72 Previous Convictions!!!

techdiver

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0201/cumminsj.html

A 33-year-old man has been sentenced to ten years in prison for the manslaughter of a 21-year old-man in Waterford in November 2007.
Robert Devine, of Wheatfields, Clonmel, Co Tipperary, pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to the manslaughter of Joseph Cummins just before the trial was due to get underway last December.

....

He has 72 previous convictions, including convictions for assault and for the possession of a knife.

....

This is really gone beyond a joke at this stage. How can we let this type of scum walk the street with 72 previous convictions.:mad:

In the US he would have been down for life a long time ago. We need a three strike rule introduced in Ireland.

Bonito

techdiver wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0201/cumminsj.html



This is really gone beyond a joke at this stage. How can we let this type of scum walk the street with 72 previous convictions.:mad:

In the US he would have been down for life a long time ago. We need a three strike rule introduced in Ireland.

Obviously it's a 73 strike rule in our fair little country :rolleyes:

minidazzler

techdiver wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0201/cumminsj.html



This is really gone beyond a joke at this stage. How can we let this type of scum walk the street with 72 previous convictions.:mad:

In the US he would have been down for life a long time ago. We need a three strike rule introduced in Ireland.

Depends where he is in the US actually, not all states have a 3 strike rule.

Also, the 3 strike rule means if I have enough weed for say 5 people and I am caught 3 times, I get life in prison. Does that seem fair?

What we really need is the death penalty TBH.

Bonito

minidazzler wrote: »

What we really need is the death penalty TBH.

+1 From me IMO. I think they forfeit their right to life when the selfishly take another persons life from them.

techdiver

minidazzler wrote: »

Also, the 3 strike rule means if I have enough weed for say 5 people and I am caught 3 times, I get life in prison. Does that seem fair?

It doesn't need to be a carbon copy of the three strike rule in the US, but we need something in our law to deal with these people!

Cookie_Monster

minidazzler wrote: »

Also, the 3 strike rule means if I have enough weed for say 5 people and I am caught 3 times, I get life in prison. Does that seem fair?

Yes, yes it does

walshb

minidazzler wrote: »

Depends where he is in the US actually, not all states have a 3 strike rule.

Also, the 3 strike rule means if I have enough weed for say 5 people and I am caught 3 times, I get life in prison. Does that seem fair?

What we really need is the death penalty TBH.

Yeah, it does seem fair, and you would be really dumb if you knew that three times meant
life, and you still went ahead...

Solution, stop after two times....

Pyr0

minidazzler wrote: »

Also, the 3 strike rule means if I have enough weed for say 5 people and I am caught 3 times, I get life in prison. Does that seem fair?

Well you are still selling illegal drugs and refuse to stop after being caught twice before doing it and quite clealy aware of the situation if you're caught a third time. It'd be your own fault, no one elses.

biko

Let's say he was first convicted when he was 13, then that's almost 4 convictions per year since. If he started at 18 it rises to 5 convictions per year.
This guy is not going to stop. For every conviction there is X number of crimes and attempted crimes we'll never hear about.

MaybeLogic

walshb wrote: »

Yeah, it does seem fair, and you would be really dumb if you knew that three times meant
life, and you still went ahead...

Solution, stop after two times....

n8zPyro wrote: »

Well you are still selling illegal drugs and refuse to stop after being caught twice before doing it and quite clealy aware of the situation if you're caught a third time. It'd be your own fault, no one elses.

If it's not a sufficient crime to warrant a life sentence with one offence or even a second offence... how is it deserving of a life sentence on the third offence?
Didn't the first guy in America to be sentenced under this rule receive a life sentence for stealing a slice of pizza?

minidazzler

n8zPyro wrote: »

Well you are still selling illegal drugs and refuse to stop after being caught twice before doing it and quite clealy aware of the situation if you're caught a third time. It'd be your own fault, no one elses.

I never said selling!

hooradiation

techdiver wrote: »

In the US he would have been down for life a long time ago. We need a three strike rule introduced in Ireland.

The three strike rule is stupid because all it's done is clog prisons in various US states with people who've done misdemeanors and pander to people who think it constitutes "being tough on crime".

then again this

minidazzler wrote: »

What we really need is the death penalty TBH.

is even more fucking stupid - but seeing the irony in advocating a permanent punishment while at the same time lamenting how fallible the justice system is undoubtedly makes me some kind of liberal-PC-leftist-bleeding heart or whatever the current mindless retort du jour is.

And now back to our regularly scheduled rabble.

Bonito

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Yes, yes it does

Maybe for class A drugs but not something as simple as weed. So long as he's not dealing it to kids and he only has it fro personnal use between his friends I don't think a 3 strike rule should be in effect here. I hate the stuff myself but so long as he's only using it for personnal use between himself and his friends and is not dealing then he's a mere blip on the crime radar. Why waste time on him when there's scum with class A drugs?

derfderf

The 3 strikes rule is a bit harsh but surely they can come up wit a way that previous crimes count towards your sentence.
If someone can come up wit the penalty points system for drivin surely they can think of something more fitting for repeat offenders like this.

techdiver

hooradiation wrote: »

The three strike rule is stupid because all it's done is clog prisons in various US states with people who've done misdemeanors and pander to people who think it constitutes "being tough on crime".

Please see my second post where I state that we do not need a carbon copy of the system in the US. We can have a different classification for serious crime.

As far a clogging prison, so be it. Prison should be a miserable horrifying place!

Wile E. Coyote

minidazzler wrote: »

Also, the 3 strike rule means if I have enough weed for say 5 people and I am caught 3 times, I get life in prison. Does that seem fair?

If you know the consequences and are still stupid enough to walk around with illegal drugs then yes, it is fair.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Yes, yes it does

Are you taking the piss, or trolling?

walshb wrote: »

Yeah, it does seem fair, and you would be really dumb if you knew that three times meant
life, and you still went ahead...

Solution, stop after two times....

Regardless of the intelligence of the culprit, the 3 strike rule is unfair and unjust.

Oneironaut

Looks like he's a man of conviction.

hooradiation

techdiver wrote: »

Please see my second post where I state that we do not need a carbon copy of the system in the US. We can have a different classification for serious crime.

As far a clogging prison, so be it. Prison should be a miserable horrifying place!

Prisons, like any building, have a finite capacity and if we're filling them with people who don't need to be there because of some useless variant on the three strikes law, then that's removing a space for someone who actually does need to be in there.

But i get the feeling you'd subscribe to the myth of prisons being this wonderful luxury places.

DamoDLK

techdiver wrote: »

...In the US he would have been down for life a long time ago. We need a three strike rule introduced in Ireland.

I've being advocating for this for years. It is high time for it (or a system close to it) There is the issue of 'human rights' for these thugs, but I honestly believe that it could be introduced despite Constitutional issues.

Society is ready for a change in how its Justice is administered. Hopefully, some day we can finalize the issue of repeat offenders for once and for all.

But most importantly; a common sense attitude must prevail, i.e. this nonsense of stealing pizza is clearly an extreme case and obviously ought not result in a ultimate death sentence.

prinz

Kiana Wailing Beige wrote: »

Regardless of the intelligence of the culprit, the 3 strike rule is unfair and unjust.

What if it's ten strikes? Is it still unfair?

walshb

Kiana Wailing Beige wrote: »

Are you taking the piss, or trolling?



Regardless of the intelligence of the culprit, the 3 strike rule is unfair and unjust.

I don't know the exact details about this rule, but if you know that committing an offence or offences three times will result in you being taken out of society for good, then you go on and commit the offence/offences, well, that says a lot about the person.

Pyr0

minidazzler wrote: »

I never said selling!

Sorry, my mistake !

magma69

Bonito wrote: »

Maybe for class A drugs but not something as simple as weed. So long as he's not dealing it to kids and he only has it fro personnal use between his friends I don't think a 3 strike rule should be in effect here. I hate the stuff myself but so long as he's only using it for personnal use between himself and his friends and is not dealing then he's a mere blip on the crime radar. Why waste time on him when there's scum with class A drugs?

There are plenty of decent people who would get some ecstasy (class A drugs) for them and their mates. Why do you consider them scum and not somebody who gets weed for their mates?

SubrbanOblivion

*Sigh*..I really hate seeing obviously bright people spreading blatent mis-information.

The 3 strikes rule does NOT mean you offend 3 times, you get life in prison. Not even remotely close.

The 3 strikes rule means you may get probation or a fine your first and/or second time offending(depending on the nature of the crime), but the third time will require a mandatory period of prison time with no chance of parole. It doesn't mean they will be there forever, it just means they will have to serve a minimum amount of time, which is perfectly reasonable if they've offended twice before and been let off easy those times, only to repeat their offences.

Remember also the 3 strikes rule only applies to heavier situations, such as grand larceny (stealing more expensive things like cars) or very violent crimes. 3 strikes does not exist for smaller things like shoplifting, so no, it does not just 'clog up the jails'.

SV

Kiana Wailing Beige wrote: »

Regardless of the intelligence of the culprit, the 3 strike rule is unfair and unjust.

lmao, are you for real?

prinz

hooradiation wrote: »

But i get the feeling you'd subscribe to the myth of prisons being this wonderful luxury places.

You're right, obviously they are awful places filling people with dread..

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/knife-accused-teen-calls-detention-centre-holiday-camp-443863.html

MaybeLogic

What about downloading stuff off the internet on 3 occasions?
Isn't that illegal.
Three strikes, folks.

Wile E. Coyote

Kiana Wailing Beige wrote: »

Regardless of the intelligence of the culprit, the 3 strike rule is unfair and unjust.

Whats unjust about it? Your given three chances. It's up to you then to decide if you want to risk it or not. If you do and get caught you can't really complain that it's unfair or unjust.

magma69

walshb wrote: »

I don't know the exact details about this rule, but if you know that committing an offence or offences three times will result in you being taken out of society for good, then you go on and commit the offence/offences, well, that says a lot about the person.

There are many who are too stupid to realise the consequences of their actions. I think it would be very harsh to give someone life imprisonment for shop lifting three times. I wouldn't object to the three strike rule for a category of serious crimes.

Mike 1972

magma69 wrote: »

There are plenty of decent people who would get some ecstasy (class A drugs) for them and their mates. Why do you consider them scum and not somebody who gets weed for their mates?

In Ireland there is no Class A B or C drugs

MaybeLogic wrote: »

What about downloading stuff off the internet on 3 occasions?
Isn't that illegal.

It depends

prinz

magma69 wrote: »

There are many who are too stupid to realise the consequences of their actions. I think it would be very harsh to give someone life imprisonment for shop lifting three times. I wouldn't object to the three strike rule for a category of serious crimes.

You do realise that three strikes leads to a mandatory sentence, not a life sentence in every case. Three strikes for shop lifting could carry a mandatory sentence of a year, 2 years or whatever.

hooradiation

prinz wrote: »

You're right, obviously they are awful places filling people with dread..

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/knife-accused-teen-calls-detention-centre-holiday-camp-443863.html

Oh wow, prison sounds so awesome, i best go and get myself sent there!

Also - learn what the words you use actually mean, you'll look less foolish.

MaybeLogic wrote: »

What about downloading stuff off the internet on 3 occasions?
Isn't that illegal.
Three strikes, folks.

Shh, the people who advocate these kind of things operate under the delusion that they are fine, upstanding citizens and would never have to face the implications of their own short sighted nonsense.

Kess73

SubrbanOblivion wrote: »

*Sigh*..I really hate seeing obviously bright people spreading blatent mis-information.

The 3 strikes rule does NOT mean you offend 3 times, you get life in prison. Not even remotely close.

The 3 strikes rule means you may get probation or a fine your first and/or second time offending(depending on the nature of the crime), but the third time will require a mandatory period of prison time with no chance of parole. It doesn't mean they will be there forever, it just means they will have to serve a minimum amount of time, which is perfectly reasonable if they've offended twice before and been let off easy those times, only to repeat their offences.

Remember also the 3 strikes rule only applies to heavier situations, such as grand larceny (stealing more expensive things like cars) or very violent crimes. 3 strikes does not exist for smaller things like shoplifting, so no, it does not just 'clog up the jails'.

Doubt if many will take in what you said. Too many will be content to keep insisting that any three minor crimes will get a life sentence. :rolleyes:

stovelid

I thought "scumbags" were only from Dublin?

SubrbanOblivion

MaybeLogic wrote: »

What about downloading stuff off the internet on 3 occasions?
Isn't that illegal.
Three strikes, folks.

No, that would be treated as one occasion and three counts would be brought against you at the same trial, leading to one conviction.

Three strikes only counts # of convictions, not number of charges.

prinz

hooradiation wrote: »

Also - learn what the words you use actually mean, you'll look less foolish..

Such as?

magma69

Mike 1972 wrote: »

In Ireland there is no Class A B or C drugs

I know. It was him that mentioned it so I assumed he was judging from the U.K misuse of drugs act. The fact that there is no class A, B, or C drugs in Ireland has no relevance to my point.

jd007

minidazzler wrote: »

What we really need is the death penalty TBH.

Death seems like an easy way out for some people imo...

Mike 1972

Instead of three strikes law what about making early release/parole/time off for good behaviour conditional on not reoffending ?

For example someone gets sent down for ten years but gets out after six

commits same crime subsequently and gets sent down for 14 years

The logic being that the parole was granted on the basis that the offender was thought to have learned their lesson and wouldnt do it again but this turned out not to be the case.

aDeener

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Instead of three strikes law what about making early release/parole/time off for good behaviour conditional on not reoffending ?

For example someone gets sent down for ten years but gets out after six

commits same crime subsequently and gets sent down for 14 years

The logic being that the parole was granted on the basis that the offender was thought to have learned their lesson and wouldnt do it again but this turned out not to be the case.

i would be more in favour that if they get sent down for 10 years, they do 10 years, then commit same crime get put away for 14.

good behaviour in prison is such bull

magma69

Personally, I think the prison system is completely ineffective. Prisons are simply crime schools. They go in petty thugs and come out hardened criminals. There is no rehabilitation whatsoever, which is supposed to be the purpose of prison, not punishment. There should be more focus on education in prison, possibly some form of return to employment scheme for those getting out. Obviously there would be some lost causes but it could prove effective for young people in their 20's getting out. Hopefully a significant percentage stay out of prison and make something of themselves, saving the tax payer a pretty penny.

Mike 1972

magma69 wrote: »

There is no rehabilitation whatsoever, which is supposed to be the purpose of prison, not punishment.

Surely its both (along with preventing reoffending -hopefully not just "for the duration") ?

aDeener wrote: »

i would be more in favour that if they get sent down for 10 years, they do 10 years, then commit same crime get put away for 14.

Either way the point still stands

aDeener wrote: »

good behaviour in prison is such bull

That depends.

If one defines good behavior as participation in activities aimed at rehabilitation (as opposed to just keeping out of trouble) it surely merits some consideration.

Bonito

magma69 wrote: »

There are plenty of decent people who would get some ecstasy (class A drugs) for them and their mates. Why do you consider them scum and not somebody who gets weed for their mates?

I said people who deal, sell and give class A drugs to kids are scum. Not decent people buying one or two for their friends. On top of that no decent people I know or socialise with recreationally do any class A drugs. The odd time weed or hash yes but NEVER has anyone I am friends with tried a class A drug.

magma69

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Surely its both (along with preventing reoffending -hopefully not just "for the duration") ?

Punishment is a means used (albeit, utterly ineffective) to rehabilitate the prisoner. The purpose of prison is to rehabilitate the offender, not to punish.

aDeener

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Surely its both (along with preventing reoffending -hopefully not just "for the duration") ?


Either way the point still stands


That depends.

If one defines good behavior as participation in activities aimed at rehabilitation (as opposed to just keeping out of trouble) it surely merits some consideration.

It should go without saying that they have manners when they are in there. IMO they get their sentence and thats it, years should not be knocked off for what they are obliged to attend or do in the first place, rather they should be added on for refusal to do so.

magma69

Bonito wrote: »

I said people who deal, sell and give class A drugs to kids are scum.Not decent people buying one or two for their friends.

Fair enough. You didn't make that very clear in your post. It sounded like you called anyone who used a class A drug scum

On top of that no decent people I know or socialise with recreationally do any class A drugs. The odd time weed or hash yes but NEVER has anyone I am friends with tried a class A drug.

Well, I can tell you that there are plenty of decent, hard working people who prefer taking an e on the weekend rather than the more traditional alcohol indulgence. It is quite common amongst young people I can assure you.

dvpower

techdiver wrote: »

This is really gone beyond a joke at this stage. How can we let this type of scum walk the street with 72 previous convictions.:mad:

He got sentenced to 10 years. Also there's nothing in the article to suggest that he didn't do time for his previous convictions.

techdiver wrote: »

In the US he would have been down for life a long time ago. We need a three strike rule introduced in Ireland.

In the US he would have gone down for life for assault and knife possession charges? Really?

SubrbanOblivion

dvpower wrote: »

In the US he would have gone down for life for assault and knife possession charges? Really?

LOL..Not a chance If that was the worst of it, 60 days in jail, tops.

Dravokivich

derfderf wrote: »

The 3 strikes rule is a bit harsh but surely they can come up wit a way that previous crimes count towards your sentence.
If someone can come up wit the penalty points system for drivin surely they can think of something more fitting for repeat offenders like this.

Penalty pioints system is the same as 3 strikes.... there's just more strikes...

you think it's harsh?

Fúck up once and get caught... right... you're not dealt with so seriously...

Second time, they lay it down on you...

third time... come one... yer not just some innocent bystander getting pulled along here... you're into something and they need to stop it.

- Drav!

Bonito

magma69 wrote: »

Fair enough. You didn't make that very clear in your post. It sounded like you called anyone who used a class A drug scum

Using, no. Dealing on a scale that it's ruining lives, yes.

Well, I can tell you that there are plenty of decent, hard working people who prefer taking an e on the weekend rather than the more traditional alcohol indulgence. It is quite common amongst young people I can assure you.

I'm not ignorant to that fact. I know there's an awful lot of people who use harder drugs on the wkdn as opposed to a joint or a few beers. While out on the town I have had random people ask me did I know where they could get a couple e's or a couple grams of coke but I don't because I do not know anyone who uses these sort of drugs or sells them. In my own line of friends we would never touch anything of the sort. A couple do a joint or whatever the odd time but that's as far as the stretch goes.