Somebody tried to break into my friend's flat and he was let free. Why?

JackieChang

Hi folks,

Just trying to understand how the law works basically and why this sort of person is allowed to walk free.

My girlfriend and her friend were outside their flat and a guy walked up to them and asked them for food and money.

They said no, and he proceeded to strip himself naked and scream and shout. They ran inside the flat and locked the door. He picked up a fire hydrant and started battering their door down, still screaming and shouting. Smashed the handle off and the lock is in bits. They grabbed some knives and holed themselves up in the kitchen preparing to be either killed or raped.

Thankfully the door was strong enough so he eventually gave up and ran next door and dragged some other girl out of her apartment and down the stairs. She had opened her door wondering what the commotion was.

Then some neighbors intervened, and he ran off down the street and attacked another girl. Remember this guy is completely naked.

Anyway the Garda arrived and they caught him. A while later some more Garda came and they took photos of the crime scene, doors busted in, battered fire hydrant etc. and took statements.

My girlfriend is in an awful state and she was just told by the Garda that he was let walk free on condition that he doesn't go near that house again. The attempted break in happened just yesterday.

So basically, why isn't this fella locked up?

We're going to get in touch with the guards tomorrow and ask what's going on. I need to know for sure that she's safe going to that neighborhood next time and I need to convince her of that too.

Andrew00

Sure even if he was locked up, he’d be let out after a few months for “good behaviour”

That’s just how the Irish legal system works. Meanwhile if myself or yourself got done for something small like no car tax we’d get harsher punishments than the rapists walking around ireland

Victor

JackieChang wrote: »

He picked up a fire hydrant

Really?

Peregrinus

Well, we don't know whether the guards are (a) doing nothing, and dropping the matter; (b) have charged and bailed the suspect or (c) have referred him for a mental health assessment.

So, basically, we have no idea what's going on. Much more info required before you're going to get any intelligent comments.

Get Real

JackieChang wrote: »

So basically, why isn't this fella locked up?

We're going to get in touch with the guards tomorrow and ask what's going on.

The judge gave him bail on the condition he stay away from the address concerned. Guards can't do anything about it as it's the judge's decision.

Unfortunately it's not like on TV or America. When people are arrested, they're out in hours, and face the sentence and consequences months down the line, all the while committing more crimes while free.

It's a kick in the teeth to the guards who mostly deal with the same crowd over and over, increasing their workload. It's a bigger kick in the teeth to you, your girlfriend and her friend.

It won't change due to a)the right to a presumption of innocence- ie, even if caught red handed, you're innocent until convicted

the legal aid system, which rather than allowing a person be convicted that same week or month, it's remanded numerous times as fees are earned each time. Also, prob suits the criminal to put it on the long finger so they can bundle a few crimes together.

A and B won't be solved anytime soon. Particularly A, which is the main staple of a democracy that I'm sure most (including myself) agree with. Any attempt to define A would be shot down.

Edit: people like this man, 100 previous crimes committed, gets six months.
Some states in America only allow three crimes and you get life.https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/man-with-100-previous-convictions-robbed-car-377298.html
Anyway point being, gets six months, out in four. Free man to continue on his ways.

Victor

Get Real wrote: »

Some states in America only allow three crimes and you get life.

And this is generally seen as a failure.

tuxy

I've not looked up the statistics on it but I bet those states have higher crime rates than Ireland. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

yoke

tuxy wrote: »

I've not looked up the statistics on it but I bet those states have higher crime rates than Ireland. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I’m open to correction, but I’m not sure this is true. According to what I could find at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City and at https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-syi/statisticalyearbookofireland2015/society/crime/ , it looks like the number of crimes per capita in New York is
generally far lower than in Dublin.

Maybe it’s different for specific crimes, or maybe I’ve misinterpreted the stats I’ve found

Peregrinus

I think you may have misinterpreted them. Your Wikipedia link, for example, says that New York City has a homicide rate of 3.4 per 100,00 of the population in 2016, whereas your link to the CSO suggests there were 80 homicide offences in Ireland in 2014, which works out at round about 1.7 per 100,000 of the population - half the rate.

Some of other statistics are not easily comparable; for example the Wikipedia article gives a rate of forcible rape in New York City, whereas the CSO page gives a figure for all sexual offences. Obviously there are many sexual offences which are not forcible rape, so even if we convert the Irish figure to a rate per 100,000 the comparison won't be meaningful.

In general the observation of three-strikes laws is that they are not very effective at reducing crime rates - very few people are attracted to crime by the perceived laxity of sentences - and they are phenomenally expensive to operate. If your object is to reduce crime and you are prepared to spend that amount of money, you will almost certainly achieve better results by spending it in other ways - e.g in improved policing and detection, or even (gasp!) in tackling social and economic conditions which contribute to criminality. For the crime described in the OP, spending more money on mental health services, or substance abuse issues, or both, is highly likely to do much more to protect the public than spending the same money on imprisonment.

yoke

I think I mixed up something else there too - the CSO figures were for Ireland as a whole (rather than Dublin), while I was comparing to New York which I’m pretty sure doesn’t include any rural areas with lower concentrations of people (which I think lowers crime rate a bit as well).

According to https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/ireland/icrime/dublin-ranks-6th-among-european-capitals-for-murder-rate-81103.html , Dublin’s rate for homicide is 3.02 per 100,000, so it is actually not that far off New York, although still lower.

lbc2019

That would have been the first sitting, he was remanded on bail with strict conditions not to return to the address. He will appear before the courts again on this matter. If he shows up again, call the Gardai- he will then have his bail revoked.

Peregrinus

yoke wrote: »

I think I mixed up something else there too - the CSO figures were for Ireland as a whole (rather than Dublin), while I was comparing to New York which I’m pretty sure doesn’t include any rural areas with lower concentrations of people (which I think lowers crime rate a bit as well).

According to https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/ireland/icrime/dublin-ranks-6th-among-european-capitals-for-murder-rate-81103.html , Dublin’s rate for homicide is 3.02 per 100,000, so it is actually not that far off New York, although still lower.

Fair point.

I'd suggest, though, that homicide comparisons aren't the most relevant ones here. If we're looking at the efficacy of "three strikes" rules, though, homicide figures aren't going to cast much light, since (a) the penalty for even one homicide is heavy, and (b) not many people are convicted on three separate occasions for three separate homicides, and (c) those that are will get a long sentence with or without a three strikes rule.

Three-strikes rules are mainly aimed at habitual criminals who commit repeated offences against property (burglary, robbery, theft) or, less often, repeated offences of violence (which is nearly aways against family members or domestic partners). But comparisons between countries for these crimes are notoriously difficult, because they tend to slice-and-dice crimes differently (and of course because there are lots of other differences between countries, apart from sentencing, that might affect crime rates). More usually people look at crime rates in the same jurisdiction before and after the adoption of a three-strikes law, or the repeal of a three-strikes law, to see whether the change in sentencing affected crime rates.

Peregrinus

lbc2019 wrote: »

That would have been the first sitting, he was remanded on bail with strick conditions not to return to the address. He will appear before the courts again on this matter. If he shows up again, call the Gardai- he will then have his bail revoked.

Most likely.

Generally you don't be imprisoned until you have been tried and convicted (for obvious reasons). You can be denied bail if there is reason to think you will flee (which is a surprisingly rare occurrence) or you will interfere with witnesses (hence the restrictions on not approaching people, not returning to the locality).

JackieChang

Victor wrote: »

Really?

Haha... I meant extinguisher.