27000 crimes committed last year by people on bail?.

Paddy Samurai

Charlie Flanagan (FG)just brought this up on Marian Finucane show.Said also 15 murders committed by people on bail last year.He wants to change bail laws,but marion pointed out theres no where to hold them?.

Did i get it wrong 27000???..i can't believe this Cr@p

Should we have no bail for anyone charged with violent crimes ?,or must we still protect the odd innocent person?.

How about the french system guilty till you prove your own innocence?.

Can we reopen spike island?.

Funkfield

In before the chemical castration............

Biggins

I'm trying to imagine the financial cost of those crimes alone.
It must be staggering. Crikey!

orourkeda

Wait until the rehabilitation crowd arrive.

Morlar

I saw this earlier on too.

http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/up-to-27000-crimes-a-year-committed-while-on-bail-457540.html

Up to 27,000 crimes a year committed while on bail

13/05/2010 - 16:00:03

It has been revealed that 27,000 crimes a year are committed by people out on bail while charged with another offence.

The Dáil has also heard that the chief suspects in 15 murders over the past 20 months were out on bail.

Fine Gael has described it as a "scandal" 13 years after Fianna Fáil declared "zero-tolerance" on crime.

But Justice Minister Dermot Ahern has said there is nothing he can do. Therefore he has announced his resignation.

Guess which bit I added to the above ?

ScumLord

This horrible new drug bail must be banned if it's making people act like that.

Hogzy

Morlar wrote: »

I saw this earlier on too.

http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/up-to-27000-crimes-a-year-committed-while-on-bail-457540.html

Up to 27,000 crimes a year committed while on bail

What do they mean "up to"? Its either 27,000 or its not.
IMO id say this is more eccentric Joe Duffy style sh!te.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

orourkeda wrote: »

Wait until the rehabilitation crowd arrive.

What does bail have to do with rehabilitation?

I have to go back to basics with you here as I belive you don't even know the produure justice takes here:

Accusaion --> arrest --> charge --> POTENTIAL BAIL --> trial --> Sentence (if guilty) --> Carrying out of sentence --> Rehabilitation.

So why would you try to rehabilitate someone who hasn't even gone on trial yet?

Rented Mule

No place to hold them ??

With all of the construction workers out of work, I am sure we could find a small island off of the coast where we could build 'a place to hold them'.

Minstrel27

Rented Mule wrote: »

No place to hold them ??

With all of the construction workers out of work, I am sure we could find a small island off of the coast where we could build 'a place to hold them'.

Because they will work for free?

What do you propose they pay for this with?

The_Minister

Bail is a good idea for non-violent offenders, or one-off cases.

Not for repeat offenders.

That said, you are innocent until proven guilty, so the default should be that you get bail, with concerns needed about your behaviour before it is denied.

IvySlayer

I know the innocent until guilty whole thing, but if the Gardaí have arrested you, have evidence against, charged you and are intent to go to court to hopefully send you to prison then surely you not be among the public if it's a serious crime.

Stercus Accidit

Prisoners need to be put to work, the american system heavily subsidises itself with slave convict labour.

orourkeda

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

What does bail have to do with rehabilitation?

I have to go back to basics with you here as I belive you don't even know the produure justice takes here:

Accusaion --> arrest --> charge --> POTENTIAL BAIL --> trial --> Sentence (if guilty) --> Carrying out of sentence --> Rehabilitation.

So why would you try to rehabilitate someone who hasn't even gone on trial yet?

See how easy it is to provoke an angry reaction. Bail has nothing to do with rehab. I get that.

I presume that you make the rehabilitation claim on the basis that all 27000 crimes are committed by first time offenders.

Which is almost impossible if they are on bail indicating that at least a suspicion exists as to their previous behaviour.

orourkeda

The_Minister wrote: »

Bail is a good idea for non-violent offenders, or one-off cases.

Not for repeat offenders.

That said, you are innocent until proven guilty, so the default should be that you get bail, with concerns needed about your behaviour before it is denied.

The fact that they are on bail indicates that they are at the very least suspected of a previous offence. Although no conviction has been garnered there is a suspicion.

Run_to_da_hills

Paddy Samurai wrote: »

27000 crimes committed last year by people on bail?.

This figure will probably quadruple next year now that the "head shops" are gone. :eek:

orourkeda

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This figure will probably quadruple next year now that the "head shops" are gone. :mad:

You may very well be correct.

It's certainly bound to cause as many if not more problems as it was ever likely to solve.

Does anyone believe that these drugs are just going to disappear and never be seen again?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

orourkeda wrote: »

See how easy it is to provoke an angry reaction. Bail has nothing to do with rehab. I get that.

I presume that you make the rehabilitation claim on the basis that all 27000 crimes are committed by first time offenders.

Which is almost impossible if they are on bail indicating that at least a suspicion exists as to their previous behaviour.

I don't see rehabilitation as being an issue here in the first place. Bail is the issue.

orourkeda

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I don't see rehabilitation as being an issue here in the first place. Bail is the issue.

yeah

strobe

orourkeda wrote: »

The fact that they are on bail indicates that they are at the very least suspected of a previous offence. Although no conviction has been garnered there is a suspicion.

Wrong. Anyone charged wth a criminal offense is given bail. It doesn't matter if you have no previous convictions or were never suspected of having commited a previous offence.

I have been charged with a crime I was innocent of, it took over a year for the trial to come up and be done with. I was completely innocent, no history of previous offenses. I was found innocent at the trial. I can't see how anyone could justify me having to have spent over a year imprisoned. A year out of your life is a long time.

goat2

leopards dont change their spots

orourkeda

strobe wrote: »

Wrong. Anyone charged wth a criminal offense is given bail. It doesn't matter if you have no pevious convictions or were ever suspected of having commited a previous offence.

I have been charged with a crime I was innocent of, it took over a year for the trial to come up and be done with. I was completely innocent, no history of previous offenses. I was found innocent at the trial. I can't see how anyone could justify me having to have spent over a year imprisoned. A year out of your life is a long time.

That's not what I meant. I meant the fact that they were given bail would inndicate that they are at least suspected of another offence not necessarily that they are guilty. I didnt say thay had to be convicted.

The article says that 27000 further crimes were committed by people who were given bail for a previous offence not necessarily convicted.

orourkeda

goat2 wrote: »

leopards dont change their spots

You'll be told here that they can.

Mike 1972

Of course we wouldnt have such a big bail problem if our court system and police administration were speedy and efficent and not prone to so much burecracy and unnecessary delays with Cases taking months (or even years) to come before the courts being the exception rather than the rule.

strobe

orourkeda wrote: »

That's not what I meant. I meant the fact that they were given bail would inndicate that they are at least suspected of another offence not necessarily that they are guilty. I didnt say thay had to be convicted.

The article says that 27000 further crimes were committed by people who were given bail for a previous offence not necessarily convicted.

I still don't really get your point man. I was suspected of an offense, granted bail, and was innocent. How could you justify me being locked up for over a year when I did nothing wrong?

Morlar

strobe wrote: »

I still don't really get your point man. I was suspected of an offense, granted bail, and was innocent. How could you justify me being locked up for over a year when I did nothing wrong?

No one is talking about you. This choices here are not ;

a)
'Lock up every single person accused of every single thing'.
b)
Bail for all.

strobe

Morlar wrote: »

No one is talking about you. This choices here are not ;

a)
'Lock up every single person accused of every single thing'.
b)
Bail for all.

I understand that. I'd have no problem with someone being denied bail for a serious offense if it could be shown they have a history of offending and it is more than likely they would pose a danger to the public if granted bail. I'm just pointing out that the idea of denying bail in normal cases is stupid. I was responding to the way Oroukeda seemed to be suggesting people shouldn't have been on bail in the first place.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

A few serious crimes there, but I bet most of them are rediculously stupid misdemeanors. Overhyped I would say

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

goat2 wrote: »

leopards dont change their spots

What does feline pgmentation have to do with it...?