Woman rakes up 648 convictions

El_Duderino 09

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

There’s a drug clinic Pearse street with 100 or more employees. Lots of money is spent on this, to no great effect.

How do you claim,to know the effect of that particular clinic?

Have you had a chance to quote where anyone said the response to this woman should be to not lock people up? Shall we out tgat gown to a little porky pie on your part with no need to embarrass yourself like that again?

So where does your claim about the effective the clinic come from?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How do you claim,to know the effect of that particular clinic?

I don’t know the effect of the clinic, however there it is. Money spent by us on rehabilitation. The hundreds of million was referring to all the money we have spent on drug rehabilitation schemes.

Have you had a chance to quote where anyone said the response to this woman should be to not lock people up? Shall we out tgat gown to a little porky pie on your part with no need to embarrass yourself like that again?

You’ve lost me here. That said you tend to barge into these threads demanding rehabilitation and then when that’s called out you say you never supported non incarceration. It’s never clear what you want.

So where does your claim about the effective the clinic come from?

I literally said nothing about the clinic except that it is there.

Mr E

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't expect you to address all the point that don't suit your narrative, but do try to address some of them.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Please try to keep the guff to a minimum

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Forgive me for not paying along and pretending you're a mind reader. I get that it ruins your approach but it's just not realistic.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Shall we out tgat gown to a little porky pie on your part with no need to embarrass yourself like that again?

Mod: Cut out the snark and condescending comments please. It's not adding anything to this thread.

Graces7

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well id advocate the death penalty but that will cause a whole other liberal meltdown

What excuse could you possibly gove somevody being caught and prosecuted 10 times for a crime

Excuse? odd word.

Eric Cartman

Graces7 wrote: »

Excuse? odd word.

Ok , what possible justification can you give for somebody with 10+ previous convictions walking around freely on our streets.

Graces7

splinter65 wrote: »

No. Living in the “community” for 44 years has not had any positive affect on this unfortunate lady and she has caused only heartache and pain to the “community” despite I suspect many many attempts to help her to cope with life.
In order for “rehabilitation” to be successful, the addict must first of all acknowledge that she has an addiction and that it’s bad, and secondly want to actually deal with the addiction.
Over at least 25 years this lady has shown no interest in these things. Lots of alcoholics don’t. It’s a common theme in alcoholics that they blame everyone and everything else for their unhappiness. It’s part of the disease.
For her own sake and the sake of the community her freedom to live her life as she chooses needs to be taken away from her now as she’s never displayed any signs of making any other decisions except for bad ones. Long term care facility with a structured day involving work to try and cover the costs and the opportunity for education and some leisure activities. But no more ever again wandering around the city tormenting herself and everyone else.

Many here are referring to some kind of //custodial?? rehab? I mentioned that way back there were facilities for this, in the UK at least, that were not prisons as such. These got scrapped there as they cost too much, in favour of
"care in the community which never worked as the community did no t care

I would suspect that levels of this kind of crime went up greatly at that time.

splinter65

Anyone’s perspective on how we should deal with chronic persistent offenders with addiction issues is born out of experience really.
If you are a shopkeeper trying to run a business in Baggot st, employ people, pay your rates and taxes overheads insurance etc then you are absolutely entitled to make a comfortable life for your family and yourself, have nice holidays, provide your children with extra opportunities, enjoy some luxuries etc because after all YOU took the risk to open this business, YOU had the idea and the skill and possibly did the training to make the whole thing happen....sure what is the whole effort for if not to get the rewards?
To be told then that you have to be “patient” with this woman and all the other shop lifters stealing sometimes €1000s per week from you, between goods being taken and scaring away your customers and threatening violence on your staff is very immoral and especially when most of the people telling you to be patient are not impacted in any way by this kind of anti social anti business behavior themselves.
It must be great to sit comfortably safely somewhere bemoaning the “lock em up” attitude of others who are or have been on the receiving end of this “addiction related” behaviors.

splinter65

JustAThought wrote: »

Protect the community and retail industry and workers..

Lock her up and throw away the key.

I absolutely agree with you. Everyone should be safe at least at work and on the way to and from. I don’t know why workers don’t march for this.

splinter65

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Ok , what possible justification can you give for somebody with 10+ previous convictions walking around freely on our streets.

The real reason they’re walking around is that we don’t want to admit that “care in the community” is a total and complete failure and we will have to return to removing people who cannot or will not change from society in order to protect themselves and the “community”.
The mad middle class libs who are not affected in any way by the consequences of repeat offenders marauding the streets reeling havoc will not countenance any change in the current situation so we will just have to wait for common sense to return. I’ll be dead by then though.

Sonny noggs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think the fewer facts and figures you post, the more certain you can be. Being completely free of either, your absolute certainty is to be expected even if it's not merited.

At a relativey conservative 1,500 per week in prison for 40 years, it comes out at over 3m. It's absolutely incredible that you would be willing to spaff 3.m of taxpayer's money without even consider a way to rehabilitate the person to the betterment of society.

Some people are just married to the idea of punishment.

Would love to see the facts around her being rehabilitatable.

splinter65

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Would love to see the facts around her being rehabilitatable.

To have clocked up those convictions she’d have to be living this life for 20 years. She can’t be rehabilitated. She won’t see 50 either if she’s not removed from her current lifestyle permanently.
Some of the libs would rather she was actually dead then see her “civil rights” removed from her.

El_Duderino 09

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Ok , what possible justification can you give for somebody with 10+ previous convictions walking around freely on our streets.

Easy. Mental illness, trauma, personality disorder. There's three. I wouldn't call any of them excuses or justifications though. But they often explain 10+ convictions. And while prison isn't any use for those people, I wouldn't advocate for them "walking around freely on our streets". There are places for them such as psychiatric institutions, forensic hospitals, or residential rehab. Or maybe supervised or limited freedom to walk the streets but certainly not the way you phrased it.

El_Duderino 09

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Would love to see the facts around her being rehabilitatable.

I doubt it

El_Duderino 09

Graces7 wrote: »

Many here are referring to some kind of //custodial?? rehab? I mentioned that way back there were facilities for this, in the UK at least, that were not prisons as such. These got scrapped there as they cost too much, in favour of
"care in the community which never worked as the community did no t care

I would suspect that levels of this kind of crime went up greatly at that time.

Precisely this. I know someone who works in that area. She's involved in the process of moving people back into the community. She says there are often people who are in the process of making great progress but are not ready to go back to the community without re offending and it's only a matter of time before they're back.
But the Tories have cut funding for residential care. It's purely political. It swings every 15years or so from residential rehab to community based care. Pity because when it's done well it has a positive effect on the individual, their family and their community and the taxpayer who doesnt have to pay to police, serve justice and warehouse the person repeatedly.

Hal3000

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Easy. Mental illness, trauma, personality disorder. There's three. I wouldn't call any of them excuses or justifications though. But they often explain 10+ convictions. And while prison isn't any use for those people, I wouldn't advocate for them "walking around freely on our streets". There are places for them such as psychiatric institutions, forensic hospitals, or residential rehab. Or maybe supervised or limited freedom to walk the streets but certainly not the way you phrased it.

That's a lovely system for the offenders, a person to watch over them as they gently assimilate back into society. Tell me this, who looks after our victims when they can't face going out the door anymore?

Sonny noggs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I doubt it

No, they would likely show she cannot be rehabilitated so I would love to see them. But you are not interested in that, you want to maintain the possibility that she MIGHT be rehabilitated so you can’t be proven wrong. Even if she had 10,000 convictions you would still claim that she can be rehabilitated.

Eric Cartman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Easy. Mental illness, trauma, personality disorder. There's three. I wouldn't call any of them excuses or justifications though. But they often explain 10+ convictions. And while prison isn't any use for those people, I wouldn't advocate for them "walking around freely on our streets". There are places for them such as psychiatric institutions, forensic hospitals, or residential rehab. Or maybe supervised or limited freedom to walk the streets but certainly not the way you phrased it.

No excuse, 1, 2, 3 convictions perhaps, you get to double digits and theres no reforming you and you have no place in society

Hal3000

Eric Cartman wrote: »

No excuse, 1, 2, 3 convictions perhaps, you get to double digits and theres no reforming you and you have no place in society

Don't bother, this El Dude will argue with you that sentencing is wrong until the cows come home. What they want is a reformist society where we assist violent repeat offenders until they suddenly have this light bulb moment and realise that what they've been doing is wrong. This may not happen on their first, second or third conviction, but as long as it happens eventually then everything will be fine and crime rates will plummet. The citizens are now just colletaral damage in the offenders healing process. Utter sh*t in other words.

splinter65

Hal3000 wrote: »

That's a lovely system for the offenders, a person to watch over them as they gently assimilate back into society. Tell me this, who looks after our victims when they can't face going out the door anymore?

Victims are nobodies and don’t really matter to the lib lunatics whose hearts bleed constantly for the poor 145 times convicted heroin addict who, according to them, needs to be treated like cut glass, by society at large and their own “community” ( just not the community the lib lunatic lives in, thanks very much).

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

The thing is, we are all free to do what we want.... then we face the consequences.

What's your suggestion, beheading, cut off her hands perhaps... Maybe a good old fashioned stoning....

While "your Heart Bleeds" do you have a reasonable solution to societal problems like this?

If not I'd suggest you keep your great idea's and nuggets of useless wisdom to yourself.

Have a look at my suggestion a few pages back - life (meaning life) sentences for career criminals, with the possibility of parole tied directly to sincere and measurable attempts to rehabilitate whilst behind bars.

splinter65

Eric Cartman wrote: »

No excuse, 1, 2, 3 convictions perhaps, you get to double digits and theres no reforming you and you have no place in society

This is true. It’s not that I want people brutalized or punished.
I want people to live their best lives always just under permanent supervision and in a place where they can no longer do any damage to themselves or others.
Work is very important in this aspect.
Growing fruit and vegetables and tending to chickens etc and the general upkeep and maintenance of the residential facility in return for board and lodgings and medical care and luxuries like restricted internet access and some online shopping would be dignified and good for mental health.
The opportunity should be there for further education too.

El_Duderino 09

Hal3000 wrote: »

That's a lovely system for the offenders, a person to watch over them as they gently assimilate back into society. Tell me this, who looks after our victims when they can't face going out the door anymore?

If it has the effect of making them less likely to reoffend then its in everyone's interest. Wouldn't you agree?

It's not just about the offender really, it's primarily about keeping society safe

Just to clarify, this is why I believe you have more interest in punishment than keeping the society safe or preventing future victims from being created. You, didn't even wonder if the measures would work (they do BTW) instead you were afraid that it's a lovely system FOR THE OFFENDER! It's not really about the offender, it's about the society.

The victims is a separate discussion but if you think my approach to offenders is radical or too lefty, then you'd probably have a conniption if you heard about the money I'd spend on victim support from counselling to restorative justice. But that's another story.

First and foremost it would be about preventing future victims being created.

El_Duderino 09

Sonny noggs wrote: »

No, they would likely show she cannot be rehabilitated so I would love to see them. But you are not interested in that, you want to maintain the possibility that she MIGHT be rehabilitated so you can’t be proven wrong. Even if she had 10,000 convictions you would still claim that she can be rehabilitated.

There isn't a question in this post. Just a lot of incorrect assumptions.

Graces7

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Precisely this. I know someone who works in that area. She's involved in the process of moving people back into the community. She says there are often people who are in the process of making great progress but are not ready to go back to the community without re offending and it's only a matter of time before they're back.
But the Tories have cut funding for residential care. It's purely political. It swings every 15years or so from residential rehab to community based care. Pity because when it's done well it has a positive effect on the individual, their family and their community and the taxpayer who doesnt have to pay to police, serve justice and warehouse the person repeatedly.

inhumane. I remember the terror and confusion in the UK; even finding rented accommodation ? and imagine that now. There used to be a saying in the US that ex cons would reoffend to get " three hots and a cot" however they could and prison provides that. It fits this person.

El_Duderino 09

Eric Cartman wrote: »

No excuse, 1, 2, 3 convictions perhaps, you get to double digits and theres no reforming you and you have no place in society

You can say that with conviction without there being a serious attempt to reform people.

But there are some people who cant be rehabilitated, or perhaps cant be rehabilitated with the knowledge we currently have. But the effect is the same.

I never said any different. The fact is we don't focus on rehabilitation but so many people are declaring it a failure. Isn't that interesting in and of itself? People are curious creatures

El_Duderino 09

Graces7 wrote: »

inhumane. I remember the terror and confusion in the UK; even finding rented accommodation ? and imagine that now. There used to be a saying in the US that ex cons would reoffend to get " three hots and a cot" however they could and prison provides that. It fits this person.

Fascinating fact about that is sexual offenders tend to find it very hard to find accommodation (obviously enough). So when they find accommodation they tend to end up living together. They tend to band together to either conspire to abuse people or they end up ganging up on one of the people in the house. Usually a learning disabled one.

Rehabilitation in a controlled forensic hospital means they can actually keep them in if they're not ready to return to the community (political meddling aside).

Sonny noggs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There isn't a question in this post. Just a lot of incorrect assumptions.

No worse then the skutter you keep coming out with, which has no facts or basis in reality.

El_Duderino 09

Sonny noggs wrote: »

No worse then the skutter you keep coming out with, which has no facts or basis in reality.

You're just being silly now.

Sonny noggs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're just being silly now.

Like you have been from your first post in this thread.

El_Duderino 09

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Like you have been from your first post in this thread.

That's a real zinger. Rolly eye emoji

But you're gone off topic. Let me know if you are interested Interested in discussing the topic.