont have any answers because I have not studied the alternatives. But I will say this: if there was a magic system developed that could change a criminal into a non-criminal, and make him realize remorse for his wrong, within even a few weeks, I would be happy releasing him after said few weeks. I believe justice should be about:

• Making the criminal realize his wrong, and show remorse.
• Ensuring he does not commit crime again.

Economic libertarianism off-topic tangent:
I am an economic libertarian in a lot of areas, but police and justice is not one of them. You may have gathered a wrong impression of me from the Libertarianism thread: whereas I am probably more Liberal than 99% of the population, for sure, I am not an anarcho-capitalist by any means. However I enjoy debating for anarcho-capitalism in a theoretical sense because theres a lot to explore in terms of philosophy, and its where I would naturally tend towards.

I dont think taxing the people for police, judicial and penitentiary services is "theft" because, by and large, we all equally benefit. Everyone benefits if there is less crime, more protection and better justice. And, on the flip side, I dont see how private courts could work (although I could see how prison managment could be outsourced to private companies).



Btw, good post Joycey: its productive to challenge everything said and you did that in a clear and rational manner.

irish_bob

actuallylike wrote: »

You can't really say they're there by choice, that's a bit ridiculous and it's using the term choice very loosely. I'm just saying that if someone is in jail for say 10 years and they say they may be out after 8 if you're on good behaviour, then that may give the prisoner something to strive for, to change his ways and then hopefully he'll keep the attitude when he's released?
I personally would prefer a well behaved prisoner released after 8 years than a poorly behaved prisoner released after 10.

you commit a serious crime , you choose to go to jail , as for releasing a well behaved prisoner after eight years , depends entirely on the crime they committed , if they brutally assaulted an old person who was living alone , i dont care if they spent every day of thier time in prison baking cookies for orphaned children

Greyfox

actuallylike wrote: »

You can't really say they're there by choice, that's a bit ridiculous and it's using the term choice very loosely. I'm just saying that if someone is in jail for say 10 years and they say they may be out after 8 if you're on good behaviour, then that may give the prisoner something to strive for, to change his ways and then hopefully he'll keep the attitude when he's released?
I personally would prefer a well behaved prisoner released after 8 years than a poorly behaved prisoner released after 10.

Most of them ARE their by choice and anybody who says otherwise needs to snap out of the fairytail world their living in. The vast majority of crininals have learned right from wrong BEFOR they commit a crime. If Johny robs a 80 year old woman and leaves her battered and in intensive care the legal system doesn't focus enough on how this old womans life is as good as over, instead the system is all about how Johnys didn't have a proper father and came from a bad backround...it's all about the criminal and not the victim!

But here's the thing, all the guy has to do to get off 2 years early is not commit another crime, he doesn't have to prove he's changed and for all we know he could just go back to crime regardless. Yes we should let some criminals out for good behaviour but this should be earned and not an automatic right!

Eliot Rosewater

Greyfox wrote: »

Most of them ARE their by choice and anybody who says otherwise needs to snap out of the fairytail world their living in.

Said the pot to the kettle.

The fact is that where your born, and to whom, play a major role in your life. Here in Cork City there are some council wards where third level take up is over 95%; other wards where its less than 5%. But I suppose the whole 10,000+ population ward got together and made a community choice about whether to go to to Uni or not ... erm, maybe not.

If your born into an impoverished family its not going to be easy to make a decent living. Simple as, and unfortunately it hurts peoples "criminals are pigs, slaughter them" mantra, seemingly. The fact is that not everyone gets an easy break in life, and crime is easier to engage in than Uni, for a lot of people.

People should start dealing with that fact rather than trying to ignore it.

Greyfox wrote: »

instead the system is all about how Johnys didn't have a proper father and came from a bad backround...it's all about the criminal and not the victim!

And it never really occurred to you that Johnnys crime was directly linked with neglect in childhood, and the lack of opportunity? No, easier to mount your 10ft high horse and trample all over him. Well, according to this thread anyway...

Greyfox wrote: »

But here's the thing, all the guy has to do to get off 2 years early is not commit another crime

So if the goal is not to make them crime-free, what exactly is the goal of justice?

Bottle_of_Smoke

*will someone please think of the prison officers*

Their job is considerably safer when the prison population have a reason not to assault them.

Greyfox

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Said the pot to the kettle.

The fact is that where your born, and to whom, play a major role in your life. Here in Cork City there are some council wards where third level take up is over 95%; other wards where its less than 5%. But I suppose the whole 10,000+ population ward got together and made a community choice about whether to go to to Uni or not ... erm, maybe not.

If your born into an impoverished family its not going to be easy to make a decent living. Simple as, and unfortunately it hurts peoples "criminals are pigs, slaughter them" mantra, seemingly. The fact is that not everyone gets an easy break in life, and crime is easier to engage in than Uni, for a lot of people.

People should start dealing with that fact rather than trying to ignore it.



And it never really occurred to you that Johnnys crime was directly linked with neglect in childhood, and the lack of opportunity? No, easier to mount your 10ft high horse and trample all over him. Well, according to this thread anyway...



So if the goal is not to make them crime-free, what exactly is the goal of justice?

Yes but you seem to think that's it's perfectly ok to commit a serious crime if you come from a bad backround, yes of course where your from makes a big difference to how to turn out, but then again why do loads of people from bad backrounds manage to avoid committing crime? Truth is theirs a lot of help out their for these people but they choose not to take it and prefer the easier route into crime, theirs more help out their for people that come from a bad backround then for hard working couples crippled by a morgage and childcare costs! People should be properly punished when they do something wrong otherwise were just giving then a licence to commit futher crime!

Sometimes little Johnys crime is linked with his parents been alcoholics or drug users but NOT ALL THE TIME!!!!!! This is an excuse that's used far, far too much and our country is getting ruined because of it! The problem with this country is people like you who couldn't care less about victims of crime, what about them??

Like I said it's all well and good letting someone out early if they have changed but most of them go back to crime anyway, criminals are scumbags who cost us taxpayers a fortune, they don't automatically deserve a 2nd chance, if they want a 2nd chance they should have to earn it!

I'm well aware of the fact that most people don't get an easy break in life, but been honest life isn't that easy for the vast majority of Irish people anyway. when a criminal is released committing another crime will be the easy option that's hard for him to ignor, we have to make sure criminals have at least a strong fear of been caught, otherwise why should they bother taking the tough road of getting a job! Also theirs many criminals out their that have come from good backrounds, theirs also criminals out their that don't show remorse and will never change, it's just a question of who their going to rob, rape or murder next!

actuallylike

actuallylike wrote:

I personally would prefer a well behaved prisoner released after 8 years than a poorly behaved prisoner released after 10.

Its a mockery of the system. The judge/jury sentenced the person to prison for a term, and they shouldn't be released before that sentencing is complete. While they're in prison, they're not committing any crimes against society, and can serve out their punishment. They have the chance to show good behaviour when they're released and return to living amongst society.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Said the pot to the kettle.

The fact is that where your born, and to whom, play a major role in your life. Here in Cork City there are some council wards where third level take up is over 95%; other wards where its less than 5%. But I suppose the whole 10,000+ population ward got together and made a community choice about whether to go to to Uni or not ... erm, maybe not.

If your born into an impoverished family its not going to be easy to make a decent living. Simple as, and unfortunately it hurts peoples "criminals are pigs, slaughter them" mantra, seemingly. The fact is that not everyone gets an easy break in life, and crime is easier to engage in than Uni, for a lot of people.

People should start dealing with that fact rather than trying to ignore it.

There are plenty of people from impoverished families who have managed to support both themselves and their families without resorting to crime. The basic fact is that crime is the easy option for these people. Learning to do a job, actually committing to a job, not having the money to go get wasted every Saturday,... etc. these are the hard choices which criminals refuse to choose.

I'm sick of the people who seek to make allowances for "impoverished" individuals. There is basic support from the government/welfare, there are community incentives, work is available for many, and if all else fails there is the opportunity to work abroad (and come back later with learned skills).

There is no excuse for choosing to become criminals. If someone is being but in Jail for a crime of passion, or other such mistakes, then some leeway should be given, but repeat offenders have chosen not to live by the laws of society, and deserve full punishment.

And it never really occurred to you that Johnnys crime was directly linked with neglect in childhood, and the lack of opportunity? No, easier to mount your 10ft high horse and trample all over him. Well, according to this thread anyway...

It doesn't matter. The law is clear, and Johnny broke it. There are repercussions for every action. Would you be so forgiving if someone from an educated background did the same crime? I doubt it..

So if the goal is not to make them crime-free, what exactly is the goal of justice?

Punishment. To deter citizens from choosing to commit crime. To take the actual criminals off the streets, and provide them with the knowledge that they're be removed once more when released if they commit more crimes.

Personally, I'd like to see a system put in place where there are more severe punishments applied to criminals who choose to continue visiting the prisons, eventually ending with capital punishment.

Fighting Irish

lfc86 wrote: »

Why do criminals get out of prison for good behavour ?? I know someone who is the lowest of the low who has been locked up before for murder and beating up childdren for no reason. He is now getting out 2 years early for good behavour. Why should people like him be let out early for good behavour.

sure keep him in there for life and you can personally pay his prison bills

Fighting Irish

Fighting Irish wrote: »

sure keep him in there for life and you can personally pay his prison bills

He's already paying for his prison bills. Just as everyone in this country is doing. Just as they're paying for people on welfare, for people here as asylum seekers, and for numerous other expenses. We pay taxes and we cover other people all the time. At least with prison we know that the threats to our lives are off the streets and under supervision.

Here's a better option since you're so willing to allow the prisoner out early. Let him stay in your place.. eat with you.. work with you.. etc. Let him into your life. Would you be willing to allow such a thing? I doubt it. And yet you're advocating releasing him early into society where he'll be back in some other person's life..

lfc86

Fighting Irish wrote: »

sure keep him in there for life and you can personally pay his prison bills

If it means people like tat low life stays in there then ye i will , sure i already am paying for him out of my tax. Now they should keep the scum in there and throw away the key

lfc86

I just thought i'd show just ONE of the many newspaper articles that he was in over the past few years i took out the name and changed it cause i dont think im allowed 2 put up his name on this site , still dont get how this yoke and other people like him can get out early

A MAN who beat his partner's three young children with a belt and an electrical flex leaving them with multiple injuries has been jailed for seven years by Dublin Circuit Criminal Court.

John smith (33) of Bawnlea Green, Tallaght, who had a long criminal record including a conviction for manslaughter, had put the two boys and a girl - aged 10, nine and eight - in different rooms at the home he shared with their mother and took turns beating them separately.
He told the eldest of the three children: "Whenever I look at you, I want to hit you." He beat the boy so violently he was left cut and bleeding with over 20 different injuries to his body.

He pleaded guilty to three counts of cruelty to the children at his home in the autumn of 2003. The court heard that the children's mother had been pregnant with his child and had miscarried at three months shortly before the incidents.

Prosecuting counsel said Mr Smith made the boy strip down to his underpants and lie face down on the bed as he beat him with a belt. He then took the flex from a lampshade and continued to hit the boy.
He went to the next room where he beat the younger brother in a similar manner. Mr Smith also lifted him up and threw him down to the ground and hit the boy's face off the wall before leaving the room.
Next he went into the third room and beat the girl before going back to the room where the eldest boy was. He resumed beating him and did not stop until he was out of breath and panting from the exertion.
Throughout the beatings, Mr Smith repeatedly said to the children: "You made Ma lose the baby."

When he finished beating them, the children gathered on the landing and Mr Smith told them, "You better clean up this house," and put them to work. He threatened to kill them if they told their mother what he had done to them.


Garda Damien Dempsey told prosecuting counsel that when gardai arrived at the house after receiving confidential information that the children might be in danger, Mr Smith had put the two boys in a box and made them stay there for a long time after gardai were gone.
Judge White described Mr Smith as "a man with a predilection to violence" and sentenced him to four years for beating the eldest boy and three years to run concurrently for each of the two other children.