Stolen Bike compensation

timfinnegan

Hi,

I've a question for you people.

I recently had an expensive bike stolen. i didn't have it insured so I'm out of pocket big time.

It looks likely that the criminal who stole the bike will be tried in court. If he is found guilty, do I have any entitlement to put an attachment on his wages/social welfare payment until he repays me for the price of my stolen bike?

Does anyone know how I would go about taking a civil action looking to get full compenstion for the price of my bike?

ohnonotgmail

You could certainly take a civil action for damages. Your chances of actually receiving any money though are very slim.

timfinnegan

I was thinking of taking a civil claim against the felon through the small courts and then possibly getting a weekly deduction taken out of his Social welfare payment, until I'm compensated in full

ohnonotgmail

timfinnegan wrote: »

I was thinking of taking a civil claim against the felon through the small courts and then possibly getting a weekly deduction taken out of his Social welfare payment, until I'm compensated in full

you cant use small claims court. that is only for actions against businesses. and you wont get a deduction from their social welfare.

seagull

Your best hope would be that he arrives in court with a sum to give you as compensation in the hopes that he will get a lesser punishment. Although it will probably not be worth his while for something like bike theft.

rushfan

timfinnegan wrote:

Does anyone know how I would go about taking a civil action looking to get full compenstion for the price of my bike?

What happened with the bike? Did he sell it on?

timfinnegan

Yep he sold the bike onto someone for a fraction of it's value.

He's on a Social welfare payment and will most likely be found guilty as the evidence is fairly damning. However, whilst he may get a criminal conviction to add to his lengthy collection, I feel justice would also served if he had to pay for the stolen bike out of his welfare payments. I believe this would be an effective way of dealing with the crime for the perpetrator and me the victim, whilst also acting as a deterrent.

He might be very reticent to rob a bike in broad daylight, if he had to actually recompense his victim through deductions from his welfare payments.

I'm out of pocket and no doubt, this lad will be carrying on his normal criminal trade in no time at all. Where is the deterrent?

boombang

Sorry to hear of the theft.

I'm really glad you raised this one OP. I know of a similar case and the judge didn't award any compo to the victim of the bike theft from the perp's social welfare (I don't think there was any request along these lines). I agree that it would be a far far better way of doing things.

rushfan

timfinnegan wrote:

He's on a Social welfare payment and will most likely be found guilty as the evidence is fairly damning. However, whilst he may get a criminal conviction to add to his lengthy collection, I feel justice would also served if he had to pay for the stolen bike out of his welfare payments. I believe this would be an effective way of dealing with the crime for the perpetrator and me the victim, whilst also acting as a deterrent.

Agree with this. If only.

daheff

Can the person who bought the bike off him be traced? If so, request he gardai to retrieve the stolen bike for you. As far as I know its an offence to handle stolen goods (whether you know or not)!

Somebody who buys stolen goods (probably knowingly) is as bad as somebody who steals.

Claw Hammer

The court can make an order under Section 6 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1993. I have never seen it done, however and most judges are reluctant to order it. In a small number of cases the judge makes it clear that if compensation is paid there will not be a custodial sentence. That sometimes causes the criminal (or his family) to pay up.

Victor

timfinnegan wrote: »

the felon

Do not use this term when in court. The person is the accused until they are found guilty in this prosecution.

The misdemeanor / felony distinction has been abolished in Ireland. Simple bike theft likely wouldn't qualify as a felony anywhere.

timfinnegan

daheff wrote: »

Can the person who bought the bike off him be traced? If so, request he gardai to retrieve the stolen bike for you. As far as I know its an offence to handle stolen goods (whether you know or not)!

Somebody who buys stolen goods (probably knowingly) is as bad as somebody who steals.

I believe it's unlikely that the person who purchased the bike will be traced.

I agree that people who buy off these criminals are equally culpable, as without their co-operation there would be no market for stolen bikes.

timfinnegan

It'll be interesting to see if compensation is offered. My gut instinct, given the history of the suspect is that the offender would rather do time than offer compensation, but I hope I'm wrong on this.

timfinnegan

I take your point on the terminology and of course the thief will not be called that in court until he is convicted of the crime.

BrokenArrows

OP youre asking a lot to be refunded here.
Even if you were lucky enough to get a weekly payment out of them you would probably be awarded something stupid like €5 a week. You would be a while waiting for full repayment. God forbid the scum would have to be put into hardship.

dhaughton99

Remember the govt brought in a scheme to take money from your wages and SW a few years ago for non payment of fines etc? It has been used twice since being implemented according to Sean o’Rourke show.

timfinnegan

BrokenArrows wrote: »

OP youre asking a lot to be refunded here.
Even if you were lucky enough to get a weekly payment out of them you would probably be awarded something stupid like €5 a week. You would be a while waiting for full repayment. God forbid the scum would have to be put into hardship.

I believe that the best way of hitting these criminals is in the pocket. I'd be quiet happy to get €5 per week from him for the next few years. It might act as proper deterrent and make him think twice before lifting property that does not belong to him. From what I can gather the current method of justice has not got this career criminal to reform his ways.

Peregrinus

timfinnegan wrote: »

I believe it's unlikely that the person who purchased the bike will be traced.

I agree that people who buy off these criminals are equally culpable, as without their co-operation there would be no market for stolen bikes.

Which is why we have the crime of receiving stolen goods.

OP - yes, you can take a civil action against the offender seeking compensation for the value of the bike (plus an award of the costs you will incur in taking the civil action). And, if you get judgment, you have the usual range of enforcement options open to you, including an application for an attachment order.

Realistically, though, it would be throwing good money after bad. Judges are reluctant to make attachment orders to enforce civil judgments against people on social welfare, and your long term prospects of ever actually getting anything like the value of the bike are very much dependent on this guy getting a job, and you becoming aware that he has done so.

sexmag

Peregrinus wrote: »

your long term prospects of ever actually getting anything like the value of the bike are very much dependent on this guy getting a job, and you becoming aware that he has done so.

Yes i was going to say this, a get out quick for him in this if an attachment order is made is for him to get a job and have his social welfare stopped, get sacked and started again, you will then have to go through the court rigmorole again costing your further time and money and its not worth it.

If only there was other ways as its a pain in the hole petty thiefs can get away with putting a hard working joe soap out of pocket a good amount

KevinCavan

sexmag wrote: »

Yes i was going to say this, a get out quick for him in this if an attachment order is made is for him to get a job and have his social welfare stopped, get sacked and started again, you will then have to go through the court rigmorole again costing your further time and money and its not worth it.

If only there was other ways as its a pain in the hole petty thiefs can get away with putting a hard working joe soap out of pocket a good amount

Were they not able to track down where the stolen bike was? How was he caught, c.c.t.v.?

Peregrinus

sexmag wrote: »

Yes i was going to say this, a get out quick for him in this if an attachment order is made is for him to get a job and have his social welfare stopped, get sacked and started again, you will then have to go through the court rigmorole again costing your further time and money and its not worth it.

If only there was other ways as its a pain in the hole petty thiefs can get away with putting a hard working joe soap out of pocket a good amount

The bottom line here is that debts incurred through crime are not treated any differently from debts incurred not through crime. A debt's a debt, and the enforcement process and mechanisms available don't vary depending on moral judgments about how the debt was incurred.

And recovering a debt from somebody who doesn't have any money is notoriously difficult. For obvious reasons.

And crimes - particularly petty property crimes - are disproportionately committed by people who don't have any money; the two circumstances are closely connected.

Which means that getting compensation from a petty criminal is rarely easy. If would be easier if petty criminals had more money but, then, if they had more money they would be much less likely to be petty criminals.

timfinnegan

Peregrinus wrote: »

The bottom line here is that debts incurred through crime are not treated any differently from debts incurred not through crime. A debt's a debt, and the enforcement process and mechanisms available don't vary depending on moral judgments about how the debt was incurred.

And recovering a debt from somebody who doesn't have any money is notoriously difficult. For obvious reasons.

And crimes - particularly petty property crimes - are disproportionately committed by people who don't have any money; the two circumstances are closely connected.

Which means that getting compensation from a petty criminal is rarely easy. If would be easier if petty criminals had more money but, then, if they had more money they would be much less likely to be petty criminals.

I don't believe that the current system of justice for dealing with petty thieves or crime in general works effectively.

Do the sentences handed out act as a deterrent?

From the evidence that I can see in my own particular case, the suspect appears to be unconcerned with a short custodial sentence. He has served these previously and yet returns routinely to his old ways of petty crime.

Does the victim get compensated?

In a word, No.

The suspect will get free legal, costing the state thousands of euros from taxpayers like myself.

What happens when he gets out from his next short custodial sentence?

I'd imagine that the criminal will return to his old ways and continue to rob hundreds of bikes from people who have to graft for a living.

It seems that the current methodology we use to tackle petty crime is not fit for purpose. The criminal continues to rob, the law profession will get their free legal aid money and the victims will continue to get robbed, in addition to paying their taxes to support this whole farce.

4ensic15

timfinnegan wrote: »

I don't believe that the current system of justice for dealing with petty thieves or crime in general works effectively.

Do the sentences handed out act as a deterrent?

From the evidence that I can see in my own particular case, the suspect appears to be unconcerned with a short custodial sentence. He has served these previously and yet returns routinely to his old ways of petty crime.

Does the victim get compensated?

In a word, No.

The suspect will get free legal, costing the state thousands of euros from taxpayers like myself.

What happens when he gets out from his next short custodial sentence?

I'd imagine that the criminal will return to his old ways and continue to rob hundreds of bikes from people who have to graft for a living.

It seems that the current methodology we use to tackle petty crime is not fit for purpose. The criminal continues to rob, the law profession will get their free legal aid money and the victims will continue to get robbed, in addition to paying their taxes to support this whole farce.

Your bike was stolen and you want the culprit locked up for 30 years or so?
They have a 3 strikes and you are out in the States. there are millions in jail, bikes still get stolen and it costs the taxpayer to pay for the prisons.
You should just be more careful with any replacement bike you get.

timfinnegan

4ensic15 wrote: »

Your bike was stolen and you want the culprit locked up for 30 years or so?
They have a 3 strikes and you are out in the States. there are millions in jail, bikes still get stolen and it costs the taxpayer to pay for the prisons.
You should just be more careful with any replacement bike you get.

No I've a better idea. Let's pay solicitors and barristers thousands to defend the little scumbags, give them short custodial sentences for their hundreds of offences, let them rob with impunity and sod the people whose property is stolen.

Sure why change a winning formula. Maintain the status quo.

runawaybishop

timfinnegan wrote: »

No I've a better idea. Let's pay solicitors and barristers thousands to defend the little scumbags, give them short custodial sentences for their hundreds of offences, let them rob with impunity and sod the people whose property is stolen.

Sure why change a winning formula. Maintain the status quo.

Realistically if you tap into his dole he will probably rob more, not less. Punishments won't rehabilitate him.

Nermal

4ensic15 wrote: »

You should just be more careful with any replacement bike you get.

The attitude of Ireland's criminal justice system, neatly summed up.

I would gladly pay whatever taxes would be necessary to institute a three strikes law in Ireland.

boombang

The preachy tone against the OP from some posters is annoying. Clearly the current system works poorly. Both he/she and society would be better off with some alternative arrangement along the lines of what is being asked about here.

In practical terms we know the chances of receiving compensation are next to nil, but isn't it worth considering how things could be better. For example, I think it's worth reflecting why victims of crime aren't compensated while repeat criminals are provided with well-paid free legal representation. I see very little justice in that.

Dr Turk Turkelton

4ensic15 wrote: »

Your bike was stolen and you want the culprit locked up for 30 years or so?
They have a 3 strikes and you are out in the States. there are millions in jail, bikes still get stolen and it costs the taxpayer to pay for the prisons.
You should just be more careful with any replacement bike you get.

And girls shouldn't wear short skirts when they go out eh?
Good attitude.

BrokenArrows

3 strikes rules are stupid but there should be a crime multiplier for past offences.

If the normal sentence for minor theft is 1 month and it's their 3rd conviction then it should be 3 X 1month.

Peregrinus

boombang wrote: »

The preachy tone against the OP from some posters is annoying. Clearly the current system works poorly. Both he/she and society would be better off with some alternative arrangement along the lines of what is being asked about here.

Alternative arrangements like three-strike laws have already been tried. They cost much, much more and work just as badly.

It is certainly, as you say, "worth considering how things could be better", but that does require us to focus on how things could be better, rather than on how we could satisfy our desire for vindication, revenge, etc. Locking people up has been amply proven to achieve very little at great cost, and we know that locking more people up for longer only changes one of those two things, and not the one we want to change. We actually have to be prepared to look at measure that deter crime, and that requires us to look at the factors that give rise to crime in the first place. Bigger fines and longer sentences won't reduce crime any more than better bandages and dressings will reduce the rate of wounding.

Del2005

Peregrinus wrote: »

Alternative arrangements like three-strike laws have already been tried. They cost much, much more and work just as badly.

It is certainly, as you say, "worth considering how things could be better", but that does require us to focus on how things could be better, rather than on how we could satisfy our desire for vindication, revenge, etc. Locking people up has been amply proven to achieve very little at great cost, and we know that locking more people up for longer only changes one of those two things, and not the one we want to change. We actually have to be prepared to look at measure that deter crime, and that requires us to look at the factors that give rise to crime in the first place. Bigger fines and longer sentences won't reduce crime any more than better bandages and dressings will reduce the rate of wounding.

If we removed the free legal aid after the first convictions it might do some good. Free legal aid for x amount of convictions after that it's on your own until you are found innocent, then restart the clock. It won't stop the crimes but will kill the gravy train.

Peregrinus

Del2005 wrote: »

If we removed the free legal aid after the first convictions it might do some good. Free legal aid for x amount of convictions after that it's on your own until you are found innocent, then restart the clock. It won't stop the crimes but will kill the gravy train.

Spot the contradiction.

the_syco

timfinnegan wrote: »

He might be very reticent to rob a bike in broad daylight, if he had to actually recompense his victim through deductions from his welfare payments.

He's stealing to increase the money he has now. He'll just steal more. Also, he's more likely to steal from you in future.

=-=

Why didn't you insure your expensive bike?

Del2005

Peregrinus wrote: »

Spot the contradiction.

Killing off one part of the problem will eventually solve the other part.

Peregrinus

Del2005 wrote: »

Killing off one part of the problem will eventually solve the other part.

That's right. Because before free legal aid was introduced, nobody's bicycle was ever stolen. :rolleyes:

BrianHenryIE

If the goal is financial compensation, you're wasting your time.


If your goal is revenge, and get legal advice before this, mail people on the road the culprit lives on and in the area he lives in with a copy of his conviction and a cover letter with a relatable tale of how his behaviour is a problem.


If your goal is rehabilitation you're probably wasting your time on an individual level, but for society look into Irish Penal Reform Trust and harass your politicians until primary and secondary education doesn't come with any financial burdens on families. Then mandate education in prisons with release conditional on criminals showing they have more skills and opportunity than they did when they got in this mess.

Del2005

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's right. Because before free legal aid was introduced, nobody's bicycle was ever stolen. :rolleyes:

They didn't have multiple convictions and no consequences.

Peregrinus

Del2005 wrote: »

They didn't have multiple convictions and no consequences.

Of course they did. Think about it. Unrepresented defendants are more likely to be convicted, not less likely.

sexmag

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course they did. Think about it. Unrepresented defendants are more likely to be convicted, not less likely.

Is there any first steps you would take to improve the rate of crime in the country?

Any other societies you admire who are doing something different that works for them and might benifit us?

Peregrinus

sexmag wrote: »

Is there any first steps you would take to improve the rate of crime in the country?

Any other societies you admire who are doing something different that works for them and might benifit us?

There are at least two things that are known to be more effective than a harsher justice system.

The first is more effective policing. There's a fair amount of evidence that shows that, while things like longer sentences and bigger fines don't affect crime rates, improved detection/arrest rates do. So if your desired outcome is less crime, you should put your additional resources into policing, not courts or prisons.

The second - although this is much more difficult to bring about - is to reduce poverty. Crime statistics are closely linked to poverty, and in particular with changes in people's experience of poverty. The more deprived, limited, alienated and hopeless a person's life is, the less he risks by engaging in criminal behaviour, and vice versa. And there's plenty of evidence from, e.g. trials of basic income schemes that even crude anti-poverty measures like handing out cash reduce crime rates.

Beyond that, you can get specific about targetting different kinds of crime, or different factors causing crime. There's a fair amount of evidence that a lot of crime is attributable to a relatively small number of people who are substance-addicted, and who are trying to feed a habit. You could, for example, look at drug policy and ask whether the way we currently deal with drug addiction is exacerbating crime.

This isn't as easy as it sounds. On the one hand, if you investigate that question you'll very rapidly arrive at the answer "yes". But if you then ask yourself what different drug policy you should adopt, you run into the problem that the drug policy which will be most effective at reducing crime is not necessarily the drug policy which will be most effective at acheiving other outcomes, and then you have to start prioritising your outcomes and making policy choices accordingly.

But, while you're embroiled in that knotty problem, if you pause for a moment and ask yourself for a moment whether tougher sentencing will be effective in reducing drug-related crime, you won't have any difficulty in identifying the answer: no, it won't, not in the tiniest degree. Nobody who is stealing to feed a habit is making any calculations about the likely length of sentence that he faces.

4ensic15

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

And girls shouldn't wear short skirts when they go out eh?
Good attitude.

Why shouldn't girls wear short skirts? Most wear terrible looking trousers.

4ensic15

Del2005 wrote: »

If we removed the free legal aid after the first convictions it might do some good. Free legal aid for x amount of convictions after that it's on your own until you are found innocent, then restart the clock. It won't stop the crimes but will kill the gravy train.

That would be contrary to the presumption of innocence and would be unconstitutional.

timfinnegan

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are at least two things that are known to be more effective than a harsher justice system.

The first is more effective policing. There's a fair amount of evidence that shows that, while things like longer sentences and bigger fines don't affect crime rates, improved detection/arrest rates do. So if your desired outcome is less crime, you should put your additional resources into policing, not courts or prisons.

The police work in my own particular case has been good. The suspect will be charged with robbing my bike and I understand the criminal will probably face another number of counts, relating to more offences, which have been detected by other police officers. I would imagine that the thief will probably ramp up his level of activity, now that there's a good chance he will be convicted. Might as well be done for robbing 100 bikes as 10 bikes, as the sentencing will be similar.

It must be discouraging for Police officers to have to start the whole process all over again, as his previous history suggests that he will be a recidivist on his release from a custodial sentence.

It's a complicated question, but I don't believe that the current system works well for society or the victims of crime.

The Gardai could perhaps be doing more by finding out, who are the recipients of the stolen property. I'd imagine it'd be easy enough to set up a couple of bait bikes with GPS trackers to see the end destination of the stolen cycles.

Claw Hammer

timfinnegan wrote: »

The police work in my own particular case has been good. The suspect will be charged with robbing my bike and I understand the criminal will probably face another number of counts, relating to more offences, which have been detected by other police officers. I would imagine that the thief will probably ramp up his level of activity, now that there's a good chance he will be convicted. Might as well be done for robbing 100 bikes as 10 bikes, as the sentencing will be similar.

It must be discouraging for Police officers to have to start the whole process all over again, as his previous history suggests that he will be a recidivist on his release from a custodial sentence.

It's a complicated question, but I don't believe that the current system works well for society or the victims of crime.

The Gardai could perhaps be doing more by finding out, who are the recipients of the stolen property. I'd imagine it'd be easy enough to set up a couple of bait bikes with GPS trackers to see the end destination of the stolen cycles.

The guards in fact do carry out sting operations. It is a bit of a piss in the wind however. If the guy who stole your last bike is in jail, his little brother or cousin will take the next one. It is quite simple really, throw up council sink estates. discourage school attendance, make the adults depend on welfare and crime and voila, after a few years there are infinite numbers of bike thieves.

timfinnegan

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The guards in fact do carry out sting operations. It is a bit of a piss in the wind however. If the guy who stole your last bike is in jail, his little brother or cousin will take the next one. It is quite simple really, throw up council sink estates. discourage school attendance, make the adults depend on welfare and crime and voila, after a few years there are infinite numbers of bike thieves.

Nail on the head here.

The thief's parents are both convicted criminals, as are his siblings, which probably is inevitable given the lineage.

They live in a deprived council area, so i guess it's something that is going to continue to happen unless there are serious changes in the way we organise our society. If my robber friend has kids of his own, I'd imagine they will follow into the family profession.

It's a fairly depressing picture and something we need to address as a country. It seems to be particularly acute in Dublin.

4ensic15

timfinnegan wrote: »

The police work in my own particular case has been good. The suspect will be charged with robbing my bike.

He will not be charged with robbing your bike because he didn't rob it.

Nermal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Alternative arrangements like three-strike laws have already been tried. They cost much, much more and work just as badly.

No country has ever implemented a three strikes law covering theft. The liberal canard: 'we have tried harsh sentences and they have failed' is nonsense.

A true three-strikes policy would probably increase our prison population 40 or 50 fold. It would be a price well worth paying; set against the benefit of a near elimination of crime, it may well not cost us anything at all.

hullaballoo

That's proven to be untrue. Harsh sentencing has a detrimental effect on crime rates for blindingly obvious reasons. Amongst these is that, as pointed out above, criminals are encouraged to offend more in the might-as-well-be-hung-for-a-sheep-as-a-lamb criminal justice system that you are proposing.

The best way to lower crime rates is provision and education but it's politically unpopular because the baying mob want to see punishment above all else.

Peregrinus

Nermal wrote: »

No country has ever implemented a three strikes law covering theft. The liberal canard: 'we have tried harsh sentences and they have failed' is nonsense.

Jerry Williams was sentenced to 25-years-to-life under California's "three strikes" law for stealing a single slice of pizza. (The law has since been repealed.)

Nermal wrote: »

A true three-strikes policy would probably increase our prison population 40 or 50 fold. It would be a price well worth paying; set against the benefit of a near elimination of crime, it may well not cost us anything at all.

Pure wishful thinking. There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that a three-strikes policy would result in the "near elimination of crime".

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

4ensic15 wrote: »

He will not be charged with robbing your bike because he didn't rob it.

?