Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

72 Previous Convictions!!!

Options
2456789

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    *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:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,252 ✭✭✭✭stovelid


    I thought "scumbags" were only from Dublin?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


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

    Such as?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,629 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,094 ✭✭✭jd007


    What we really need is the death penalty TBH.

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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,487 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,629 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,399 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,629 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,487 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,629 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,399 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    prinz wrote: »
    Such as?

    juvenile detention centres are not prisons, and aside from the fact you're not even comparing like with like, citing one outburst from a kid as your proof that "ahh shure aren't they all lovely places" means it carries fuck all weight.

    Doubly so seeing as his next quote is "I want to say one last thing, f*** the lot of you".
    Teen bravado anyone?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    juvenile detention centres are not prisons...

    *Clap clap* Did I say they were? :confused: They do serve essentially the same purpose however, all part of the justice system.
    and aside from the fact you're not even comparing like with like, citing one outburst from a kid as your proof that "ahh shure aren't they all lovely places" means it carries fuck all weight.

    About as much weight as you claiming that it's a myth that our prisons/prisoners are far too well catered for.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    prinz wrote: »
    What if it's ten strikes? Is it still unfair? :confused:

    10 is a lot greater than 3. 3 strike rule is a joke, your crimes may not be that serious, yet you can server a harsher prison sentence than somebody who commited rape or murder.
    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.

    That says that the person is a complete thick, yet the severity of the sentencing for the petty crimes that people commit is a joke.
    SV wrote: »
    lmao, are you for real?

    :rolleyes:
    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.

    It's a fcuking lazy rule. It doesn't deal with each case. You think it's fair that somebody gets 25 years to life for felony petty theft? What about possesion of a controlled substance, a joint. 25 years seem fair to you? Rediculous.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    10 is a lot greater than 3. 3 strike rule is a joke, your crimes may not be that serious, yet you can server a harsher prison sentence than somebody who commited rape or murder..

    The mandatory sentence reflects the seriousness of the crime.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    I'm guessing the fact that the three-strikes thing has been shown not to be a detterent and is widely abused with people serving 10 years for non-violent petty theft and all the appeals that go with it and massive cost is irrelevant.
    Yeah, let's just kill them instead.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭SubrbanOblivion


    amacachi wrote: »
    I'm guessing the fact that the three-strikes thing has been shown not to be a detterent and is widely abused with people serving 10 years for non-violent petty theft and all the appeals that go with it and massive cost is irrelevant.
    Yeah, let's just kill them instead.

    Care to give an example or two?

    What I see is a lot of people making a lot of assumptions about a rule they obviously haven't done much reading on.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,534 ✭✭✭SV


    :rolleyes:

    .


    Yeah, rolleyes isn't an answer.

    Are you for real or was that post intentionally stupid?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,597 ✭✭✭dan719


    Bonito wrote: »
    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.

    I call bullsh*t on this. None of your friends have ever done coke or ectasy? Really?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭MaybeLogic


    dan719v2.0 wrote: »
    I call bullsh*t on this. None of your friends have ever done coke or ectasy? Really?

    No, but they've done some nice schedule ones and smoked a lovely bit of schedule two on the come-down.
    Or something like that.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭ART6


    Three strikes rule or not, surely the fact that someone has 72 convictions, some or many of which are for violence, suggests that the guy is a psychopath and needs to be locked away until he is too old to injure anyone. If the penal system was able to rehabilitate him it would have done so long ago.

    There are of course the options that we could consider: His human rights and allow him to continue to deny others their human rights, or we could simply execute him like a mad dog as many would advocate, or we could lock him away for life as the US three strikes law (in California at least) requires. Whatever is decided, a Waterford lad would be alive today if it wasn't for him, and he should not escape responsibilty for that. If his actions are the result of insanity then he should be in a secure mental institution. If they are the result of sheer badness he should now be in jail for life with no hope of early release.

    It seems to me that there are some people among us who are so evil that all of the cosy human rights for them demanded by the activists are purile. If they threaten innocent people then place them in a situation where they can no longer operate. Personally, I really don't care whether that place is in Hades or prison or a mental institution. Just get them out of society!!


Advertisement