Short prison sentences? Blame Ivana Bacik!!!

Robroy36

People are constantly wondering judges are passing lenient prison sentences. Who on earth actively campaign for a reduction in the lenght of terms? Ivan Bacik does!!!

Ivan Bacik was recently filmed in the Oireachtas expounding her theory that prison sentences infringe on an individuals right to "constitutional right to liberty". This woman is trying to destroy Irish society and put criminals back on the street. I believe she is a reprehensible disgrace and should be removed from public office at once.

What do Boardsie's think? Do you think an individuals right to liberty should be conserved even in the face of considerable criminal charges? Is Bacik taking her left wing, socialist ideals to far?

Praetorian Saighdiuir

I think she's a dope.

Robroy36

Praetorian Saighdiuir wrote: »

I think she's a dope.

Yet another resoan to burn Labour in the next election.

Madam_X

So she's not actually the one to blame for lenient sentences. Misleading title and opening sentence. I'm disappointed, I really could have used someone to blame and lynch.

Amirani

Without having watched her Oireachtas speech, I'd agree with the point on minor criminal charges. If somebody doesn't pay a fine, deprivation of liberty isn't really a fair punishment. Short prison sentences, particularly those less than a year, do more harm than good.

People who pose a serious threat to society though are justifiably incarcerated.

I don't get why you feel she should be removed from office for expressing a non-illegal opinion. That's a fairly fascist view.

hfallada

Look at LA you get 90 days prison sentence.You turn up and within 90 mins your out for over crowding. They government should use house arrest here for lesser crimes and more community service.

Ivana Bacik has an opinion on everything.

Robroy36

Madam_X wrote: »

So she's not actually the one to blame for lenient sentences. Misleading title and opening sentence. I'm disappointed, I really could have used someone to blame and lynch.

She is a chief proponent of the the sentimental, apologist culture that leads to pathetic punitive sentencing in Ireland. She should shoulder a large proportion of the blame.

The King of Moo

hfallada wrote: »

Look at LA you get 90 days prison sentence.You turn up and within 90 mins your out for over crowding. They government should use house arrest here for lesser crimes and more community service.

Ivana Bacik has an opinion on everything.

That's hardly the worst thing in a politician. It's preferable to being a gombeen with no opinions on anything.

Robroy36

hfallada wrote: »

Look at LA you get 90 days prison sentence.You turn up and within 90 mins your out for over crowding. They government should use house arrest here for lesser crimes and more community service.

Ivana Bacik has an opinion on everything.

The goverment should privatise the prison service. This would result in more people in jail, for longer.

professore

She spoke to my year on abortion back in college in the early 90's. I didn't like her then and still don't. Nothing to do with the subject maturer btw. I especially didn't like the way she assumed everyone agrees with her. An ivory tower academic if there ever was one.

Robroy36

NiallSparky wrote: »

Without having watched her Oireachtas speech, I'd agree with the point on minor criminal charges. If somebody doesn't pay a fine, deprivation of liberty isn't really a fair punishment. Short prison sentences, particularly those less than a year, do more harm than good.

Yes, I'd agree with that. The fine should be deducted from wages or social welfare, saving the courts valuable time.

Amirani

Robroy36 wrote: »

The goverment should privatise the prison service. This would result in more people in jail, for longer.

Why do you think that having more people in jail is a good thing?

padd b1975

Robroy36 wrote: »

Yet another resoan to burn Labour in the next election.

She has been burned in pretty much every election she has contested, despite being parachuted into a probable labour seat at the last election.

Seanad elections don't really count in my opinion.

The King of Moo

Robroy36 wrote: »

The goverment should privatise the prison service. This would result in more people in jail, for longer.

That's a terrible idea. Do you know how private prisons make bigger profits? With more prisoners (minor criminals being locked up), and skimping on spending money on them (think food, facilities etc). It's pretty obvious what problems this leads to, but one that a lot of people don't think about is that they don't seem to save much money at all.

There are many articles all over the internet demonstrating why private prisons are a terrible idea using evidence and studies and other liberal nonsense: the following is simply the first google result.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/15942/private-prisons-a-criminal-injustice

opti0nal

Robroy36 wrote: »

People are constantly wondering judges are passing lenient prison sentences.

People? Who exactly & why?

That looks like a 'drive-by' opinion.

Robroy36

opti0nal wrote: »

People? Who exactly & why?

That looks like a 'drive-by' opinion.

No, it's by aggregate of anecdote. It is commonly posed question.

Privatisation would keep criminals in jail.

Prison services two functions - punishment of the criminal and protection of the public. People like Bacik to think it should be an rehabilitative insitution. Complete nonesense.

mattjack

Robroy36 wrote: »

The goverment should privatise the prison service. This would result in more people in jail, for longer.

The original tender for the Thornton Hall project was that if you were successful with your tender , you build and run the prison .
In effect a private prison , however you must be accountable to the Prison Service and have in place a management structure that allows the state maintain control over the level of services provided .
I think you would be responsible for control of overtime, overcrowding , logistics etc but prisons officers would be still civil servants.

Prisons are not to maintain long sentences rather encourage rehabilitation.

daithi1970

Prison sentences should be reserved for those found guilty of crimes against the person for the most part..what is the point of jailing someone for non payment of fines, or for those convicted of non violent public order offences? There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of young fellas going in to jails and re-emerging as hardened criminals, and how does that benefit society?
By all means lock up the murderers,rapists and child abusers (and those convicted of child porn possession,who are treated far too leniently IMO) but there have to be alternative means of dealing with those convicted of non=violent crimes without locking them up.

daithi

DarkJager

The King of Moo wrote: »

That's a terrible idea. Do you know how private prisons make bigger profits? With more prisoners (minor criminals being locked up), and skimping on spending money on them (think food, facilities etc). It's pretty obvious what problems this leads to, but one that a lot of people don't think about is that they don't seem to save much money at all.

There are many articles all over the internet demonstrating why private prisons are a terrible idea using evidence and studies and other liberal nonsense: the following is simply the first google result.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/15942/private-prisons-a-criminal-injustice

Why should we spend big money on prisoners? Prison should be a place that any logical person would avoid at all costs. It wouldn't bother me at all to have them sleeping on the floor, pissing in a pot and getting meals of stale bread and water compared to the hotel standard rooms with flat screen TVs they get these days. Prison should be about punishment, not a holiday camp.

opti0nal

Robroy36 wrote: »

Privatisation would keep criminals in jail.

Because the private sector would not have any incentive to reduce numbers. There was a scandal in the US where a judge was taking kickbacks from a prison company to send people to jail for minor offenses.

Robroy36 wrote: »

Prison services two functions - punishment of the criminal and protection of the public. People like Bacik to think it should be an rehabilitative insitution. Complete nonsense.

Deterrence is also a reason and rehabilitation is a function of all civilized states. Of course, if you profit from running prisons, then you have vested interest in high levels of recidivism.

You're really taliking about sentencing and there we have another principle, that of 'proportionality'. If not, anyone who breaks a speed limit would end up in one of your prisons.

Odysseus

Robroy36 wrote: »

The goverment should privatise the prison service. This would result in more people in jail, for longer.

Is that all you want?

I certainly don't want that, I want those who can be helped out of criminality helped out of that lifestyle. I want other options than people getting "turn arounds" after 12hrs because there is no space to lock them up.

I want to see those sentensed doing their sentense, in a setting that seeks to address the cause of their criminality. I want a system that in some way seeks to address the causes of petty crime, as these are addressable to various extents.

I want that that are deened a danger to society kept away from the general public until they have served their time. I want to see better resources for the punishment part of jail, but at the same time I want the rehabilitative elements of the justice system to get the funding it deserves. Both elements are required.

I want to see more options like the drug courts which free up spaces for those who need to be locked up.



I want The State to be responsible for this not a private company looking for ways to increase its profits.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Robroy36 wrote: »

The goverment should privatise the prison service. This would result in more people in jail, for longer.

What you're suggesting here is not privatisation of prisons, it's privitisation of the judicail system. An even worse idea.

DarkJager wrote: »

Why should we spend big money on prisoners? Prison should be a place that any logical person would avoid at all costs. It wouldn't bother me at all to have them sleeping on the floor, pissing in a pot and getting meals of stale bread and water compared to the hotel standard rooms with flat screen TVs they get these days. Prison should be about punishment, not a holiday camp.

While I agree with your premises, anyeone who thinks prions are holiday camps with hotel standard rooms containing flatscreen televisions is waaay too suscpetible to media influence and really needs to do some research.

Robroy36 wrote: »

No, it's by aggregate of anecdote. It is commonly posed question.

Privatisation would keep criminals in jail.

Unless you can prove overcrowding in Irish jails, how would this work?

Prison services two functions - punishment of the criminal and protection of the public. People like Bacik to think it should be an rehabilitative insitution. Complete nonesense.

So how do you expect a long-term prisoner wit hthe best of intentions to secure a job and accomodation with little or no training and a criminal record? And what do you expect he will do when he can't?

Zulu

Praetorian Saighdiuir wrote: »

I think she's a dope.

Be careful what you say about her. I've been infracted for calling her a moron in another thread.

Apparently, Ivana Bacik is worthy of a more civil tone of reference. :rolleyes:

Chips Lovell

Robroy36 wrote: »

Ivan Bacik was recently filmed in the Oireachtas expounding her theory that prison sentences ...

You could give us a link for a start.

Victor

Robroy36 wrote: »

People are constantly wondering judges are passing lenient prison sentences. Who on earth actively campaign for a reduction in the lenght of terms?

You do realise that longer sentences means fewer prisoners for the same budget?

Or do you want money taken from education and health for spending on prisons?

Robroy36

Victor wrote: »

You do realise that longer sentences means fewer prisoners for the same budget?

Or do you want money taken from education and health for spending on prisons?

No, cut the standard of service drastically.

Zulu

Victor wrote: »

You do realise that longer sentences means fewer prisoners for the same budget?

Well, you'd need to factor in recidivists, which we appear to have plenty of! So it mightn't be all bad

Odysseus

Robroy36 wrote: »

No, cut the standard of service drastically.

Exactly what cuts would you suggest? Where can those cut backs be nade in the current system?

opti0nal

Robroy36 wrote: »

No, cut the standard of service drastically.

We're already been condemned internationally for our inhumane prison conditions.

OK, just say we agree to lock anyone up for the slightest infraction, to do so for a very long time and to treat them very badly. Just as they do in the USA. How does that benefit society?

kraggy

Robroy36 wrote: »

The goverment should privatise the prison service. This would result in more people in jail, for longer.

Have a look at this documentary and see the effects of privatized prisons and mandatory sentencing. It's mainly about the failure of "the war on drugs" but deals with other things as well. Superb documentary.

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt2125653/

hatrickpatrick

I thought she was only campaigning against prison sentences for women? Well, this just makes me despise her slightly more than I already did. She embodies so much of what's wrong with society.

Robroy36

opti0nal wrote: »

We're already been condemned internationally for our inhumane prison conditions.

OK, just say we agree to lock anyone up for the slightest infraction, to do so for a very long time and to treat them very badly. Just as they do in the USA. How does that benefit society?

It would keep the scum off the streets.

As for cuts - zero entertainment. No confectionary. Porridge for two meals of the day. Less heating.

The King of Moo

DarkJager wrote: »

Why should we spend big money on prisoners? Prison should be a place that any logical person would avoid at all costs. It wouldn't bother me at all to have them sleeping on the floor, pissing in a pot and getting meals of stale bread and water compared to the hotel standard rooms with flat screen TVs they get these days. Prison should be about punishment, not a holiday camp.

Would it bother you when criminals emerged from such prisons even worse than before? It's so well-established that overly-harsh prison conditions only harden criminals that I don't know why people keep suggesting that Ireland's low crime rate would become even lower with more and tougher prison sentences. Unless some people just enjoy the thought of criminals being tortured.

Prison is about punishing criminals, keeping them away from the public and ensuring they don't reoffend. All of these things can be accomplished simultaneously. We don't have to choose
between torture chambers or holiday camps.

Robroy36

The King of Moo wrote: »

Would it bother you when criminals emerged from such prisons even worse than before? It's so well-established that overly-harsh prison conditions only harden criminals that I don't know why people keep suggesting that Ireland's low crime rate would become even lower with more and tougher prison sentences. Unless some people just enjoy the thought of criminals being tortured.

Prison is about punishing criminals, keeping them away from the public and ensuring they don't reoffend. All of these things can be accomplished simultaneously. We don't have to choose
between torture chambers or holiday camps.

I'd be open to mild torture.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Robroy36 wrote: »

No, cut the standard of service drastically.

You haven;t commented on the standards yet - you said you wante privitisatino of the judicial system and longer sentences.

Odysseus

Robroy36 wrote: »

It would keep the scum off the streets.

As for cuts - zero entertainment. No confectionary. Porridge for two meals of the day. Less heating.

These things are just not going to happen thankfully. Actually even though the current system is very poor, it is actually only going to improve over time to a certain extent. As the rehabilitative context grows over time.

Why would you say less heating?

The King of Moo

Robroy36 wrote: »

I'd be open to mild torture.

For which crimes exactly, and what would this torture achieve? How would society benefit from it?
I ask this last question, because I feel that someone happy with tortured hardened criminals being released into society probably doesn't care about the well-being of his fellow people, putting such people among them.

Would you also be open to refuting the evidence which shows that your ideas would only make things worse for a lot of people, or do you only speak in Daily Mail headlines?

Amirani

Robroy36 wrote: »

It would keep the scum off the streets.

As for cuts - zero entertainment. No confectionary. Porridge for two meals of the day. Less heating.

Why do you think your system would work better than the one in place at present? Do you have an evidence to back up your proposed methods?

Perhaps people with some training in criminology and psychology would be better placed to make these decisions than you?

opti0nal

Robroy36 wrote: »

It would keep the scum off the streets.

People who drop chewing gum?

Robroy36 wrote: »

As for cuts - zero entertainment. No confectionary. Porridge for two meals of the day. Less heating.

The confectionery is bought with money they get for being well behaved or doing cleaning. If you mistreat the prisoners, you'll need more prison officers to keep order and if they are injured by the prisoners who you've de-humanised, we'll be faced with big compensation claims from the prison officers.

You need a whole working plan: all I hear from you is 'more punishment'.

DrumSteve

Robroy36 wrote: »

I'd be open to mild torture.

Ah now your having a laugh.

Gee Bag

Robroy36 wrote: »

I'd be open to mild torture.

Excellent,

Get your gimp suit on I'll be over with the whip and the nipple clamps in ten minutes.

goose2005

Robroy36 wrote: »

It would keep the scum off the streets.

As for cuts - zero entertainment. No confectionary. Porridge for two meals of the day. Less heating.

So basically, you go with the American option of taking in 18-year-old petty criminals who could be rehabilitated, and then brutalising them for a few years and release them as violent, mentally-scarred psychopaths?

What's wrong with a bit of entertainment? Games help to lower tensions, work off aggression. TV keeps prisoners quiet and occupied.

WayneMolloy

professore wrote: »

She spoke to my year on abortion back in college in the early 90's. I didn't like her then and still don't. Nothing to do with the subject maturer btw. I especially didn't like the way she assumed everyone agrees with her. An ivory tower academic if there ever was one.

She got rejected by the electorate three times, got elected to the senate by trrinity students and now calls for gender quotas.

You would think she would take the hint.

Imagine being Czech, probably the best looking people in Europe and looking like that.

She lost.

The King of Moo

WayneMolloy wrote: »

She got rejected by the electorate three times, got elected to the senate by trrinity students and now calls for gender quotas.

You would think she would take the hint.

Imagine being Czech, probably the best looking people in Europe and looking like that.

She lost.

What does her appearance have to do with anything?

Very childish stuff.

hatrickpatrick

^ Let's not get deflected by silly tangents. None of that changes the fact that she's an absolute hypocrite and politically speaking an incredibly nasty and sexist individual. I say politically speaking because we all know someone whose political views are detestable but who's actually cool socially. Who knows. That's all irrelevant - when discussing politics, she's a gobsh!te of the highest order in my view.

St.Spodo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

^ Let's not get deflected by silly tangents. None of that changes the fact that she's an absolute hypocrite and politically speaking an incredibly nasty and sexist individual. I say politically speaking because we all know someone whose political views are detestable but who's actually cool socially. Who knows. That's all irrelevant - when discussing politics, she's a gobsh!te of the highest order in my view.

Which of her political views are ''incredibly nasty''?

Robroy36

As regards torture, I would be interested in looking at torture for convicted paedophiles and murders.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Robroy36 wrote: »

As regards torture, I would be interested in looking at torture for convicted paedophiles and murders.

I notice you seem to be completly ignorant the the criticism of your little ideas from numerous sources, so I'm probably wasting my time even asking this, but: how exactly does the above make society a safer place?

mikom

Robroy36 wrote: »

As regards torture, I would be interested in looking at torture for convicted paedophiles and murders.

37 posts.
Controversial/ batshit insane opinions.
I smell a rereg.

Robroy36

Yes, numerous liberal, left wing sources. Parasites who are best ignored and better off dead.

Fattes

People are constantly wondering judges are passing lenient prison sentences. Who on earth actively campaign for a reduction in the lenght of terms? Ivan Bacik does!!!

Ivan Bacik was recently filmed in the Oireachtas expounding her theory that prison sentences infringe on an individuals right to "constitutional right to liberty". This woman is trying to destroy Irish society and put criminals back on the street. I believe she is a reprehensible disgrace and should be removed from public office at once.

What do Boardsie's think? Do you think an individuals right to liberty should be conserved even in the face of considerable criminal charges? Is Bacik taking her left wing, socialist ideals to far?

I dont remember her ever holding the Minister for Justice office in this state and creating policy that has led to our current prison system of judicial sentencing but what every makes you happy to believe.