Lets leave the criminals pay for policing

CB19Kevo

I posted this on another forum but i wanted to see what other ES workers think about it.

If a person is arrested be it for a Public order offence, Drink driving, Assault or whatever there comes with that a lot of time,resources and paper work to deal with that person.
In my opinion i beleive like any service the person availing BY CHOICE of the Garda's time should pay for services rendered.
So The breakdown of what a person should have to pay should include :
- Cost of any damage / loss which was caused by them commiting an offence
- Cost of labour for there arrest and admin fees at the station
- Cost of being detained in a cell and any food given
- Court costs
And compensation to the victim

And if they cant afford it,it can be taken out of there welfare payments or paid for by a family member.

Maybe that would teach people that actions have consequences.

Dont mind the crap that goes on at the moment of 150/200 euro fine for public order offences,Thats only a good night out.


I ask why couldent this work? Is it unjust to expect someone who breaks the law to then pay for there actions.

Irish_polizei

Mainly because the majority of people that we deal with are hardly able to afford bog roll to wipe their own butts, the would be my most argued case. Whereas if it was means tested, your idea would be brilliant, make the people pay who can afford to pay!! Would be great!:D:D

time lord

Our local judge says he must take a persons ability to pay into account when sentencing.

So with the usual suspects commiting a lot of the crime you could end up with them paying only nominal ammounts in fines and others who are not in the same league paying a lot more.

At the moment in our district court it is cheaper to go to court and plead guilty than pay most fixed penalty fines or "on the spot fines" especially if you are out of work.

Ps. Please dont draw any linkage with the "usual suspects" and unemployed people by what I've posted, just giving examples of whats happening.

CB19Kevo

Valid points but i believe those who cant pay should be made work in whatever capacity to pay there costs.

Irish_polizei

CB19Kevo wrote: »

Valid points but i believe those who cant pay should be made work in whatever capacity to pay there costs.

Are you doing the dessertation by any chance?

CB19Kevo

Irish_polizei wrote: »

Are you doing the dessertation by any chance?

No, But i do beleive this concept could be useful for the taxpayer, Members of AGS and society overall.

budda15c

Irish_polizei wrote: »

Mainly because the majority of people that we deal with are hardly able to afford bog roll to wipe their own butts, the would be my most argued case. Whereas if it was means tested, your idea would be brilliant, make the people pay who can afford to pay!! Would be great!:D:D

The problem is, if you means test it then, it will essentially be the same system as is in place; you, me and every other tax payer will be paying for it. Granted tax payers who who get them self into trouble will have to pay a little extra. It wouldn't be any means be fair to set up a 2 tier system, where a person above a certain threshold is penalised that bit more.

If it was put in place, it should be the same for all. If you are on a welfare payment, then part of the cost is stopped from your payment every week until the cost is recovered. In the case of public order, if you can't afford bog roll to wipe your árse, how can you afford to get drunk and act the maggot.

Irish_polizei

budda15c wrote: »

. It wouldn't be any means be fair to set up a 2 tier system, where a person above a certain threshold is penalised that bit more.

If it was put in place, it should be the same for all. If you are on a welfare payment, then part of the cost is stopped from your payment every week until the cost is recovered. In the case of public order, if you can't afford bog roll to wipe your árse, how can you afford to get drunk and act the maggot.

That basically what I meant, I just couldnt word quite as accurately :rolleyes: :P..Thanks

jimmycrackcorm

I think the saudi cut the thiefs hand off is much more effective from an administration point of view.

johnnyskeleton

CB19Kevo wrote: »

- Cost of labour for there arrest and admin fees at the station
- Cost of being detained in a cell and any food given
- Court costs
And compensation to the victim

Interesting. Could those found to be not guilty get:
-damages for being arrested in public and having their details put into pulse
-damages for false imprisonment/missed work
-legal fees for retaining their legal team; and
- compensation from the complainant for making a false complaint?

If not, then you have to accept that because of the nature of the justice system, you can't stick people with the bill for the above when found guilty.

In any event, there are a number of types of prosecution where the state will obtain their costs in addition to the penalty imposed e.g. waste management.

Odysseus

CB19Kevo wrote: »

No, But i do beleive this concept could be useful for the taxpayer, Members of AGS and society overall.

Would you carry that over to other services, I work in the addiction services so there is a certain amount of cross over between my clients and some of the people ASG have to deal with. Would you believe in making them pay for their treatment?

Duiske

Irish_polizei wrote: »

Mainly because the majority of people that we deal with are hardly able to afford bog roll to wipe their own butts, the would be my most argued case. Whereas if it was means tested, your idea would be brilliant, make the people pay who can afford to pay!! Would be great!:D:D

Finland have a system like that, though last I heard it was being challenged in the European court. The police can log into the Revenue database, via mobile phone, to check your last full years earnings, and you fine is based on a percentage of that. A few years back some poor guy was fined 200,000e for doing 50mph in a 25mph zone :eek:
As far as I know the system is used for traffic violations, shop-lifting and company law offences.

This is a piece from the Wall St Journal back in 2001.

HELSINKI, Finland -- Jaako Rytsola, a 27-year-old Finnish Internet entrepreneur and newspaper columnist, was cruising in his BMW one recent evening. "The road was wide and I was feeling good," he later wrote. "It's nice to be driving when there's no one in sight."

But this road wasn't empty; a radar-equipped police car was clocking his speed. The officer pulled over Mr. Rytsola's car and issued him a speeding ticket for driving 43 miles an hour in a 25-mile-an-hour zone. The fine: $71,400.

The staggering sum was no mistake. In Finland, traffic fines generally are based on two factors: the severity of the offense and the driver's income. The concept has been embedded in Finnish law for decades: When it comes to crime, the wealthy should suffer as much as the poor. Indeed, sliding-scale financial penalties are also imposed for offenses ranging from shoplifting to securities-law violations. "This is a Nordic tradition," says Erkki Wuoma, special planning adviser at the Ministry of Interior. "We have progressive taxation and progressive punishments. So the more you earn, the more you pay."

But the arrival of a new, high-tech police tool for calculating traffic fines is making some well-to-do Finns progressively furious.

For years, the size of traffic fines was largely dependent on the honor system. Police officers asked violators for their current monthly gross income, then consulted a book of tables to calculate the fine. The police complained that drivers routinely lied -- it was "the national sport," says traffic officer Risto Maksimainen -- and the only recourse was to go to court. Motorists complained, too, arguing that the fines should be based on take-home pay, which given Finland's hefty income-tax rates, is considerably less than gross income.

And so, in October 1999, the Finnish government made some major changes, including basing fines on net income. But the biggest change was this: Using cellular phones, the police can now tap into official tax records, which in Finland are open to the public, and learn within seconds a driver's reported income and the corresponding traffic fine.

A Courtroom Challenge

Keijo Kopra, managing director of Vierumaen Teollisuus Oy, a wood-products company, experienced this firsthand in November 1999. On his way home from work, Mr. Kopra was pulled over for driving 14 miles an hour over the speed limit. Using the new system, the officer wrote him a ticket for $14,500.

Enraged, the executive challenged the amount in court, and a judge lowered it to $9,000. But then the police mentioned that Mr. Kopra had received two previous speeding tickets in 1999 before the new system went into effect. Based on the income he had claimed at the time, each fine was $750. The judge, outraged, imposed additional fines of $38,000 Mr. Kopra remains apoplectic.

CB19Kevo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Interesting. Could those found to be not guilty get:
-damages for being arrested in public and having their details put into pulse
-damages for false imprisonment/missed work
-legal fees for retaining their legal team; and
- compensation from the complainant for making a false complaint?

If not, then you have to accept that because of the nature of the justice system, you can't stick people with the bill for the above when found guilty.

In any event, there are a number of types of prosecution where the state will obtain their costs in addition to the penalty imposed e.g. waste management.

I see your point but i believe if a person is charged the state should be able to re-coperate there costs.

On damages for being arrested - i fail to see how someone could claim unless excessive force was used.
On damages for false imprisonment - It happens at the moment in the reatil sector anyway so i cant see what would change.


Yes with the current legislation this form of billing could not be used but i would imagine it could be brought into force once human rights issues were looked after and a media campaign indicating the pricing structure was completed.


In regards to the finland case i think that would not be the route to go down,
On a seperate note a 3 strike rule would also help the working of the system.

johnnyskeleton

CB19Kevo wrote: »

I see your point but i believe if a person is charged the state should be able to re-coperate there costs.

That principle works both ways. In a private civil dispute, the losing party pays. This is fair, but it would be unfair to change the law so that if the Defendant wins they get their costs but if the Plaintiffs win they don't get theirs.

Traditionally, because policing and criminal prosecutions carries a high level of risk, uncertainty and potential damage to a person's liberty or reputation, the system has built in safeguards against this. The safeguards that protect the individual accused are the presumption of innocence, right to legal representation, right to trial by jury in serious offences etc. The safeguards that protect the prosecution are their statutory powers, their right to bring matters before the courts and their ability to summon witnesses to court.

Another safeguard that protects the gardai is that so long as they act in good faith they are not liable for damages or costs. This means that they can safely go out and police without fear of costing the state 100s of grand if they make a genuine error.

Because they have this immunity, the accused must also have such an immunity. The idea that a person cannot receive legal assistance (i.e. someone not covered by the legal aid scheme) and compensation for the wrong committed if found not guilty, but they can be punished and charged costs if found guilty is completely unfair.

CB19Kevo wrote: »

On damages for being arrested - i fail to see how someone could claim unless excessive force was used.
On damages for false imprisonment - It happens at the moment in the reatil sector anyway so i cant see what would change.

Well I suppose if the accused can claim damages only where excess force is used, perhaps the gardai can claim compensation where excessive resistance is shown!

CB19Kevo wrote: »

On a seperate note a 3 strike rule would also help the working of the system.

Speeding conviction and fine, public order conviction and fine, theft of a mobile phone and I'm banged up in chokey for 10 years. Doesn't seem fair to me.

We already have a 2 strike rule for section 15A drugs offences (i.e. possession of drugs valued at more than 13k).

Com1186

"Speeding conviction and fine, public order conviction and fine, theft of a mobile phone and I'm banged up in chokey for 10 years. Doesn't seem fair to me"

ten years for theft of mobile phone a bit of an exaggeration, bank robbers and rapists dont even get that sentence.

problem in fining people for the offences they commit is that they wont pay!

if they dont pay a warrant is issued and the gardai have to chase the person arrest him/her take them to court or lodge them in prison. prisons are overcrowded and they will release the person in hours-days max.

Shield

There is a huge need for reforming the criminal justice system IMO. People who commit crime against the state should be put to use for the state instead of spending tens of thousands per prisoner per annum. A form of restorative justice, if you will. That Liffey could do with a good clean to start with...

johnnyskeleton

Com1186 wrote: »

"Speeding conviction and fine, public order conviction and fine, theft of a mobile phone and I'm banged up in chokey for 10 years. Doesn't seem fair to me"

ten years for theft of mobile phone a bit of an exaggeration, bank robbers and rapists dont even get that sentence.

That is the logical result of a three strikes policy.

And if you think that bank robbers and rapists don't get 10 year sentences then it is probably because you accept whatever you read in the news as representative of reality. The newspapers will only report on scandals - so all the stories you hear about lenient sentences (which do happen) are the thin end of the wedge. At the other end of the scale, the tiger kidnapping case last november saw 12-25 years handed out to the offenders. Judge Peter Charelton also handed down 5 life sentences to a rapist/kidnapper recently.

Most sentences are somewhere in the middle, but 10 years for a rape case wouldn't raise many eyebrows.

CB19Kevo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That principle works both ways. In a private civil dispute, the losing party pays. This is fair, but it would be unfair to change the law so that if the Defendant wins they get their costs but if the Plaintiffs win they don't get theirs.

Traditionally, because policing and criminal prosecutions carries a high level of risk, uncertainty and potential damage to a person's liberty or reputation, the system has built in safeguards against this. The safeguards that protect the individual accused are the presumption of innocence, right to legal representation, right to trial by jury in serious offences etc. The safeguards that protect the prosecution are their statutory powers, their right to bring matters before the courts and their ability to summon witnesses to court.

Another safeguard that protects the gardai is that so long as they act in good faith they are not liable for damages or costs. This means that they can safely go out and police without fear of costing the state 100s of grand if they make a genuine error.

Because they have this immunity, the accused must also have such an immunity. The idea that a person cannot receive legal assistance (i.e. someone not covered by the legal aid scheme) and compensation for the wrong committed if found not guilty, but they can be punished and charged costs if found guilty is completely unfair.



Well I suppose if the accused can claim damages only where excess force is used, perhaps the gardai can claim compensation where excessive resistance is shown!



Speeding conviction and fine, public order conviction and fine, theft of a mobile phone and I'm banged up in chokey for 10 years. Doesn't seem fair to me.

We already have a 2 strike rule for section 15A drugs offences (i.e. possession of drugs valued at more than 13k).

on the first point it comes down to the DPP to ensure as best they can that the evidence is great enough to ensure a positive outcome, So it would not be a issue of the accussed trying to claim. (This would all have to be worked out in legislation)
Yes there has to be safeguards in place to protect both the arresting officer and the accussed, I have no vision of taking away these.
On the 3 strike rule i beleive this would be a useful route to take in the long term supported by prison and probation reform.


The current system is in need of complete change, Because we can do better.

Dubzboy

That's a brilliant idea. Anyone out of work is most likely on social welfare. Take a small sum out of their weekly payment until the sum is paid in full. If they can't afford the fines/costs perhaps they should stop committing crime. This would be very easy to implement.