Politician in good idea shocker

thomasm

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2013/0228/breaking31.html


The Government will consider legislation to force those prosecuted for burglary to repay the costs of damage they have done.

Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore described as pragmatic and appropriate a suggestion by Independent TD John Halligan that burglars should be obliged to make redress.

Mr Halligan said home burglaries in Waterford city in his constituency had risen in January by more than 30 per cent compared to 2012, which was on a par with the rest of the country, although in some areas burglary levels had almost trebled.

The Waterford TD asked the Tánaiste if he would consider legislation to force those found guilty of burglary, regardless of whether they received a community or custodial sentence, to repay the costs of the damage they did. He had seen on many occasions when "an out of touch judge, because of some do-gooder, will say kind words about the perpetrator and the victim is left abandoned".

Mr Halligan said the criminal justice system is failing victims of burglary, and there is that fear with people that they are being abandoned.

Legislation, he said, would provide that every district court judge, would be instructed under legislation that the perpetrator, regardless of their means, should have reparation deducted from their wages or social welfare payments. He said its a crime that has gone unnoticed (compared) to the very serious crimes of damage to the person but this is destroying peoples lives all over the country.

The Tánaiste described the Waterford TDs suggestion as a very constructive one. I know that the Minister for Justice has a very strong personal view in favour of restorative forms of justice and penalties. "I will bring to his attention what I think is a very constructive and worthwhile suggestion... and I will ask him to have what you have said looked at," Mr Gilmore said.

Such reparation could never repair the sense of violation, the sense of damage experienced by somebody whose home had been burgled. There was an absolute sense of violation by the victims of burglaries, he said.

"But I think it may be a more pragmatic, a more effective and a more appropriate way of dealing with the perpetrators of home burglaries than perhaps some of the ways they’re being dealt with at the moment," he said.




Think this is a great idea. Hit scumbags in the pocket. Would it ever get implemented though ?

mikehammer67

they'd prob commit more burglaries to pay back the victims

ScumLord

thomasm wrote: »

Think this is a great idea. Hit scumbags in the pocket. Would it ever get implemented though ?

I think it's s good idea, I was just talking about something like this with friends last night. We don't make criminals repay their debt to society we just punish them.

I'm sure some will argue that forcing a thief to pay out money will just encourage them to rob more stuff.

washman3

Great idea. will the scumbags in Dail Eireann then be forced to repay the money they have stolen from me over the last 4 or 5 years to repay the debts incurred by their cronies.:mad:

catallus

Nice idea, but the term "restorative justice" in the article shows this idea up.

The idea is the criminal makes amends to his victim: a lovely idea thought up by paper-pushing know-nothings.

This idea will be twisted to fit the idea of restorative justice which demands that the victim of crime allows his violator to invade his life, firstly by meeting him face to face and allow the criminal to lie and give an insincere apology.

It is just another idea which focuses primarily on the feelings of the perpetrator.

That said, if Halligan's idea of making them pay cash without all this airy-fairy restorative stuff were implemented it would be good to get some monetary redress for the victim. But I won't hold my breath.

GalwayGuy2

Hmmm, could make it harder for recently evicted criminals to make a life and stay out of crime.

And I wonder would it be before or after they're in prison.

P_1

To be fair, it seems a tad more productive than just locking somebody up

Degag

Didn't some burglar who injured himself while breaking into a property successfully sue the homeowner a few years ago?

Now that's something that needs changing.

ScumLord

Degag wrote: »

Didn't some burglar who injured himself while breaking into a property successfully sue the homeowner a few years ago?

Now that's something that needs changing.

It has been, now you can shot him after he falls through your roof. I think.

walrusgumble

I think it is an idea worth giving a judge legislative options on. Some criticism made by the posters above is valid, and sadly they are being pragmatic ("sadly" because, in an ideal world this is a brilliant , fail proof idea, but alas, there is no such thing as a uptopia)

Considering that criminals, even on legal aid, end up offering from €200- to €4000 grand to avoid jail time in assault cases or are made to put money in the poor box for public order offences etc, maybe this should still be giving a test.

Where To

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK3uf5V0pDA

walrusgumble

ScumLord wrote: »

It has been, now you can shot him after he falls through your roof. I think.

well the shooting bit, will still need to be considered last resort (well not strictly). However, as a Supreme Court case (dpp v barnes 2010ish) shows, the court will likely favour the victim and understand that they don't have time to think due to fear etc. just make sure that the gun is legally held

Yes, thankfully , one can't be sued, whether through the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 (within reason) and the new legislation - Dwelling and defence Act 2011

kupus

walrusgumble wrote: »

well the shooting bit, will still need to be considered last resort (well not strictly). However, as a Supreme Court case (dpp v barnes 2010ish) shows, the court will likely favour the victim and understand that they don't have time to think due to fear etc. just make sure that the gun is legally held

Yes, thankfully , one can't be sued, whether through the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 (within reason) and the new legislation - Dwelling and defence Act 2011

Always remember the second shot goes through the ceiling

walrusgumble

kupus wrote: »

Always remember the second shot goes through the ceiling

hit yourself a few times to make it look that he hit you first

ciano1

mikehammer67 wrote: »

they'd prob commit more burglaries to pay back the victims

Would probably commit more even if they didn't have to pay them back.
Once a thieving scumbag, always a thieving scumbag!

Pumpkinseeds

I think it would be a great to force convicted criminals to pay financially for the crimes they commit. The system we currently have isn't working. Merely locking someone in prison presumes that being denied their freedom is something that repeat offenders care about. We have repeat offenders regularly coming before the courts, they are provided with free legal aid and more often than not they will not serve the full term of whatever custodial sentence they are given.

Why can't the cost of the legal aid be deducted from whatever wages/benefits they have? Likewise with anti-social behaviour, why can't we have a system whereby anyone who is evicted say twice for arguments sake, loses their entitlement to housing benefit/council housing. Of course that would mean that their children would have to be taken into care if the parents couldn't support themselves, however with some of those famillies the kids might be better off.

Degag

walrusgumble wrote: »

well the shooting bit, will still need to be considered last resort (well not strictly).

If some fcuker is in my home its my first resort.

My name is URL

Legislation, he said, would provide that every district court judge, would be instructed under legislation that the perpetrator, regardless of their means, should have reparation deducted from their wages or social welfare payments.

That'll be the latter then! Instead of the scumbag paying back what they have stolen, it'll be the taxpayer paying for their scummy deeds.. sounds about right for Ireland!

walrusgumble

Degag wrote: »

If some fcuker is in my home its my first resort.

naturally

blow their shagging head off.

awec

Good idea, but if a burglar breaks in to my gaff and causes 5 grand worth of damage how is he going to pay me back if he's on welfare?


123.ie will have to start offering insurance for burglars. Previous convictions will hike your premium.

The Davestator

My name is URL wrote: »

That'll be the latter then! Instead of the scumbag paying back what they have stolen, it'll be the taxpayer paying for their scummy deeds.. sounds about right for Ireland!

If they are on social welfare, it's costing the tax payer anyway so instead of them getting it, the injured party receives it.

Boombastic

Great idea, should be deducted directly from their benefits

Dwork

The Davestator wrote: »

If they are on social welfare, it's costing the tax payer anyway so instead of them getting it, the injured party receives it.

Not.Going.to.happen. Ever.

Some bleeding heart will come up with a "good" reason why.

awec

The Davestator wrote: »

If they are on social welfare, it's costing the tax payer anyway so instead of them getting it, the injured party receives it.

I imagine that the government would be paying out and the burglar would be in debt to the government to pay back the money.

Which isn't going to happen.

Which leaves the taxpayer out of pocket.

My name is URL

The Davestator wrote: »

If they are on social welfare, it's costing the tax payer anyway so instead of them getting it, the injured party receives it.

Then they should have their payment stopped or reduced accordingly. The money shouldn't be redirected to the victims of their crimes. What sort of message does that send out... that the sate will happily pay for actions of scrotes? Seems bizarre to me.

Perhaps make them do community service work in the areas they targeted instead?

seamus

It's a nice idea in theory but like many others is made by someone too separated from the reality.

The burglar will be standing in court after doing €5k worth of theft and damage saying, "Ah jaaaysssus judge, I have me missus and five little sh1ts to feed and I need me smokes and a few cans at the weekend and I need to get the bus to the Fás course I'm gonna sign up to next week, and they're already takin money off me for dat thing I got done for last year". And the judge makes an award of €5 a month for two years. That'll show him.

TeddyTedson

This is a brilliant idea, but, I just know it's never going to happen in this country.
It's too radical for Ireland right now. We're too conservative with our justice system.

King of Kings

great idea but is a crook is on welfare - I'd be afraid of the penalty being taken out of their kids food budget rather than his dutch gold budget.

Grayson

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I think it would be a great to force convicted criminals to pay financially for the crimes they commit. The system we currently have isn't working. Merely locking someone in prison presumes that being denied their freedom is something that repeat offenders care about. We have repeat offenders regularly coming before the courts, they are provided with free legal aid and more often than not they will not serve the full term of whatever custodial sentence they are given.

Why can't the cost of the legal aid be deducted from whatever wages/benefits they have? Likewise with anti-social behaviour, why can't we have a system whereby anyone who is evicted say twice for arguments sake, loses their entitlement to housing benefit/council housing. Of course that would mean that their children would have to be taken into care if the parents couldn't support themselves, however with some of those famillies the kids might be better off.

have you seen the HSE?

I'm in favour of criminals paying back. But I don't think it's practical. If they had the money or a way of getting it they wouldn't be stealing.

And to make it affordable, it would have to be small monthly deductions.

Mr. Incognito

In ancient Ireland there were no jails.


ALL Crimes were punishable by compensation to the victim, including murder although I believe the family could chose to take the compo or have the murderer killed.

Much better system imo.

Pumpkinseeds

Grayson wrote: »

have you seen the HSE?

I'm in favour of criminals paying back. But I don't think it's practical. If they had the money or a way of getting it they wouldn't be stealing.

And to make it affordable, it would have to be small monthly deductions.

I'm basing my opinion on first hand experience I had with some neighbours, the appalling way they treated their kids and the fact that the parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts all had multiple criminal convictions. Of course that is a very limited experience I'll admit but I pity kids trapped in that kind of family. The future for them is teen pregnancy, being treated like a punchbag by some piece of scum and the boys will follow the rest of the family into a life of crime and repeat offences. The cycle just continues from generation to generation.

catallus

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

In ancient Ireland there were no jails.


ALL Crimes were punishable by compensation to the victim, including murder although I believe the family could chose to take the compo or have the murderer killed.

Much better system imo.

Agreed: We really have gone wrong somewhere.

All of this penning men in cages like animals in some sort of forlorn attempt to punish them is modern bureaucracy taken to an Orwellian degree. It just doesn't work. The problem with prisons is that the overseers are forced to treat every inmate the same as the worst most violent and non-redeemable prisoner, otherwise there would be mayhem. So we have graded prisons, with the most violent in Mountjoy, and heaven help the meek criminal who has to go in there, and we have the open prisons, which are, let's face it, holiday camps with playstations and free cigarettes for those who are non-violent and not an immediate threat to society.

Something has to change.

danialoe

I like Italy so much, but bad politicians.

catallus

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I'm basing my opinion on first hand experience I had with some neighbours, the appalling way they treated their kids and the fact that the parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts all had multiple criminal convictions. Of course that is a very limited experience I'll admit but I pity kids trapped in that kind of family. The future for them is teen pregnancy, being treated like a punchbag by some piece of scum and the boys will follow the rest of the family into a life of crime and repeat offences. The cycle just continues from generation to generation.

That's abuse of the welfare state you're talking about. A self perpetuating tempest of dependents for the State.

Pumpkinseeds

catallus wrote: »

That's abuse of the welfare state you're talking about. A self perpetuating tempest of dependents for the State.

Yep you are right, but I think the only way to end the cycle is to limit the amount of children that child benefit is paid for and to have legislation in place to evict anti-social tenants also preventing them from receiving any kind of housing if they repeatedly offend. The scum that are abusing the system know exactly how to play the system and that has to stop.

There has to be an end to the practice of professional benefit scroungers having a higher income on benefits than a parent or couple who go out to work and earn a minimum wage.

Grayson

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I'm basing my opinion on first hand experience I had with some neighbours, the appalling way they treated their kids and the fact that the parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts all had multiple criminal convictions. Of course that is a very limited experience I'll admit but I pity kids trapped in that kind of family. The future for them is teen pregnancy, being treated like a punchbag by some piece of scum and the boys will follow the rest of the family into a life of crime and repeat offences. The cycle just continues from generation to generation.

It's a pity the HSE isn't much better. But I do see where you're coming from. You see scumbags drunk and pushing prams down O'Connell street at 1 pm and think, how the hell are they allowed have kids.

end of the road

ScumLord wrote: »

I think it's s good idea, I was just talking about something like this with friends last night. We don't make criminals repay their debt to society we just punish them.

what debt to society? i'd put it forward that infact they don't owe any debt to society, they owe a debt to their victims, if someone robs my house they owe a debt to me, the only way they would owe anything to the tax paying citizens is by getting them to pay back the cost of keeping them in jail which has no chance of happening

catallus

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Yep you are right, but I think the only way to end the cycle is to limit the amount of children that child benefit is paid for and to have legislation in place to evict anti-social tenants also preventing them from receiving any kind of housing if they repeatedly offend. The scum that are abusing the system know exactly how to play the system and that has to stop.

There has to be an end to the practice of professional benefit scroungers having a higher income on benefits than a parent or couple who go out to work and earn a minimum wage.

The modern State says that a large part of it's mandate is to "protect" the "disadvantaged". This was the beginning of the Welfare State: There is no way they'll disenfranchise it's own dependents, because it would lead to a loss of their power over them, and (incidentally) the people who don't depend on the State.

It is just a sad state of affairs when the legal eagles have found out that it is very profitable to hang on the coat-tails of this quasi-communistic "protection" of criminals, from the ECHR down.

end of the road wrote: »

what debt to society? i'd put it forward that infact they don't owe any debt to society, they owe a debt to their victims, if someone robs my house they owe a debt to me, the only way they would owe anything to the tax paying citizens is by getting them to pay back the cost of keeping them in jail which has no chance of happening

You'll be accused of having no faith the all-knowing benign forces of the Do-Gooders. They are so far away from thinking about the victim that you might as well be talking to the wall.

Pumpkinseeds

Grayson wrote: »

It's a pity the HSE isn't much better. But I do see where you're coming from. You see scumbags drunk and pushing prams down O'Connell street at 1 pm and think, how the hell are they allowed have kids.

I don't live in Dublin. I'm talking about people who scream obscene abuse at toddlers. Who leave their 4 year olds out in the cold in dirty vests and pajama bottoms and whose idea of feeding the kids is to give them a packet of biscuits to eat outdoors while they drink and get stoned indoors with the kind of associates most of us would hope never to meet. Whose homes are regularly raided by the gardai.

The kind of people who scoff at idea of reading a book and who keep their kids home from school because they can't be bothered to get off their asses to take them to school. The kind of people who think its not only normal but acceptable to make extra cash by burgaling homes, breaking into cars and selling drugs. You can then find posts on social media from them telling the world how much they love their kids and what wonderful parents they are.

The_B_Man

How would they pay back the victim? Surely they're robbing the place to get money coz they're broke?

Dynamo Roller

Sounds like an idea that was formed over a healthy dose of cheese and wine. Gilmore is flirting with the old brehon sentiment. How do you quantify the harm that was done? Haven't we already got that system in place for that called prison? Forcing an underclass to pay reparations will only oppress the poor bastards children which will in turn cause more criminality. Gilmore is a ****ing halfwit.

seamus

Gilmore didn't suggest it. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

T-K-O

€1 a week for eternity is hardly a good idea. The burglar should be liable for the increase on your insurance policy. Let the insurance company pay the victim and they can in turn chase the burglar

Plazaman

Instead of jailing people for non payment of the TV Licence or minor debts, jail the real criminals for the duration of their sentence and none of this suspended sentence and remission shít. If someone gets a sentence 6 years with the final 2 suspended, why not just say I'm jailing you for 4 years and you will not get out 1 second earlier than the 4 years. Yes keeping a crim in jail costs the taxpayer but so does everything else so I want my moneys worth godammit.

kylith

On the face of it it sounds like a good idea, but how would it impact something like insurance payouts? People could be left out of pocket because they insurance won't pay out since the damages will be covered by the perpetrator. Meanwhile the homeowner is left trying to fix up their house while waiting for a tenner a week being deducted from the burglar's dole for the next 5 years.

monkeypants

Would cause havoc with the Gardai's detection rate I would think, as burglars would no longer have any reason to have other offences taken into account.

I don't think I want to get involved with such a scheme. I pay for house and contents insurance. If I'm robbed, I expect the insurance company to pay out. They can then pursue the burglar if they so wish.

sbsquarepants

I think it's a great idea in theory, probably unenforceable in reality though. Some scumbag with 50 burglary convictions and a bill for maybe a grand damages in each case is going to pay back the victims at a euro a week out of his dole money? Of course he is!

shedweller

How do we go about having a referendum on this? And if we vote no can we vote again and again until we vote yes?
Seriously though, what do we have to do to get a referendum on this?

MagicMarker

The state should refund the family and take the money from the offender by reducing their benefits.