Garda Catch Brothers with €20000 worth of bikes

chakattack

doozerie wrote: »

As Lumen says, a suspended sentence is not being let off. Good luck to anyone trying to get a job with a criminal record, for example, it's not something that'll endear you to a potential employer. You may disagree with the severity of the sentence, but just because someone doesn't end up in jail does not mean the the convicted person walks away scot free.

Not to mention the fact that if everyone that ever got a suspended sentence was actually put in jail instead, how quickly would the already packed jails reach bursting point? And how much would our taxes have to increase by to fund keeping them all there? Etc.

To you or me a suspended sentence might be a big deal but to the average crook it's a "RESULT!".

Community service/hefty fine/week or two behind bars to scare the sh*t out of them would be more appropriate I think.

Ant

With regard to sentencing, I'd be in favour of some sort of useful community service though I don't ever hear about it when people are convicted of a crime. Usually, a fine, jail sentence or suspended sentence is the consequence of a guilty verdict. I think there's room for a middle-ground for those who don't have the means to pay fines but whose crimes aren't serious enough to warrant a jail sentence. Community service would be a negative consequence for the individual and a positive for wider society.

Nobody on this thread has yet mentioned Detective Garda John Brennan. We get plenty of posts on this forum about how gardai don't take bike theft seriously. So, I think it's worth giving credit where it's due and commending Garda Brennan for what reads like some good police work.

Lumen

chakattack wrote: »

Strange how the groupthink here seems to favour leniency for the poor unfortunate criminals.

Indeed, "groupthink" is when more than one person disagrees with you.

chakattack wrote: »

To you or me a suspended sentence might be a big deal but to the average crook it's a "RESULT!".

There is no "average crook". Perhaps you mean "stereotypical crook".

Roger Hassenforder

Indeed, "groupthink" is when more than one person disagrees with you.

isnt it the other way around, c.f. JFK and cuban crisis

Captain Havoc

chakattack wrote: »

Strange how the groupthink here seems to favour leniency for the poor unfortunate criminals.

So what you're saying is that we should all agree with you and eliminate the appraisal of alternatives? I can see a discussion based website lasting a long time in that environment.

I can see why the judge gave suspended sentence. They robbed a container load of bicycles, so the comparison with the bank robbery is doesn't fit here as you usually need to be armed or cause a lot of damage to do that. It is their first offense. The garlic importer was jailed for not paying taxes to the tune of €1.2 million, that's 60 times what these guys robbed. Do we know what sentence Raymond Kearney got as he was on suspended sentence?

buffalo

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Do we know what sentence Raymond Kearney got as he was on suspended sentence?

Was he already on a suspended sentence? He got five years suspended for this incident.

Captain Havoc

buffalo wrote: »

Was he already on a suspended sentence? He got five years suspended for this incident.

He was given the five year suspended sentence in March for robbing centro also.

buffalo

Captain Havoc wrote: »

He was given the five year suspended sentence in March for robbing centro also.

Is that not this incident? Sorry, I think I'm suffering from early-morning-itis.

Qualitymark

Quote:
Originally Posted by buffalo
Was he already on a suspended sentence? He got five years suspended for this incident.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Havoc
He was given the five year suspended sentence in March for robbing centro also.

Well, that's bizarre. A conviction when someone's on a suspended sentence is supposed to trigger automatic jailing for the length of time the sentence was for. I don't understand this. If we were an association we could write to the Department of Justice and ask how this works.

Captain Havoc

Qualitymark wrote: »

Well, that's bizarre. A conviction when someone's on a suspended sentence is supposed to trigger automatic jailing for the length of time the sentence was for. I don't understand this. If we were an association we could write to the Department of Justice and ask how this works.

I think buffalo didn't realise one of the articles was from earlier this year. I was also assuming he will have to serve five years.

buffalo

Captain Havoc wrote: »

I think buffalo didn't realise one of the articles was from earlier this year. I was also assuming he will have to serve five years.

Ah, I see where your confusion is now. The entire operation involved three guys - Kearney was the ringleader and sentenced earlier this year. The two (br)others were sentenced this week. All got suspended sentences.

Captain Havoc

buffalo wrote: »

Ah, I see now. The entire operation involved three guys - Kearney was the ringleader and sentenced earlier this year. The two (br)others were sentenced this week. All got suspended sentences.

Ah, I see now also, they're the one incident, I thought it was two incidents.

chakattack

Lumen wrote: »

Indeed, "groupthink" is when more than one person disagrees with you.



There is no "average crook". Perhaps you mean "stereotypical crook".

Preemptive disagreement?

I just imagined that lots of stolen bikes on a cycling forum might have the opposite consensus. They had yet to become someones pride and joy, which might be a factor

doozerie

chakattack wrote:

To you or me a suspended sentence might be a big deal but to the average crook it's a "RESULT!".

Community service/hefty fine/week or two behind bars to scare the sh*t out of them would be more appropriate I think.

I'm not sure in what way you believe you and I differ from what you describe as the "average crook". To my mind all that separates me from your typical minor criminal is different circumstances and poor decisions. If my circumstances were different, I'd like to think that I could guarantee that I wouldn't resort to crime to keep myself fed, watered, and clothed, but I can't guarantee that because I'm not sure how my values would change if I was truly desparate. Fortunately for me, I wasn't born into a family who fell beneath the poverty line, my family was not well off but they were able to provide the basic needs, and I've been able to provide the basic needs for myself and my family since I moved out of my parents house. My circumstances are certainly not very different from those of some people who turn to crime, they are considerably poorer than those of others who turn to crime, but whether such criminals are relevant comes back to the definition of "the average crook". There are many people whose (minor) crimes are understandable (though whether justifiable is an entirely different question) because we do not live in an equal and fair society.

I don't like acknowledging that, incidentally, as being a member of the society in question I share some of the responsibility for prolonging that situation. I have enough of an income to provide for myself and my family, plus some excess that I can spend on luxuries such as bikes and cycling kit, I even have enough that I make a (small) contribution to charity without fear of doing without some of my luxuries. I imagine I'm typical enough in all of that. If I were to forego some of my luxuries, I could perhaps make a substantial contribution to charity, or I could volunteer some of my time to help others, neither of which I exactly do as a matter of course. If I close my eyes to the social disparity in this country I can convince myself that everything is fine, that I'm a great person, and that I do my share for the country as a whole. It's not true, everything is not fine outside my bubble, but it's a comfortable illusion to maintain. But even my self-delusion can't swallow the idea that criminals are some kind of "others" who are all simply greedy and selfish, and that they should all be locked away because of their threat to the relatively comfortable existence that me and people like me live in.

As for jail, if it were the deterrent that several people here seem to believe it to be, then why are the jails so overcrowded? And why is it that there are so many criminals in a cycle of being sent to jail, being released after serving their sentence, and being returned to jail again after commiting further crime(s)? As a deterrent, jails appear not to work. What's worse, there are those that believe that our troubled jails actually contribute to the overall problem as prisoners sometimes learn further criminal skills in prison, become drug users in prison, etc. Plus, the fact that the conditions in the worst of prisons (e.g. Mountjoy) may reinforce in prisoners the idea that society believes they don't belong to it, and don't deserve even basic human rights, doesn't exactly promote the idea of prisoners reforming and rejoining a caring and considerate society. Locking people up is not an end to anything, the justice system is by no means perfect but at least it acknowledges this and tries to avoid simplistic "solutions" which all too often solve nothing but simply defer the problem at hand. Sometimes the justice system seems to get it right, sometimes it certainly gets it wrong. It's not a problem with a simple solution, if it was then it would have been solved a long time ago.

Personally I like the idea of community service, but from what I understand of studies that have been conducted into it it's not the elusive simple and effective solution either and can create its own problems. It's an area that seems to be badly in need of further consideration and research, which will inevitably lead to some people labelling it as "pandering to the criminals", "being easy on crime", etc. Basically, there will always be people who favour bringing back hanging, despite its failure as a deterrent too.

Fines are not a solution in themselves either - what happens if you fine someone that can't afford to pay it, for example? You could argue that they should get themselves a job to earn money to pay the fine, but then you get back to one of the basic disparities in society in that how employable you are seems to depend a lot on your colour, your accent, etc. I was listening to a very interesting programme on BBC radio recently which looked at how women are treated by the justice system in the UK. There is a lot of evidence to support the view that fines applied to women (in this case) who committed minor offences but who can't afford to pay the fines can lead to further crime (theft, prostitution, etc.) to finance paying the fine. The programme was presented by a highly respected lawyer, and it was very critical of certain aspects of the justice system. Even when people convicted of crime are punished in a way that the public might support, the end result can be the exact opposite of what people would hope. Again, it's not a simple problem, there is no simple solution.

chakattack

But we don't know the social/economic situation for the people involved..maybe they had to put food on the table or maybe not....

The argument of poor circumstances in early life can be extended to all sorts of crime...from violence to child abuse. It shouldn't be excuse, lots of people in poor circumstances work hard and do well for themselves while others do nothing but profit from the hard work of others. Prison mightn't be an ideal deterrent but it's how the system works at the moment.

doozerie

@chakattack, I'm not saying that circumstances are an excuse, I'm saying that if we truly want to tackle crime then there should perhaps be more emphasis on tackling such things as the circumstances that we as a society allow to exist for a lot of people. That clearly won't tackle all (potential) crime, I don't think anything can, but it might make things notably better for everyone.

As for your mention of prison being "how the system works", my view is that the current system doesn't work, all too often jails in Ireland seem to do little to tackle the problem they just temporarily remove people from society and when those people leave jail they may be even more likely to, motivated to, and capable of re-offending than before having spent time in jail. That's an issue that we ignore at our peril.

And in case it seem like I'm full of hugs for criminals and don't want to see them go to jail because I feel sorry for them, that's not the case. I'm as likely as anyone else to fantasize about harm coming to those that target me or my family in their criminal activities, but that solves nothing. What I want is a better approach to reducing the risk of such crime affecting me in the first place. My scepticism about prisons is not motivated by love for criminals, it's motivated by a selfish desire to be able to lead a happier and safer life.

Qualitymark

Tis true:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/30/robert-francis-texas-judge-jails

But meanwhile it's a bit souring that one suspended sentence should be followed by another suspended sentence for the exact same crime.

thebouldwhacker

Junior wrote: »

So of the 3 of them that were convicted, if the brothers weren't the ring leaders who the f**k was ?

Keyser Soze
I think he posts here so just be careful....................
Alright

ugsparky

doozerie wrote: »

They've presumably been sent back to Louth, isn't that harsh enough?

Noted and stored for future reference ... Louth Bike Cosa Nostra ... horse's head found in a bed forks and dropbars found hacked from bike at bottom of bed :eek:

turbodiesel

Lumen wrote: »

Property crime, first offence, not surprised they got suspended sentences.

A suspended sentence isn't being let off. You have a criminal record and if you get caught again you're going down.

People also avoid jail for quite serious offences against the person. Get some perspective!

We'll here's my perspective. They got caught once...... but with 20k of bikes. SO that means there had to be several incidents of stealing. So why were they not prosectuted for each and every single bike theft individually. Then it's not a first offence is it. You don't find 20k worth of second hand bike in one go. It just means they were caught amassing them before selling them. It could be anywhere between 20 to 200 instances of bike theft if the value of the bikes was between 1000 and 100.

Shoulda gone down or else been very instructive in catching some bigger fish.:mad:

Oops....it was one incedence of a container load of bikes. apologies

buffalo

turbodiesel wrote: »

We'll here's my perspective. They got caught once...... but with 20k of bikes. SO that means there had to be several incidents of stealing.

Did you read the story? It was one incident of mass larceny.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/two-louth-brothers-avoid-jail-terms-3249205.html

The court heard that on December 1, 2012, 72 preassembled bicycles were stolen from a container owned by Central Limited. The bicycles were high-end models including Trek brand bicycles which were imported exclusively by Central Ltd.

turbodiesel

buffalo wrote: »

Did you read the story? It was one incident of mass larceny.

Apologies guys, knee jerk reaction and then read the indo report. ......one container load of bikes. My bad: