Are our laws too lenient?

GarIT

Say if you break into someone's house, you know you shouldn't, you know its wrong, and you know its illegal but you still went and did it, if you got caught you would only get maybe 6 months. Nobody could make you and there is no question that it is a wrong thing to do. Sentences should be much longer than they are, in a crime where someone knows they are doing wrong they should be doing serious time.

I would scrap concurrent sentences too if I could.

I think it could work, it would actually deter criminals. If heard the counter arguemnt before of filling up prisions, but I believe there would be less crime, or the criminals would leave Ireland. If you know something is wrong you don't do it, suspended sentences are a joke for people that knew exactly what they are doing. House robberies are on the rise but would there be any at all if you could end up facing 15 years?

Farcear

100 year sentence as a joke?

GarIT

Farcear wrote: »

100 year sentence as a joke?

What? Do you not think murder deserves that?

Farcear

What if I kill two people?

Frynge

200 years

anders brevick wouldn't be out for a while

NoQuarter

You've put about as much though into this as Trap did to the Ireland squad!


If someone gets 100 years for murder, then they might as well go on a spree of offences! They would never hand themselves in, never plead guilty, could never get out on bail because lets face it, who could face 100 years in prison.

The prisons would be mayhem, with no hope of rehabilitation prisoners would do whatever they want, sure why not attack the guards every chance they get!?

100 years minimum for rape, so little john who is 15 has sex with his 14 year old girlfriend, night night little john, see you in 100 years!

What if I knock someone down when robbing their shop, I get my 15 years for robbery and you would also slap me up for 25 for the assault, but you would do away with concurrent sentences so im in prison for a looong long time for one stupid act that I could probably be rehabilitated for.

If you are that interested in it you should do some research into sentencing principles and you would realise there are points to the levels such as deterrance, rehabilitaion etc.

GarIT

NoQuarter wrote: »

You've put about as much though into this as Trap did to the Ireland squad!


If someone gets 100 years for murder, then they might as well go on a spree of offences! They would never hand themselves in, never plead guilty, could never get out on bail because lets face it, who could face 100 years in prison.

The prisons would be mayhem, with no hope of rehabilitation prisoners would do whatever they want, sure why not attack the guards every chance they get!?

100 years minimum for rape, so little john who is 15 has sex with his 14 year old girlfriend, night night little john, see you in 100 years!

What if I knock someone down when robbing their shop, I get my 15 years for robbery and you would also slap me up for 25 for the assault, but you would do away with concurrent sentences so im in prison for a looong long time for one stupid act that I could probably be rehabilitated for.

If you are that interested in it you should do some research into sentencing principles and you would realise there are points to the levels such as deterrance, rehabilitaion etc.

Maybe half what I said earlier but 8 years for murder just seems like nothing. Obviously you would still have to have the good behaviour things as normal so things dont get too out of control.

charlemont

50 years for drug dealing,

Ireland would be like Mexico in no time.

johnnyskeleton

GarIT wrote: »

Say if you break into someone's house, you know you shouldn't, you know its wrong, and you know its illegal but you still went and did it, if you got caught you would only get maybe 6 months. Nobody could make you and there is no question that it is a wrong thing to do. Why dont we have a minimum of 10 or 15 years sentence for robbery, 25 years for assault, 50 years for drug dealing, 100 years minmum for rape or murder, would the country not be a much better place?

There is a considerable volume of studies that show that the severity of sentence does not deter crime to as significant a degree as other factors do e.g. the chances of getting caught, social disapproval etc. This is primarily done in the case of the death penalty, which does not have a significant deterrent factor and it is the most severe punishment of all.

If you look at it another way, the primary risk to a regular criminal is that they will be killed by a rival, so if that doesn't deter them then a lengthy prison sentence will not either.

Many burglary cases result in longer sentences than 6 months, and even at 6 months for a first offence is something of a deterrent.

charlemont

GarIT wrote: »

Maybe half what I said earlier but 8 years for murder just seems like nothing. Obviously you would still have to have the good behaviour things as normal so things dont get too out of control.

Who gets 8 years for Murder ?

johnnyskeleton

GarIT wrote: »

Maybe half what I said earlier but 8 years for murder just seems like nothing. Obviously you would still have to have the good behaviour things as normal so things dont get too out of control.

Name one instance of an 8 year sentence for murder. There is a mandatory sentence for murder of life imprisonment.

GarIT

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Name one instance of an 8 year sentence for murder. There is a mandatory sentence for murder of life imprisonment.

There was someone that got 8 years last week, the guy who shot his friend in the back over drugs. It was probably man slaughter and not murder but I think it deserves similar sentences.

onemorechance

I think that the OP has a point, although somewhat exaggerated and simplistic. I would be very much in favour of longer and harsher sentences for violent crimes.

For example, those that left the pipe bomb that the kid picked up should get lengthy sentences; punishment should come before rehabilitation in cases such as this. These guys should be sentenced to 25 years with parole possible after 15 should they earn it.

The_Minister

We used to hang people for stealing pocket-watches.


There was still crime.

GarIT

onemorechance wrote: »

I think that the OP has a point, although somewhat exaggerated and simplistic. I would be very much in favour of longer and harsher sentences for violent crimes.

For example, those that left the pipe bomb that the kid picked up should get lengthy sentences; punishment should come before rehabilitation in cases such as this. These guys should be sentenced to 25 years with parole possible after 15 should they earn it.

I did say it before I thought about it and got a bit carried away. Say if there was a minumum to be served of 5 years for breaking an entry, minimum of 10 for assult and minimum of 15 for murder of rape, all of those including parole.

Just to be clear about an earlier post I would completely change the laws regarding statuatory rape laws as I don't see it as bad of a crime as actually rape.

gavmcg92

How do we compare to our neighbours in the UK?

onemorechance

Probably very similar to the UK as our legal system is based on theirs.

gavmcg92

onemorechance wrote: »

Probably very similar to the UK as our legal system is based on theirs.

So as far as sentence lengths we would be similar?

NoQuarter

GarIT wrote: »

I did say it before I thought about it and got a bit carried away. Say if there was a minumum to be served of 5 years for breaking an entry, minimum of 10 for assult and minimum of 15 for murder of rape, all of those including parole.

Im sorry but if I am out on a night out and someone insults my girlfriend for example, things get heated and I give someone a punch. I know Ive done wrong for sure, but lock me up for 10 years for it! Come on!

I'm not against certain sentences being increased but actual thought needs to be put into it!!

onemorechance

(A) – LESS THAN 1 MONTH
(B) – FROM 1 MONTH TO LESS THAN 3 MONTHS
(C) – FROM 3 MONTHS TO LESS THAN 6 MONTHS
(D) – FROM 6 MONTHS TO LESS THAN ONE YEAR
(E) – FROM 1 YEAR TO LESS THAN 3 YEARS
(F) – FROM 3 YEARS TO LESS THAN 5 YEARS
(G) – FROM 5 YEARS TO LESS THAN 10 YEARS
(H) – FROM 10 YEARS TO LESS THAN 20 YEARS
(I) –  20 YEARS AND OVER
(J) – LIFE IMPRISONMENT
(K) – PRISONERS SENTENCED TO DEATH

Country (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)

Ireland (a) 0.5 (b) 0.8 (c) 2.5 (d) 9.5 (e) 25.0 (f) 22.2 (g) 23.1 (h) 7.4 (i) 0.6 (j) 8.3

UK: England and Wales (a) 0.5 (b) 2.1 (c) 4.9 (d) 3.6 (e) 29.2 (f) 19.3 (g) 16.7 (h) 5.0 (i) 0.4 (j) 18.3

UK: Northern Ireland (a) 3.3 (b) 0.9 (c) 5.8 (d) 6.8 (e) 16.6 (f) 13.7 (g) 19.5 (h) 13.4 (i) 0.7 (j) 19.3

UK: Scotland (a) 0.1 (b) 1.7 (c) 5.7 (d) 13.1 (e) 25.2 (f) 15.1 (g) 14.6 (h) 3.2 (i) 0.0 (j) 11.7

source: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/cdpc/bureau%20documents/PC-CP(2011)3%20E%20-%20SPACE%20I%202009.pdf

The percentage of prisoners in Irish prisoners on life sentences is 8.3%, which is less than half of the UK percentage, exlcuding Scotland, but still much higher than most other European countries. The next highest percent of lifers in the list is Finland at 5% and the mean in Europe is 3%. We might be harsher or stricter in Ireland than we thought!

Manach

Historically, punishment was used as a means of social control. For instance in the say the Regancy period, the reach/control of the state was a minimum. To create a deterence, draconian examples were made. On one hand, this lead to a fairly social society, incidents such as Peterloo excepted. On the other hand,factors such as immigration (forced or otherwise) played a part.

Is it true that a prisoner automatically has 25% of their sentence removed due to good behaviour even before the enter prison? If yes, that is one of the first things I would remove!

Its crazy that is some gets 4 years for assault etc, they automatically get 1 year suspended for good behaviour even before they start their sentence.

Also, I would more likely blame the judges and the overcrowding in our prisons and not the laws for the petty sentences for some crimes which deserve harsh sentences (such as house burglary etc)

mikemac1

Judges falling for sob stories

I was in court, TV licence. Dolphin House in Dublin 2
I was caught, fair enough, "nothing to say Judge" and got a fine

Some people brought their parents and some had solicitors to talk for them
My daughter has depression, my partner left me, I trying to save money for college, zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
What has any of that got to do with €160 or whatever it costs.


They got the probation act and no fine, I showed up and didn't waste the courts time and got a fine

Next time I'll turn on the waterworks and see where it gets me

GarIT

NoQuarter wrote: »

Im sorry but if I am out on a night out and someone insults my girlfriend for example, things get heated and I give someone a punch. I know Ive done wrong for sure, but lock me up for 10 years for it! Come on!

I'm not against certain sentences being increased but actual thought needs to be put into it!!

If you resort to violence over an insult you deserve to be punished, there are too many people that just think they can get voilent at anything.

The level of violence amoung young people is disgraceful now, people are hitting out over everything and nothing.

BRAIN FEEDs

mikemac1 wrote: »

Judges falling for sob stories

I was in court, TV licence. Dolphin House in Dublin 2
I was caught, fair enough, "nothing to say Judge" and got a fine

Some people brought their parents and some had solicitors to talk for them
My daughter has depression, my partner left me, I trying to save money for college, zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
What has any of that got to do with €160 or whatever it costs.


They got the probation act and no fine, I showed up and didn't waste the courts time and got a fine

Next time I'll turn on the waterworks and see where it gets me

You went to court,and you say that its not wasting the courts time lol...... listen dude,next time your licence runs out and the inspector calls,tell them you will get it straight away,and when the system sees you have paid,your ass wont be in court,only then can you say,you are not wasting the courts time.

the examples you give above are probably answers to the judge,when he asks why didnt you pay the fine,you give an answer,i have seen plenty cases in my local court. average fine in ennis d/court for no showers 250 fine plus 75 costs with so many days in default.

Procrastastudy

What are you looking to achieve? A US style system high crime long prison sentences - a growing under class - with massive recidivism?

Its blindingly obvious that longer sentence do nothing. When the death penalty was in use in the UK for a numer of offenses and transportation to the colonies was an option - was crime lower? No of course it wasn't due to the massive social issues of the day.

Alternative methods of punishment which are effective and cheaper are the way forward. While a certain small number of people need to be locked up due to society and the medical profession not having the tools to deal with them - prisons as they are in use today have totally failed.

Go and get a book on criminology out of your nearest library if it was a function of sentance duration even our goverment would have figured it out by now.

NoQuarter

GarIT wrote: »

If you resort to violence over an insult you deserve to be punished..

Yes, but proportionately!

GarIT

NoQuarter wrote: »

Yes, but proportionately!

A physical attack can cause serious and lasting damage, it definately needs to be stricter than it is now, by how much is argueable.

Procrastastudy

GarIT wrote: »

A physical attack can cause serious and lasting damage, it definately needs to be stricter than it is now, by how much is argueable.

Why? To what end?

MagicSean

The_Minister wrote: »

We used to hang people for stealing pocket-watches.


There was still crime.

There would have been fewer criminals though.

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Why? To what end?

So the next person you hit out of rage doesn't end up in a coma? For me, I don't care about rehabilitation or even punishment. I want criminals kept away from the rest of us so we can go about our daily business

Zambia

MagicSean wrote: »

For me, I don't care about rehabilitation or even punishment. I want criminals kept away from the rest of us so we can go about our daily business

This is exactly right. Most people I meet who believe in criminals rehabilitation don't spend much time with crooks.


Its not easy to get into prison you have to work at it. If you ignore every warning on the road to serious time chances are you dont plan on changing.

Victor

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it true that a prisoner automatically has 25% of their sentence removed due to good behaviour even before the enter prison? If yes, that is one of the first things I would remove!

Its crazy that is some gets 4 years for assault etc, they automatically get 1 year suspended for good behaviour even before they start their sentence.

Also, I would more likely blame the judges and the overcrowding in our prisons and not the laws for the petty sentences for some crimes which deserve harsh sentences (such as house burglary etc)

No remission would mean prisoners would have no reason to behave.

Indricotherium

The whole idea of locking people up is medieval. It was conceived 100's of years ago by a community that had no access to analytical psychology, or concept of social welfare and rehabilitation.

In this day and age we should be able to come up with something better. Every criminal that is not suffering from a mental illness should be rehabilitated.

Setting someone up with an apartment and a job would cost a lot less than locking them up and also remove a lot of the social cause for crime.

Even the notion of spending millions and millions building a bricks and mortar prison seems ridiculous to me.

Nermal

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

prisons as they are in use today have totally failed

On the contrary, very few crimes are committed by people locked up in prison. The only downfall with prison is having to let people out again.

We routinely hear of people convicted with staggeringly counts of previous offences. How many chances does someone need? How much does our society have to waste picking up after their crimes and on the legal system repeatedly trying, convicting in pointless attempts at rehabilitation?

I agree with a three strikes policy. Three crimes of a sufficiently serious nature (and believe me, burglary would be well within that range) deserve a full life sentence without parole, remission or any possibility of release. Once the hard core of repeat offenders were wasting away in prison, crime would plummet.

Nermal

Nermal wrote: »

We routinely hear of people convicted with staggeringly counts of previous offences. How many chances does someone need? How much does our society have to waste picking up after their crimes and on the legal system repeatedly trying, convicting in pointless attempts at rehabilitation?

You are making a serious mistake with regards to cause and effect here. Saying that rehabilitation doesn't work therefore we shouldn't have rehabilitation assumes that rehabilitation can not work, which is incorrect.

The answer isn't longer prison sentences, it is better rehabilitation.

MagicSean

Indricotherium wrote: »

The whole idea of locking people up is medieval. It was conceived 100's of years ago by a community that had no access to analytical psychology, or concept of social welfare and rehabilitation.

In this day and age we should be able to come up with something better. Every criminal that is not suffering from a mental illness should be rehabilitated.

Setting someone up with an apartment and a job would cost a lot less than locking them up and also remove a lot of the social cause for crime.

Even the notion of spending millions and millions building a bricks and mortar prison seems ridiculous to me.

Your seem to be working under the impression that people are inherently good and want to change. This is not correct. I would hazard a guess that you deal very little with real criminals or their victims.

The_Minister

MagicSean wrote: »

Your seem to be working under the impression that people are inherently good and want to change. This is not correct. I would hazard a guess that you deal very little with real criminals or their victims.

Go down the courts some day and listen to the backgrounds of the people being convicted in the District Court.

Most of them never stood a chance.

Nermal

Deleted User wrote: »

Saying that rehabilitation doesn't work therefore we shouldn't have rehabilitation assumes that rehabilitation can not work

I have seen many times news stories discussing a conviction where it is mentioned that the criminal has 20, 30, 40 or more previous convictions. How many chances does he get, before society says enough? At any stage in this litany of offences, perhaps one more chance might rehabilitate him - but there's no 'might' about prison, locking someone up for ever guarantees they will never commit another crime.

The_Minister wrote: »

Go down the courts some day and listen to the backgrounds of the people being convicted in the District Court.

Most of them never stood a chance.

Am I supposed to regret this or feel sorry for them? I feel more sorry for their victims, who are disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds also. On their third offence, lock them up forever, to drastically reduce crime and stop them breeding another generation of criminals.

christmas2012

Problem is law is too lenient,yes i agree...If cases of crime can be simply argued away by the defence or deals being made such as reduced sentences and appeals,then it does appear the law is too lenient,and the victim or the dead victims relatives are always the outsiders in these instances,which is unfair..

Jail aswell is no deterrent,theres state of the art gym,rehabilitation,medical,libraries,they even run courses and training so they can get back to work the minute they leave..

Another thing aswell,the criminal pasts of jailers is not now as acessible as it used to be,there is some new law alan shatter brought in to get rid of it,so the employers now do not know of criminal pasts which i think is a big shame..

Crime and doing time should mean punishment not a walk in the park and a degree for a job afterwards,remember some of these people are rapist/paedophiles/and murderers who committed 'manslaughter'..

MagicSean

The_Minister wrote: »

Go down the courts some day and listen to the backgrounds of the people being convicted in the District Court.

Most of them never stood a chance.

How about you go talk to their victims. They didn't either.

Jogathon

I know a local guard who says that if he could lock up 8 people in his area the crime rate would be negligible. There would still be a few car related tips, maybe some young kids acting the maggot, but there would be no crime as such. Wouldn't that be great? I'd love it.

The amount of previous convictions in some of the "poor lads who never stood a chance with their background" is a joke. 67+ previous convictions, robberies, violent assaults and these people are out and back in the court again with more bloody crimes! Where is the logic in that? Three strikes and you're out cleaned up New York pretty quickly - can we please try it here?

Nermal

Nermal wrote: »

I have seen many times news stories discussing a conviction where it is mentioned that the criminal has 20, 30, 40 or more previous convictions. How many chances does he get, before society says enough? At any stage in this litany of offences, perhaps one more chance might rehabilitate him - but there's no 'might' about prison, locking someone up for ever guarantees they will never commit another crime.

You have completely missed my point. If we rehabilitate them properly the first time then they don't get to 20/30 convictions.

As for the poster who suggested that it would be great if their local Garda could lock up the 2 or 3 local criminals he knew were the cause of it all: I hope you never get what you wish for. Nothing in the law scares me more than that idea.

Indricotherium

The_Minister wrote: »

MagicSean wrote: »

Your seem to be working under the impression that people are inherently good and want to change. This is not correct. I would hazard a guess that you deal very little with real criminals or their victims.

Go down the courts some day and listen to the backgrounds of the people being convicted in the District Court.

Most of them never stood a chance.

100% this.

Locking people who cant conform to a community standard behaviour away from society has been in practice for thousands of years. Crime rates are only steady.

What's more people harking back to the days of old when people were locked up for life or hanged for serious crimes are chasing some sort of idyllic crime free society that never existed.

Social inclusion and education is the only long term way to address crime levels.

Indricotherium

MagicSean wrote: »

The_Minister wrote: »

Go down the courts some day and listen to the backgrounds of the people being convicted in the District Court.

Most of them never stood a chance.

How about you go talk to their victims. They didn't either.

They didn't. But that is not a reason to lock someone up.

Indricotherium

Jogathon wrote: »

I know a local guard who says that if he could lock up 8 people in his area the crime rate would be negligible. There would still be a few car related tips, maybe some young kids acting the maggot, but there would be no crime as such. Wouldn't that be great? I'd love it.

The amount of previous convictions in some of the "poor lads who never stood a chance with their background" is a joke. 67+ previous convictions, robberies, violent assaults and these people are out and back in the court again with more bloody crimes! Where is the logic in that? Three strikes and you're out cleaned up New York pretty quickly - can we please try it here?

Fear of jail is clearly not a deferent to people who build up that many convictions.

MagicSean

Indricotherium wrote: »

They didn't. But that is not a reason to lock someone up.

Yes it is. To stop the next person from being their victim.

Indricotherium

MagicSean wrote: »

Indricotherium wrote: »

They didn't. But that is not a reason to lock someone up.

Yes it is. To stop the next person from being their victim.

The logic to the lock people up for long time side of this argument is that the only thing separating society as it is in Ireland from some sort of mad max style every man for himself is fear of jail.

I just don't think that's the case.

MagicSean

Indricotherium wrote: »

The logic to the lock people up for long time side of this argument is that the only thing separating society as it is in Ireland from some sort of mad max style every man for himself is fear of jail.

I just don't think that's the case.

You don't seem to understand. I don't care about wether they rehabilitate or not, or wether they fear jail. They make their own choices. All i care about is seperating them from the rest of us who want to live our lives without fear.

Farcear

MagicSean wrote: »

You don't seem to understand. I don't care about wether they rehabilitate or not, or wether they fear jail. They make their own choices. All i care about is seperating them from the rest of us who want to live our lives without fear.

But if you don't tackle the causes of crime, someone else is just going to stab you.

Safer bet would be to lock yourself up?

MagicSean

MagicSean wrote: »

You don't seem to understand. I don't care about wether they rehabilitate or not, or wether they fear jail. They make their own choices. All i care about is seperating them from the rest of us who want to live our lives without fear.

There's nothing you can do to eliminate crime. You can reduce it and the single most effective way that's ever been found to do that is rehabilitation.

We have been locking people up for thousands of years, killing them, cutting off body parts and in all that time crime has never gone away. It's about minimising and that cannot be achieved through locking them up as there are always more criminals.

jimmycrackcorm

The biggest problem we have with our judicial system is the revolving door where someone can repeatedly commit a crime without any increasing consequences. A three strikes and you're out policy is really needed; combined with progressively less attractive jail conditions.