85 convictions and free to kill?

woodoo

I am flabbergasted that in this country someone can have 85 convictions and still be free at 25 to kill just like Jason Morrissey was. He is not the first and he won't be the last unless we see some change.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/killer-danced-around-victim-with-arms-aloft-after-landing-fatal-punch-29193456.html

Could we do more to ensure these people are punished appropriately. America has 3 strikes and your are out. Could we have something along those lines, 5 strikes 10 etc. Surely after 85 convictions the likes of Morrissey just aren't getting the message that their behaviour is unacceptable. James Tynan would most likely be alive today if there was such a policy in place.

Should we be pressuring our political representatives more to do something about it? What can be done? what should be done or is our current system just fine?


Remember these also:

21 Year old Martin Morgan 55 previous convictions http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/dublin-man-jailed-for-life-for-mindless-and-savage-murder-545575.html

Gerard Manning 118 previous convictions http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/man-found-guilty-of-murder-has-118-previous-convictions-588732.html

26 Year old Garda Killer Martin McDermott 91 previous convictions http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/no-excuse-for-transfer-of-garda-killer-with-91-previous-convictions-prison-chief-26837486.html

Odysseus

I can't see it in the article, what are the previous convictions for in general? Does it state that anyway?

Tombi!

I'll quote it.
But no, it doesn't give the exact details. It states: public order offences.
What kind of things would they be?

A SMIRKING killer who struck a man to the ground with a single punch and then danced around him as he lay dying on the ground, said it "felt good" when he hit the victim in the unprovoked assault.

Only quiet sobbing could be heard at Nenagh Circuit Criminal Court yesterday as a harrowing statement from Delores Tynan told how her family live their "lives in darkness" following the manslaughter of her son, James (25).

The court heard how he went on a night out with friends – but came home in a coffin.

Jason Morrissey (23) of Church Street, Toomevara, Co Tipperary, was jailed yesterday for 18 years for the unlawful killing of Mr Tynan on February 19, 2012, in Liberty Square, Thurles, Co Tipperary, and three assaults committed in five days beforehand.

Frank Quirke, prosecuting for the State, read the statement prepared by the grieving mother as her son's killer sat just feet from her and smirked.

Judge Tom Teehan said it was "the most affecting victim impact statement I have ever heard since the introduction of it (victim impact statements) 20 years ago". The Tynan family cried and hugged each other while Mr Quirke broke down and had to compose himself as he relayed the loss the family suffered after James – from Johnstown, Co Kilkenny – was killed.

"We will never forget the phone call from Clonmel hospital to tell us that our son was gravely ill and to get there as quickly as possible, the nightmare drive, to see him lying there attached to machines – the life gone out of him.

"The week before he died he had told me he was so happy and we knew it. He loved his job, his lovely girlfriend Fiona, his friends and he had everything to live for.

Unbearable

"Now we have to live without him. I can't put down in words how hard that is. An illness or an accident would be hard enough, but to lose your son like this is devastating and unbearable. Every day is a nightmare.

"The pain and loss is terrible. It is so hard to carry on without him.

"He was born on October 3, 1986 – a joy to us all. He was always smiling, so happy. I feel so robbed that I will never be a granny to his children and he would have been a wonderful dad.

"His life was not in vain, when he died he gave life to six people as his organs were donated, that was his wish. James was that kind, thinking of others.

"I want you all to know what one punch can do – it takes a life. It leaves us to live our lives in darkness now, as the light left us when James died," the statement read.

Morrissey had 85 criminal convictions and was on bail for public order offences when he killed Mr Tynan.

c_man

Odysseus wrote: »

I can't see it in the article, what are the previous convictions for in general? Does it state that anyway?

Looks like assault etc., http://www.tipperarystar.ie/news/local/assaulted-garda-while-on-bail-1-2268553

Odysseus

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I'll quote it.
But no, it doesn't give the exact details. It states: public order offences.
What kind of things would they be?

They could be anything, which is why I'm asking? Telling me the amount of previous doesn't give me much info. The could be all petty offenses or there could be more serious ones there.

However, taking the persons age and the fact that they where out and not locked up at the time, [if that makes sense] it would imply that the offenses where lower down the scale when compared to the very serious crime he is currently up on.

This things about comparing the USA and 3 strikes rule. Does that only apply to felonies and not misdemeanors? Would Public Order offenses be misdemeanors? I'm not sure but I think most would.

Anyone know how that compares to the Irish system

Praetorian Saighdiuir

There needs to be tougher punishments for repeat offenders like this. Rehabilitation is not something that would work for a little Cnut like him.

Is it likely that he would be out in less than 10 years? My personal opinion in a situation like this would be very unpopular. I would like to see some sort of slave labour and reduction in human rights, if not the death penalty for a repeat offender who ends up killing another person.

Schism

How does a 23 year old even go about getting so many convictions? He sounds like a shining example of humanity :rolleyes:

It's a sad fact that there's still career criminals, and let's be honest, dangerous individuals out there with nothing constructive or at all good to add to their society. It's news like this that makes me somewhat wary on nights out, you never know who you'll run into and evidently the worst can happen in a flash.

Odysseus

c_man wrote: »

Looks like assault etc., http://www.tipperarystar.ie/news/local/assaulted-garda-while-on-bail-1-2268553

He had 44 at the time of that link, looks like he was clocking them up at quite a rate.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Odysseus wrote: »

They could be anything, which is why I'm asking? Telling me the amount of previous doesn't give me much info. The could be all petty offenses or there could be more serious

Does it matter what they were? He was convicted of 85 crimes either way. It is irrelevant how small or petty they might have been, it all culminated to an attitude where assault resulted in the death of someone. Just reading about his actions while the guy was on the ground is shocking.

There is no defence for scum like this.

“Edward Byrne was on bail at the time, a factor I find aggravating,” he said, noting his considerable criminal record of 55 previous convictions.

He said the sole mitigating factors he could find for him were his plea of guilty and his remorse.

He imposed a 12-year sentence on him. He pointed out that he had just begun a three-year sentence for another crime, meaning he would really serve only an extra nine years for Mr Rzeszutko’s killing.

So he got to commit a crime for free? Awesome.

Conmaicne Mara

Another scumbag:

"The court heard on Monday about John ‘Frog’ Ward’s previous convictions, which numbered 80 and were spread over 38 court appearances. All court appearances, bar two, were in district courts. Mr Ward served a number of prison sentences. At the time of his death he was awaiting trial arising out of an incident at Carrowbrowne Halting Site on April 15, 2004 when he was alleged to have produced a slash hook to gardaí.
The court also heard how there were four bench warrants issued for the arrest of Mr Ward that were not executed at the time of his death. It was explained by gardaí that the warrants were not executed because Mr Ward was receiving psychiatric treatment at the time."

Prodigious

Tragic that it took a death to get him put away. However, he got 21 years which is excellent in Ireland

Odysseus

Praetorian Saighdiuir wrote: »

Does it matter what they were? He was convicted of 85 crimes either way. It is irrelevant how small or petty they might have been, it all culminated to an attitude where assault resulted in the death of someone. Just reading about his actions while the guy was on the ground is shocking.

There is no defence for scum like this.

Well personally it matter to me, I don't see any one defending this guy; however, anagin personally, if I am going to comment on such cases, I like access to as much pertinent info as possible.

In order to understand the type of person we are dealing with in this case, I think I does matter what the previous where, and this would be more important to people like the judge who actually have to deal with this guy, as oppossed to us just talking about him.

We seem to have noted that at least one of the previous was for a violent crime, in that case attacking a member of AGS. So I would be interested in knowing how many more of those convictions involved violent acts.

Telling me he has 85 convictions tells me little tbh.

SB2013

Odysseus wrote: »

They could be anything, which is why I'm asking? Telling me the amount of previous doesn't give me much info. The could be all petty offenses or there could be more serious ones there.

However, taking the persons age and the fact that they where out and not locked up at the time, [if that makes sense] it would imply that the offenses where lower down the scale when compared to the very serious crime he is currently up on.

This things about comparing the USA and 3 strikes rule. Does that only apply to felonies and not misdemeanors? Would Public Order offenses be misdemeanors? I'm not sure but I think most would.

Anyone know how that compares to the Irish system

Who cares if they are minor offences? If the courts and probation services started taking notice of minor offences then maybe we wouldn't have people graduating to such major offences.

Take the likes of burglary. Often treated as a minor offence by court. To me it is one of the worst crimes. It's a violation of the victims home and place of safety and often leaves a permanent mental trauma on its victim, especially if they are vulnerable.

Silentcorner

In cases like this, we need to start asking who benefits and who doesn't.

Who doesn't.
The 85 victims of the crimes he was convicted for plus their families

The other victims of this man whose crimes were never reported or charged for.

The convicted man himself, there is no life or future for someone with more than 3 convictions, this mans life will be blighted with imprisonment, mental health issues, possible addictions etc, of course it could be argued that he deserves no sympathy

The taxpayer

Who benefits
The legal firm that represented him, a min of 85 court dates equates to a lot of work, chances are the taxpayer picked up the tab for each court appearance

The body or quango that receives funding each year to help these disadvantaged youths, and every region of the HSE has outreach programs

The state training agency who receives funding each year to help kids who drop out of school, FAS spent €1bn a year

The political establishment (which pays itself extremely well), it gets to decide who gets all that lovely funding described above, this may be why we NEVER see debate on how the state treats its vulnerable citizens

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Odysseus wrote: »

Well personally it matter to me, I don't see any one defending this guy; however, anagin personally, if I am going to comment on such cases, I like access to as much pertinent info as possible.

In order to understand the type of person we are dealing with in this case, I think I does matter what the previous where, and this would be more important to people like the judge who actually have to deal with this guy, as oppossed to us just talking about him.

We seem to have noted that at least one of the previous was for a violent crime, in that case attacking a member of AGS. So I would be interested in knowing how many more of those convictions involved violent acts.

Telling me he has 85 convictions tells me little tbh.

85 convictions to date tells me this guy has no moral boundaries. Now look what has happened, he killed a guy. Remember, he was only done on 85 counts, I'm sure he has got away with a lot more.

Just as a matter of interest. If he had 85 minor convictions and this serious one. What is your opinion then? Would you have a more relaxed attitude about what he has done?

No matter what he has done, he obviously thinks nothing of his actions.

Odysseus

SB2013 wrote: »

Who cares if they are minor offences? If the courts and probation services started taking notice of minor offences then maybe we wouldn't have people graduating to such major offences.

Take the likes of burglary. Often treated as a minor offence by court. To me it is one of the worst crimes. It's a violation of the victims home and place of safety and often leaves a permanent mental trauma on its victim, especially if they are vulnerable.

Weel I do for one, which does not mean I am defending the guy. I am happy with the sentense of 21 years.

However, yeah I have an interest in certain areas of criminality, so I like as much info as possible when I cooment on such issues.

Though I think my previous post may answer the points you raised above.

Odysseus

Praetorian Saighdiuir wrote: »

85 convictions to date tells me this guy has no moral boundaries. Now look what has happened, he killed a guy. Remember, he was only done on 85 counts, I'm sure he has got away with a lot more.

Just as a matter of interest. If he had 85 minor convictions and this serious one. What is your opinion then? Would you have a more relaxed attitude about what he has done?

No matter what he has done, he obviously thinks nothing of his actions.

I am not sure, does he really have not moral boundaries? To be more general I would know a lot of people with a significant amount of convictions.

I think it would be incorrect to say they have no moral compass, and that this is proved by their previous convictions. I think that is taking an very easy way out of a difficult situation.

Also just because a person commits a certain acts, that is not to say their are no personal consequences for it, that for example the subject feels no guilt over such an act. Lots of people who commmit crimes have certaion boundaries in that there are acts that they will not commit.

Morality is very complex area, I know plently of "petty criminals" who have come to the aid of complete strangers, so just because they committed a crime earilier that day, does not mean morality is absent.

In relation to your last question as to would I have a more relaxed attitude if his convictions where all petty/minor?

Well I asked about the status of his convictions for a few reasons, one to establish how many of this where violent, which would lead to the question that if he had a significant amount of violent convictions why was he free to commit this act? There may be a valid answer to that question, but I currently don't know.

Two, if there was a total lack of violence from the previous convictions I think that should be acknowledge in his sentense.

However, I don't think it would lead to a more relaxed attitude, as this was a very serious crime, actually taking the like of another is one of the most serious crimes we can commit. So how he acted when committing the crimes and his behaviour following it would the important factors here, as well as the lead up to the act. All of which reflect very poorly on the subject here, so no I don't think it would lead to a more relaxed viewpoint, but that does not mean that I think such info should not be considered.

Does that make my position any clearer?

DarkJager

This is why we really a death sentence option in this country. There's no excuse for someone with 85 previous convictions walking the streets. He should have been put to death after 10 at the most.

Odysseus

DarkJager wrote: »

This is why we really a death sentence option in this country. There's no excuse for someone with 85 previous convictions walking the streets. He should have been put to death after 10 at the most.

Why ten, why not 9 or 16?

Stercus Accidit

Our sentences are light because of the costs of imprisonment and the fact our existing prisons are outdated and over filled.

I wonder how well outsourcing prisons to countries with lower costs would work, especially for repeat offenders. Save the Irish prison spaces for the first 1, maybe 2 offences depending on severity or some other determining factor, ship off the worst to a place where they can be kept at a minimum cost, possibly an EU member state who would appreciate the money. Maybe a Northern African Country for the lowest costs and worst repeat offenders with little likelihood of release.

This would free up Irish prison space, allow for tougher sentences and reduced costs.

catallus

People who have a problem with this person having been free to kill the victim should take a long hard look at themselves so they can realise that the killer is a citizen of this country and is therefore in the eyes of the law their equal in every possible way.

It's easy to forget the principle of equality in cases like this. It doesn't matter if he had 8 or 85 or 850 previous convictions. He is still an equal citizen, with all of the freedom that entails.

DarkJager

catallus wrote: »

People who have a problem with this person having been free to kill the victim should take a long hard look at themselves so they can realise that the killer is a citizen of this country and is therefore in the eyes of the law their equal in every possible way.

It's easy to forget the principle of equality in cases like this. It doesn't matter if he had 8 or 85 or 850 previous convictions. He is still an equal citizen, with all of the freedom that entails.

That's the problem with this country, scumbags like this are not equal to the rest of us. In a perfect world, any rights up to and including the right to life would be forfeited after such crimes.

catallus

But he is your and my equal.

And don't you forget it.

DarkJager

catallus wrote: »

But he is your and my equal.

And don't you forget it.

No he's not.

catallus

Even if you think he's not, the people in power who make the decisions will insist that he is. It's all very well to talk about perfect worlds and forfeiting rights, but the actual real situation on the ground in the real world is that you are this man's equal.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Odysseus wrote: »

I am not sure, does he really have not moral boundaries? To be more general I would know a lot of people with a significant amount of convictions. I think it would be incorrect to say they have no moral compass, and that this is proved by their previous convictions. I think that is taking an very easy way out of a difficult situation.

85 convictions and I am sure he has a long list that he was not convicted for. Maybe my mention of moral boundaries was not apt but I believe a person of his calibre has little or no regard for laws and has little or no social conditioning. I dont feel I was taking an easy way out of anything. he has 85 covictions, it's not like he brought a book to the library back late.

Odysseus wrote: »

Also just because a person commits a certain acts, that is not to say their are no personal consequences for it, that for example the subject feels no guilt over such an act. Lots of people who commmit crimes have certaion boundaries in that there are acts that they will not commit.

The subject feeling guilt or remorse after the act is a non issue. If it was a redeeming factor, surely these feelings would inhibit his possible future criminal acts....with 85 convictions and rising. He seems fine with the fact that he killed someone, so im not sure where his boundary would be.

Odysseus wrote: »

Morality is very complex area, I know plently of "petty criminals" who have come to the aid of complete strangers, so just because they committed a crime earilier that day, does not mean morality is absent.

That may be true, but im sure not for all petty criminals.

Odysseus wrote: »

Well I asked about the status of his convictions for a few reasons, one to establish how many of this where violent, which would lead to the question that if he had a significant amount of violent convictions why was he free to commit this act? There may be a valid answer to that question, but I currently don't know.

I see no distinction between violent and non violent criminal acts. I would not be leniant towards a repeat offender who has committed their first violent act.

Odysseus wrote: »

Two, if there was a total lack of violence from the previous convictions I think that should be acknowledge in his sentense.

I can be acknowledged alright...but so should the fact that this may have just been a graduated scale. He is moving up the ranks to more serious crimes, so time to stop it before it gets worse.

Odysseus wrote: »

Does that make my position any clearer?

Yes.

woodoo

SB2013 wrote: »

Who cares if they are minor offences? If the courts and probation services started taking notice of minor offences then maybe we wouldn't have people graduating to such major offences.
.

I agree, remember the way they began to clean up crime in New York by cracking down hard on the minor stuff. I can't help thinking that in every town and village in ireland there is some local thug with 10, 15, 20 etc convictions out robbing, assaulting and creating havoc as we speak. If there was a 5 or 10 strike and you are going to jail for 10 years policy there may be less of these guys on the streets.

dharn

catallus wrote: »

But he is your and my equal.

And don't you forget it.

If it was your son ,would you be so broadminded, 85 convictions?....

Odysseus

Praetorian Saighdiuir wrote: »

85 convictions and I am sure he has a long list that he was not convicted for. Maybe my mention of moral boundaries was not apt but I believe a person of his calibre has little or no regard for laws and has little or no social conditioning. I dont feel I was taking an easy way out of anything. he has 85 covictions, it's not like he brought a book to the library back late.



The subject feeling guilt or remorse after the act is a non issue. If it was a redeeming factor, surely these feelings would inhibit his possible future criminal acts....with 85 convictions and rising. He seems fine with the fact that he killed someone, so im not sure where his boundary would be.



That may be true, but im sure not for all petty criminals.



I see no distinction between violent and non violent criminal acts. I would not be leniant towards a repeat offender who has committed their first violent act.



I can be acknowledged alright...but so should the fact that this may have just been a graduated scale. He is moving up the ranks to more serious crimes, so time to stop it before it gets worse.



Yes.

See because it is a complex area, I can't agree with statement that just write people off because the have X amount of conviction, seeing them as scum and stating that they will never address their lifestyle.

There are plentlt of people who do, sadly not enough. However, I have seen plently of people turn their lifes around and they have better jobs etc than me.

I acknowledge that me presenting the above as applying to all, is just as messed up as writing people off.

However, I regular have people sit across from me in my office, a general history would go along the lines of something like this.

Getting involved in various anti-social activies such as petty crime,
drug and alcohol use/abuse,
leaving school before or just after junior, maybe even earlier.
As time goes by the petty crime increases in its severity.
Introduction to the justices system through JLO or similar at 14-16,
St Pats around 17,
The joy by 19,

The list could go on

But what I'm leading up to is a question I sometimes ask myself when I hear similar or worse histories. The question being, how much has the State failed this person that the end up sitting in front of me with a history like this?

By asking such a question I am not negating the significance of personal responsiblity, however, is The State not supposed to intervene in such cases?

If The State has intervene, and we still have the same situation, what is going wrong here?

My name is URL

woodoo wrote: »

I agree, remember the way they began to clean up crime in New York by cracking down hard on the minor stuff. I can't help thinking that in every town and village in ireland there is some local thug with 10, 15, 20 etc convictions out robbing, assaulting and creating havoc as we speak. If there was a 5 or 10 strike and you are going to jail for 10 years policy there may be less of these guys on the streets.

That'd be great and all, until the monumental costs of such a thing hits home and then people would be moaning about that instead.

Odysseus

woodoo wrote: »

I agree, remember the way they began to clean up crime in New York by cracking down hard on the minor stuff. I can't help thinking that in every town and village in ireland there is some local thug with 10, 15, 20 etc convictions out robbing, assaulting and creating havoc as we speak. If there was a 5 or 10 strike and you are going to jail for 10 years policy there may be less of these guys on the streets.

So say a 13 year old goes on a "joy-riding" spree he should be locked up for ten years? As he will be up on quite a few charges, in some cases 5. So he could have 5 convictions out of that crime.

You can't have a valid system base on numbers picked out of the air.

mikom

Gerard Barry with a previous conviction for manslaughter was wanted for questioning in another rape case rape when he raped and murdered the Swiss student Manuela in Galway.
I wonder was there a personal cannabis grower/Tv licence evader/garlic smuggler warming Barrys cell on the night he carried out the attack?

Priorities are all wrong in this country.

Keep the dangerous folk away from the peaceful folk until such time as they are rehabilitated.
Get that sorted first, then get back to me about the other fluff.

I'm sure Manuelas parents worry about personal cannabis growing, Tv licence evading, and garlic smuggling on a nightly basis.............

As for the lad who said to build private prisons, well he should be the first one fucked into one of the cells.
Yeah lets just make people into the raw materials of the prison business....

jigglypuffstuff

Odysseus wrote: »

However, I regular have people sit across from me in my office, a general history would go along the lines of something like this.

Getting involved in various anti-social activies such as petty crime,
drug and alcohol use/abuse,
leaving school before or just after junior, maybe even earlier.
As time goes by the petty crime increases in its severity.
Introduction to the justices system through JLO or similar at 14-16,
St Pats around 17,
The joy by 19,

The list could go on

But what I'm leading up to is a question I sometimes ask myself when I hear similar or worse histories. The question being, how much has the State failed this person that the end up sitting in front of me with a history like this?

By asking such a question I am not negating the significance of personal responsiblity, however, is The State not supposed to intervene in such cases?

If The State has intervene, and we still have the same situation, what is going wrong here?

I totally agree. however In many of the cases these people have been brought up from an early ages in very disadvantaged areas and been exposed to a number of factors detrimental to who they are today. The problem is when trying to overwrite early experience we need positive new experiences and a change of enviornment etc. How can one judge so young if someone will turn out to be a menace? or just someone who went through a bad patch during their early life? In other words how can the state judge where its appropriate to remove a child? ( exceptional circumstances aside)

mikom wrote: »

Gerard Barry with a previous conviction for manslaughter was wanted for questioning in another rape case rape when he raped and murdered the Swiss student Manuela in Galway.
I wonder was there a personal cannabis grower/Tv licence evader/garlic smuggler warming Barrys cell on the night he carried out the attack?

Priorities are all wrong in this country.

Keep the dangerous folk away from the peaceful folk until such time as they are rehabilitated.
Get that sorted first, then get back to me about the other fluff.

I'm sure Manuelas parents worry about personal cannabis growing, Tv licence evading, and garlic smuggling on a nightly basis.............

As for the dolt who said to build privite prisons, well he should be the first one fucked into one of the cells.
Yeah lets just make people into the raw materials of the prison business....

100%...gardai do not do their jobs correctly whatsoever!

mikom

pone2012 wrote: »

100%...gardai do not do their jobs correctly whatsoever!

Less the gardais fault and more to do with the lawmakers in government and the judiciary.
I'd say there are many Gardai pulling their hair out at the way some of this stuff is run and ruled upon.

jigglypuffstuff

mikom wrote: »

Less the gardais fault and more to do with the lawmakers in government and the judiciary.
I'd say there are many Gardai pulling their hair out at the way some of this stuff is run and ruled upon.

To an extent yes...but there have been so many incidents which have been quite the opposite..such as this

http://www.missingpersons-ireland.freepress-freespeech.com/gardatipp.htm

Zen65

catallus wrote: »

But he is your and my equal.

And don't you forget it.

Jason Morrissey was not looking to be treated as an equal. He wanted to be treated as above others. He saw no wrong in taking a person's life so that he might experience a moment of satisfaction with himself.

Treating a person as equal includes making them accountable for their actions.


Z

catallus

Zen65 wrote: »

Jason Morrissey was not looking to be treated as an equal. He wanted to be treated as above others. He saw no wrong in taking a person's life so that he might experience a moment of satisfaction with himself.

Treating a person as equal includes making them accountable for their actions.


Z

And he was made accountable: he got 21 years incarceration. But even though his freedom has been taken away he MUST still be considered everyone's legal equal.

The law says that all the killers and rapists and burglars and all the other criminals are all our equal.

jigglypuffstuff

catallus wrote: »

The law says that all the killers and rapists and burglars and all the other criminals are all our equal.

The law says alot of things, much of which is complete and utter b*llsh*t

ArmaniJeanss

woodoo wrote: »

Could we do more to ensure these people are punished appropriately. America has 3 strikes and your are out. Could we have something along those lines, 5 strikes 10 etc. Surely after 85 convictions the likes of Morrissey just aren't getting the message that their behaviour is unacceptable. James Tynan would most likely be alive today if there was such a policy in place.
[/url]

Under such a 3 strikes, 5 strikes system he wouldn't have 85 convictions.
(And not because he'd be locked up).

For example as I understand if you woodoo get caught doing a burglary with the same modus operandi as another 84 burglaries in the same area over the last few years, you can plead guilty to all 85 and the system is happy as 85 crimes are now 'solved' and the courts take this into account. You now have 85 convictions.

Under an x strikes system you wouldn't accept those other 84 burglaries as your work and with no evidence for them (other than similarity which is not really evidence) you'd only have 1 conviction.

Odysseus

pone2012 wrote: »

I totally agree. however In many of the cases these people have been brought up from an early ages in very disadvantaged areas and been exposed to a number of factors detrimental to who they are today. The problem is when trying to overwrite early experience we need positive new experiences and a change of enviornment etc. How can one judge so young if someone will turn out to be a menace? or just someone who went through a bad patch during their early life? In other words how can the state judge where its appropriate to remove a child? ( exceptional circumstances aside)



100%...gardai do not do their jobs correctly whatsoever!

I don't know about removing a child, however, at the point that we start to intervene, we are acting.

However, if the subject is repeating criminal acts, then on some level the interventions are failing.

Now I am not saying I have the answers, but I see guys regularly who the system has failed. The education system failed them; I see a lot of very clever lads, but their basic educational skills like the ability to read and write are very poor. TBH it is shocking in a lot of cases, the same can be said for the probation service. However, with saying that I need to acknowledge the lack of funds available to these services, and the fact that there are plenty of dedicated workers in both services.


A lot of the guys I see who have anything from 20-100 convictions are not necessarily a danger to society: I couldn't stand over automatically locking them up or taking their live based on the amount of convictions they have, like some posters suggest.


Even looking at the basics like how does someone with a load of convictions and a very poor education, maybe a history of addiction thrown in for good luck, turn their life around. How can we facilitate those who are ready to change their lives do it?

As I said in a post above, I am not trying to negate the role of personal responsibility here; I am just putting it aside for the moment in order to look at the role of The State and its responsibilities here

SB2013

Odysseus wrote: »

I don't know about removing a child, however, at the point that we start to intervene, we are acting.

However, if the subject is repeating criminal acts, then on some level the interventions are failing.

Now I am not saying I have the answers, but I see guys regularly who the system has failed. The education system failed them; I see a lot of very clever lads, but their basic educational skills like the ability to read and write are very poor. TBH it is shocking in a lot of cases, the same can be said for the probation service. However, with saying that I need to acknowledge the lack of funds available to these services, and the fact that there are plenty of dedicated workers in both services.


A lot of the guys I see who have anything from 20-100 convictions are not necessarily a danger to society: I couldn't stand over automatically locking them up or taking their live based on the amount of convictions they have, like some posters suggest.


Even looking at the basics like how does someone with a load of convictions and a very poor education, maybe a history of addiction thrown in for good luck, turn their life around. How can we facilitate those who are ready to change their lives do it?

As I said in a post above, I am not trying to negate the role of personal responsibility here; I am just putting it aside for the moment in order to look at the role of The State and its responsibilities here

The State gives them the same chances as it does to others. The State does much more for them in most cases. They choose to use this help for negative purposes. You are completely negating the role of personal responsability. The State should prioritise the rights of the law abiding citizens who are victimised by the people you say it fails.

Odysseus

SB2013 wrote: »

The State gives them the same chances as it does to others. The State does much more for them in most cases. They choose to use this help for negative purposes. You are completely negating the role of personal responsability. The State should prioritise the rights of the law abiding citizens who are victimised by the people you say it fails.

I disagree, however, we can discuss the role of personal responsibility if you want, as I am not negating it.

State interventions are not working, the State interventions to try punish and rehabilitate the individual, if those interventions are not working, the State is failing them.

Yes victims of crime oftyen need help too, support one does not negate the need for the other. Here it is a different topic, we can discuss all apects of such a big area in one go. I have stated my support for victims of crime, I have also worked with criminals who have been victims of crime too, that is certainly a paradox, but one that occurs. The are as worthy of support as another victim who has no convictions.

A lot of the lad and girls I see with say 50+ convictionsare more a danger to themselves than society.

Robroy36

The fact is the state is not failing them. Somewhere along the line some pack of pathetic, bleeding heart liberals managed to obfuscate social policy to such a degree that it became ststus quo for the state to take responsibilty for absolutely everything. It is a situation that is a wrong and perverted as it is untenable. Ireland needs a smaller, more cohesive goverment not the out of control, ineffcient monster we have today.

Grayson

Robroy36 wrote: »

The fact is the state is not failing them. Somewhere along the line some pack of pathetic, bleeding heart liberals managed to obfuscate social policy to such a degree that it became ststus quo for the state to take responsibilty for absolutely everything. It is a situation that is a wrong and perverted as it is untenable. Ireland needs a smaller, more cohesive goverment not the out of control, ineffcient monster we have today.

So, lets say someone has a behavioral disorder that is treatable but is causing them to commit crime. The state does nothing and says "not my problem". Is that wise?

In 99% of cases there's no illness, but it could be said that the state still has the ability to do something.
Besides, it's good from a practical standpoint. In an interview a Scandinavian prison officer was asked if he happy with the amount that was spent on rehabilitation (they spend a lot). He said that when a convict is released he could end up living down the road from him and he'd be happier knowing that the guy had gone through the best rehabilitation possible.

having said all that, i do think it's silly that someone can amass 50+ convictions before they reach 25. At the very least there should be some kind of mandatory review at a certain stage. Maybe an increased sentence, maybe some special rehabilitation course. I wouldn't go as far as three strikes because 1) it's silly basing a legal system on baseball. And 2) it's unfair to lock someone up for three minor infractions.

Robroy36

1% of the population spends their entire adult life in prison or we spend millions trying to reform them and ultimately failing.

What do you chose? At least we know prison will work.

Grayson

Robroy36 wrote: »

1% of the population spends their entire adult life in prison or we spend millions trying to reform them and ultimately failing.

What do you chose? At least we know prison will work.

Work at what. the prisons in the US are huge. There are more people in prison there than there were in the soviet gulag system.

And it's especially bad for people from deprived neighbourhoods.

Most people in US prisoners are there for non violent crime. And there are more men raped in prison every year than all the rapes perpretrated against women in the US. According to some estimates 1 in 15 african american men will end up in prison. And there's a good chance that maybe 1/3 of them will be sexually assaulted. this means that an african american youth has about a 1/45 to 1/50 chance of being assaulted in their lifetime.

But crime hasn't gone down. It's the same as ever. Incarceration isn't a solution. I'm not saying that someone who commits a crime shouldn't be punished. I'm saying that it's not a solution to crime itself.

woodoo

Odysseus wrote: »

So say a 13 year old goes on a "joy-riding" spree he should be locked up for ten years? As he will be up on quite a few charges, in some cases 5. So he could have 5 convictions out of that crime.

You can't have a valid system base on numbers picked out of the air.

I'm sure there is some formula that could be agreed to. We need much much tougher sentences and punishments. Letting people like Morrissey roam free with 85 convictions is an insult to society.

JJayoo

More convictions = more free legal aid = paid for by the tax payers = more money for solicitors.

pragmatic1

DarkJager wrote: »

This is why we really a death sentence option in this country. There's no excuse for someone with 85 previous convictions walking the streets. He should have been put to death after 10 at the most.

Don't agree with the death sentence. Hard labor would be a stronger deterrent imo.

pragmatic1

Grayson wrote: »

Work at what. the prisons in the US are huge. There are more people in prison there than there were in the soviet gulag system.

And it's especially bad for people from deprived neighbourhoods.

Most people in US prisoners are there for non violent crime. And there are more men raped in prison every year than all the rapes perpretrated against women in the US. According to some estimates 1 in 15 african american men will end up in prison. And there's a good chance that maybe 1/3 of them will be sexually assaulted. this means that an african american youth has about a 1/45 to 1/50 chance of being assaulted in their lifetime.

But crime hasn't gone down. It's the same as ever. Incarceration isn't a solution. I'm not saying that someone who commits a crime shouldn't be punished. I'm saying that it's not a solution to crime itself.

Most of the people incarcerated in the US are there for drugs, which is ridiculous. Jail people who are violent and make life utterly miserable for them. That's the answer.