If you could design the Irish justice system...

Cody Pomeray

This morning, John Dundon arrived in the Criminal Court of Justice for his trial where he is accused of the murder of Shane Geoghegan. He was half naked, wearing nothing but a pair of shorts.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/half-naked-john-dundon-arrives-at-court-in-shorts-29319571.html

Is this event a symbol of the contempt for the institution of justice that exists in this country, especially among the gang and serious criminal fraternity?

How would you re-design the justice system to take control of those who disrespect the law of the land?

SEPT 23 1989

I would bring him down to Garryowen's club house and let Shane Geoghegan's team-mates deal with him

mangochavez

Bertie Ahern is legally allowed be hung by the nearest shoe laces.

Nabber

Castration for sex offenders.

Real Life

What exactly is he protesting?

SEPT 23 1989

Real Life wrote: »

What exactly is he protesting?

that he got caught

Lawrence1895

mangochavez wrote: »

Bertie Ahern is legally allowed be hung by the nearest shoe laces.

Alongside the two guys, who followed him.

And night curfews for children and teenagers, especially those dimwits in my estate :rolleyes:

SB2013

Real Life wrote: »

What exactly is he protesting?

Probably that he is in the special criminal court and will not have a jury to intimidate.

Wibbs

Bring in a three strikes and you're out rule.

Increase sentences. Murder and the like should be at least 20 years in gaol, not out in 7 or 8 for good behavior. Ditto for violent sexual assault. How long did Larry Murphy serve? WTF. Plus increase the right sentences for the right crime. The joke is if I am done for speeding in my own car and refuse to pay the fine, I'm more likely to see the inside of a gaol cell, than if some scumbag steals my car, drives faster and destroys it.

Clamp down HARD on juvenile 'petty" crime and antisocial behavior. Get it early, nip it in the bud.

Give the Garda the resources to make a difference. They're stretched at the moment.

Increase the attention towards and consequences of theft, in particular when someone crosses the threshold of a property in a burglary.

*Aside* I was reading on a car forum I frequent in the US about car theft. Someone from the UK piped up and said no matter what your security they can just come into your house and/or batter you for your car keys. The US guys were "WTF?" at this statement as it happens far less frequently there. Why? It's less about the guns though that would have some effect. It's more because simple car theft might get you a couple of years in pokey, home invasion and assault and you're going down for a ten stretch at least, so the scum won't risk it. Indeed I like how the Yanks describe it "home invasion" because that's what it is. Here with a burglary, the Garda show up, usually uninterested(because there's eff all they can do and even if they catch the mouthbreathers it'll likely go nowhere) and do up a report for your insurance.

Those "known to Gardai" need to be watched hard and stamped on hard. Those with multiple previous convictions should be quite simply put away for a long stretch. How often have we heard "was out on bail and had 20 previous convictions when he killed/raped/assaulted the victim".

Augmerson

Wibbs wrote: »

Wibb's big long post of wisdom and sense

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlMwc1c0HRQ

kupus

people need to realise that the law system is a cash cow for public servants.
Its a monopolistic regime that takes the money from the citizens and gives nothing back. Whats the use for a guy who only has 20 convictions to get 10 years. THere is plenty more court appearances that need paying for in the future with this guy.

And remember that the housing bust lawyers all need their holiday homes in Bulgaria to be paid for. The judges need their marbella villas paid for. Not to mind their mortgages etc etc wash spin and repeat.

Augmerson

I'd change it so you couldn't get away with practically raping someone by having a load of character witnesses and saying you were an upstanding member of the community and bringing a **** load of money to the court with you.

SB2013

Ok. Here's a few of my ideas.

1) A complete reclassification of all crimes into tiers depending on the seriousness. The top tier of crime would be things like murder, aggravated burglary and rape. The bottom tier would be things like tv licence or car tax offences. I'd say ten tiers would be enough to get the proper range. Each tier has a minimum and maximum sentance. There would also be a limit on how lenient a judge could be in mitigation. So for example, a judge could only suspend a maximum of 20% of a sentance for murder. Once you commit a certain amount of crimes in one tier you autimatically move up to the next level of sentancing.

2) The country needs new prisons. The current ones are in no way suitable for the 21st century. But instead of just building prisons to suit everyone how about they are focused on the crime the person has been convicted for. A person convicted of a violent or depraved crime should be sent to one that has limited luxuries. Manual labour, basic rations, strict routines. The prisons built for the less serious criminals should be focused more on rehabilitation and education.

3) Court fines to be taken direct from wages or social welfare or the full time in prison to be served in lieu. None of this in and out in a day business that's going on at the moment.

4) Much bigger bail amounts for repeat offenders. People with history for avoiding courts should not be getting released on their own bond.

5) Increase Garda numbers and equip Gardaí properly.

6) Legal Aid system to be sorted. It's already in the process of change but i don't think it's radical enough.

7) Stop wasting resources on victimless crimes. Decriminalise and regulate cannabis and prostitution and use the income to help people who need it.

I could go on but my ideas get more and more specific and technical.

Meritocracy Wins

Bring back hanging.

mattjack

SB2013 wrote: »

Ok. Here's a few of my ideas.

1) A complete reclassification of all crimes into tiers depending on the seriousness. The top tier of crime would be things like murder, aggravated burglary and rape. The bottom tier would be things like tv licence or car tax offences. I'd say ten tiers would be enough to get the proper range. Each tier has a minimum and maximum sentance. There would also be a limit on how lenient a judge could be in mitigation. So for example, a judge could only suspend a maximum of 20% of a sentance for murder. Once you commit a certain amount of crimes in one tier you autimatically move up to the next level of sentancing.

2) The country needs new prisons. The current ones are in no way suitable for the 21st century. But instead of just building prisons to suit everyone how about they are focused on the crime the person has been convicted for. A person convicted of a violent or depraved crime should be sent to one that has limited luxuries. Manual labour, basic rations, strict routines. The prisons built for the less serious criminals should be focused more on rehabilitation and education.

3) Court fines to be taken direct from wages or social welfare or the full time in prison to be served in lieu. None of this in and out in a day business that's going on at the moment.

4) Much bigger bail amounts for repeat offenders. People with history for avoiding courts should not be getting released on their own bond.

5) Increase Garda numbers and equip Gardaí properly.

6) Legal Aid system to be sorted. It's already in the process of change but i don't think it's radical enough.

7) Stop wasting resources on victimless crimes. Decriminalise and regulate cannabis and prostitution and use the income to help people who need it.

I could go on but my ideas get more and more specific and technical.

Thanks Jesus for that , with all them tiers I thought I was at a travellers wedding.

Cody Pomeray

kupus wrote: »

people need to realise that the law system is a cash cow for public servants.
Its a monopolistic regime that takes the money from the citizens and gives nothing back.

Two points

It is unremarkable and entirely desirable that people might make a living from the administration of justice. Criminal law, policing, and the warehousing of dangerous criminals is not a particularly lucrative area of practice. The 'cash cow' in the justice system is reserved for banking, compliance, commercial and high profile personal injuries litigation.

It is not correct to say that the justice system gives nothing back. The public remittance by way of benefits in kind may not be adequate to meet public expectations. The ideal is a low crime, safe society where civil liberties and the legal code are fully upheld, and evidently there has been some short changing going on. But clearly prisoner detention and punitive sanctions do go some way toward the ideal, and therefore it is incorrect to suggest that the public get nothing out of the justice system.

That's what this thread is about: how do we stop the short-changing from happening? How do we improve the justice system so it provides value for money, and respect for the community.

paulbok

Cut out shortened sentances for "good behaviour" while in prison.
Currently someone who gets 10 years is out after 6 or 7 for good behaviour.
You would expect prisoners to behave while incarcerated to show they are worthy of being released.
10 years should be 10 years as long as you behave.
Act the maggot in prison, add more time on.

Karl Stein

World class primary schools that catch problem kids and work with them before they become a drain on every other service.

Legalise weed with a view to extending it to others drugs, decriminalise possession of all drugs immediately. Spend money on harm reduction rather than making criminals out of people. Legalise prostitution.

Deal with the scumbags at 'the top' by having a very well funded white collar crime team.

The_Minister

Wibbs wrote: »

Increase sentences. Murder and the like should be at least 20 years in gaol, not out in 7 or 8 for good behavior. ...

AFAIR it's already 12 years in jail before the Board reviews your case.

mattjack

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

World class primary schools that catch problem kids and work with them before they become a drain on every other service.

Legalise weed with a view to extending it to others drugs, decriminalise possession of all drugs immediately. Spend money on harm reduction rather than making criminals out of people. Legalise prostitution.

Deal with the scumbags at 'the top' by having a very well funded white collar crime team.

Harm Reduction is the predominant approach used in low threshold agencies , its not a treatment model by any stretch of the imagination and its whole ethos is accepting people where they are at .. even if that means IV drug use , chronic alcohol use etc.. accepting them where they are at means letting them continue with their behaviour and not forcing change on them.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Wibbs wrote: »

Bring in a three strikes and you're out rule.

Increase sentences. Murder and the like should be at least 20 years in gaol, not out in 7 or 8 for good behavior. Ditto for violent sexual assault. How long did Larry Murphy serve? WTF. Plus increase the right sentences for the right crime. The joke is if I am done for speeding in my own car and refuse to pay the fine, I'm more likely to see the inside of a gaol cell, than if some scumbag steals my car, drives faster and destroys it.

Clamp down HARD on juvenile 'petty" crime and antisocial behavior. Get it early, nip it in the bud.

Give the Garda the resources to make a difference. They're stretched at the moment.

Increase the attention towards and consequences of theft, in particular when someone crosses the threshold of a property in a burglary.

*Aside* I was reading on a car forum I frequent in the US about car theft. Someone from the UK piped up and said no matter what your security they can just come into your house and/or batter you for your car keys. The US guys were "WTF?" at this statement as it happens far less frequently there. Why? It's less about the guns though that would have some effect. It's more because simple car theft might get you a couple of years in pokey, home invasion and assault and you're going down for a ten stretch at least, so the scum won't risk it. Indeed I like how the Yanks describe it "home invasion" because that's what it is. Here with a burglary, the Garda show up, usually uninterested(because there's eff all they can do and even if they catch the mouthbreathers it'll likely go nowhere) and do up a report for your insurance.

Those "known to Gardai" need to be watched hard and stamped on hard. Those with multiple previous convictions should be quite simply put away for a long stretch. How often have we heard "was out on bail and had 20 previous convictions when he killed/raped/assaulted the victim".

The three strikes rule is ****e and will only fill up jail space that should be used for serious criminals, but everything else I agree with.

The causes of crime need to be addressed as much as the crimes and criminals themselves. Otherwise, you're just going round in circles.

And anyone who STILL thinks jail is a holiday camp of some sort, needs to stop reading the Daily Mail/Sunday World and get themselves copped on.

Cody Pomeray

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The causes of crime need to be addressed as much as the crimes and criminals themselves. Otherwise, you're just going round in circles.

Absolutely, but for the purposes of this thread it might be best just to answer the question using the (presently inaccurate) assumption that an adequate social support structure is available to stop people from unwilfully falling into criminal behaviours.

I'm the first to admit the need for crime prevention steps by creating an open, equal society.

However, when people transgress and break the rules of that co-operative society, we need to take off the kid gloves altogether.

BattleCorp

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It is not correct to say that the justice system gives nothing back.

It's not a justice system that we have, it's a law system and the two of them are very very different things.

kraggy

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The three strikes rule is ****e and will only fill up jail space that should be used for serious criminals, but everything else I agree with.

The causes of crime need to be addressed as much as the crimes and criminals themselves. Otherwise, you're just going round in circles.

And anyone who STILL thinks jail is a holiday camp of some sort, needs to stop reading the Daily Mail/Sunday World and get themselves copped on.

Anyone who commits 3 offences, in my view, is a career criminal and should be locked up for a long time.

There shouldn't be an issue of space. Anyone who commits several crimes needs to be put away. If that means building a shítload of new prisons, then so be it.

Some of the worst crimes in the history of the State were committed while on bail and/or after plenty of previous. Gerald Barry is an example I have cited on this topic.

Have a read of this: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/icrime/the-barry-case-highlights-the-pressing-need-for-legal-reform-97272.html

Typical example of the 3 main problems in the justice system in this country.

1. Bail being given to people who've been charged with serious crimes
2. Offenders with previous being released early only to commit more offences
3. No incentive for them to stop offending. i.e. knowing that they'll not serve a whole sentence if they get caught, so they'll commit again.


Meanwhile, people are getting locked up, for however short a time, for non-payment of fines.

This country is a shambles.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, that also in Galway, just this morning, 2 men who were supposed to appear in court charged with the killing of John Kenny in Oughterard, have skipped. They were on bail and didn't show up this morning. Imagine the anguish of his family that they may not see justice?

Cody Pomeray

Some statistics that might be of interest to people

Circuit (criminal) court trends
http://www.irishsentencing.ie/en/ISIS/Pages/WP09000226

Central Criminal Court decisions (including sentencing) 2008
http://www.irishsentencing.ie/en/ISIS/Pages/WP09000225

Of course, these figures don't tell us anything about detection and successfully bringing a suspect to trial.

kraggy

And also, more a Garda issue than a legal system issue, but there should be requirement for Gardai to maintain a certain weight/body mass index after qualification and overall fitness.

I was in Galway today and saw a garda who was so fat I couldn't envisage him running any faster than a slow jog. And there are more like him.

Compare them to the officers in the UK, Holland, Germany etc where both male and females remain in great shape even heading towards their 50's.

Some of the Irish officers are an embarassment.

Reindeer

Wibbs wrote: »

Bring in a three strikes and you're out rule.
Stuff about WIBBS being badass

I often am asked about the Texas justice system when folks hear where I'm from(which is Texas, in case there's a question about that). I recall being at a dinner party my landlord held in Dorset one evening. I informed them that you can use lethal force to protect your property in Texas, let alone your self. I was quickly told how barbaric it was. I made it clear that I felt that the person breaking in to your house, taking whatever they felt like, whenever they felt like, was the barbarian. So, why not let them be treated like one?

Nino Brown

I would enforce the law and lock up criminals in a speedy manner.............but hey, I'm a dreamer.

MrPudding

Wibbs wrote: »

Bring in a three strikes and you're out rule.

Three strikes is a pretty bad idea. Whilst you might think someone committing three crimes deserves life in prision, the fact is it can result in some pretty harsh and objectively unfair sentences. In addition it seems likely that a three strikes policy could lead to the escalation of a crime. For example someone on two strikes is stealing a car and is disturbed by a witness. If he get caught he spends life in prison, suddenly killing the witness seems like the logical thing to do. I have not looked into this is great detail, though it seems fairly logical, a quick search brought me here:

http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/does-three-strikes-deter-crime.html

I have not checked the articles mentioned here, but if they are accurate a three strikes policy slows the reduction of homicide. This is presumably to do with the "nothing to lose" scenario I mentioned above.

Wibbs wrote: »

Increase sentences. Murder and the like should be at least 20 years in gaol, not out in 7 or 8 for good behavior. Ditto for violent sexual assault. How long did Larry Murphy serve? WTF. Plus increase the right sentences for the right crime. The joke is if I am done for speeding in my own car and refuse to pay the fine, I'm more likely to see the inside of a gaol cell, than if some scumbag steals my car, drives faster and destroys it.

What is the purpose of a prison sentence, in your eyes? Whilst longer sentences might satisfy a section of societies need for offenders to be punished it is questionable whether or not they have any impact on crime rates. Whilst there is certainly an element of punishment and just deserts, sentences handed out should also have some function of deterrence and rehabilitation. Given that criminals generally don't set out to get to caught, convicted and imprisoned, longer sentences are likely to be of little value as a deterrent.

Longer sentences are likely to make rehabilitation more difficult as well. Don't get me wrong, some criminal should never see outside of a prison again but they are a very small minority of those sent to prison.

Wibbs wrote: »

Clamp down HARD on juvenile 'petty" crime and antisocial behavior. Get it early, nip it in the bud.

Hard to argue with this, though I would suggest that prison is not necessarily the answer, at least for a lot of offenders.

Wibbs wrote: »

Those with multiple previous convictions should be quite simply put away for a long stretch.

Again, from a base "they must be punished hard" perspective this might be correct, however from a trying to make society a better place, not so much.

Wibbs wrote: »

How often have we heard "was out on bail and had 20 previous convictions when he killed/raped/assaulted the victim".

Relative to the number of times the justice systems works properly? Not very often.

With respect to another posters comments about building more prisons, we should be sending less people to prison and closing them down. I fully appreciate that prison is the correct sentence for some criminals and some crimes, but sending more people to prison for lesser and lesser offences is not good for society and is not likely to help reduce crime.

It is generally fairly well accepted that once someone has some to prison they are fairly likely to offend again. There is, quite correctly, a stigma associated with having been in prison. This makes it very difficult for the convicted person to get a job and try to integrate themselves back into society. As a result they become, at best, a drain of society as they will likely be on welfare for most if not all of their lives, or at worst will re-offend.

If your attitude to the criminal justice systems is simply that criminals should be punished and the harsher the better, then it is fairly simple to come up with ideas about an "ideal" criminal justice system. However, if you are actually interested in improving society, in general, and reducing crime you find it is not so simple.

Any attempt to improve the criminal justice system has to be about tackling the causes of crime and not just locking criminals away and pretending they don't exist. Take an afternoon and go to the courts and listen to the stories of the people there, a lot of them never had a chance. You could almost tell from birth where some of them would end up. Of course, that is a bit of a generalisation, some people that you might expect to turn to crime won't and some that you wouldn't expect will, but it is worth a trip to the courts to see.

MrP

danger mouse

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

This morning, John Dundon arrived in the Criminal Court of Justice for his trial where he is accused of the murder of Shane Geoghegan. He was half naked, wearing nothing but a pair of shorts.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/half-naked-john-dundon-arrives-at-court-in-shorts-29319571.html

Is this event a symbol of the contempt for the institution of justice that exists in this country, especially among the gang and serious criminal fraternity?

How would you re-design the justice system to take control of those who disrespect the law of the land?

I'd start with making all prisoners wear orange jumpsuits.

SB2013

kraggy wrote: »

And also, more a Garda issue than a legal system issue, but there should be requirement for Gardai to maintain a certain weight/body mass index after qualification and overall fitness.

I was in Galway today and saw a garda who was so fat I couldn't envisage him running any faster than a slow jog. And there are more like him.

Compare them to the officers in the UK, Holland, Germany etc where both male and females remain in great shape even heading towards their 50's.

Some of the Irish officers are an embarassment.

BMI is pretty useless. A fitness test would be more appropriate. But speed alone is also pretty pointless. No point catching a guy who will just beat the **** out of you. Chasing people is something you might do once a year. Subduing people is a weekly thing.

kraggy

SB2013 wrote: »

BMI is pretty useless. A fitness test would be more appropriate. But speed alone is also pretty pointless. No point catching a guy who will just beat the **** out of you. Chasing people is something you might do once a year. Subduing people is a weekly thing.

The police in the UK have, in addition to fitness testing (a 1.5 mile run), an upper body strength test.

Not sure if the gardai have both of the above, but they seem to totally forget about fitness once they qualify.

Amirani

SB2013 wrote: »

BMI is pretty useless. A fitness test would be more appropriate. But speed alone is also pretty pointless. No point catching a guy who will just beat the **** out of you. Chasing people is something you might do once a year. Subduing people is a weekly thing.

BMI is completely useless. A very large proportion of professional sportspeople would fail a "BMI test".

Cody Pomeray

MrPudding wrote: »

Whilst there is certainly an element of punishment and just deserts, sentences handed out should also have some function of deterrence and rehabilitation. Given that criminals generally don't set out to get to caught, convicted and imprisoned, longer sentences are likely to be of little value as a deterrent.

The fact that criminals don't set out to get caught is irrelevant to the fact that criminals recognize detection as an undesirable possibility.

The deterrence aspect of tougher sentencing or other punitive sanctions is designed to maximise the undesirability of the undesirable outcome.

This does seem to work. In "Estimating the Deterrent Effect of Incarceration Using Sentencing Enhancements" (Abrams), it was established that enhanced sentencing rules on armed robbery were able to reduce armed robbery by 5% where the rule applied.

Kessler and Levitt made startlingly similar observations on sentence enhancements in “Using Sentence Enhancements to Distinguish between Deterrence and Incapacitation (1999).

In actual fact, I think the academic literature on enhanced sentencing and deterrence is fairly well established.

Longer sentences are likely to make rehabilitation more difficult as well.

I'm really sceptical as to how common rehabilitation actually is; it's hardly what you'd call widespread under the current system.

Any attempt to improve the criminal justice system has to be about tackling the causes of crime and not just locking criminals away and pretending they don't exist.

Absolutely, but that is somewhat beyond the scope of this thread, and going down that road risks making the debate vague and overly broad.

it might be better just to stick to the brass tacks and assume that there is some hypothetical social system which is capable of supporting those who want to comply with the law of the community and desist from criminality.

There is no doubt but that the primary focus must be on crime prevention. But at some stage, we do have to get serious about criminal punishment.

wexie

SB2013 wrote: »

.... Subduing people is a weekly thing.

in which case weight can come in rather handy methinks.

I think it's a rather tricky subject, I was just reading a bit about private prisons, (as I think there's no excuse for people being released due to lack of space) but as it turns out these really don't seem to be quite such a great idea.

From what (admittedly) little I know our legal system seems to be far far to soft on repeat offenders and hardly a day seems to go by without reading about someone with umpteen convictions out on bail committing yet another new crime.

Having said that, reading about the US system where some of the punishments can be rather harsh, if you can go down for life on your third offence, regardless of what it is it wouldn't take much for someone to cross the line into full blown hardened career criminal. After all, you may as well go out with a bang if you're going to be serving life.

By the same token, if the cops are after you and you know you're likely to get something crazy like 3 consecutive life sentences there wouldn't seem to be much incentive for giving yourself up and coming along quietly.

I'd imagine a (violent) criminal who feels he's nothing left to lose and everything to gain can make some weird and unpredictable moves.

But....there's a large part of me that, however unpalatable the US system might be, would still prefer it over what we have here. It would be interesting to see quit how the statistics measure up on crimes committed by offenders with 50+ convictions.

Personally I think that once you've racked up quite such a record there is little that society can still do for you and you should start losing your human rights.

I'm sure there are plenty of people that will now come tell me how wrong I am, but I personally believe that the gold standard for availing of 'human rights' should be not just 'being a human' but 'ACTING like a human' not like some depraved animal, regardless of how few cuddles or playgrounds you had growing up.

marketty

Stop putting people in prison for not having a tv license.

Bring in chain gangs 'breaking rocks in the hot sun...'

Legalise abortion.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

kraggy wrote: »

Anyone who commits 3 offences, in my view, is a career criminal and should be locked up for a long time.

There shouldn't be an issue of space. Anyone who commits several crimes needs to be put away. If that means building a shítload of new prisons, then so be it.

Some of the worst crimes in the history of the State were committed while on bail and/or after plenty of previous. Gerald Barry is an example I have cited on this topic.

Have a read of this: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/icrime/the-barry-case-highlights-the-pressing-need-for-legal-reform-97272.html

Typical example of the 3 main problems in the justice system in this country.

1. Bail being given to people who've been charged with serious crimes
2. Offenders with previous being released early only to commit more offences
3. No incentive for them to stop offending. i.e. knowing that they'll not serve a whole sentence if they get caught, so they'll commit again.


Meanwhile, people are getting locked up, for however short a time, for non-payment of fines.

This country is a shambles.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, that also in Galway, just this morning, 2 men who were supposed to appear in court charged with the killing of John Kenny in Oughterard, have skipped. They were on bail and didn't show up this morning. Imagine the anguish of his family that they may not see justice?

The problem is, there IS an issue of space. I just don;t want to see a rapist getting a suspended sentence because there's no place in jail available for him.