Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The bleeding hearts on Prime Time.

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Berserker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,046 ✭✭✭Berserker


    Richard Hillman wrote: »
    Cracking down on crime isnt even a divisive thing amongst voters. You dont lose votes by saying we are going to crack down on the soft justice system. Yet it is not even remotely on the political agenda of anybody.

    Crime won't win you votes. The is a reflection on the parish pump nature of politics. People are interested in #1, i.e. medical cards, tax cuts, bonuses and increases in SW payments. I'd say crime is rarely mentioned at the door during canvassing. If a candidate ran for election here focusing on crime and another ran on a water charges or anti-austerity card, you and I both know that the later would win, easily.

    I quizzed Labour, SF and ULA about crime last time and not one of them had a clue what to say. SF sent tried to change the conversation back to how bad FF were. The others tried to spin some party lines.


  • Options
    #63
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,103 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Streetwalker wrote: »
    Complete cop out. I grew up in social housing as did many of my friends and I never caused any trouble. I don't buy the "they have no facilities" argument at all. Been to Ballymun recently? The council knocked down a load of flats and gave people new houses only for the same anti social problems to persist. The problem is we as a society are not hard enough on the criminals. Going to Mountjoy is nothing for these assholes.


    Correct.

    My mother had no elec, father dead, studied by candlelight, became a nurse.

    No facilities, no inside toilet, but she did not turn to crime.

    Lack of "facilities" is never an excuse.


  • Options
    #64
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,430 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Geuze wrote: »
    Correct.

    My mother had no elec, father dead, studied by candlelight, became a nurse.

    No facilities, no inside toilet, but she did not turn to crime.

    Lack of "facilities" is never an excuse.
    It's not an excuse ! But it doesn't help .. You put loads of young people together, with little to do (and they already feel they've no stake in society) you're gonna have problems..
    Personally I'm for carrot and stick ... Big council estates of the 60's and 70's caused problems .. Work on sorting them, community pride, acceptance of other peoples right to peace and quiet..
    But where do you start...

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Options
    #65
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,376 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    I am in two minds about this, I believe restorative justices is the way to go make the offender face their victims.

    Society was far more lawless in the past it was just a different kind of lawlessness, have a look at the recodes of the petty sessions some of it is laughable but some of it was very vicious in a way you don't see today, for example damaging you neighbour livestock or stealing and fighting from your neighbours, it was everywhere not just some other 'scumbag' section of society. Today we don't have that.

    My other point is how come when we had hanging and floggings we had crime why did they not act as a deterrent.


  • Options
    #66
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    mariaalice wrote: »
    I am in two minds about this, I believe restorative justices is the way to go make the offender face their victims.

    Society was far more lawless in the past it was just a different kind of lawlessness, have a look at the recodes of the petty sessions some of it is laughable but some of it was very vicious in a way you don't see today, for example damaging you neighbour livestock or stealing and fighting from your neighbours, it was everywhere not just some other 'scumbag' section of society. Today we don't have that.

    My other point is how come when we had hanging and floggings we had crime why did they not act as a deterrent.
    You don't commit crime thinking you're going to get caught in the first place in a lot of cases. Either you think you'll get away with it, or it's in the heat of the moment. I think that's the reasoning behind why the death penalty doesn't work on crime rates


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,376 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    bluewolf wrote: »
    You don't commit crime thinking you're going to get caught in the first place in a lot of cases. Either you think you'll get away with it, or it's in the heat of the moment. I think that's the reasoning behind why the death penalty doesn't work on crime rates

    Yes but a lot of people here are advocating a harsher regime in the belief it acts as a deterrent.


  • Options
    #68
    Slot Machine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 126 ✭✭Slot Machine


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Why is the relevant comparator other countries?

    Why can't the relevant comparator be a bunch of crime victims who've suffered similar crimes deciding if the punishment is too hard or too soft?

    I fully agree with trial by jury and the idea of an impartial judiciary but I'm always left wondering why in the discussion about sentencing the collective voice of the victims of crime gets drowned out.

    You agree that the judiciary should be impartial but express confusion about why the victims are not allowed take part? Really? Do you think the bit about impartiality might have something to do with it?

    If victims want to seek restitution that's what civil law is there for.


  • Options
    #69
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    mariaalice wrote: »
    Yes but a lot of people here are advocating a harsher regime in the belief it acts as a deterrent.

    Are they? I think people are advocating it because it would put the convicted criminal out of society for longer rather than convince others not to follow his path.


  • Options
    #70
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Slot Machine wrote: »
    You agree that the judiciary should be impartial but express confusion about why the victims are not allowed take part? Really? Do you think the bit about impartiality might have something to do with it?

    If victims want to seek restitution that's what civil law is there for.

    Yeah because civil law can really help when the criminal lives entirely on welfare.


  • Options
    #71
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,376 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    Are they? I think people are advocating it because it would put the convicted criminal out of society for longer rather than convince others not to follow his path.

    That is the crucial point what is the function of the criminal system.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    mariaalice wrote: »
    That is the crucial point what is the function of the criminal system.

    For me, the primary function of prison is to remove dangerous and unscrupulous people from society and, if possible, reform them for their reintroduction to society. Punishment and deterrant should be considered side effects as opposed to goals.


  • Options
    #73
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    When prison is not seen as a disincentive to commit crime, then other things need to be brought into the equation. Hard labour, corporal punishment etc.. Remember, the primary reasons why people were ganging up on Roma people in Waterford last weak was the perception real or not that they were untouchable by the law and that the law was much too slow and ineffective in dealing with them. If the system is seen to be failing then there will be other consequences to deal with.


  • Options
    #74
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,048 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    kstand wrote: »
    I had a conversation a year ago at a wedding with a well up detective based in Dublin. We were discussing gangs that were using the motorways to travel down the country in high powered cars and rob rural businesses and farms etc. I asked him if he felt the problem was worsening in Ireland and he said he was - and then asked him if there was a solution and he immediately said "stop their free legal aid".

    Its a basic human right in most if not all modern democracies that all people shall have the right to representation before the Court.

    Is it expensive - yes

    Is it annoying - yes

    Is it necessary - absolutely, the cost we pay for being a civilized society
    king_of_inismac wrote: »
    Crime is a societal problem. When we are imagining tags, (if we're being honest) we're imagining someone in a tracksuit with a drug problem who grew up in a deprived estate.

    The key idea is in the last 6 words of the previous sentence. Unless you provide a better social environment where crime isnt seen as the norm, you'll always have criminals. No amount of tags will fix that.

    My OH works in law and deals with people who grew up in socially deprived households. To be perfectly honest, if I grew up there I'd probably be a criminal myself. Be very thankful if your childhood was anyway normal.

    Tackling crime begins there, by saving the next generation. That's where the money should be spent.

    Anyone disagreeing with this is ignoring the fact that crime is inherently a lower class problem. Again, the vast majority do not have employment and disposable income. There are sections that buck the trend but it is true as a general rule.

    Approximately 80% of crime is drugs related. Its time this Country had a reasoned and frankly grown up discussion in relation to legalizing drugs. If I had a 500e a day habit, I'd be stealing from all and sundry to stop the horrific cold turkey.

    And before anyone says otherwise, I and my family have been the victims of crime in the past and frankly, my gut instinct it to beat the **** out of the blokes involved, but the issues are more complex and nuanced that a hiding. Granted, I'll feel a lot better about it. Police violence, as someone suggested here, will only cause further resentment and a vengeance mentality towards law enforcers.

    I do agree however with more consistent sentences, and indeed, hard labour but the root causes have to be tackled head on. I regret to say I don't think any politicians have the balls to do it though


  • Options
    #75
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,376 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    jank wrote: »
    When prison is not seen as a disincentive to commit crime, then other things need to be brought into the equation. Hard labour, corporal punishment etc.. Remember, the primary reasons why people were ganging up on Roma people in Waterford last weak was the perception real or not that they were untouchable by the law and that the law was much too slow and ineffective in dealing with them. If the system is seen to be failing then there will be other consequences to deal with.

    As I said how come when there was hanging and flogging, society still had crime if as you believe they act as a deterrent.


  • Options
    #76
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    everlast75 wrote: »
    Approximately 80% of crime is drugs related. Its time this Country had a reasoned and frankly grown up discussion in relation to legalizing drugs. If I had a 500e a day habit, I'd be stealing from all and sundry to stop the horrific cold turkey.

    Where did you get the 80% figure from? It's ridiculous.


  • Options
    #77
    Summer wind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,285 ✭✭✭Summer wind


    I grew up on an estate that's in the news a lot for all the wrong reasons. People that lived there that committed crime saw going to jail as a badge of honour. When you were released you were seen as a hard man that had been inside. Going to jail is a joke.


  • Options
    #78
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,048 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    Where did you get the 80% figure from? It's ridiculous.

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/drugs-link-to-70-of-crimes-on-probation-206026.html


  • Options
    #79
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    everlast75 wrote: »
    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/drugs-link-to-70-of-crimes-on-probation-206026.html

    You left a lot out of that in order to promote your view that drugs should be legalised. If you want to promote a reasoned and frank discussion of the issue you should start by being honest and upfront.


  • Options
    #80
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Slot Machine wrote: »
    You agree that the judiciary should be impartial but express confusion about why the victims are not allowed take part? Really? Do you think the bit about impartiality might have something to do with it?

    If victims want to seek restitution that's what civil law is there for.

    No , if you read what I wrote you'll see I was talking about the opinions / views of victims of crime being given appropriate weight in the discussion about the severity or otherwise of sentences imposed.

    There are plenty to speak out about the criminals and their 'rights' (not so much their responsibilities as citizens in our communities) - in stark contrast to victims.

    I wasn't suggesting that victims determine sentences or even sentencing policy.

    .......and I'm not advocating a system that is harsh on first time offenders or even fifth time offenders (three-strikes-and-you're-out is, to my mind overly harsh) - but if you've reached say 10 offences and not learned your lesson then it's time for something harsher and more severe. The person has had their chance at rehabilitation, the emphasis should shift from that to punishment and societal retribution.


  • Options
    #81
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,048 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    You left a lot out of that in order to promote your view that drugs should be legalised. If you want to promote a reasoned and frank discussion of the issue you should start by being honest and upfront.

    We all were talking about re-offenders and that statistic refers to re-offenders.

    70% is very close to 80% and I was recalling from memory.

    You asked for a source and I gave one and unfortunately from your perspective it doesn't back up your point.

    I have not left out a lot therefore and your statement that the stat is "ridiculous" is ironically, ridiculous.

    My point was and still is drugs is a scourge, a HUGE contributor to crime and should be tackled head on.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    everlast75 wrote: »
    We all were talking about re-offenders and that statistic refers to re-offenders.

    70% is very close to 80% and I was recalling from memory.

    You asked for a source and I gave one and unfortunately from your perspective it doesn't back up your point.

    I have not left out a lot therefore and your statement that the stat is "ridiculous" is ironically, ridiculous.

    My point was and still is drugs is a scourge, a HUGE contributor to crime and should be tackled head on.

    You said 80% were drugs related. The source you link says 70% were linked to drug or alcohol misuse. If you look further down the page it goes into the stats on drug use with cannabis being misused by 22% of offenders, opiates by 9% and uppers by 6%. And this doesn't actually mean the crimes themselves are drug related.

    I agree with your final point, i don't agree with your method.


  • Options
    #83
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    Lapin wrote: »
    .

    Why are the judges in this country so soft on criminals?..

    If there are less criminals, judges 'work' less and mightn't get paid as much. I'm sure they have an expense account that gets worked hard.


  • Options
    #84
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    Lapin wrote: »
    The bleeding hearts on Prime Time.

    Misleading thread title. I thought this thread was about Warfarin and its contraindications.


  • Options
    #85
    RoboRat
    Registered Users Posts: 2,466 ✭✭✭RoboRat


    I don't think that tagging is the answer, it would only lead to circumstantial evidence and considering people are getting off when there is cold hard evidence, I can see it being quite useless and exploited by the barristers defending the criminals.

    I think the 3 strikes approach is the best approach but again, prisons are costly so I would like to see the prisons being run as a business and being self financing.

    Prisoners can work and save up some money which might give them a start when they get out which might also negate the need to reoffend. Also, doing a days work has some degree of satisfaction not to mention the skills that can be learned. They can then exit prison with skills, go to a state run company akin to a halfway house where they can continue with their work, albeit on a better salary.

    I think the key is rehabilitation and a proper program in place with structure and not just prisoners sitting around all day. It has to have an end goal, this has to be compulsory and part of the rehabilitation process. I think the goal should be to ensure a prisoner is in some way better than when they arrived.

    Some people are in prison due to circumstance and if they were given a chance to make a life, they might just do that. Others are just pure scum but I do believe in second chances and this is from somebody who has been robbed a few times.


  • Options
    #86
    Boskowski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    jank wrote: »
    When prison is not seen as a disincentive to commit crime, then other things need to be brought into the equation. Hard labour, corporal punishment etc.. Remember, the primary reasons why people were ganging up on Roma people in Waterford last weak was the perception real or not that they were untouchable by the law and that the law was much too slow and ineffective in dealing with them. If the system is seen to be failing then there will be other consequences to deal with.

    The primary reason for people ganging up on them is they were a cowardly mob. Strange how they never gang up on a site full of travellers.


  • Options
    #87
    DEFTLEFTHAND
    Registered Users Posts: 16,500 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


    Highflyer13 wrote: »
    A soft legal system suits solicitors as they get plenty of business from repeat offenders.

    Nobody makes their fortune representing these people, legal aid is rarely granted in minor cases and the average client is hardly flush, oftentimes solicitors get done.

    Even with free legal aid the State finds it difficult to fill a panel of solicitors because nobody wants to do it.


  • Options
    #88
    titchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 114 ✭✭titchy


    When I hear of 'soft' sentencing after charges like 'death by drunk driving' etc all I hear is 'the child that that person murdered ..their life...is not worth s&@t'

    If I get into my car drunk, if I enter a shop with a knife..if I beat someone over the head/play football with their face...I know damn well what the possible outcome could be, so this crap of 'I didn't mean to kill someone's son by jumping on their head' doesn't wash with me.

    Draconian!
    Yes how dare someone want something as 'draconian' as a suitable punishment to fit the crime, imagine putting all the effort into raising a child giving them everything they need,

    sleepless nights, working hard to provide a future for them. Going to football matches, everything, your whole life revolving around theirs, every decision you make, everything you do... In their best interest.
    Taken one day ....because ...

    Someone decided to get into their car off their face ( and despite what they'd have you believe it was a decision, one which they knew damn well would/could have consequences)

    Someone decided to jump on their face for the laugh (and despite what they'd have you believe it was a decision one which they knew damn well would/could have consequences)

    IDE like to ask the posters who don't wish for harsher sentences have they or any of theirs ever been victim to serious crime?

    If not ...then can they really imagine waking up in the morning without their child, mother, brother...and still feel the same way they do now about the sentencing ?

    Would you be be happy with 18 months for your child's whole life?


  • Options
    #89
    Berserker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,046 ✭✭✭Berserker


    Highflyer13 wrote: »
    A soft legal system suits solicitors as they get plenty of business from repeat offenders.

    Not true when it comes to repeat offenders from poorer backgrounds. A friend of mine is a barrister in family law and she deals with these repeat offenders quite frequently. You make very little, if anything, from these cases.


  • Options
    #90
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    SparkySpitfire wrote: »
    Simply put, a little boy's right to life far outweighs a scumbag's right to liberty. Obviously the judges didn't see it this way.

    This actually makes me sick.

    That is a massive oversimplification


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,376 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    titchy wrote: »
    When I hear of 'soft' sentencing after charges like 'death by drunk driving' etc all I hear is 'the child that that person murdered ..their life...is not worth s&@t'

    If I get into my car drunk, if I enter a shop with a knife..if I beat someone over the head/play football with their face...I know damn well what the possible outcome could be, so this crap of 'I didn't mean to kill someone's son by jumping on their head' doesn't wash with me.

    Draconian!
    Yes how dare someone want something as 'draconian' as a suitable punishment to fit the crime, imagine putting all the effort into raising a child giving them everything they need,

    sleepless nights, working hard to provide a future for them. Going to football matches, everything, your whole life revolving around theirs, every decision you make, everything you do... In their best interest.
    Taken one day ....because ...

    Someone decided to get into their car off their face ( and despite what they'd have you believe it was a decision, one which they knew damn well would/could have consequences)

    Someone decided to jump on their face for the laugh (and despite what they'd have you believe it was a decision one which they knew damn well would/could have consequences)

    IDE like to ask the posters who don't wish for harsher sentences have they or any of theirs ever been victim to serious crime?

    If not ...then can they really imagine waking up in the morning without their child, mother, brother...and still feel the same way they do now about the sentencing ?

    Would you be be happy with 18 months for your child's whole life?

    I am not against harsher sentencing, however do you not think as well as a prison sentence they should have to fact the victim or in the case of drinking driving the victims parents or children or partner and explain why they choose to drink and drive, The same with random violence they would have to face their victim and see the consequence of what thy did.


Advertisement