Crime will be a big decider on election results

handlemaster

I dont think it can be over stated how much crime and its affects will play in the next election. People can be unemployed down and broke but if their area is safe they can be content. But if crime is thrown into the mix there will be discontent. It can be seen every day in the papers the light penalities for criminals and its only getting worse. The election candidates who promise to tackle this issue will get votes.

Seth Brundle

Hasn't it been like that for years?
Anyhow, I'm not sure if the electorate would believe another "zero tolerance" campaign (once bitten. ..).
Personally I think it will come down to the economy.

handlemaster

kbannon wrote: »

Hasn't it been like that for years?
Anyhow, I'm not sure if the electorate would believe another "zero tolerance" campaign (once bitten. ..).
Personally I think it will come down to the economy.

If the judges were not given the right to offer light sentences after 100 previous convictions would be a start. After 100 convictions 10 years manditary years in prison

Seth Brundle

That needs to be legislated for. No parties are talking about it so I can't see it being a factor in the election.
Anyhow, whilst I agree in principal, there are undoubtedly downsides to it.

handlemaster

kbannon wrote: »

That needs to be legislated for. No parties are talking about it so I can't see it being a factor in the election.
Anyhow, whilst I agree in principal, there are undoubtedly downsides to it.

Such as ?

Seth Brundle

handlemaster wrote: »

Such as ?

I've no idea. The legislation hasn't been written. and I'm not a legislator.
Still, legislation frequently requires amendments so I wouldn't be surprised if it happened here.
Similarly, there may be constitutional issues with someone getting a harsher punishment because of their past.

Maybe contribute a view to your thread and not simply a two word question.

handlemaster

kbannon wrote: »

I've no idea. The legislation hasn't been written. and I'm not a legislator.
Still, legislation frequently requires amendments so I wouldn't be surprised if it happened here.
Similarly, there may be constitutional issues with someone getting a harsher punishment because of their past.

Maybe contribute a view to your thread and not simply a two word question.

Oh.... moody are we love.

I thought with your answer that there would undoubtedly be issues you had somthing to add. I wondered what you meant.

delahuntv

Too many people are reading the hysterical indo group rags which exaggerate everything.

Yes, there is crime. That is an unfortunate trait in humans.

Its bad in places, but no worse than most countries.

What is worse is the hysterical reporting.

Seth Brundle

handlemaster wrote: »

Oh.... moody are we love.

Yeah. Spent the weekend feeling like I'm having a heart attack. Thanks for your concern.

handlemaster wrote: »

OI thought with your answer that there would undoubtedly be issues you had somthing to add. I wondered what you meant.

I gave an answer as to why it wouldn't be an election issue.
You then deviated the thread to the judges not sentencing people in the way you wish. You still haven't responded to my first post though.

BoJack Horseman

no party seems to really care about crime.

It doesn't seem to be a big issue on their part, perhaps they just reflect the mood of the populace?

johnnyskeleton

handlemaster wrote: »

If the judges were not given the right to offer light sentences after 100 previous convictions would be a start. After 100 convictions 10 years manditary years in prison

An alcoholic who has been stopped for public order every couple of weeks for a few years will get a 10 year stretch?

While i appreciate that such a person is a bit of a nuisance, a 10 year prison sentence is a bit extreme. You would be trying someone in the circuit court for being drunk and disorderly.

If we had lots of prison spaces and well funded rehabilitation schemes while there it might be feasible to have longer sentences generally, but prisons are expensive and there is little public desire to spend money on the criminal justicr system. Hence every government promises tough action on crime but rarely act on it.

voter1983

If crime is going to be the big election issue then the current government is in trouble. between closing Garda stations, the whole carry on with Shatter, the mishandling of the GSOC bugging controversy, the findings of the Fennelly Commission and not to mind the fact that the government has deprived the organisation of resources which has resulted in poor morale and mass retirements. The result of all this is that the government has created a situation where the public confidence in the organisation has eroded.

All this is without even considering the effects of their failure to tackle the judiciary on weak sentencing and failing to tackle the revolving door of the prison system.

The opposition would be right to focus on this area

Zubeneschamali

voter1983 wrote: »

If crime is going to be the big election issue then the current government is in trouble.

No, all the Law and Order folks already vote FG, and always have, because Labour are soft/lefty/touchie feely types, FF are crooks and SF are terrorists.

nice_guy80

Watch out for loads of announcements about garda recruitment and new cars and even reopening of closed stations in rural Ireland

A huge issue is the under reporting of crime. The problem is MUCH bigger than reported

handlemaster

hot off the press crime rates are up.... next up... which politician is going set their stall out for crime reduction ... 1 2 3....

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/violent-and-sexual-crimes-on-the-rise-31566449.html

nice_guy80

crime still being under-reported and mis-recorded when reported

BoJack Horseman

Dont know why the indo pasted in the SF justice spokesperson into that infographic :pac:

I jest....

But the crime issue is one that the government have very much made themselves.

For decades, FG via their dominance of local authorities (along with FF) have perpetuated the folly of dispersed populations & anti-urbanisation...

One of the many bad consequences is that, though Ireland has a middling number of police officers per-capita, they have a very spread out population to cater for & patrol.

With Labour's subservience to the unions, budget cuts fell disproportionately on services.

the net result being that 130 stations being closed saved the equivelent of 1/5th of 1 percent of the garda pay bill.

For Forks Sake

nice_guy80 wrote: »

crime still being under-reported and mis-recorded when reported

I'll go with the one that's closest to me in that ludicrous graphic.

Portarlington has a Garda station.

There are also closer stations in Monasterevin (10km) , Mountmellick (12km), Portlaoise (18km), Tullamore (26km) than Ballacolla (49km, and actually the furthest point away in the county) and Ballinakill(42km and also the opposite end of the county) in that misleading graphic.

Would be like someone in Bray blaming the closure of a station in Drogheda for the rise in crime in their area.

F*cking Indo.