The bleeding hearts on Prime Time.

Lapin

FloatingVoter wrote: »

In 200 years this post won't look daft, just prophetic.

I'm all for forward planning but isn't that a bit of a stretch?

Even if taking the type of drugs that make you think you're gonna live forever.

FloatingVoter

Lapin wrote: »

I'm all for forward planning but isn't that a bit of a stretch?

Even if taking the type of drugs that make you think you're gonna live forever.

I gave them up after the incident with the superman costume and the tall building. Gravity is an unforgiving bitch.

nokia69

Karl Stein wrote: »

I'd say we have a relatively decent justice system save for two factors.

1. Drugs/drug use. Prohibition is a farce. Making criminals out of addicts is profoundly vindictive/stupid/costly.

are you serious, how do we make criminals out of addicts

take a walk around Dublin city center its like the place is being taken over by junkie zombies

if only we did lock these scumbags up

jank

Karl Stein wrote: »

2. Sex offenders don't get harsh enough sentences. Any sex offender who receives a second subsequent conviction should be permanently removed from society.

I heard that was the method the IRA had, well that or ship them South if they were high up in the grand scheme of things.

Kermit.de.frog

I have to laugh at people having a go at American justice. The difference between them and us is that they don't take sh!t, we do. We could do with their justice here and I think most would welcome it.

We have people walking the streets of Dublin with 100's of convictions (that means they have probably been before a judge more than 100 times) and some of those have to be psychotic. It could be anyone they would attack. Why are they not locked up?

What bleeding heart could defend these people?

Jawgap

king_of_inismac wrote: »

Do you agree that (on average) you are more likely to be involved in crime if you are from a low income background?

Yes

king_of_inismac wrote: »

Do you agree that most criminals aren't sociopaths?

Yes

king_of_inismac wrote: »

If you agree with those two statements, then the community/society is somewhat responsible for crime.

Community / society is 'somewhat' responsible for crime is something I'd agree with - but the 'somewhat' in my view is very small.

Association is not causation, and people have a choice. Being born into dysfunctional family circumstances or growing up in a 'sink' estate doesn't make or compel you to go out and thieve, rob and engage in anti-social behaviour. If it did then everyone born in those circumstances would do it.

Some don't. They make a choice. Some make that choice without getting into trouble, some make their mistakes then come to a realisation, while others - and I've already said it's a minority - are just plain bad. I don't see any problem with removing them from circulation until they are physically incapable of causing further damage to their communities.

king_of_inismac wrote: »

Criminals have responsibility too, but they weren't formed in a vacuum. If they were, you'd equally be likely to be robbed in Foxrock as you would be in Finglas.

I'd love if life was as simple as "good guys" and "bad guys", but life isn't a John Wayne film.

I quite agree and in some ways the white collar criminal does more damage - again, I think there is an argument for being much harsher on the guy / gal who defrauds a business of millions or costs the the state billions in comparison to the person who shoplifts just so their family can have a slightly better life than they otherwise would have.

And I agree there are lots of shades of grey, but what I'm talking about is the genuine bad guys - the ones who repeatedly offend, who've been shown their options, who've had a few turns through the system and who've demonstrated themselves to be beyond rehabilitation.

Life may not be as simple as 'good' guys and 'bad' guys - but it would be naive to assume evil doesn't exist.

I'm all for second, third even twelfth chances but at some point it should be realised that a certain minority are simply playing the system - so the system should deal with them in a more definitive fashion.

Donkey Oaty

FloatingVoter wrote: »

I gave them up after the incident with the superman costume and the tall building. Gravity is an unforgiving bitch.

That sort of incident could be avoided if there was better education about this in schools.

The main thing to teach them is "If you ever think you can fly, ALWAYS take off from the ground".

drumswan

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I have to laugh at people having a go at American justice. The difference between them and us is that they don't take sh!t, we do. We could do with their justice here and I think most would welcome it.

But uhhh, they have more crime than us...

king_of_inismac

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes



Yes



Community / society is 'somewhat' responsible for crime is something I'd agree with - but the 'somewhat' in my view is very small.

Association is not causation, and people have a choice. Being born into dysfunctional family circumstances or growing up in a 'sink' estate doesn't make or compel you to go out and thieve, rob and engage in anti-social behaviour. If it did then everyone born in those circumstances would do it.

Some don't. They make a choice. Some make that choice without getting into trouble, some make their mistakes then come to a realisation, while others - and I've already said it's a minority - are just plain bad. I don't see any problem with removing them from circulation until they are physically incapable of causing further damage to their communities.




I quite agree and in some ways the white collar criminal does more damage - again, I think there is an argument for being much harsher on the guy / gal who defrauds a business of millions or costs the the state billions in comparison to the person who shoplifts just so their family can have a slightly better life than they otherwise would have.

And I agree there are lots of shades of grey, but what I'm talking about is the genuine bad guys - the ones who repeatedly offend, who've been shown their options, who've had a few turns through the system and who've demonstrated themselves to be beyond rehabilitation.

Life may not be as simple as 'good' guys and 'bad' guys - but it would be naive to assume evil doesn't exist.

I'm all for second, third even twelfth chances but at some point it should be realised that a certain minority are simply playing the system - so the system should deal with them in a more definitive fashion.

I agree with most of your post - sure there are those that unfortunately can't be helped. These are a danger to society and normal society should be protected from them.

You argue that association is not causation. In this case, I believe that being born in a low income family makes you MORE likely to be involved in crime. There are lots of other confounders (parents attitudes, education, etc), but poverty definitely correlates to crime (not on an individual basis, but on average across the population).

I've no issue with tags per say. I'd just worry that too much funding is used to treat the symptoms of poverty (crime) rather than the underlying cause.

By the way, I'm a little uncomfortable with people using the term "evil". Usually people who commit horrible acts were themselves victims as children, or have a mental disorder or drug addition.

As I said earlier, it would be nice to be able to categorise people as good or evil, but rarely are things so simple.

ROCKMAN

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

That sort of incident could be avoided if there was better education about this in schools.

The main thing to teach them is "If you ever think you can fly, ALWAYS take off from the ground".

Totally going to be using that in the future ..
One of the best saying I have heard in a while.

bodice ripper

ROCKMAN wrote: »

[/B]


Totally going to be using that in the future ..
One of the best saying I have heard in a while.

That's cause it came from Bill Hicks...