Labour's Penal Policy has cost them my vote..

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0111/labour.html

:eek:

nutjobs, dont they remember the scissors sisters or Catherine Nevin???

Please, less of the sensationalism. It'd be pretty obvious women would go to prison, just less of them for missing payments etc.

The use of the word "Scumbag" is expressly forbidden in this forum. The use of the English language can be a beautiful one, so let's try something other than "Scumbag"

Het-Field

GarlicBread wrote: »

We are going to be reading more Ryan Reports if there isnt hasty reform of the justice system. Same sad story all over again, only ourselves to blame.

I feel unsafe living in a country knowing that this can happen to me if i didnt pay my tv license.

Why the fcuk would anyone want to pay a tv license anyway, most people only watch vincent browne and RTE are to blame as much as anyone else for the extreme mismanagement that has taken place in this country over the decades. Some great watchdog we have.

Spare a thought for all those 'non payment of fines' people who tonite are sleeping next to murderers and buckets of ****. Im sure they feel very patriotic knowing that their suffering ensures the viability of the RTE's aristocratic coke addiction.

You dont live in a Country where you could be jailed for non-payment of your TV Licence. You may be jailed for breaching a mandatory order of the court to pay your licence, after repeated and inexplicable failure to pay.

Het-Field

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

By fine detail I mean I don't know how long he was locked up. As I recall a neighbour complained, but I would expect there was more to it. I would add that my point is, as regards the thread, we don't always see fair and equal justice. Could the guy not have had some fine imposed, public service, or civil order placed regarding playing his drums? If you steal a car, assault someone, defraud the state, it is not automatic that you'll see the inside of a cell. I see no harm in questioning the judiciary.

On a side note, do judges still have a state funded manservant, who cuts the grass makes his/her tea?

It is likely that an injunction had been granted in favour of those who were subjected to the drums. Again, jail will only be given to those who willingly disregard rulings of court, or who transgress the law on a crimnal basis.

sparkling sea

Het-Field wrote: »

Again, jail will only be given to those who willingly disregard rulings of court, or who transgress the law on a crimnal basis.

Not something that I noticed when I did an assignment on District Court sentencing practice.

Most people who were convicted of very minor crimes barely got a chance to utter a word - although of course they did get to utter one word but there was nothing to suggest that blatant disregard or an ability to pay came into it.

The new Fines Act 2010 specifically notes that a persons ability to pay a fine must now be taken into consideration. It also amended the Community Service Act 1983 so that community service orders be given as an alternative. It is also introduced a mechanism that allows fine to be paid by installments - this did not happen in the Criminal Justice System and therefore if you couldn't pay the full amount within 72hrs, you were imprisoned.

Prison should only be used for very serious offence and countries that operate a less punitive and more humane system of sanctions particulary in the area of non violent crimes have less recidivism and much better outcomes than Ireland.

Mayotom What are they thinking, the biggest problem in this country is that the Justice system is not punishing people, Criminals should go to jail and not to the hotels that the Irish prison service operates.
This thing of asking judges to explain in writing why they sent people to jail is like asking a waitress why she put food on a customers table, its a judges job to punish these individuals.
Our justice system needs a major overhaul and that includes real punishment of criminals otherwise there would be no deter ant to commit crime. This is why the country is in such a sorry state, there was no detterant and still is no detterant to stop these bankers destroying our economy..


Mayotom studies on sentencing practice suggest that you couldn't be more wrong in your analysis of what this country needs regarding sentencing practice and imprisonment although I totally understand why you would come to the conclusion you have
Crime rates or evidence-based analysis of sentencing practices rather than political consideration should determine prison sentences - the last thing we need as a country is the media and propagenda determining of sentencing practices never the less thats what happens here. That is also why people think we need harsher sentencing but what we actually need is the opposite if we do really want crime rate to drop.
In countries such as the Baltic countries where more restorative sentencing systems and more humane senctening practices operate, crime rates and specifically recidivism rates are much lower than in countries like Ireland - the media does not dictate prison policy in these countries.

Another point to be noted is that countries such as Sweden and Norway have a proper functioning welfare state and this has done a great deal in bringing about social cohesion. Prof Thomas Mathiesen is considered to be one the main experts in prison reform and he states that countries with proper function welfare states, makes it difficult to create "social distance", so that each person feels connected to everyone else and therefore no one gets scapegoated for the troubles that occur. So, too, Mathiesen believes that the low prison numbers reflect a "moderate social system" in Norway, and that the only real danger is "excess" and the growing divide between those who have and those who have not.

Before you decide to take your vote from Labour be sure you are doing it for the right reasons. This is a link to Labours proposed policy and people should read it so they can judge for themselves as to whether or not the proposals make sense - I have to say when I read it I was surprised at how enlightened Pat Rabbitte appears to be
http://www.labour.ie/policy/listing/129475738510468192.html

By the way I am not sure who I am going to vote for yet but I would be more inclined to consider a vote for Labour now - I will have to take a closer look at their manifesto.

MagicSean

Where to they plan on putting children who don't engage with the JLO or probation service?

Papa Smut

Papa Smut wrote: »

Please, less of the sensationalism. It'd be pretty obvious women would go to prison, just less of them for missing payments etc.

come off of it!
Its sexist to single out women any differently from men

I call shennannigans

kraggy

I think that in the short to medium term we need more prisons, not less. And those prisons should be of a more modern design.

And I think that prison should not be EITHER a deterrent or a rehabilitive function. It should be a mixture of both.

For serious crimes, solitary cell for 24 hours a day minus 1 hour exercise and minus an hour or 2 of work/skills development.

Amhran Nua

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If he refused to pay this fine, he would have been jailed for the crime of contempt of court.

Or if he just didn't bother to show up for his day in court. You see a lot of that happening with mortgage repossessions, people hand the keys back and don't bother to keep up with the paperwork, next thing you know they've a custodial sentence.

I'm not in favour of harsher prisons, I think the emphasis should be on rehabilitiation and dealing with the root causes of criminality. I've seen tropical prisons that would turn your hair white, twenty men stuffed into a small cage with barely enough room to lay down, concrete shelves for cells without enough space to sit up and no air conditioning in that humid heat - it didn't seem to have much of a deterrent effect overall. I seem to recall some good progress being made with the CONNECT programme, whatever happened to that?

According to O'Donoghue, "The main result from the first stage of the CONNECT Project was the creation of a process which could clearly benefit prisoners in their preparation for employment after release. There also were some interesting facts and figures: 174 prisoners, both men and women, participated in the first stage (as of Nov. 1, 2000); of those, 76 have been released. Of the 76 who were released: 26 percent started jobs immediately, 7 percent had further training, 5 percent received residential drug treatment and 58 percent lost contact with the (prison) service. Most remarkably, of the 76 who were released, only 4 percent have been returned to prison. This needs to be set against a national pattern of 70 percent recidivism in the (Irish) prison system."

spank_inferno

The reform situation does indeed need to be addressed.

I would also have no problem with Judges giving written reasons for custodial sentences.
But
I would also ensure that the do them same when the fail to impose a custodial sentence, for: Violent crime, Abuse & drug offenses.

sensibleken

Labour often get accused of being poppulist but this thankfully is the opposite. Instead of a jail all the crims attitutde it is reasoned and responsible policy

Laminations

spank_inferno wrote: »

The reform situation does indeed need to be addressed.

I would also have no problem with Judges giving written reasons for custodial sentences.
But
I would also ensure that the do them same when the fail to impose a custodial sentence, for: Violent crime, Abuse & drug offenses.

I agree. Sending people to prison who dont necessarily deserve it needs some explanation, but I also want/need to understnd the more lenient sentences handed down for the more violent crimes. 5 years for arming yourself with a knife and stabbing someone to death is not explicable using the mitigating factors mentioned. This is just the most recent example of leniency. Prison needs to act as deterrent, constraint and rehabilitation. If a doctor signed you off as having a clean bill of health and you keeled over with cancer 2 weeks later they'd be done for malpractice. If a judge deems a 6 month sentence is adequate rehabilitation and the person upon release commits yet another crime, the judge loses no sleep.

usernamegoes

I do think that we do need to be jailing more people and for longer terms in this country, but the right people need to be jailed.

I am in favor of a system for more and longer jail time for multiple violent offenders. PErhaps not as far as a three-strikes-and-your-out for violent crimes, but close enough and with discretion.

There is no reason why those disgusting people that beat-up and rob others can do so because they know that IF they are caught they will have little happen to them.

later12

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0111/labour.html

:eek:

nutjobs, dont they remember the scissors sisters or Catherine Nevin???

I agree that it is bizarre to single out women, but nobody is suggesting that the likes of those you mention ought not to be behind bars.

mayotom

spank_inferno wrote: »

The reform situation does indeed need to be addressed.

I would also have no problem with Judges giving written reasons for custodial sentences.
But
I would also ensure that the do them same when the fail to impose a custodial sentence, for: Violent crime, Abuse & drug offenses.

I do agree with this statement, when I started this thread it was the serious criminals who came to mind. When somebody is convicted rape, murder, assault, repeat offences the Judge shouldn't have to file a report to explain why they are gone to jail, because in my opinion it should be Mandatory that they go to jail.
Equally so the judge who sends somebody to jail for minor crimes, should be accountable, but not to the level where they would be reluctant to send people to jail. Like I said before this is common sense.
It has been stated above that Jail time is not always the best solution for violent crimes, maybe its not, but it will without doubt save the people of this country from the pain that countless other victims have suffered.

On a separate point, I lived in the UAE for a couple of years, this is a country which is virtually crime free, I never felt unsafe there, I would walk in any area of any city in the country among people in disadvantaged areas, I could leave my wallet on the seat of my car with the windows open for hours with out worrying about it. Nobody there is willing to go to prison, they know its an unplesant place to do time, and more importantly they know that if found guilty of even the smallest of crimes they will be punished, there is no such thing as Suspended sentences (another joke in our justice system). The death penalty is available to judges but is only used in the most extream cases which are rare. While I don't agree with many aspects of their system, The Irish judiciary could learn a lot from them.

mayotom

sparkling sea wrote: »

Before you decide to take your vote from Labour be sure you are doing it for the right reasons. This is a link to Labours proposed policy and people should read it so they can judge for themselves as to whether or not the proposals make sense - I have to say when I read it I was surprised at how enlightened Pat Rabbitte appears to be
http://www.labour.ie/policy/listing/129475738510468192.html

By the way I am not sure who I am going to vote for yet but I would be more inclined to consider a vote for Labour now - I will have to take a closer look at their manifesto.

Very Valid point on reading what they have on their website, it does make a lot more sense and they may possibly get my vote depending on their other policies. however I would like to see some serious change to the judicial system, maybe along the lines of taking some of the sentencing authority away from judges, and bring in stricter sentencing rules for the judiciary to follow, then when they don't follow the guidelines then explain themselves. e.g. Murder = Life in Prison simple as that, no rubbish about tough background, no suspended sentences, no parole. You stab somebody = Attempted murder = 10 years. etc etc etc

Re Scandinavia and the Baltic's I have spent time throughout these areas albeit no more than a month at a time and what I have noticed there is that the attitude of the people goes a long way to reducing crime, its hard to explain but there is a friendliness in those countries which we used to have here in Ireland before the boom, crime is by no means non existent but from the outside it seems to be pretty low, maybe this is related to their social services, but most likely due to a strong judicial system, where if you do the crime you do the time and there is no ambiguity about the punishment.

sparkling sea

mayotom wrote: »

Very Valid point on reading what they have on their website, it does make a lot more sense and they may possibly get my vote depending on their other policies. however I would like to see some serious change to the judicial system, maybe along the lines of taking some of the sentencing authority away from judges, and bring in stricter sentencing rules for the judiciary to follow, then when they don't follow the guidelines then explain themselves. e.g. Murder = Life in Prison simple as that, no rubbish about tough background, no suspended sentences, no parole. You stab somebody = Attempted murder = 10 years. etc etc etc

Re Scandinavia and the Baltic's I have spent time throughout these areas albeit no more than a month at a time and what I have noticed there is that the attitude of the people goes a long way to reducing crime, its hard to explain but there is a friendliness in those countries which we used to have here in Ireland before the boom, crime is by no means non existent but from the outside it seems to be pretty low, maybe this is related to their social services, but most likely due to a strong judicial system, where if you do the crime you do the time and there is no ambiguity about the punishment.

Definitely agree with the guidelines for judges as there doesn't appear to be any consistency in sentencing here.

I read of a new initiative that was being tried in some part of Norway.
A guy in Norway [I think] who had been convicted of attempted burglary- he had also been drinking - no violence involved I should add. The guy was employed and the judge sentenced him to weekend imprisonment for 1 year - he could only leave his house during the week when he was on his way to work, while at work and coming directly home from work- I can't remember if the guy was actually tagged
He also had to attend a civic or social responsibilty and a conselling class once a week to learn to understand the consequences of his actions on himself, his community and society as a whole, I think the conselling classes address issues the offender may have. And finally a certain amount was deducted from his wage to repay the family he burgled for damage done and donate money to the the community for the cost of his imprisonment.

I thought this was the most brillant way of deterring people from crime - getting them to understand the consequences of their crime . They also had to bear the financial cost of what they had done, which is excellent I think for victims as well as offenders.

We need some radical changes in our whole attitude towards punishing offenders and rehabilitating them - the media focus needs to stop as it is completely unhelpful too.

Its also worth noting that at increase in people being sent to jail directly correlated with the closing down of psychiatric hospitals in Ireland, why issues like this do not get proper media attention is hard to fathom.
Maybe its not emotive enough or prehaps we would have to look at how with actually treat people with mental health problems.

Nodin

mayotom wrote: »

I do agree with (......)could learn a lot from them.

I believe I asked you a question back here.......
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70013216&postcount=14

mayotom

Nodin wrote: »

I believe I asked you a question back here.......
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70013216&postcount=14

well if you care to have read the post that I made re the facilities that are provided within the prison you will have noted that these are facilities that I would not consider to be something that should be provided to criminals, people who have been convicted of not living by the rules of society but are still afforded the comforts of modern society albeit behind closed doors..

as discussed here here on Prime time Investigates last month,(I can't find the video, but will put it here when I do) there was a local self confessed unrepentant criminal who openly stated that he enjoyed been in prison where the taxpayer would pay for his food and accommodation, this is the problem here, the prisons are too easy and these people prefer to be on the inside than on the outside.

sparkling sea wrote: »

Definitely agree with the guidelines for judges as there doesn't appear to be any consistency in sentencing here.

I read of a new initiative that was being tried in some part of Norway.
A guy in Norway [I think] who had been convicted of attempted burglary- he had also been drinking - no violence involved I should add. The guy was employed and the judge sentenced him to weekend imprisonment for 1 year - he could only leave his house during the week when he was on his way to work, while at work and coming directly home from work- I can't remember if the guy was actually tagged

These are the things that really need to be looked at, how about instead of the weekend in prison put them to work on 12 hour shifts cleaning up this mess, hail, rain, sleet or Snow. Forget the dogooders going on about human rights, if this was the law if they choose to ignore he law then the human rights laws should ignore them. If this sort of detterant was there then maybe these areas wouldnt become so dilapidated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bohaDYA9lg

sparkling sea

mayotom wrote: »

well if you care to have read the post that I made re the facilities that are provided within the prison you will have noted that these are facilities that I would not consider to be something that should be provided to criminals, people who have been convicted of not living by the rules of society but are still afforded the comforts of modern society albeit behind closed doors..

as discussed here here on Prime time Investigates last month,(I can't find the video, but will put it here when I do) there was a local self confessed unrepentant criminal who openly stated that he enjoyed been in prison where the taxpayer would pay for his food and accomadation, this is the problem here, the prisons are too easy and these people prefer to be on the inside than on the outside.

Halden Prison is Norways newest prison and compared to Irish Prisons and even some Irish Hotels it is definitely luxurious - I expect alot of Irish peole would be horrified by it. But you have to remember their governments thinking is based on dealing with the actual problems these people have, while making them aware that their behaviour is unacceptable in a civilised society.
The ethos of humanity and kindness is really pushed for example it is felt that Halden's greatest asset, may be the strong relationship between staff and inmates. Prison guards don't carry guns — that creates unnecessary intimidation and social distance — and they routinely eat meals and play sports with the inmates. "Many of the prisoners come from bad homes, so we wanted to create a sense of family," says architect Per Hojgaard Nielsen. Half the guards are women — Hoidal believes this decreases aggression — and prisoners receive questionnaires asking how their experience in prison can be improved.

Norways recidivism rate is 20% - Irelands is 80%

Nodin

mayotom wrote: »

well if you care to have read the post that I made re the facilities that are provided within the prison you will have noted that these are facilities that I would not consider to be something that should be provided to criminals, people who have been convicted of not living by the rules of society but are still afforded the comforts of modern society albeit behind closed doors..

I read the post, which is why I was asking the question. You made a number of references to a prison in another jurisdiction. Castlereagh is not part of the prison system run by the Irish state.

I don't think the anecdote of a few criminals is really the soundest of "evidence".

........are still afforded the comforts of modern society albeit behind closed doors

...which - in Mountjoy, Portlaoise, Cork and Limerick - doesn't extend to toilets in cells (the majority in Mountjoy and Cork). Limerick is, as far as I know, 75% over capacity.

johnnyskeleton

mayotom wrote: »

however I would like to see some serious change to the judicial system, maybe along the lines of taking some of the sentencing authority away from judges, and bring in stricter sentencing rules for the judiciary to follow, then when they don't follow the guidelines then explain themselves. e.g. Murder = Life in Prison simple as that,

That's already the case.

It seems the problem is not with the judges but with the people who criticise the judges, as the latter are clearly not fully appraised of the facts.

sparkling sea

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's already the case.

It seems the problem is not with the judges but with the people who criticise the judges, as the latter are clearly not fully appraised of the facts.

It is most definitely not already the case, - what makes you think this is the case because its not - we don't have sentencing guidelines or anything resembling guidelines in Ireland. Why are you stating fiction as fact, it really annoying and cause no end of misconceptions.
Our judges have too wide a discretionary practice that is why we don't have consistency in sentencing and there are no end of reports recommending sentencing guidelines for judges in Ireland. its extremely naive to state that people who do not agree with sentencing practices in Ireland are not appraised of the facts. They are well aware of the problems of sentencing practices and judical discretion - anybody can go to there district court and see the anomalies that exist in sentencing practice in Ireland.
Then there is the problem with the offenders culpability.

Cardinal proportionality is used world wide and requires that the magnitude of the penalty is not out proportion with the gravity of the offence; it is equal to but never more than that. Ordinal proportionality concerns the ranking of the relative seriousness of different offences. In practice much depends on the type of crime committed. Ireland departs from the world wide view when sentencing as not only should the sentence be proportionate to the gravity of the crime but the circumstances of the accused must also be considered. The gravity of the offence is decided by the amount of harm caused and the offender’s culpability.

I have to ask what leads you to believe

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It seems the problem is not with the judges but with the people who criticise the judges, as the latter are clearly not fully appraised of the facts.

There is nothing to substantiate this view so how have you come to this conclusion or why have you come to this conclusion. I am not being smart here, I just dont think a myth can be tactked unless its understood - why does it seem that the problem is not with the judges when sentencing for serious crime is so often appealed and community sanctions are not used nearly enough for minor crimes

mayotom

Nodin wrote: »

I read the post, which is why I was asking the question. You made a number of references to a prison in another jurisdiction. Castlereagh is not part of the prison system run by the Irish state.

Why are you bringing Castlereagh into it, try Castlerea, most certainly run by the Irish state

Nodin wrote: »

...which - in Mountjoy, Portlaoise, Cork and Limerick - doesn't extend to toilets in cells (the majority in Mountjoy and Cork). Limerick is, as far as I know, 75% over capacity.

well pack em in, maybe open up Spike island again, or even better drop em all of at Rockall with a fishing rod.

ArtSmart

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I think you have missed the point slightly.

Its obvious why a convicted murderer is going to jail, thats a one liner.

Reality is the majority of people sent to prison in this country is due to non payment of small fines. In other words, not criminals and taking up space.

Many are turned away from the prison, serving no time, but have a record that they were jailed. If a Judge has to explain, in writing, why Mary, aged 28, a widow with three young kids, got 3 months for non payment of her TV licence, they might stop bloody well doing it.

Stories consistantly emerge like the Judge who jailed EVERYONE who was convicted of drink driving in his court and stated he would let the appeal court sort out valid sentencing.

'saxctly. too tired to post, but some excellent posts on this page . will re-visit.
has to be a major shift in policy. bec prisoners come in 4 categories.

a- career prisoners, prison is a relief from the worlds stresses /occupational hazard

b- new prisoners - prison is a school of crime

c- those who shouldnt be there, are terrified and will never return

d- the mentally ill ( a big enough group)

removing c will help, but a and b are still a big issue and clearly prison as it stands is at best having no disincentive - at worse, increases re-offending. . as for d - that's more complex but should be addressed.

dermot_sheehan

Proposed Labour party policy is that District Court Judges (who deal with offences carrying up to 12 months without a jury and which constitute 90% of criminal cases) when sentencing someone to imprisonment should record in writing the reasons why imprisonment was chosen.

It will not apply to trials on indictment before a jury (where an official stenographer records the judges decisions on a sentence) or for imprisonment for non payment of fines (which happens automatically, at least until the new Fines Act comes into force), or for imprisonment for breaching a civil injunction.

I personally think it is a poor policy.

District Court lists are full and long enough without requiring a judge to record in writing the reasons for his decision to use imprisonment. In addition Judicial Reviews and Habeas Corpus challenges will be taken in the High Court to persons being detained when a District Judge fails to record adequately the reasons for imprisoning a person.

Section 14 of the Courts Act 1971 was enacted due to the number of previous judicial reviews to District Judges decisions on the basis the judge made an error on the face of the record. This section states that only the official warrant of committal shall be regarded in any legal proceedings, and not any other paperwork generated by a District Court judge. The reason was in hectic court rooms hearing summary trials occasionally errors were made in minute books, etc detailing that a person had for example been jailed for 12 months for burglary instead of theft. s. 14 provides that provided the warrant of commital generated by the District Court clerk was accurate the decision could not be quashed.

The labour party proposal appears to be taking a backward step to this practical and straightforward device.

sparkling sea

gabhain7 wrote: »

Proposed Labour party policy is that District Court Judges (who deal with offences carrying up to 12 months without a jury and which constitute 90% of criminal cases) when sentencing someone to imprisonment should record in writing the reasons why imprisonment was chosen.

It will not apply to trials on indictment before a jury (where an official stenographer records the judges decisions on a sentence) or for imprisonment for non payment of fines (which happens automatically, at least until the new Fines Act comes into force), or for imprisonment for breaching a civil injunction.

I personally think it is a poor policy.

District Court lists are full and long enough without requiring a judge to record in writing the reasons for his decision to use imprisonment. In addition Judicial Reviews and Habeas Corpus challenges will be taken in the High Court to persons being detained when a District Judge fails to record adequately the reasons for imprisoning a person.

Section 14 of the Courts Act 1971 was enacted due to the number of previous judicial reviews to District Judges decisions on the basis the judge made an error on the face of the record. This section states that only the official warrant of committal shall be regarded in any legal proceedings, and not any other paperwork generated by a District Court judge. The reason was in hectic court rooms hearing summary trials occasionally errors were made in minute books, etc detailing that a person had for example been jailed for 12 months for burglary instead of theft. s. 14 provides that provided the warrant of commital generated by the District Court clerk was accurate the decision could not be quashed.

The labour party proposal appears to be taking a backward step to this practical and straightforward device.[/QUOTE}

While I completely agree that Labours proposals for change bearly scratch the surface with regard to changing sentencing practices, I dont understand why you feel Labours proposals are taking us backwards.

Ireland has a strong orientation towards custody and a largely underdeveloped scheme of community alternatives, this proposal seems to recognise the problem and is inline with annual recommendations of the Irish Penal Reform Trust.
Although we are mid-league in an international context in terms of our stock of prisoners, the flow of people into prison places us considerably further up the international league. The disparity between these two figures is due to our reliance on short terms of imprisonment and suggests that we are a country with great potential for the use of non-custodial sanctions as a means of reducing the prison population.
Three fifths of all those sentenced to imprisonment in Ireland are sent to prison for periods of under six months. The vast majority of those are sentenced to custody for non-violent offences against property or road traffic offences. Also significant proportion of committals relate to fine default. This would suggest that greater use can be made of community sentences without seriously jeopardizing public safety and would make fiscal sense.

Labour would appear to be asking judges to use the available alternatives to imprisonment and were this doesn't happen (evidence from other countries says it should happen) a written explanation needs to be given. As an alternative to imprisonment should be the punishment in all cases, very few letters of explanation will be needed, so it shouldn't be time prohibitive.
Its very difficult to change and progress if judges will not explain there decisions. Furthermore we can't afford to waste money sending people to prison, especially when these people should not be their in the first place.

Nodin

mayotom wrote: »

Why are you bringing Castlereagh into it, try Castlerea, most certainly run by the Irish state

Aha. My bad.

Thats not exactly typical of Irish prisons in general however.

mayotom wrote: »

well pack em in, maybe open up Spike island again, or even better drop em all of at Rockall with a fishing rod.

[/QUOTE]

I rather suspected that, beneath whatever efforts at logic you might put out, lurked an 'outraged liveline caller' attitude. It would have saved much beating around the bush if you'd been a bit more straightfoward earlier on.

irishh_bob

mayotom wrote: »

I do agree with this statement, when I started this thread it was the serious criminals who came to mind. When somebody is convicted rape, murder, assault, repeat offences the Judge shouldn't have to file a report to explain why they are gone to jail, because in my opinion it should be Mandatory that they go to jail.
Equally so the judge who sends somebody to jail for minor crimes, should be accountable, but not to the level where they would be reluctant to send people to jail. Like I said before this is common sense.
It has been stated above that Jail time is not always the best solution for violent crimes, maybe its not, but it will without doubt save the people of this country from the pain that countless other victims have suffered.

On a separate point, I lived in the UAE for a couple of years, this is a country which is virtually crime free, I never felt unsafe there, I would walk in any area of any city in the country among people in disadvantaged areas, I could leave my wallet on the seat of my car with the windows open for hours with out worrying about it. Nobody there is willing to go to prison, they know its an unplesant place to do time, and more importantly they know that if found guilty of even the smallest of crimes they will be punished, there is no such thing as Suspended sentences (another joke in our justice system). The death penalty is available to judges but is only used in the most extream cases which are rare. While I don't agree with many aspects of their system, The Irish judiciary could learn a lot from them.

dubai , a country where the term corporate crime has no meaning


in dubai , companys can run off with investors money and its the investor who ends up in trouble , provided the company has ties to the ruling family of course , ask the thousands of irish people who invested in property in dubai only to see the real estate company make off with the funds and you might have a different view on how serious dubai takes crime

Mr. Presentable

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I think you have missed the point slightly.

Its obvious why a convicted murderer is going to jail, thats a one liner.

Reality is the majority of people sent to prison in this country is due to non payment of small fines. In other words, not criminals and taking up space.

Many are turned away from the prison, serving no time, but have a record that they were jailed. If a Judge has to explain, in writing, why Mary, aged 28, a widow with three young kids, got 3 months for non payment of her TV licence, they might stop bloody well doing it.

Stories consistantly emerge like the Judge who jailed EVERYONE who was convicted of drink driving in his court and stated he would let the appeal court sort out valid sentencing.

Go on. Link me one incident of a person who went to prison for non-payment of a small fine. You will find they all went for contempt of Court