180 convictions - a world record?

unkel

Everybody deserves a second chance. And a third chance. And a 4th chance and maybe even a 5th chance. But WTF were the next 176 judges thinking?

And we're not talking petty theft here. Shane Mason is a violent Limerick criminal

Pherekydes

But he comes from a depraved background.


300 strikes and you're out!

biko

Where does it say 180 convictions?

El Weirdo

biko wrote: »

Where does it say 180 convictions?

^This.

I see nothing in that article about 180 convictions.

Who are "the next 176 judges"?

What is the point in this thread, exactly?

unkel

biko wrote: »

Where does it say 180 convictions?

Here

seamus

Well 180 convictions don't necessarily mean he stood in front of a judge 180 times. He could have faced 5, 10, 30 charges in one sitting and received convictions for them all.

But the point is the same anyway. We really need a way to deal with recidivism in the justice system. Maybe some kind of ten-year strike system. So everyone gets a chance on their first crime - a judge can impose suspended sentences, etc. If you are convicted of another crime within the ten years after completing your first sentence, there is no chance of a suspended sentence, the sentence imposed can't be less than your previous, and the sentence from your previous is imposed again.
If you are convicted while serving a sentence, the clock is rolled back to the start of your current sentence, which is then doubled and served consecutively with your next.

So for example, little Johnny gets a 2-year suspended sentence on his first. Five years later he's convicted again for a crime carrying a maximum of five years. The minimum sentence the judge can impose for this crime is 2 years and he cannot suspend any of it. This then added to his previous two years again so the minimum little Johnny will serve is 4 years.
On his third, the minimum he can serve is 8 years, etc.

dr.bollocko

Mason, who has almost 180 previous convictions, will be sentenced on October 9.

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local/limerick-gun-victim-can-never-live-independently-after-being-shot-in-head-1-4114736

If that helps.

But I prefer this source

Some prick from Sean Heuston Place was jailed for attempted murder.

Shane Mason, with 179 previous convictions got 17 years with one year suspended.

http://honestlk.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/stupid-bastard-jailed/

Odysseus

You do know that 180 convictions does not mean 180 seperate court appearences?So I don't think the next 176 judges is really correct.

Anyway what is the point here, shock at the amount of convictions? If so you don't really get out a lot. In one court appearence a person can easily get 3,4,5, or more convictions, spend a day down at the courts.

Or are you asking what do we do with criminals like this? If so, what are your suggestions?

Thankfully we won't be seeing that guy for a few years in anyway.

Yawns

A man in tallaght has 189. Will find the link. Joke of a system.

EDIT:

Here we go:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/judge-calls-serial-offender-record-breaker-3235720.html

Father Damo

Pherekydes wrote: »

But he comes from a depraved background.

Hes from a depraved background?


Was it his mam who died shagging the alsation dog down there two yers back? :pac:

Yawns

I remember reading it in the Tallaght Echo. What else is a joke but not mentioned in the independent, is that he was jailed for the no licence, no insurance, no tax and no NCT along with given something like a 4 year driving ban. Yes the judge gave him a driving ban even tho he has previously been banned from driving for life...

El Weirdo

Yawns wrote: »

A man in tallaght has 189. Will find the link. Joke of a system.

EDIT:

Here we go:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/judge-calls-serial-offender-record-breaker-3235720.html

What I find most disconcerting about this one, is the following (emphasis mine):

A JUDGE sparked laughter when he told a man with 189 previous convictions that he should be in Guinness World Records.


Judge Anthony Halpin made his comments before jailing David Evans for four months.

Yawns

I know. 189 convictions, ah sure 4 months jail will see you change your ways.

donalg1

Ah but sure he is probably addicted to something in fairness and we all know an addiction is a get out of jail free card.

Addiction - keeping criminals out of jail since 1950.

According to that link (in the OP) he was getting sentenced on July 30th. What happened in the end?

Odysseus

donalg1 wrote: »

Ah but sure he is probably addicted to something in fairness and we all know an addiction is a get out of jail free card.

Addiction - keeping criminals out of jail since 1950.

Is it, God all the court reports that I have written over the years, I should have just sent in the headed paper from the clinic.

Addiction is not a get out of jail free card, engaging in drug treatment is something a judge takes into consideration along with many other factors when he decides what course of action he will take.

HeyThereDeliah

Deleted User wrote: »

According to that link (in the OP) he was getting sentenced on July 30th. What happened in the end?

He got 16 yrs I think.

unkel

Unbelievable stuff

Can we not just throw away the keys after 10 or 20 convictions?

Camo22

seamus wrote: »

Well 180 convictions don't necessarily mean he stood in front of a judge 180 times. He could have faced 5, 10, 30 charges in one sitting and received convictions for them all.

But the point is the same anyway. We really need a way to deal with recidivism in the justice system. Maybe some kind of ten-year strike system. So everyone gets a chance on their first crime - a judge can impose suspended sentences, etc. If you are convicted of another crime within the ten years after completing your first sentence, there is no chance of a suspended sentence, the sentence imposed can't be less than your previous, and the sentence from your previous is imposed again.
If you are convicted while serving a sentence, the clock is rolled back to the start of your current sentence, which is then doubled and served consecutively with your next.

So for example, little Johnny gets a 2-year suspended sentence on his first. Five years later he's convicted again for a crime carrying a maximum of five years. The minimum sentence the judge can impose for this crime is 2 years and he cannot suspend any of it. This then added to his previous two years again so the minimum little Johnny will serve is 4 years.
On his third, the minimum he can serve is 8 years, etc.

Who cares, after 40 lock him up for the rest of his life!! He'll never change!

donalg1

Odysseus wrote: »

Is it, God all the court reports that I have written over the years, I should have just sent in the headed paper from the clinic.

Addiction is not a get out of jail free card, engaging in drug treatment is something a judge takes into consideration along with many other factors when he decides what course of action he will take.

Well from what I see, hear and read alot of the courts decisions refer to things like "oh he was addicted to gambling at the time but is now getting treatment so we will suspend the sentence" and then the article or whatever refers to the 100+ convictions he has. I mean just because you have an addiction you dont have a right to break the law and escape punishment for it.

donalg1

unkel wrote: »

Unbelievable stuff

Can we not just throw away the keys after 10 or 20 convictions?

Give them 5 convictions and thats it then no more chances.

thomasm

If they are getting convicted for 180 and 456 offenses can you imagine how many they have probably gotten away with

HeyThereDeliah

unkel wrote: »

Unbelievable stuff

Can we not just throw away the keys after 10 or 20 convictions?

Would you not think it would depend on the conviction ? How serious it was?

unkel

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Would you not think it would depend on the conviction ? How serious it was?

Not really. Not after 10 or 20 times. If criminals knew we were serious, they would think again before committing a crime. Or not. We win in both scenarios

HeyThereDeliah

unkel wrote: »

Not really. Not after 10 or 20 times. If criminals knew we were serious, they would think again before committing a crime. Or not. We win in both scenarios

You including all convictions here, traffic for eg ?

Alter-Ego

I like to think some of them are just really sh1t criminals who get away with none of their crimes.

Capt'n Midnight

Has there been any study on recidivism here ?

What is the best practice internationally ?
As in what works.

Would I be right in assuming that at present a judge could make sentences consecutive instead of concurrent so that very long prison sentences could be imposed without any change in the law ?

It's no good punishing prisoners unless it works.
What is needed is to reform them, scare them or others into a crime free life or keeping them off the streets.

But we don't want to head down the US path of three strikes where you if you are doing a bit of burgurly you might as well carry a gun since you're going to get life anyway


Perhaps we could deport to Oz, I hear they are looking for people to work in isolated mines in the outback. Complete that and the slate gets wiped clean.

seamus

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

You including all convictions here, traffic for eg ?

Kind of irrelevant really. It's very easy to not get a conviction.

One major indiscretion, grand. Everyone has bad times in their life. Two major indiscretions, now you're just getting sloppy.

But 10 or 20? Even if they are traffic convictions, you're clearly a waste of air and water.

CIARAN_BOYLE

thomasm wrote: »

If they are getting convicted for 180 and 456 offenses can you imagine how many they have probably gotten away with

Not really. They tend to admit multiple petty incidents at the same time.

If you are in for shop lifting and you give up your right to a jury trial the judge can only sentence you for something like three months so they admit dozens of petty crimes in a sitting even if they weren't charged.

These guys will accumulate 50+ convictions in a single district court case and get three months.

Death and Taxes

donalg1 wrote: »

Well from what I see, hear and read alot of the courts decisions refer to things like "oh he was addicted to gambling at the time but is now getting treatment so we will suspend the sentence" and then the article or whatever refers to the 100+ convictions he has. I mean just because you have an addiction you dont have a right to break the law and escape punishment for it.

Any chance you could produce a link to these "cases".
familiar though I am with our Criminal Justice System I for don't recognise what you claim is widespread.
What I do recognise is regurgatated urban myth and misinformation.

mikom

unkel wrote: »

180 convictions - a world record?

And not one for smuggling garlic.

Death and Taxes

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Not really. They tend to admit multiple petty incidents at the same time.

If you are in for shop lifting and you give up your right to a jury trial the judge can only sentence you for something like three months so they admit dozens of petty crimes in a sitting even if they weren't charged.

These guys will accumulate 50+ convictions in a single district court case and get three months.

the maximum sentence generally available to a District Court Judge is 12 months (per offence), not the three you claim.

donalg1

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Any chance you could produce a link to these "cases".
familiar though I am with our Criminal Justice System I for don't recognise what you claim is widespread.
What I do recognise is regurgatated urban myth and misinformation.

I could almost certainly buy my local paper tomorrow and see one or two stories in it regarding some fella in court who is claiming an addiction made him do it.

HeyThereDeliah

seamus wrote: »

Kind of irrelevant really. It's very easy to not get a conviction.

One major indiscretion, grand. Everyone has bad times in their life. Two major indiscretions, now you're just getting sloppy.

But 10 or 20? Even if they are traffic convictions, you're clearly a waste of air and water.

Jaysus steady on, traffic convictions don't count for most things. I'm not saying we should all be clocking them up but it's easy accumulate them.

seamus

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

it's easy accumulate them.

That's where we differ. Most people I know have no convictions for traffic offences. Very easy to avoid the serious traffic offences.

Bloodwing

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Jaysus steady on, traffic convictions don't count for most things. I'm not saying we should all be clocking them up but it's easy accumulate them.

Anything dealt with by way of a fixed penalty doesn't count as a conviction. Any one that finds themselves before a judge 10 to 20 times has a lot of questions to answer.

Odysseus

donalg1 wrote: »

Well from what I see, hear and read alot of the courts decisions refer to things like "oh he was addicted to gambling at the time but is now getting treatment so we will suspend the sentence" and then the article or whatever refers to the 100+ convictions he has. I mean just because you have an addiction you dont have a right to break the law and escape punishment for it.

No it certainly doesn't but I know my court reports are not get out of jail free cards as implied. Engaging in treatment or not as may be the case is only one factor a judge takes into consideration before the decide on what course of action they will take.

In the same light, just because I write what may be seen as a bad court report it does not mean the person will be jailed.

mikom

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Jaysus steady on, traffic convictions don't count for most things. I'm not saying we should all be clocking them up but it's easy accumulate them.

Do you know the difference between a conviction and a penalty?

Quin_Dub

Something like this would be a start...

HeyThereDeliah

mikom wrote: »

Do you know the difference between a conviction and a penalty?

Why do you ask?

FYI yes I do know the difference.

CIARAN_BOYLE

WileyCoyote wrote: »

the maximum sentence generally available to a District Court Judge is 12 months (per offence), not the three you claim.

yeah your actually right, sorry its been a while since I've done law and it was only a small part of my course so I made a mistake with the details.

thiarfearr

Concurrent sentences shouldn't exist

Show Time

Pure scum.

He should be castrated so he cannot spawn more scum.

CrazyRabbit

No doubt you get a life sentence for a not paying your TV License for a second time.

I don't agree with long prison sentences in most cases though....far too expensive. I'd prefer to see shorter, but much harsher sentences.

Whilst Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a racist asshole, I do like his idea of prison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tent_City#Maricopa_County_Jail_modification

======================
Prior to the election of Sheriff Joe Arpaio in 1993, the prisoner population in Maricopa County Jail, Arizona, the 4th largest jail system in the world,[37] exceeded the maximum number of inmates allowed in its facilities. Prisoners were routinely released from custody prior to completing their sentence due to the overcrowding. In a study conducted in 1993 it was estimated that construction of a new facility would cost approximately $70,000,000.I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I Sheriff Arpaio, concerned about the cost of a new facility and reasoning that military tents were good enough for the men and women of the U.S. armed forces who fought in the Gulf War, ordered that a tent jail be constructed utilizing inmate labor.[38] It consisted of Korean War-era tents donated by the United States armed forces, and a 50 ft (15.4 m) observation tower with a vacancy sign mounted on the front. The final cost of the project was approximately $100,000 and it is capable of housing over 2,400 inmates.

Pumpkinseeds

I would love to see convicted criminals actually serve their full sentences and I think free legal aid should be abolished. I'm in favour of legal aid, however, people should have to contribute to their legal costs. If people had to pay off their legal fees out of their benefit payments on a weekly basis they might be less inclined to commit crimes.

There are so many cases before the courts of people receiving free legal aid for shoplifting etc, they know that they are highly likely to receive a suspended sentence. It costs them nothing and as such there is no incentive for them to stop. The system, as it stands is a joke, it would be interesting to see if crime would decrease if a criminal knew they were going to have to serve the full sentence and not get out for any reason.

aidan24326

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

He got 16 yrs I think.

That's correct. I'm not one of the 'hang em high' brigade but that sentence, though harsh enough by Irish standards, is still not long enough. This is a guy with a long history of criminal behaviour who now took it a step further by trying to murder someone. That the victim survived is kinda irrelevant in a way, the intent to murder him was there.

It was attempted first-degree murder and as such should carry the same sentence as actual first degree murder where the person dies. Once the intent is there it's only a matter of luck whether the person lives or dies. He should have got a life sentence (though I know most 'lifers' in Ireland don't serve a whole lot more than 16 years anyway).

aidan24326

aidan24326 wrote: »

That's correct. I'm not one of the 'hang em high' brigade but that sentence, though harsh enough by Irish standards, is still not long enough. This is a guy with a long history of criminal behaviour who now took it a step further by trying to murder someone. That the victim survived is kinda irrelevant in a way, the intent to murder him was there.

It was attempted first-degree murder and as such should carry the same sentence as actual first degree murder where the person dies. Once the intent is there it's only a matter of luck whether the person lives or dies. He should have got a life sentence (though I know most 'lifers' in Ireland don't serve a whole lot more than 16 years anyway).

I was actually waiting for someone else to comment on that '16 years' reply, as I wasn't sure if he was being sarcastic or not (i presumed the criminal in question had gotten another slap on the wrist).

16 years is a good sentence. Harsh by Irish standards, but not actually harsh at all, in my opinion. 16 years is the minimum he should've gotten (and I wonder if he'll even serve it all).

I do think there should be a death penalty of sorts in Ireland. Something that's cheap and easy to do (to avoid the costs of life sentences, as it's not cheap to keep people in prison here).

HeyThereDeliah

Deleted User wrote: »

I was actually waiting for someone else to comment on that '16 years' reply, as I wasn't sure if he was being sarcastic or not (i presumed the criminal in question had gotten another slap on the wrist).
.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=mason%20limerick%20sentence&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDcQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.limerickleader.ie%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Flimerick-gunman-jailed-for-16-years-for-attempted-murder-1-4416677&ei=HKe8UMf7EoaWhQe9q4GIBA&usg=AFQjCNHFCEOSIWF7rMNV2H5oRF8ly1EuuA

aidan24326

Deleted User wrote: »

16 years is a good sentence. Harsh by Irish standards, but not actually harsh at all, in my opinion. 16 years is the minimum he should've gotten (and I wonder if he'll even serve it all).

Unlikely he'll serve the full 16, few prisoners here ever serve the full term. If he co-operates in prison and follows orders to get an education etc then he'll be out in about 10 I'd imagine. In fairness to the judge I'd say he handed down about as tough a sentence as he could for a case like this.

The guy actually got 17 years with the final year conditionally suspended. And as much as we might say it's not a long enough sentence spending that amount of time in jail is still no joke. It's a long time to be locked up and have your freedom and independence taken away. Whether it will it make him change his ways who knows.

I do think there should be a death penalty of sorts in Ireland. Something that's cheap and easy to do (to avoid the costs of life sentences, as it's not cheap to keep people in prison here)

It's not cheap but it's what any civilised country should do. The death penalty is never justified under any circumstances. I agree there are some people who probably deserve it. Anders Breivik for a start. But it still amounts to state-sponsored murder. You're killing another person. That they've done bad things does not give you that right. And those who strongly advocate it, such as in bible-belt USA for example, are massive hypocrites.

Death and Taxes

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I would love to see convicted criminals actually serve their full sentences and I think free legal aid should be abolished. I'm in favour of legal aid, however, people should have to contribute to their legal costs. If people had to pay off their legal fees out of their benefit payments on a weekly basis they might be less inclined to commit crimes.

There are so many cases before the courts of people receiving free legal aid for shoplifting etc, they know that they are highly likely to receive a suspended sentence. It costs them nothing and as such there is no incentive for them to stop. The system, as it stands is a joke, it would be interesting to see if crime would decrease if a criminal knew they were going to have to serve the full sentence and not get out for any reason.

its already been tried, so has cutting of their hands, branding them with hot irons, hanging them, and transportation to Australia,and it didnt work!

httpete

WileyCoyote wrote: »

its already been tried, so has cutting of their hands, branding them with hot irons, hanging them, and transportation to Australia,and it didnt work!

I imagine cutting off their hands and hanging worked quite well actually.