We need more Prisons

Roger Hassenforder

backspin. wrote: »

We need a landfill for anyone with more than 10 convictions.

Where attempted genuine rehabilitation has failed, thats an option all right in my book.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

What are you asking me?

Allow abortion? Go for it.
If someone finds themselves with a pregnancy and they're either unable/incapable/unwilling to support the child, im ok with it. Particularly where theyre unable. (Id prefer they adopt the child, but thats just an opinion)
Youre barking up the wrong tree with your "repeal 8th". Im not against abortion.

Anythehow, How do the current state supports ensure they dont turn to crime?

Not implying you were against abortion.

I'm asking you (for the thrid time):

"Have more kids, support them yourself" only works if you can be 100% sure neither the parents nor the kids will resort to crime out of desperation if nothing else because the State isn't supporting them. Can you be sure of that?

"There will not be a fourth" - Hans Gruber.

server down

Victor wrote: »

Preventing crime in the first place is much more important than locking people up.Or, having attended prison, they have learned from others and become high-level burglars.

That’s all a failure of rehabilitation. It means that the prison service isn’t working in its secondary capacity of rehabilitation. The primary function is putting people away.

begbysback

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Where attempted genuine rehabilitation has failed, thats an option all right in my book.

Pity we haven't actually gotten round to attempting genuine rehabilitation in this country then

Roger Hassenforder

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Not implying you were against abortion.

I'm asking you (for the thrid time):

"Have more kids, support them yourself" only works if you can be 100% sure neither the parents nor the kids will resort to crime out of desperation if nothing else because the State isn't supporting them. Can you be sure of that?

"There will not be a fourth" - Hans Gruber.

Soz
I thought id answered you.
Theres no certainties or guarantees in life.

Now your turn to reciprocate!

Roger Hassenforder

begbysback wrote: »

Pity we haven't actually gotten round to attempting genuine rehabilitation in this country then

True
We're not punishing effectively IMO either.

Potential-Monke

The problem with rehabilitation is that the offender has to be willing to try it. From my experience, very few want to be rehabilitated. Also, if it's not working, why do 'some' criminals change their ways, but not others? Because they don't want to, that's why. The idea of a normal job with wages is foreign to them.

splinter65

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

But what happens if the mother goes and has 5 kids, and she can't afford to look after them, starving etc? Do we just let them die?
I agree these idiots shouldn't be having loads of kids, but it's not the children's fault they were born so should they really have to suffer based on their parents poor choices?

First if you’ll find that if she knows she’s not going to get any more money she’ll suddenly discover contraception, or she’ll suddenly find herself at work, supporting her own children.

splinter65

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah. It's working great in the UK. :rolleyes:

MrP

It is actually. It’s staggering the amount of lone patents in the UK that suddenly found 16 hours work per week to beat the benefits cap.

corner of hells

spindex wrote: »

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Roughly 60% of inmates re-offend upon release, so I'd say, it probably, overall, wouldn't do much. Out of sight, out of mind isn't working. Time to try something different

Put them up again a wall, one bullet, bang bang. All over

Bang , bang , is that not two bullets or an echo ?

scopper

We have a model for what a prison society looks like, the US, and that model tells us that prison generates a wider criminal culture. Of course they are important, but it's something to consider cautiously.

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

Apart from holding the offenders hand while you sympathize with them over the bad desicions they themselves made in order to get to be in trouble over tying up an old man and beating him with a sweeping brush, what is your suggestion?

It's kinda funny how you're making assumptions about how I would perceive (and sympathize with) these offenders.

Oh, I'm honestly far more hardline in many ways. I'm generally of the opinion that people who repeat crimes have chosen to not be part of modern society and therefore should not be afforded the same protections or rights of the common citizen.

So, I'd really like to see different levels of prisons depending on the types of crimes committed with those with less serious crimes performing community services under supervision (and very limited freedom of movement), and those who have committed more serious crimes being forced to do the more dangerous jobs and/or hard labor to work off their time in prison. However, in addition to this kind of labor would be educational programmes to increase the overall knowledge/skills of prisoners so that when their service is finished, then they will have some alternative for an income or lifestyle than simply repeating their previous mistakes.

I'd also be inclined towards a two-strike rule for serious violent offenders with capital punishment at the end, with a three strike rule for lesser violent offenders.

You assume that simply because I see that criminals should be offered the services of re-education to help rehabilitation that I'm somehow soft on criminals. I'm not. I don't see our society being capable of treating criminals harder than they currently are being treated. To do otherwise is to be uncivilized, or some other nonsense. Although perhaps I have become less civilized after living in Asia for over a decade. And so, realistically, Rehabilitation must be the focus of our justice system since punishment simply isn't working, and the current system does not deter them from behaving in such a manner.

I'd honestly prefer much harsher punishments to be assigned to those convicted of repeat offenses... First-time offenders should have some leeway given to them, perhaps as the current system is given, but repeat offenders should be receiving much harsher sentencing.

I don't particularly have much sympathy for those who commit crimes. It's not because of some weakness of theirs. We all have those moments of temptation to consider real crime to resolve our problems but most members of society shovel that temptation aside and just get on with their lives. I wouldn't even be inclined to make exceptions for mental illness or other psychological gibberish. But that's just me.

BillyBobBS

BillyBobBS wrote: »

If only it was that easy. Doesn't work in America and they have the death penalty to boot and i say this as a victim of crime.

I always find it interesting that just because something hasn't worked in another country (with a very different social/cultural makeup) it should never be considered as a possible answer here.

BobMc

stack em and rack em, After first offence sentencing needs to be much stricter, No Concurrent sentencing either first thing i'd get rid of.

Yellow pack crisps

Build as many prisons as you want, imprison as many people as you want, unless you are tackling social problems from root upwards then nothing will change but only get worse. It’s cheaper to keep criminals on the street than in prison. Fact. Calling people leftists or other such names is dumb because you mask the true problems of society, lock them up and throw away the key has never worked and never will, what’s left behind will come to the front and the patern is continued. Generation after generation! Social services need to restructure how they deal with grave family circumstances to stop abuse, neglect and mental illness from a young age that all contribute to forming a criminal entity.

end of the road

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Reopen Spike Island, and a few of the old Gaols, problem solved.

reopening spike island isn't viable. it was closed due to being hard to manage and hard to get resources to and being expensive to operate. some of the other jails might be viable however.

D3V!L wrote: »

Reopen Spike Island and privatize it. Then put out to tender 2 or 3 other prisons, also privatized.

privatization of the prisons in any form including putting out to tender, would not be financially viable. it would quadruple the costs to the tax payer. america has the most expensive prison system in the world and one of the greatist reofending rates. if you want privatization, you want increased costs for nothing in return.

topper75

Yellow pack crisps wrote: »

It’s cheaper to keep criminals on the street than in prison. Fact. Calling people leftists or other such names is dumb ...

It's cheaper to leave people go sick rather than treat them in a hospital. Another fact. What are we to do with all these facts lying around?

Leftism is at the root of a new take on crime and punishment that has plagued Ireland over the last number of decades.

You say that they commit crime DESPITE the threat of imprisonment.

I say they commit crime DESPITE social welfare, community support schemes, and countless warnings and second chances - all paid for by the very society that gets attacked, beaten up, threatened, robbed, and defrauded.

Maybe, just maybe, we have let it go too far.

Vic_08

Yellow pack crisps wrote: »

Build as many prisons as you want, imprison as many people as you want, unless you are tackling social problems from root upwards then nothing will change but only get worse. It’s cheaper to keep criminals on the street than in prison. Fact.

By that you mean the dole is cheaper than prison, yes it is. However when they are on the streets they are also costing in Garda resources, court costs, lawyer fees, reports and numerous other state funded services these people consume far in excess of average citizens; substance abuse, hospital, social services, etc.

Then there is the cost to the victims of these people, how many theift/burglary victims do you know that have been able to reclaim their costs from perpetrators? These people skate on repaying society, the idea that they would actually have to also repay their victims is not even on their radar.

I do not believe that it is more expensive overall to have habitual offenders locked up, they cost a massive amount either way, there is no denying that but at least behind bars they are unable to victimise more innocent people.

Yellow pack crisps wrote: »

Calling people leftists or other such names is dumb because you mask the true problems of society, lock them up and throw away the key has never worked and never will, what’s left behind will come to the front and the patern is continued. Generation after generation! Social services need to restructure how they deal with grave family circumstances to stop abuse, neglect and mental illness from a young age that all contribute to forming a criminal entity.

That is great in theory. In practice the only way to break the cycle of poverty/benefits/criminality would be to deny large segments of society from being allowed to raise children.

Either mass sterilisation or removal without rights of all children from entire family groups identified as being unfit.

This would have the added hysteria of including a very high % of a certain ethnic group as well.

The biggest problem social services face in dealing with abusive/disfunctional families is the time, effort and proof needed before removing children can be justified. In short the scummers can make kids quicker than the state can take them away. Of course the fact that they rarely get enough prison time for their numerous offences to keep them out of the gene pool for long enough doesn't help either.

tayto lover

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Reopen Spike Island, and a few of the old Gaols, problem solved.

And don't bother building any shelter on it. Save money. Good enough for them.

Mint Sauce

end of the road wrote: »

reopening spike island isn't viable. it was closed due to being hard to manage and hard to get resources to and being expensive to operate. some of the other jails might be viable however.

Whats to manage? Just drop the most hideous of our society on it, and leave them to it.

weldoninhio

Omackeral wrote: »

Death penalty is grand until you kill someone who's actually innocent. People are acquitted and have convictions overturned. Can't do that for a dead person.

If someone has 200/300 convictions I don’t think all of them are going to be cases of mistaken identity.

end of the road

weldoninhio wrote: »

If someone has 200/300 convictions I don’t think all of them are going to be cases of mistaken identity.

that doesn't matter. murder is wrong and illegal, so the death penalty is thankfully not viable for ireland. it also costs more then prison over all. it belongs in the past where it is, time to move on.

server down

scopper wrote: »

We have a model for what a prison society looks like, the US, and that model tells us that prison generates a wider criminal culture. Of course they are important, but it's something to consider cautiously.

While nobody would follow that model exactly, in fact crime has fallen there in the last 2 decades.

turbbo

Heard on the radio today when a criminal gets bail they go out and rob as much as they can because they know they're already going in for the last crime anyways and as they're all concurrent sentences - make hay while the sun shines. Seems fairly obvious there's massive holes in the existing system - also the cost of legal aid to the state is out of hand completely - that money could be going to building prisons instead of lining the lawyers pockets.
2 changes I suggest that would make a massive difference to crime levels in rep. of ireland:
- if you have 3 previous convictions you pay for your own legal representation - i.e use your dole money.
- no bail for criminals with 3 previous convictions.

not a hope of it happening as it makes way too much sense

server down

turbbo wrote: »

Heard on the radio today when a criminal gets bail they go out and rob as much as they can because they know they're already going in for the last crime anyways and as they're all concurrent sentences - make hay while the sun shines. Seems fairly obvious there's massive holes in the existing system - also the cost of legal aid to the state is out of hand completely - that money could be going to building prisons instead of lining the lawyers pockets.

Yes the cases are thrown in together.

turbbo

server down wrote: »

Yes the cases are thrown in together.

The legal profession have an awful lot to answer for. The judges are up to their necks in it with the lawyers - it's a playground for them. Until a few of these criminals break into a few judges homes and beat them to a pulp there won't be any changes. The cops should be printing directions to the judges houses for the lads with 100 previous convictions.

splinter65

Vic_08 wrote: »

By that you mean the dole is cheaper than prison, yes it is. However when they are on the streets they are also costing in Garda resources, court costs, lawyer fees, reports and numerous other state funded services these people consume far in excess of average citizens; substance abuse, hospital, social services, etc.

Then there is the cost to the victims of these people, how many theift/burglary victims do you know that have been able to reclaim their costs from perpetrators? These people skate on repaying society, the idea that they would actually have to also repay their victims is not even on their radar.

I do not believe that it is more expensive overall to have habitual offenders locked up, they cost a massive amount either way, there is no denying that but at least behind bars they are unable to victimise more innocent people.



That is great in theory. In practice the only way to break the cycle of poverty/benefits/criminality would be to deny large segments of society from being allowed to raise children.

Either mass sterilisation or removal without rights of all children from entire family groups identified as being unfit.

This would have the added hysteria of including a very high % of a certain ethnic group as well.

The biggest problem social services face in dealing with abusive/disfunctional families is the time, effort and proof needed before removing children can be justified. In short the scummers can make kids quicker than the state can take them away. Of course the fact that they rarely get enough prison time for their numerous offences to keep them out of the gene pool for long enough doesn't help either.

A social worker told me that they have put countless proposals before the government concerning how difficult it is to permanently remove children from severely disfunctional parents and are ignored time after time.

turbbo

splinter65 wrote: »

A social worker told me that they have put countless proposals before the government concerning how difficult it is to permanently remove children from severely disfunctional parents and are ignored time after time.

Yeah I've heard of horrific cases, where children can't be removed. In fairness capital punishment looks humane to the horror stories of what children in this country go through.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Not implying you were against abortion.

I'm asking you (for the thrid time):

"Have more kids, support them yourself" only works if you can be 100% sure neither the parents nor the kids will resort to crime out of desperation if nothing else because the State isn't supporting them. Can you be sure of that?

"There will not be a fourth" - Hans Gruber.

Soz
I thought id answered you.
Theres no certainties or guarantees in life.

Now your turn to reciprocate!

Your idea is proven to be badly considered or followed through. It wouldnt work and would cause more crime through desperation. QED.

McCrack

turbbo wrote: »

Heard on the radio today when a criminal gets bail they go out and rob as much as they can because they know they're already going in for the last crime anyways and as they're all concurrent sentences - make hay while the sun shines. Seems fairly obvious there's massive holes in the existing system - also the cost of legal aid to the state is out of hand completely - that money could be going to building prisons instead of lining the lawyers pockets.
2 changes I suggest that would make a massive difference to crime levels in rep. of ireland:
- if you have 3 previous convictions you pay for your own legal representation - i.e use your dole money.
- no bail for criminals with 3 previous convictions.

not a hope of it happening as it makes way too much sense

Sentencing for persons who commit further offences on bail attract consecutive sentences and not concurrent. Thats set out in Statute, judges dont have discretion.

Criminal Legal aid payments I can assure you for the work and time involved do not measure up. There are certainly far more lucrative areas of practice than legal aid work