Short prison sentences? Blame Ivana Bacik!!!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Odysseus wrote: »

I would not classify it as a fetish it is totally different to that. One way of looking at it is the ICD-10, which classifies it as a disorder of sexual perference.

Now unders the same heading the ICD-10 situates:
Fetishism.
Fetishistic transvestism.
Sadomasochism.

However, whilst it includes disorders of Sexual Preference, it also excludes: problems associated with sexual orientation.

So here WHO are situating it as a disorder of sexual preference, and fetishism is also under the same heading you who not classify it as a fetish.

Treating fetishism is a really interesting topic, there is an arguement that there are no female fetishists, that it is a male disorder.

Now TBH I'm not as familiar with the arguement as I used to be, but there is a body of work out there on it. IIRC correctly it depends on the criteria for fetishism, for example likeing something unusal is not really a fetish. It becomes a fetish when the fetishtic object has to be present for sex to occur.

Anyway I gone way OT here, but it is a interesting subject.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the concept of ICD10 (we are talking about the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, right?), but a quick google leads me to beleive (perhaps incorrectly) that it only refers to physical diseases?

It certainly, just to put things back into context, does not see pedophilia as an orientation.

Odysseus

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the concept of ICD10 (we are talking about the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, right?), but a quick google leads me to beleive (perhaps incorrectly) that it only refers to physical diseases?

It certainly, just to put things back into context, does not see pedophilia as an orientation.

No the ICD-10 deals with behavioural and psychologocal disorders, leave out the and related...

Basically it is the European verison of the DSM; I find it a lot easier to read than the DSM. It covers the same disorders butr is about a third of the size.

However, yeah, it would be very wide of the mark to classify it as an orientation, in my understanding.

IvySlayer

I thought Fine Gael were getting rid of the Senate?

Ivana Bakic lost 2 TD elections, then proposed the sexist legislation of female quotas for the Dail. Hard to take her seriously.

opti0nal

Odysseus wrote: »

However, yeah, it would be very wide of the mark to classify it as an orientation, in my understanding.

It's a paraphilia. Interestingly, this definition includes paedophilia and also people who are aroused by thoughts of harming others (e.g. daily waterboarding of prisoners). My sources don't include a classification for people with an irrational hatred of Ivana Bacik, that appears to be an, as yet, unclassified neurosis.

DEFTLEFTHAND

IvySlayer wrote: »

I thought Fine Gael were getting rid of the Senate?

Ivana Bakic lost 2 TD elections, then proposed the sexist legislation of female quotas for the Dail. Hard to take her seriously.

It's vital that they do remove the senate, the office of President also. Controlled democracy won't work with an expensive upper house of wasters. This country needs a serious shake up and a realigning of the class structure.

Zulu

NiallSparky wrote: »

It's not really cheaper when you consider the cost to the state of prisoners re-offending.

They are currently re-offending regardless of whatever funds we are currently investing, so lets save that expense at least!

Steve O wrote: »

They should all be killed, even the shoplifters.

Thats a bit unrealistic. One could even say farcical.

opti0nal wrote: »

Why do you think 'rehabilitation' is a pretence? Facts please?

Facts? What?? Are you serious??? You think our current rehabilitation programmes are a complete success? I take it that you accept that we don't have a 100% rehabilitation in Ireland. What % do you reckon we currently succeed in rehabilitating (roughly)? I'd wager its a LOW %. I'd suggest that in order to raise that % we'd need to heavily invest more funding. An investment of tax I'd wager our society doesn't have the stomach for. I certainly don't.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Zulu wrote: »

Thats a bit unrealistic. One could even say farcical.

He was being sarcastic, Sheldon.

Facts? What?? Are you serious??? You think our current rehabilitation programmes are a complete success? I take it that you accept that we don't have a 100% rehabilitation in Ireland. What % do you reckon we currently succeed in rehabilitating (roughly)? I'd wager its a LOW %. I'd suggest that in order to raise that % we'd need to heavily invest more funding. An investment of tax I'd wager our society doesn't have the stomach for. I certainly don't.

Not arguing that it works or not, but the suggestion we just ditch the whole idea and punish the hell out of people is a far mroe dangerous scenario: hardened criminals with no chance of a straight life out on the streets.

How's that supposed to keep us all safe?

opti0nal

Zulu wrote: »

Facts? What?? Are you serious??? You think our current rehabilitation programmes are a complete success? ...I'd wager its a LOW %.

Facts are usually produced in support of a serious argument. Are you prepared to wager on more lives lost or damaged if by removing whatever measures are in place, more people re-offend?

No-one argues that rehabilitation is 100% successful. At a minimum it does help some people and helps keep the prison population pass the time peacefully, rather than fighting with each other or the guards. Replacing that with nothing or 'daily waterboarding' as one poster fantasizes is not a wager I'd take up.

It's people's lives that are at issue.

Annasopra

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? 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?

Do you mean Ivana Bacik?

Steve O

Zulu wrote: »

Thats a bit unrealistic. One could even say farcical.

Less crime and more food for the soup kitchens, I really dunno why people have a problem with this, keeeeeeeeeellllll them all.

Odysseus

Zulu wrote: »

Facts? What?? Are you serious??? You think our current rehabilitation programmes are a complete success? I take it that you accept that we don't have a 100% rehabilitation in Ireland. What % do you reckon we currently succeed in rehabilitating (roughly)? I'd wager its a LOW %. I'd suggest that in order to raise that % we'd need to heavily invest more funding. An investment of tax I'd wager our society doesn't have the stomach for. I certainly don't.

What makes you say that society has not got the stomach for it? And out of interest why do you not have the stomach for it?

I think to be fair it must be acknowledge that currently it can be said we merely pay lip service to rehab; though this does vary from service to service and programme to programme.

I don't, but do you have any answer the questions you pose above?

However, of course, we will only get the service we pay for, we paid 20 million in 2008 [the latest figures I am aware of] for drug treatment and rehab in Ireland. It is a lot of money, but when you divide that 20m by the 11,000 individuals that received treatment out of it, and then compare that to the 65,000 it costs to keep a person in M/Joy for the year. It does not seem too bad to me. Approx 1,800 to treat a person compared to 65,000 to lock them up, I don't know is it fair to make such comparisons?

Now clearly not all of those in treatment who have ended up locked up [and plenty do whilst they are in treatment], however, drug treatment MMT does help reduce the level of criminality the person engages in. As far as I am aware the yearly report produced by the drug courts showed it saved money when compared with traditional sentences.

Now with saying that, I don't think MMT is a magic cure that addresses all the social and criminal problems associated with addiction, but it seems to me that the 20m it costs, actually reduces some of the costs to that State which we would have to respond to if we did not have drug treatment services.

So I think it is fair to say that services would improve with better funding, and it would therefore reduce overall costs to The State.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Steve O wrote: »

Less crime and more food for the soup kitchens, I really dunno why people have a problem with this, keeeeeeeeeellllll them all.

Cannibalism...? Bit radical, but I think Billy Connolly stole your thunder on this one...

desertcircus

I'm late to the thread; could someone fill me in on whether any discussion of effectiveness or data relating to sentencing policy and crime rates has happened, or is this just the usual AH rabble-rabble devoid of anything beyond "bloody pinko liberal softies"?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

desertcircus wrote: »

I'm late to the thread; could someone fill me in on whether any discussion of effectiveness or data relating to sentencing policy and crime rates has happened, or is this just the usual AH rabble-rabble devoid of anything beyond "bloody pinko liberal softies"?

No, despite askign many many times, and the later.

usernamegoes

I believe that an important part of her point was that the district court has the jurisdiction to sentence a person to prison for up to 12 months, I think it is. She argued that a person has a constitutional right to liberty which should only be denied in limited situations.

I think that if a person is going to be denied their right to liberty they should be entitled to trial by jury, something unavailable in the DC.

desertcircus

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No, despite askign many many times, and the later.

I wish I was surprised.

EyeSight

for non violent crimes for non-repeat offenders i would love to see harsh community service punishments handed out than "suspended sentences".
i honestly do not see why we do not pursue this more?

schnitzelEater

I have a particular dislike for this woman.

Thankfully the general electorate seem to share my opinion of her.

Pity about the Trinity graduates...

Odysseus

usernamegoes wrote: »

I believe that an important part of her point was that the district court has the jurisdiction to sentence a person to prison for up to 12 months, I think it is. She argued that a person has a constitutional right to liberty which should only be denied in limited situations.

I think that if a person is going to be denied their right to liberty they should be entitled to trial by jury, something unavailable in the DC.

How would that work out? I don't know how many cases a DC deals with every day but it would be a lot. Are you suggesting that every one charged would have to be dealt with by a jury?

Odysseus

EyeSight wrote: »

for non violent crimes for non-repeat offenders i would love to see harsh community service punishments handed out than "suspended sentences".
i honestly do not see why we do not pursue this more?

What would a "harsh Community Service punishment" consist of?

Zulu

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

He was being sarcastic, Sheldon.

Indeed. Perhaps there's more of that going about that you first spotted?

Not arguing that it works or not, but the suggestion we just ditch the whole idea and punish the hell out of people is a far mroe dangerous scenario: hardened criminals with no chance of a straight life out on the streets.

Not out on the streets, locked up doing hard time.

How's that supposed to keep us all safe?

We'd be no worse off, from a criminal POV, but we would have more cash. Cash that could be diverted into security measures perhaps.

opti0nal wrote: »

Are you prepared to wager on more lives lost or damaged if by removing whatever measures are in place, more people re-offend?

Yes frankly. I suspect that we don't succeed in rehabilitating hardened criminals.

No-one argues that rehabilitation is 100% successful.

Good - so long as we all accept that, it's a start.

At a minimum it does help some people and helps keep the prison population pass the time peacefully, rather than fighting with each other or the guards.

I suspect it's at a minimum. I suspect it impacts a small few.

Replacing that with nothing or 'daily waterboarding' as one poster fantasizes is not a wager I'd take up.

I don't see any use in waterboarding, but doing something productive (like creating electricity, or something) would be better that taking drugs and planning more crime.

t's people's lives that are at issue.

Indeed. I'm concerned about INNOCENT peoples lives. Criminals have made their choices.

Odysseus wrote: »

What makes you say that society has not got the stomach for it?

We're not happy about a property tax, you think we'll accept higher taxes for criminals to be rehabilitated? ...must be nice in that world of yours.

And out of interest why do you not have the stomach for it?

Becuase I'd rather see my taxes build a childrens hospital frankly.

I think to be fair it must be acknowledge that currently it can be said we merely pay lip service to rehab; though this does vary from service to service and programme to programme.

Exactly, so lets just give up on the pretence.

I don't, but do you have any answer the questions you pose above?

Which one? ...did I just address it?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Zulu wrote: »

Not out on the streets, locked up doing hard time.

We'd be no worse off, from a criminal POV, but we would have more cash. Cash that could be diverted into security measures perhaps.

Massive contradiction thre, if you think keeping them locked up will leave us with more cash.

Odysseus

Zulu wrote: »

Exactly, so lets just give up on the pretence.

Which one? ...did I just address it?

I don't think you did, though TBH I not too sure what you are putting forward.

It seems to consist of closing down any rehab projects because you don't believe in them, locking people up for longer, and if possible make some money out of their labour.

I don't know what you mean by hard time but at less you not pushing for death, torture or similar.

You seem to be saying that since rehabitation programmes are not working at 100% that it is not working at.

From what I see current evidence is in support of rehabilitation; it certainly doesn't support the lock the up and throw the key away approach.

opti0nal

Zulu wrote: »

Indeed. I'm concerned about INNOCENT peoples lives. Criminals have made their choices.

Just because someone is a criminal and loses their liberty for a while does not mean they don't have human rights. What if a relative of yours gets time for, say, drunk driving, would you want them brutalised in prison?

Zulu wrote: »

We're not happy about a property tax, you think we'll accept higher taxes for criminals to be rehabilitated?

If you don't rehabilitate people you'll have to pay for more prisons when they re-offend, you'll also have to pay social supports for their families. Of, course, the re-offending will mean that yet more people will have suffered in the cycle of offending/imprisonment/re-offending.

It's up to you to show why we should take a risk that might result in a worse outcome than at present.

EyeSight

Odysseus wrote: »

What would a "harsh Community Service punishment" consist of?

i don't mean anything like slave labour
I mean forcing them to clean the streets, graffiti, put in voluntary work etc.
By "harsh" i meant giving them enough hours that they learn their lesson.

I think that would be better than suspended sentences anyway. Which don't seem to be enforced anyway.

Most drunken louts who ruin our streets at night, the ones who are decent people when sober usually just get an 80 euro fine(which Mammy and Daddy pay). Make them clean graffiti for 30 hours and they'll think twice before doing it again. we could at least try it for a few months and see the results. If we don't notice a change then it would be easy to scrap the program.
I think this country is scared of any change.

opti0nal

EyeSight wrote: »

i don't mean anything like slave labour
I mean forcing them to clean the streets, graffiti, put in voluntary work etc.

So they would not be slaves, you'd just force them to work. That's different :rolleyes:.

Wouldn't that put street cleaners out of a job?

Voluntary work, graffiti cleanup already happens as part of community service orders. There is a concept called 'restorative justice', still has to be supervised, but the cost is less than imprisonment and outcome can improve victim empathy.

usernamegoes

Odysseus wrote: »

How would that work out? I don't know how many cases a DC deals with every day but it would be a lot. Are you suggesting that every one charged would have to be dealt with by a jury?

It would be similar to how it works at the moment, the vast majority of DC cases don't end up in prison sentences. So for cases where a prison sentence is sought should be elevated to the CC, where the majority of which would be plead to as is the case at the moment.

I am not suggesting every case where a prison sentence is given should be tried by jury, but they should be before a jury if not plead to.

EyeSight

opti0nal wrote: »

So they would not be slaves, you'd just force them to work. That's different :rolleyes:.

Wouldn't that put street cleaners out of a job?

Voluntary work, graffiti cleanup already happens as part of community service orders. There is a concept called 'restorative justice', still has to be supervised, but the cost is less than imprisonment and outcome can improve victim empathy.

Are you really comparing community service to slavery??
And you're argument about putting street cleaners out of work is idiotic.
Are our streets and walls so clean that they don't need more work?

I know there's some community service programs out there but they don't seem to be used much. A couple of years ago a judge sentenced a guy who verbally abused a garda and spat at a garda car, to clean the patrol cars at his local station for 4 Saturdays. The next day on the radio you had people moaning it was humiliating. Give me a break! I bet that punishment did more good than an 80 euro fine
do you think prison sentences, fines and suspended sentences are the best options? I think that the community service is cheaper, teaches criminals a lesson and benefits the community.
All i am saying is, we should at least try it and see the results. What have we to lose?

mattjack

EyeSight wrote: »

Are you really comparing community service to slavery??
And you're argument about putting street cleaners out of work is idiotic.
Are our streets and walls so clean that they don't need more work?

I know there's some community service programs out there but they don't seem to be used much. A couple of years ago a judge sentenced a guy who verbally abused a garda and spat at a garda car, to clean the patrol cars at his local station for 4 Saturdays. The next day on the radio you had people moaning it was humiliating. Give me a break! I bet that punishment did more good than an 80 euro fine
do you think prison sentences, fines and suspended sentences are the best options? I think that the community service is cheaper, teaches criminals a lesson and benefits the community.
All i am saying is, we should at least try it and see the results. What have we to lose?

Community Service is used quite a bit , I think the maximum you are sentenced to is 240 hrs , its an alternative to prison and the probation service are involved.The service is done in the community in charities/ community centres etc.

Zulu

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Massive contradiction thre, if you think keeping them locked up will leave us with more cash.

Keeping unproductive people locked up is expensive - no argument here, but if they were productive... Perhaps they could pay for their own penal sentence? (That would be more in line with what I'm thinking.) Then any surplus profit (if it existed) could be used for funding rehabilitation or victim services.

Odysseus wrote: »

I don't think you did, though TBH I not too sure what you are putting forward.

Ok, apologies if I missed it. Will you ask it again? (or point out what I've overlooked). Cheers.

It seems to consist of closing down any rehab projects because you don't believe in them, locking people up for longer, and if possible make some money out of their labour.

Yeah, pretty much nail on the head (except for the locking people up for longer - but as it happens, I'm not against that, so fair play on the accuracy )

I don't know what you mean by hard time but at less you not pushing for death, torture or similar.

Death and torture are pointless. By "hard time" I mean have them working from 7am to 7pm, and not sitting around watching telly, taking drugs, etc..

You seem to be saying that since rehabitation programmes are not working at 100% that it is not working at.

Nope, thats a straw-man. I wouldn't expect 100% success, but frankly we don't appear to be even close to 30% (which is a fail with no room for pass-by-compensation). And we aren't committed to the programme wholeheartedly (not investing sufficient funding), so what I'm saying is: either do it seriously, or don't do it at all. And seeing as we aren't going to pony up to do it seriously it only leaves one option...

opti0nal wrote: »

Just because someone is a criminal and loses their liberty for a while does not mean they don't have human rights.

Yeah shame that. I like the "outlaw" model, where when someone breaks the law, they are outside the protection of the law.

What if a relative of yours gets time for, say, drunk driving, would you want them brutalised in prison?

Where ever did I say that? You just love the leaping to farce, don't you? As it happens, YES, if a relative of mine gets done for drink driving & gets locked up, then I'd love to see them working hard as opposed to sitting around doing nothing.
But lets just hold a mirror up here for a second. Your implication is that if a relative of your got locked up for drink driving, you'd be eager for us all to pay for their "rehabilitation" no matter what the cost. Rehabilitating drink drivers is a madness when our society is financially broke. That funding would be way better spent on home help don't you think?

If you don't rehabilitate people you'll have to pay for more prisons when they re-offend, you'll also have to pay social supports for their families. Of, course, the re-offending will mean that yet more people will have suffered in the cycle of offending/imprisonment/re-offending.

Yeah, because that isn't happening now, right?

It's up to you to show why we should take a risk that might result in a worse outcome than at present.

Nope, it's up to everyone to make up their own mind. What I propose isn't going to raise taxes...