Woman hospitalised after third assault

Love2u

Odysseus wrote: »

OK explain this to me, because I can see it, so I'm asking you to break this down and show me how they are seen as "valued customers" and the "cash cow" side of things.

I can't see how you can actually state that and stand over it.

It would take too long for me to explain it. I don't have the time to do that right now, but I will get back to you in relation to the "cash cow" side of things as soon as I can.

catallus

Odysseus wrote: »

OK explain this to me, because I can see it, so I'm asking you to break this down and show me how they are seen as "valued customers" and the "cash cow" side of things.

I can't see how you can actually state that and stand over it.

I think a source of the dissatisfaction that people feel about the system is that what has developed over a period of time is an unquestioned tendency to concentrate on the well-being and future of the offender; now this is all very well, but in the real world it is an affront to common decency and the rights of the victim to have a criminal thug (because that is what they are when they break the law) being coddled by the state. What makes it more egregious is that the criminal is smiling all the time, can't believe his luck that he has so many people on his side after he assaults or burgles or otherwise cheats his fellow citizens. Anyone with a bit of common sense and understanding of human nature should realise that if criminal behaviour isn't punished then it undermines our society in a fundamental way; the question arises "why do we have such obvious lawlessness?" and the answer is staring us in the face.

I think a big part of the problem is that the just and good and necessary idea which was "resocialisation" of offenders who spent a long time in prison has been usurped and conflated with the horrible and unjust idea of "rehabilitation". And it is this idea of rehabilitation which is providing an apparent cash-cow for government departments. The idea that we can rehabilitate wrong-doers offers us hope but it is a forlorn hope; these guys don't stop acting the maggot because of the efforts of professionals; they usually just grow out of it and delegate their lifestyle to their kids. And they have a ready-made system which again blindly tries to give them "help" which they do not want.

It's a lovely idea that we talk out our feelings with offenders, that we try and show them the error of their ways in the hope that they turn themselves around; but the sad realistic truth is that they break the law because they want to break the law, they spit in the face of society because they are anti-social, and they don't give a damn about me, you or society.

Grand Moff Tarkin

Odysseus wrote: »

So what does that tell us?

That the scum causing trouble know that they are facing community service or at most a stretch of two or three years inside. The time never fits the crime here which is a sad fact as it gives the trouble makers a free run again and again.

Grand Moff Tarkin

catallus wrote: »

I think a source of the dissatisfaction that people feel about the system is that what has developed over a period of time is an unquestioned tendency to concentrate on the well-being and future of the offender; now this is all very well, but in the real world it is an affront to common decency and the rights of the victim to have a criminal thug (because that is what they are when they break the law) being coddled by the state. What makes it more egregious is that the criminal is smiling all the time, can't believe his luck that he has so many people on his side after he assaults or burgles or otherwise cheats his fellow citizens. Anyone with a bit of common sense and understanding of human nature should realise that if criminal behaviour isn't punished then it undermines our society in a fundamental way; the question arises "why do we have such obvious lawlessness?" and the answer is staring us in the face.

I think a big part of the problem is that the just and good and necessary idea which was "resocialisation" of offenders who spent a long time in prison has been usurped and conflated with the horrible and unjust idea of "rehabilitation". And it is this idea of rehabilitation which is providing an apparent cash-cow for government departments. The idea that we can rehabilitate wrong-doers offers us hope but it is a forlorn hope; these guys don't stop acting the maggot because of the efforts of professionals; they usually just grow out of it and delegate their lifestyle to their kids. And they have a ready-made system which again blindly tries to give them "help" which they do not want.

It's a lovely idea that we talk out our feelings with offenders, that we try and show them the error of their ways in the hope that they turn themselves around; but the sad realistic truth is that they break the law because they want to break the law, they spit in the face of society because they are anti-social, and they don't give a damn about me, you or society.

Anyone with a conviction rate of plus five is beyond rehabilitation. But it is the folks like that who keep the lawyers rolling in money.

catallus

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

Anyone with a conviction rate of plus five is beyond rehabilitation. But it is the folks like that who keep the lawyers rolling in money.

It took me a long long time to see it but you are right; it is the lawyers who are getting rich off it.

Odysseus

catallus wrote: »

I think a source of the dissatisfaction that people feel about the system is that what has developed over a period of time is an unquestioned tendency to concentrate on the well-being and future of the offender; now this is all very well, but in the real world it is an affront to common decency and the rights of the victim to have a criminal thug (because that is what they are when they break the law) being coddled by the state. What makes it more egregious is that the criminal is smiling all the time, can't believe his luck that he has so many people on his side after he assaults or burgles or otherwise cheats his fellow citizens. Anyone with a bit of common sense and understanding of human nature should realise that if criminal behaviour isn't punished then it undermines our society in a fundamental way; the question arises "why do we have such obvious lawlessness?" and the answer is staring us in the face.

I think a big part of the problem is that the just and good and necessary idea which was "resocialisation" of offenders who spent a long time in prison has been usurped and conflated with the horrible and unjust idea of "rehabilitation". And it is this idea of rehabilitation which is providing an apparent cash-cow for government departments. The idea that we can rehabilitate wrong-doers offers us hope but it is a forlorn hope; these guys don't stop acting the maggot because of the efforts of professionals; they usually just grow out of it and delegate their lifestyle to their kids. And they have a ready-made system which again blindly tries to give them "help" which they do not want.

It's a lovely idea that we talk out our feelings with offenders, that we try and show them the error of their ways in the hope that they turn themselves around; but the sad realistic truth is that they break the law because they want to break the law, they spit in the face of society because they are anti-social, and they don't give a damn about me, you or society.

Dissatisfaction is one thing, but at least have posts based in reality. The focus is on the offender, because if the State is to punish or rehabilitate the offender, well it is not possible if the focus is somewhere else is it?

Whilst the State is in chagre of the offender, the State is responsible for them, this means it has a duty of care for those it imprisons. I see a lot of offenders, I have yet to see any being coddled by the State. Where does this happen? Is being coddle something like going on protection in a prison, where you may share a cell with up to five other imates and spend 23 out of 24 hours in that cell, and still be attacked.

Seriously what do you mean by this? Have you any solid examples of this?

As I have noted I have being a victim of crime, I don't see any affornts to common dencency.

Yeah some people do appear to grow out of such behaviours as you put, but I don't think criminal and it treatmment is that simple. The reason why people start and stop are complex. There are no simple answers to such questions are the are different levels and types of criminality.

If things where as simple as your last paragraph states, why do people move on from criminality, as they don't care, our attempts to punish and rehabiltate them as useless, they have nothing to fear, and such when they are caught they don't even get a tap on the wrist actually the are coddled for a while.

That tells me that such statements are just sweeping generalisation that tell us nothing at all.

Explain this cash cow sh!te, we have a responsible to all citizens, victims and offenders, when we take control of an offenders life we become responsible for them.

We need services so that we can act on that responsibility, the people employed in those services require payment, we pay the for the service they supply. Where is the cash cow in that

Grand Moff Tarkin

catallus wrote: »

It took me a long long time to see it but you are right; it is the lawyers who are getting rich off it.

Most of them make their money off the suffering and misery of the normal joe soap on the streets. An odious bunch of charlatans who see no wrong in defending scum who would rob the elderly and stick blood filled syringes in the face of shop staff.

catallus

Odysseus wrote: »

Dissatisfaction is one thing, but at least have posts based in reality. The focus is on the offender, because if the State is to punish or rehabilitate the offender, well it is not possible if the focus is somewhere else is it?

Whilst the State is in chagre of the offender, the State is responsible for them, this means it has a duty of care for those it imprisons. I see a lot of offenders, I have yet to see any being coddled by the State. Where does this happen? Is being coddle something like going on protection in a prison, where you may share a cell with up to five other imates and spend 23 out of 24 hours in that cell, and still be attacked.

Seriously what do you mean by this? Have you any solid examples of this?

As I have noted I have being a victim of crime, I don't see any affornts to common dencency.

Yeah some people do appear to grow out of such behaviours as you put, but I don't think criminal and it treatmment is that simple. The reason why people start and stop are complex. There are no simple answers to such questions are the are different levels and types of criminality.

If things where as simple as your last paragraph states, why do people move on from criminality, as they don't care, our attempts to punish and rehabiltate them as useless, they have nothing to fear, and such when they are caught they don't even get a tap on the wrist actually the are coddled for a while.

That tells me that such statements are just sweeping generalisation that tell us nothing at all.

Explain this cash cow sh!te, we have a responsible to all citizens, victims and offenders, when we take control of an offenders life we become responsible for them.

We need services so that we can act on that responsibility, the people employed in those services require payment, we pay the for the service they supply. Where is the cash cow in that

It is not complex at all. Why don't we all break the law, if it is so nuanced and complicated? It is very simple why people break the law, because they want to.

The answers we get are only as important as the questions we ask.

The cash cow exists because nobody wants to come out and say the services are no bloody use to anyone except the customers (wherein lies the affront), who just consume state resources until they decide to quieten down.

This "responsible for offenders" stuff stinks to high heaven.

Odysseus

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

Anyone with a conviction rate of plus five is beyond rehabilitation. But it is the folks like that who keep the lawyers rolling in money.

What evidence have you for that? Where did you pick 5 out of? I seen people with hit 30, 40, 70,80 maybe even more as I wouldn't keep that much of a track on total convictions, before they address stuff.

How can you pick a random amount of convictions and think that this is a cut off point that will apply to all criminals.

Sure in one offence people offend pick up between two and five seperate charges.

HondaSami

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

Anyone with a conviction rate of plus five is beyond rehabilitation. But it is the folks like that who keep the lawyers rolling in money.

That's rubbish anyone can turn their lives around if they really want too. Not all convictions are the same.

Odysseus

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

That the scum causing trouble know that they are facing community service or at most a stretch of two or three years inside. The time never fits the crime here which is a sad fact as it gives the trouble makers a free run again and again.

Funny that it tells me that services are failing people and that we need to be supporting people much more. I glad such opinions hold no sway in the circles that matter.

Grand Moff Tarkin

Odysseus wrote: »

What evidence have you for that? Where did you pick 5 out of? I seen people with hit 30, 40, 70,80 maybe even more as I wouldn't keep that much of a track on total convictions, before they address stuff.

How can you pick a random amount of convictions and think that this is a cut off point that will apply to all criminals.

Sure in one offence people offend pick up between two and five seperate charges.

We could go to ten convictions so just to keep the liberals happy and there would still be no change. You have to face up to it that some people are beyond redeeming and are more trouble to the state than the money spent on trying to rehabilitate them.

Grand Moff Tarkin

Odysseus wrote: »

Funny that it tells me that services are failing people and that we need to be supporting people much more. I glad such opinions hold no sway in the circles that matter.

Who is to say that if my opinion held sway in the circles that matter would there be less crime in the country. At the moment the people and opinions that are similar to your own have not done that good a job on dealing with crime or protecting the the average citizen of the country.

Odysseus

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

We could go to ten convictions so just to keep the liberals happy and there would still be no change. You have to face up to it that some people are beyond redeeming and are more trouble to the state than the money spent on trying to rehabilitate them.

I couldn't agree with that, however tbf yes some will never address such issues. However, to say that a person could change once they pass a certain amount of convictions hold no ground.

We could move it to 50 and it still wouldn't be true, it would be ineffective and I'm sure it could cost the State a lot of money, if we started refusing access to rehab based upon such random concept.

Edit: I think the above also covers your other post, such ideas would cost the State more money, and all current research back rehabilitation over so called "harsher" methods.

space_man

Hitchens wrote: »

Luke Byrne – 25 March 2013 Independent

GARDAI are winding down their investigations after the wife of a detective claimed she was attacked three times in her home by intruders.




Officers have been unable to identify any suspects in the alleged attacks on boutique owner Regina Sweeney (36). They had been working on the theory that a gang had attacked her because of her garda connections.


Ms Sweeney said she was first attacked in her home near Castlebar, Co Mayo, in Decem-ber by two men. Following that incident, she appeared on 'The Late Late Show' during a discussion about a rural crime wave.


She claimed a second attack occurred last month when she was taunted that she "wasn't as cocky now as on the telly".


Ms Sweeney said a third attack happened last week.




Oh oh!

Investigation is NOT being wound down according to local Gardai.
Seems the Indo story was just that.

Grand Moff Tarkin

Odysseus wrote: »

I couldn't agree with that, however tbf yes some will never address such issues. However, to say that a person could change once they pass a certain amount of convictions hold no ground.

We could move it to 50 and it still wouldn't be true, it would be ineffective and I'm sure it could cost the State a lot of money, if we started refusing access to rehab based upon such random concept.

Edit: I think the above also covers your other post, such ideas would cost the State more money, and all current research back rehabilitation over so called "harsher" methods.

You could always dump the hardcore troublemakers on one of the islands off the west coast and let them fight to survive. Anyone who last 10+ years is allowed back into society.

space_man

Hitchens wrote: »

Luke Byrne – 25 March 2013 Independent

GARDAI are winding down their investigations after the wife of a detective claimed she was attacked three times in her home by intruders.




Officers have been unable to identify any suspects in the alleged attacks on boutique owner Regina Sweeney (36). They had been working on the theory that a gang had attacked her because of her garda connections.


Ms Sweeney said she was first attacked in her home near Castlebar, Co Mayo, in Decem-ber by two men. Following that incident, she appeared on 'The Late Late Show' during a discussion about a rural crime wave.


She claimed a second attack occurred last month when she was taunted that she "wasn't as cocky now as on the telly".


Ms Sweeney said a third attack happened last week.




Oh oh!

Investigation is NOT being wound down according to local Gardai.
Seems the Indo story was just that.

Love2u

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

We could go to ten convictions so just to keep the liberals happy and there would still be no change. You have to face up to it that some people are beyond redeeming and are more trouble to the state than the money spent on trying to rehabilitate them.

I guess Grand Moff has said all I wanted to say, now I rest my case. Thanks GF for all the well articulated posts!

Odysseus

Love2u wrote: »

I guess Grand Moff has said all I wanted to say, now I rest my case. Thanks GF for all the well articulated posts!

Come on, you have no case to rest, there was nothing but opinion expressed and backed up with nothing. When challenged you said it would take to long to post.

You can step out of the debate of course, but don't tell me you have presented any type of coherent informed case.

Nodin

Love2u wrote: »

People reoffend because they know they can get away with it, the judge will tap them on the hand and say "good boy Johnny" you can go back out on the streets and commit more crimes. Ireland is a great place for criminals.

Are all your opinions based on stereotypes?

Love2u wrote: »

Odysseus, are you now telling me we are not allowed To express our opinions in here? Are you telling me that if we give an opinion we have to spend years studying the topic?

5 minutes would be a start.

Love2u wrote: »

I can tell you that most people are afraid in their own homes let alone on the streets. The streets are unsafe.

Hysterical bollocks.

Love2u

Odysseus wrote: »

Funny that it tells me that services are failing people and that we need to be supporting people much more. I glad such opinions hold no sway in the circles that matter.

Odysseus give up the fight, you loose. The system is a joke and the laugh is on us. We should be spending money on rehabilitating the poor victims, never mind the criminals. Don't you know the old saying "you can change the stripes on a zedbras back!!

Love2u

Nodin wrote: »

Are all your opinions based on stereotypes?



5 minutes would be a start.



Hysterical bollocks.

Nodin go to bed!

HondaSami

Any update on the woman hospitalised after third assault ?

greenpilot

Here's a theory...rumour has it that it is all made up. It's just a rumour mind you, but its being batted around.

Love2u

Love2u wrote: »

Nodin go to bed!

Actually he's right. You've produced nothing to support your hyperbolic assertions.

Just because you see things the way you do, does not make you right. I imagine it's an exercise in futility to point that out though.

Nodin

greenpilot wrote: »

Here's a theory...rumour has it that it is all made up. It's just a rumour mind you, but its being batted around.

....no, not more violence.....

Nodin

Love2u wrote: »

Nodin go to bed!

As I asked - are all your opinions based on stereotypes?

Love2u

Odysseus wrote: »

Come on, you have no case to rest, there was nothing but opinion expressed and backed up with nothing. When challenged you said it would take to long to post.

You can step out of the debate of course, but don't tell me you have presented any type of coherent informed case.

Odysseus I stepped out of the debate to attend to my baby. I'm also preparing for an exam I sit in a few weeks, plus I work. My time is limited in here. But you will get a lengthy answer when I do have the time.

Love2u

Nodin wrote: »

As I asked - are all your opinions based on stereotypes?

Nodin what's your profession?

Love2u

Candie wrote: »

Actually he's right. You've produced nothing to support your hyperbolic assertions.

Just because you see things the way you do, does not make you right. I imagine it's an exercise in futility to point that out though.

Go Candie!