Temporary release to prisoners over Christmas?

caseyann

I found this poll online.Brings the question,would you agree to such a thing happening?
Personally i am for people who have fines allowed out for Christmas and stupid prison terms.But who in right mind would think it was right and just for most people who no doubt commit more crime during the festive season to be allowed out,even if they only got 12 months or less.As we do know Irish system is far from giving long and just sentences already as we have seen.

http://www.irishtimes.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=yesnopoll&pollid=9673&answer=0

This is one users reply from France:rolleyes:

The ignorant Irish vote "no" as usual. What a country - full of bigots, fraudsters, abusers, US yes-men. Disgusting!
Jeremy France

liah

A firm and resounding "no" if it's a crime that has ever caused another human direct negative impact. They're in prison to be punished. Christmas is a privilege, not a right-- they lost their privileges when they committed the crime.

Not to mention it would be a very easy situation to manipulate for the criminal.

But there's some crimes that really shouldn't be crimes at all that I would be fine with, since, obviously, I don't believe they should be crimes at all.

cursai

I think there should be more options in that poll, like past history of behaviour whilst on temporary release.

This is a sticky area. the PC brigade will shouting about how the prisoner deserves time with his/her family over the christmas period and how it is beneficial (which it usually is...for a short period).

Whilst the other side will be shouting God NO!....and they'll have a point. Why should prisoners get out for the Christmas holidays! Would it not be more in line with their punishment if they felt the loss of Christmas?

Either way, the whole prison system is a flaming disgrace and a massive joke within the justice system and the liberals have it ruined with their giving of allowances and the hardcore have it ruined with their over sentencing. A proper middle must be found!

Denerick

It depends on the crime, the personal circumstances of the prisoner (Few people would object to a prisoner attending their mothers funeral, for example)

caseyann

Denerick wrote: »

It depends on the crime, the personal circumstances of the prisoner (Few people would object to a prisoner attending their mothers funeral, for example)

What if they killed someone and made a family bury their child or mother or husband etc.. i would still say no even then if their mother died.

Denerick

caseyann wrote: »

What if they killed someone and made a family bury their child or mother or husband etc.. i would still say no even then if their mother died.

Who invited the Daily Mail reader into this discussion?

Crimes that horrific are a tiny proportion of the prison population.

later12

I would generally disagree with prisoner release for Christmas. I think it is a simple open and shut case... I simply do not see the rationale behind it apart from decreasing pressure on prison staff who wish to spend more time with their families.

Giselle

caseyann wrote: »

But who in right mind would think it was right and just for most people who no doubt commit more crime during the festive season to be allowed out,even if they only got 12 months or less.

Do you have some reliable stats to back that assertion up?

If they're not considered a risk to others I think its a great thing. Showing people a bit of compassion and helping to shore up their family ties can only help strenghten the support system available to them when they leave prison, and really need it.

You could say that its a bit too soft, but people forget that prison is supposed to rehabilitate as well as punish.

Mrmoe

I don't think they should. One of the problems surrounding this is that there are some people who shouldn't be in prison in the first place particualrly those who don't pay fines. Violent criminals should not be released until their prison term is finished.

Mahogany

Depends on the crime, and the prisoners would have to be monitered aswell. ie. tagged

Tar.Aldarion

No, it is their punishment to be removed from these luxuries and society in general.

Haven't we enough problems with prisoners in this country going "walk about" whilst on bail, or out on other reasons? I'm pretty sure I read an article a few weeks back talking about the proportionally high numbers of prisoners that just, well, take off.

They broke the law, and were sentenced. They're meant to be removed from society in general. They should have thought about missing Christmas before they decided to do whatever they did. If they did petty crimes they'll be out soon enough, and the others... well.. let them rot.

ztoical

Prison is not a boarding school were you get to go home for the holidays. The whole point of prison is that you will loose your freedom, your family, your friends etc etc for a set period of time.

Does that mean that non-christian prisoners could demand to be allowed out for their respective faiths holidays?

HavingCrack

The usual PC brigade vs Hardline let them rot attitude is already out in force :rolleyes:.

Prison and the Irish justice system in general in Ireland needs drastic reform. We really need a carrot and a stick approach to crime. But speaking on this specific issue, Christmas release should only be considered for either those who have been imprisioned for 'crimes' such as non payment of fines or non violent criminals who have shown a significant effort to better themself while in prison and only after at least 75% of their sentence has been served. For example a career shoplifter is given 5 years in prison. They've made every effort to reform inside, attended classes, studied for a degree etc whatever and have behaved non violently and been co operative to prison authorities. After 3 and a half years of their sentance I think this sort of prisoner should be considered for Christmas release. In the case of any violent crime no parole of any kind should be accepted.

I would add that if any crime is committed while on parole an extra 2 years is automatically added straight onto their setance in addition to their punishment for said crime. As I said before, we need the stick and the carrot.

HavingCrack

ztoical wrote: »

Does that mean that non-christian prisoners would demand to be allowed out for their respective faiths holidays?

I would assume denying a Muslim prisoner release to celebrate Eid or a Hindu to celebrate Divali would be hypocritical. Likewise would an atheist be entitled to some sort of parole at a date of their choosing? You can't have separate rules for different faiths and/or none. It has to be the same rule for all.

seanybiker

There are some circumstances where I would possibly leave someone out for maybe a day as long as they are tagged/accompanied by a prison officer etc, Christmas is not one of them days.

aidan24326

Denerick wrote: »

It depends on the crime, the personal circumstances of the prisoner (Few people would object to a prisoner attending their mothers funeral, for example)

For violent dangerous criminals no way. Like for example Gerald Barry who brutally raped and murdered that young Swiss girl in Galway, the likes of him should never** walk the streets again for any reason, I don't care if his whole family died (he was actually on bail at the time and had already served a jail sentence for violent disorder and had previous sexual assualt convictions also).

Those who've committed small crimes like non-payment of fines or the like will be out soon enough anyway so it's not really an issue for them.

For a long-termer who has committed something like armed robbery, maybe it could be considered as part of the rehabilitation process where that prisoner has shown genuine remorse, behaved impeccably and shown an honest willingness to change their ways before their release, such as gaining an education, participating in prison rehab programmes etc.

**EDIT - never might seem harsh. but certainly I wouldn't want to see him let out for a
very long time, and even then under strict conditions.

Denerick wrote: »

Who invited the Daily Mail reader into this discussion?

Crimes that horrific are a tiny proportion of the prison population.

Tiny proprtion or not they still exist. In any case, while most prisoners in a prison like Mountjoy won't have committed 'horrific' crimes as such, let's not forget that a fair percentage of them are bad eggs nonetheless. career criminals, guys with multiple convictions, a history of violence etc

Bear in mind that judges are reluctant to send anyone to prison these days as our prisons are overcrowded as it is and I imagine judges are instructed not to imprison somebody unless it's absolutely necessaey to do so. That implies that most people who get sent to jail in Ireland have either committed a pretty serious crime, are violent and dangerous or has a list of convictions as long as your arm.

HavingCrack

aidan24326 wrote: »

**EDIT - never might seem harsh. but certainly I wouldn't want to see him let out for a
very long time, and even then under strict conditions.

Actually I'd argue that in crimes as horrific as his it should be automatically life without parole, no exceptions. While I don't agree with the death penalty I feel 'life' should mean until the day you die, not the ridiculous 20 year sentences we have here. But anyway that's another discussion.

aidan24326

HavingCrack wrote: »

Actually I'd argue that in crimes as horrific as his it should be automatically life without parole, no exceptions. While I don't agree with the death penalty I feel 'life' should mean until the day you die, not the ridiculous 20 year sentences we have here. But anyway that's another discussion.

More often than not they don't even serve 20 years. Gerald Barry may not even serve that long, (I don't know if the judge ordered that he serve a certain minimum number of years though).

But most murderers here are out in about 12-14 years. Take Joe O'Reilly, guilty of a calculated murder, you'll find he will be walking around a free man 10 years from now or maybe even less. A crime like that should carry a minimum term of 30 years, and I don't know why it doesn't.

irishh_bob

HavingCrack wrote: »

Actually I'd argue that in crimes as horrific as his it should be automatically life without parole, no exceptions. While I don't agree with the death penalty I feel 'life' should mean until the day you die, not the ridiculous 20 year sentences we have here. But anyway that's another discussion.

bar the likes of malcom mc arthur , no one serves anything like a 20 year sentance in this country , no matter what the crime is , life in this country is 15 years max

irishh_bob

aidan24326 wrote: »

More often than not they don't even serve 20 years. Gerald Barry may not even serve that long, (I don't know if the judge ordered that he serve a certain minimum number of years though).

But most murderers here are out in about 12-14 years. Take Joe O'Reilly, guilty of a calculated murder, you'll find he will be walking around a free man 10 years from now or maybe even less. A crime like that should carry a minimum term of 30 years, and I don't know why it doesn't.

because unelected wooly liberal do - gooders dictate policy behind the scenes in this country in a whole range of areas , from criminal law to our mental health services