Why is our justice system so lenient?

mickoneill31

I'm really fed up with reading articles like this.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/armed-robber-gets-last-chance-despite-his-193-convictions-34710765.html

How is anybody allowed to rack up 10s or 100 of convictions?

I contacted my TDS before the last election. I had the idea that if you had 10 or 20 (pick a number) previous convictions that on conviction 21 (for example) you'd get a 1 year mandatory custodial on top of whatever lenient sentence the judge handed out. Then on 22 this would double etc etc. So by the time yo get to 25 you're getting 16 extra years because it's not getting into your thick had that we won't tolerate this.
I don't want the US system where you go to jail for tiny crimes, this could be restricted to serious crimes like burglary, assault, violent crime etc.
Our Socialist TD (Clarence Daly) was totally against this idea. She said education was the key. While I agree that education is one way to combat this I think protecting society is the key.

Others replied that it would be unconstitutional. OK, we can vote on that.

Am I mental, would this be impossible? Does anybody give a crap in government or justice? Can the system be fixed or will we just keep reading about scum with loads of convictions getting another chance (to attack somebody new).

machiavellianme

Education is the key?
Only if that education is for the judges, politicians and anyone else who needs to realise that the chair is the key.
Anyone who doesn't learn in their first 10 serious offences isn't going to.
They are an expensive scourge on society and offer nothing but contempt for others in return.

RIGHTisRIGHT

machiavellianme wrote: »

Education is the key?

They are educated sure they are making a mint riding the free legal aid gravy train.
Can't be locking up the chronic repeat offenders now the legal profession would lose massive amounts of cushy work.

RIGHTisRIGHT

RIGHTisRIGHT wrote: »

Can't be locking up the chronic repeat offenders now the legal profession would lose massive amounts of cushy work.

That's not really true at all.

The legal aid scheme has contracted a lot in 10 years, the amount spent on it has fallen considerably, the average payout has fallen a lot, and most Solicitors and Barristers make little to nothing on it as frankly it's pretty miserable unless you have a huge criminal law practice - you're talking 1 or 2 per county.

RIGHTisRIGHT

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not really true at all.

The legal aid scheme has contracted a lot in 10 years, the amount spent on it has fallen considerably, the average payout has fallen a lot, and most Solicitors and Barristers make little to nothing on it as frankly it's pretty miserable unless you have a huge criminal law practice - you're talking 1 or 2 per county.

There are more people in the Legal system then that.
And again it is true an expensive Court System handing out conviction after conviction all on big money.

After 20 convictions a bullet to the head is what is needed cheap effective and efficient.
That would never fly with the left but it not anymore crazy then letting dangerous individuals who are a danger to the public walk free with double digit convictions.

RIGHTisRIGHT

RIGHTisRIGHT wrote: »

There are more people in the Legal system then that.
And again it is true and expensive Court System handing out conviction after conviction all on big money.

What other people do you claim are paid under the Legal Aid system?

Should Courts not hand out conviction after conviction? You want more strike outs and dismissals? You think there is some payments system based on the verdict?

RIGHTisRIGHT wrote: »

After 20 convictions a bullet to the head is what is needed cheap effective and efficient.
That would never fly with the left but it not anymore crazy then letting dangerous individuals who are a danger to the public walk free with double digit convictions.

Yes. It's only the left wing that is against executions. Is they who are the nutters alright.

Though still can't square it with your desire for less convictions...

RIGHTisRIGHT

Deleted User wrote: »

What other people do you claim are paid under the Legal Aid system?

Should Courts not hand out conviction after conviction? You want more strike outs and dismissals? You think their is some payments system based on the verdict?

You seem to be misunderstanding me.

Granting legal aid to repeat offenders keeps the legal system busy.
We are told a small minority are responsible for the majority of offenses.

Lock them up for a long long time and suddenly we don't need as many courts or judges.

RIGHTisRIGHT

RIGHTisRIGHT wrote: »

You seem to be misunderstanding me.

Granting legal aid to repeat offenders keeps the legal system busy.
We are told a small minority are responsible for the majority of offenses.

Lock them up for a long long time and suddenly we don't need as many courts or judges.

How much does it cost to run the average Court building in rural Ireland? Studies in the SW afair suggested 2 or 3k per annum on heating, maintenance etc.

You would close them down?

omahaid

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/man-with-423-convictions-has-robbery-sentence-cut-394413.html

I'm always amazed at how anyone can rack up 423 convictions before the age of 30, not sure the system is rehabilitating this guy

RIGHTisRIGHT

How much does it cost to run the average Court building in rural Ireland? Studies in the SW afair suggested 2 or 3k per annum on heating, maintenance etc.

You would close them down?

I'm always amazed at how anyone can rack up 423 convictions before the age of 30, not sure the system is rehabilitating this guy

The 2nd quote is the perfect answer to the first.

RIGHTisRIGHT

RIGHTisRIGHT wrote: »

The 2nd quote is the perfect answer to the first.

No it's not, it's a completely separate issue.

One is to do with sentencing for repeat offenders, one is to do with accessibility to the Courts. The presence of 1 Court or 10 in a county would not impact on the issue that poster (correctly) raised at all.

Could you explain why Court closures would change sentencing, as you deem it the perfect answer.

Benevolent Misanthrope

Deleted User wrote: »

How much does it cost to run the average Court building in rural Ireland? Studies in the SW afair suggested 2 or 3k per annum on heating, maintenance etc.

You would close them down?

How much does it cost to pay a judge, a prosecutor, a defence lawyer, court recorders, security, and the mountains of administrators and systems to run the whole farrago?

2 or 3k? Lol.

It's interesting though that - somehow - some amoral scrote's right to commit 400 crimes trumps 400 men, women and children's right not to be victimised.

RIGHTisRIGHT

Deleted User wrote: »

No it's not, it's a completely separate issue.

One is to do with sentencing for repeat offenders, one is to do with accessibility to the Courts. The presence of 1 Court or 10 in a county would not impact on the issue that poster (correctly) raised at all.

Could you explain why Court closures would change sentencing, as you deem it the perfect answer.

How much court time and expense did it take to rack up 423 convictions do you think?
How much money and misery do you reckon this scum bag cost the people of Ireland while he was free?

I what number to you reckon the courts are taken the total p*ss 30 40 50 423?

Benevolent Misanthrope

Benevolent Misanthrope wrote: »

How much does it cost to pay a judge, a prosecutor, a defence lawyer, court recorders, security, and the mountains of administrators and systems to run the whole system?

2 or 3k? Lol.

And if they were pulled back into one Court building, how much would that save?

Meanwhile, sending Gardai and witnesses from all over a county to one centralised building, how much would that cost? As well as all the other issues, such as emptying towns of Gardai, witnesses like doctors (domestic violence, drink driving test evidence etc.) on Court days.

Lol is right.

RIGHTisRIGHT

Benevolent Misanthrope wrote: »

How much does it cost to pay a judge, a prosecutor, a defence lawyer, court recorders, security, and the mountains of administrators and systems to run the whole farrago?

2 or 3k? Lol.

I was about to type the thank you for saving me the effort.:)

RIGHTisRIGHT

RIGHTisRIGHT wrote: »

How much court time and expense did it take to rack up 423 convictions to you think?
How much money and misery do you reckon this scum bag cost the people of Ireland while he was free?

I what number to you reckon the courts are taken the total p*ss 30 40 50 423?

But explain exactly how the 423 number would have been cut if there was 1 or 2 Court buildings?

It's like saying slashing the number of hospitals would result in less sickness. It makes no sense.

omahaid

Why are people focused on the cost of court buildings? This isn't one of these strawmen I keep hearing about?

RIGHTisRIGHT

Deleted User wrote: »

But explain exactly how the 423 number would have been cut if there was 1 or 2 Court buildings?

It's like saying slashing the number of hospitals would result in less sickness. It makes no sense.

A message board is about the exchange of information opinions and ideas not for a clash of egos.
I think I have made a very valid point which you can not or will not understand so let the two of us leave it at that.

I agree to disagree with you.

gramar

omahaid wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/man-with-423-convictions-has-robbery-sentence-cut-394413.html

I'm always amazed at how anyone can rack up 423 convictions before the age of 30, not sure the system is rehabilitating this guy

He must be a really shít criminal is all I can say.

RIGHTisRIGHT

gramar wrote: »

He must be a really shít criminal is all I can say.

Why do you say that the 423 convictions could only be a small fraction of the crimes he has committed for all we know.

RIGHTisRIGHT

Benevolent Misanthrope wrote: »

How much does it cost to pay a judge, a prosecutor, a defence lawyer, court recorders, security, and the mountains of administrators and systems to run the whole farrago?

2 or 3k? Lol.

It's interesting though that - somehow - some amoral scrote's right to commit 400 crimes trumps 400 men, women and children's right not to be victimised.

Mind you if you take part in an anti water charge protest they will raid your home early morning with 14 Guards.

omahaid

gramar wrote: »

He must be a really shít criminal is all I can say.

At least he's being afforded plenty time to perfect his craft! Jail would get in the way of that

gramar

RIGHTisRIGHT wrote: »

Why do you say that the 423 convictions could only be a small fraction of the crimes he has committed for all we know.

I'm well aware of that but none the less if you're thinking of becoming a career crimanal he's not an example to follow.

gramar

omahaid wrote: »

At least he's being afforded plenty time to perfect his craft! Jail would get in the way of that

I think jail is where they get the 'education' Clare Daly was referring to.

RIGHTisRIGHT

gramar wrote: »

I'm well aware of that but none the less if you're thinking of becoming a career crimanal he's not an example to follow.

:D
I suppose another way to look at it is he was convicted of 423 crimes and it still walking free what better advertisement for a life of crime.

RIGHTisRIGHT

RIGHTisRIGHT wrote: »

A message board is about the exchange of information opinions and ideas not for a clash of egos.
I think I have made a very valid point which you can not or will not understand so let the two of us leave it at that.

I agree to disagree with you.

You have to.

The point was clearly nonsensical and a red herring in the context of the OP. You just wanted to throw the kitchen sink at it.

The number of court buildings is a completely distinct issue to sentencing.

gramar

RIGHTisRIGHT wrote: »

:D
I suppose another way to look at it is he was convicted of 423 crimes and it still walking free what better advertisement for a life of crime.

I don't want to derail the thread by doing a Bressie and bringing up mental health but this type of behaviour surely screams of someone who is not well mentally and unless those issues are treated it is unlikely that they would change their behaviour.

RIGHTisRIGHT

Deleted User wrote: »

You have to.

The point was clearly nonsensical and a red herring in the context of the OP. You just wanted to throw the kitchen sink at it.

The number of court buildings is a completely distinct issue to sentencing.

I would just like to gently point out.:)
It's not the buildings but all the people in them getting paid.

Lastly the cost to the country and the human costs of his crimes while he is walking free with convictions heading for 500.
In the nicest way possible I just do not understand why you deny it would free up huge court time and expense just to lock up people like that after say 20 convictions?

omahaid

RIGHTisRIGHT wrote: »

I would just like to gently point out.:)

It's not the buildings but all the people in them getting paid.

Lastly the cost to the country and the human costs of his crimes while he is walking free with convictions heading for 500.

I the nicest way possible I just do not understand why you deny it would free up huge court time and expense just to lock up people like that after say 20 convictions?

The biggest benefit would probably be enjoyed by the victims of these crimes. The guy in the OP held up a bookies I think? Very traumatic

mickoneill31

gramar wrote: »

I don't want to derail the thread by doing a Bressie and bringing up mental health but this type of behaviour surely screams of someone who is not well mentally and unless those issues are treated it is unlikely that they would change their behaviour.

I agree totally and I also think education is important. However I think the most important aspect to all of this is the impact on the victims. This is the bit that's ignored totally in our society.
A guy with 100 or 423 convictions is impacting on the lives of hundreds of people and the system in Ireland seems to prioritise this one guy over all of his victims (past and future).

While we're working on getting the mental health system better and while we're working on getting education systems improved can we not lock up serial repeat offenders so that the future victims don't need help with their mental health after they've been assaulted.

mickoneill31

RIGHTisRIGHT wrote: »

In the nicest way possible I just do not understand why you deny it would free up huge court time and expense just to lock up people like that after say 20 convictions?

I'm sure it would free up some court time. But how busy are the courts? I'm sure they've more to do than worry about the couple of hundred (or thousand) scumbags that repeatedly appear before them. If these scumbags were actually in jail it's not like the courts would have nothing to do.
It'd free up Gardai resources too so that they're not always arresting the same guy again, and again, and again only for him to be back on the streets after days or weeks.

gramar

mickoneill31 wrote: »

I'm sure it would free up some court time. But how busy are the courts? I'm sure they've more to do than worry about the couple of hundred (or thousand) scumbags that repeatedly appear before them. If these scumbags were actually in jail it's not like the courts would have nothing to do.
It'd free up Gardai resources too so that they're not always arresting the same guy again, and again, and again only for him to be back on the streets after days or weeks.

...or hours....

mickoneill31

gramar wrote: »

...or hours....

I was being optimistic
I don't know how it works though. I presume they don't get convicted straight away when they're caught. They have to go through the court system which probably takes a few weeks or days (if it's efficient) or months (if it's overloaded repeatedly seeing the same guys over and over).

I don't know how long it takes to build a case. I would guess (and hope) that a that is identified as holding up a bookies with a knife doesn't need to wait months for his case to be heard while they build a case. I'm probably being optimistic and naive again. Look at the guy in the OP. He committed his crime in August 2013. This article was today. Nearly 3 years later. I don't know when he was caught. Maybe it was only a few weeks ago :rolleyes:

RIGHTisRIGHT

I made a complaint about a dangerous dog about 20 years ago the dog warden told my I would need to show up in court if I wanted the animal to be removed.

It is my first and only time in court ever it was full of Guards with scum handcuffed to them.
It was closer to one of those Victorian Court rooms then anything you would see on television.

Apart from the Judge and the Guards I was the only person not wearing a filthy tracksuit.

gramar

mickoneill31 wrote: »

I was being optimistic
I don't know how it works though. I presume they don't get convicted straight away when they're caught. They have to go through the court system which probably takes a few weeks or days (if it's efficient) or months (if it's overloaded repeatedly seeing the same guys over and over).

I don't know how long it takes to build a case. I would guess (and hope) that a that is identified as holding up a bookies with a knife doesn't need to wait months for his case to be heard while they build a case. I'm probably being optimistic and naive again. Look at the guy in the OP. He committed his crime in August 2013. This article was today. Nearly 3 years later. I don't know when he was caught. Maybe it was only a few weeks ago :rolleyes:

Being a law-abiding citizen myself I don't really know but I'd imagine a conviction would be any guilty verdict handed down.

This fella is 29...423 convictions...assuming he started at 15 or so that's 28 a year or 2/3 per month plus the crimes that went undetected and those that didn't lead to a conviction. A huge burden on the judicial system, gardaí resources and not least the victims of his crimes.

RIGHTisRIGHT

RIGHTisRIGHT wrote: »

I made a complaint about a dangerous dog about 20 years ago the dog warden told my I would need to show up in court if I wanted the animal to be removed.

It is my first and only time in court ever it was full of Guards with scum handcuffed to them.

Fair play to you.

Not enough people go ahead with complaints about dangerous dogs and it's something I feel should be clamped down on, especially in areas like public parks and streets.

lawlolawl

Some people are just terrible humans who can never be rehabilitated or "fixed" but the justice system seems content to keep giving them chances so that they can rack up double or even triple digit priors until they do something bad enough to put them away for a good while or they end up getting killed by some other scummer.

We need to start building more prisons to house people who just aren't willing to be normal members of society. If you can't play ball and at least leave other citizens be then you get locked up for a long, long time. If these people are out on the streets we are paying for their lifestyle anyway with welfare, housing, the human cost of the crime they commit, etc. May as well lock them up so we are at least spending the money keeping them somewhere where they can't bother other people and we can keep an eye on them.

eet fuk

I'd like to see a list of the convictions. Surely some of them (while illegal) were relatively harmless? Maybe not though.

Do we have room in our prisons? Is that why a lot of people seem to get let off?
Or maybe he's some sort of mole for the gardai and he has to keep up appearances.

mickoneill31

eet fuk wrote: »

I'd like to see a list of the convictions. Surely some of them (while illegal) were relatively harmless? Maybe not though.

I'm sure some of them are. We could keep mandatory sentences for only violent or serious convictions. e.g. if you've held up a few people by knife point then we actually put you away for a reasonable amount of time.

eet fuk wrote: »

Do we have room in our prisons? Is that why a lot of people seem to get let off?

That can be fixed I'm sure.

eet fuk wrote: »

Or maybe he's some sort of mole for the gardai and he has to keep up appearances.

Seems like we have more moles than Gardai

JustTheOne

Face it lads, the only people who can protect you and your family properly is yourself.

If you are a victim a crime good luck getting justice and protection from anyone else.

Too many do gooder's and bleeding heart brigade's in this country.

Renua seemed to have a good way of dealing with repeat offenders for once but the people didn't like them.

Pro Hoc Vice

RIGHTisRIGHT wrote: »

There are more people in the Legal system then that.
And again it is true an expensive Court System handing out conviction after conviction all on big money.

After 20 convictions a bullet to the head is what is needed cheap effective and efficient.
That would never fly with the left but it not anymore crazy then letting dangerous individuals who are a danger to the public walk free with double digit convictions.

OK some facts,

The last figures for the Courts Service if I remember 2012. Now the figure is for all courts for both civil and criminal. Total cost to run the service 110 million the service had income of 50 million leaving net cost of 60 million. In that year the system collected some 14 million in fines and I think 2 million for charity.

Criminal legal aid dropped from a high of 60 million to currently 50 million.

The issue with large number of convictions is a interesting one. Usually the person gets the multiple convictions in a short time for minor crimes (public order or road traffic) often it can be multiple convictions from the one appearance in court.

It is very rare that a defendant will not get time with multiple serious convictions.

Pro Hoc Vice

Benevolent Misanthrope wrote: »

How much does it cost to pay a judge, a prosecutor, a defence lawyer, court recorders, security, and the mountains of administrators and systems to run the whole farrago?

2 or 3k? Lol.

It's interesting though that - somehow - some amoral scrote's right to commit 400 crimes trumps 400 men, women and children's right not to be victimised.

Cam you link to the case where a person with 400 convictions was spared jail.

mickoneill31

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Cam you link to the case where a person with 400 convictions was spared jail.

That's not the point. The point is that at conviction 100, or 200 or 300 he didn't get enough of a sentence to stop him from totting up loads of more offences.

Maybe they're all minor. I'd still think that if you get 100 convictions for traffic offences that you need to be locked up to protect the rest of society. Traffic offences are obviously not as serious as violent crime but if you can get that many convictions for traffic offences you're eventually going to take somebody out (unless they're all parking tickets I suppose).
And if somebody is able to perform enough crimes to get 20 or 30 convictions in one go then they (and we) have a serious problem.

Pro Hoc Vice

RIGHTisRIGHT wrote: »

:D
I suppose another way to look at it is he was convicted of 423 crimes and it still walking free what better advertisement for a life of crime.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/man-with-423-convictions-has-robbery-sentence-cut-394413.html

Where did he walk free he got 5 years in Circuit Court on appeal he had final year suspended.

kupus

Repeat customer equals repeat money. Never forget that. It really is that simple, and never mind what the vested interests say.

Pro Hoc Vice

mickoneill31 wrote: »

That's not the point. The point is that at conviction 100, or 200 or 300 he didn't get enough of a sentence to stop him from totting up loads of more offences.

Maybe they're all minor. I'd still think that if you get 100 convictions for traffic offences that you need to be locked up to protect the rest of society. Traffic offences are obviously not as serious as violent crime but if you can get that many convictions for traffic offences you're probably going to take somebody out (unless they're all parking tickets I suppose).
And if somebody is able to perform enough crimes to get 20 or 30 convictions in one go then they (and we) have a serious problem.

There are a large number of crimes that can not carry a sentenve. Also most multiple convictions I have seen are for bring drunk in public refusing to obey instructions possession of hash. Also as mostly these guys yes usually men are not very well educated and often serious drink or drugs adiciton, getting in many cases 10 or 20 convictions in one go. The cases of the 423 convictions got 4 years we do not know what time he got in the past.

kupus

kupus wrote: »

Repeat customer equals repeat money. Never forget that. It really is that simple, and never mind what the vested interests say.

Doctors and nurses don't treat patients properly for the same reasons. Keep 'em coming back. Teachers like students failing, keeps class sizes up and stop school closures. Planning officers turn down applications just to keep the work coming in. Gardaí like repeat criminals, all that overtime. And so on and on.

You're right, it really is simple once you think that way...it all makes sense. Don't even start me about mechanics not fixing cars right the first time...

omahaid

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

There are a large number of crimes that can not carry a sentenve. Also most multiple convictions I have seen are for bring drunk in public refusing to obey instructions possession of hash. Also as mostly these guys yes usually men are not very well educated and often serious drink or drugs adiciton, getting in many cases 10 or 20 convictions in one go. The cases of the 423 convictions got 4 years we do not know what time he got in the past.

He got 5 months for his 73rd time caught driving without insurance

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/motorist-caught-without-insurance-for-73rd-time-309164.html

I thought this was a serious offence?

mickoneill31

omahaid wrote: »

He got 5 months for his 73rd time caught driving without insurance

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/motorist-caught-without-insurance-for-73rd-time-309164.html

I thought this was a serious offence?

73rd times a charm.

omahaid

He was driving while under the influence of cannabis at the time apparently.

lawlolawl

I'm sure he'll turn his life around any day now.

Just needs more rehabilitation is all.