Woman rakes up 648 convictions

Wtf ?

Why is a Skanger getting so much airtime on boards ? I see a tut tut mentality here making some posters feel better about themselves ? Personally I could not give a **** but this thread is dragging on and on and on etc... I really don't understand why this thread has so much traction, Move along and forget it.
There will be a new thing to get ''Outraged'' about tomorrow.

Ronaldinho

Wtf ? wrote: »

Why is a Skanger getting so much airtime on boards ? I see a tut tut mentality here making some posters feel better about themselves ?

Can only speak for myself but seeing someone like this just totally take the piss committing crime after crime and then you consider the cost to the state of the courts and prison and then you think of all the better ways that money could be spent.

There's a lot of people out there that are in a bad spot through absolutely no fault of their own through illness/bereavement as an example. It's a pity we can't channel more resources to these people that I would see as more deserving of it.

For me it's the same with Govt. overspending on other stuff like the Children's Hospital. Pi$$ing money away needlessly when there's better things we could be doing with it.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Wtf ? wrote: »

Why is a Skanger getting so much airtime on boards ? I see a tut tut mentality here making some posters feel better about themselves ? Personally I could not give a **** but this thread is dragging on and on and on etc... I really don't understand why this thread has so much traction, Move along and forget it.
There will be a new thing to get ''Outraged'' about tomorrow.

Welcome to a discussion board. Here we discuss things.

joe swanson

High time there was root and branch reform of sentencing policy in this country and more emphasis on victims . Punishments need to actually mean something.

I would suggest that if you receive ten convictions for indictable offences you should face a ten year sentence with no exceptions.

Time to stop the softly softly approach.

splinter65

joe swanson wrote: »

High time there was root and branch reform of sentencing policy in this country and more emphasis on victims . Punishments need to actually mean something.

I would suggest that if you receive ten convictions for indictable offences you should face a ten year sentence with no exceptions.

Time to stop the softly softly approach.

More again today with a woman who attacked a Garda when drunk, really violently, being given no jail time due to her brief giving the usual sob story.
If you attack a front line service person drunk or sober, I don’t care, it should be 12 months inside automatically once it’s proven it did happen.
This is pathetic.

hatrickpatrick

Wtf ? wrote: »

Why is a Skanger getting so much airtime on boards ? I see a tut tut mentality here making some posters feel better about themselves ? Personally I could not give a **** but this thread is dragging on and on and on etc... I really don't understand why this thread has so much traction, Move along and forget it.
There will be a new thing to get ''Outraged'' about tomorrow.

Some of us have directly experienced anti social behaviour (IE, petty or violent crime) from scumbags like this, and indeed some of us have experienced this on multiple occasions. When they are allowed to continue like this and not be imprisoned for it, it is evidence of the justice system failing in one of its main objectives, that being to ensure that decent, law abiding folk are able to go about their lives free from crime. I'm a lucky one, the most annoying thing I remember happening to me because of scumbags being scumbags was having my iPhone stolen, but I do distinctly remember that when the thief was eventually busted by the Gardai a month or two later, not only did they have multiple stolen phones in their posession and numerous previous convictions, but walked out of court with a suspended sentence. I have no doubt that some other poor f*cker went on to become another victim of this individual after they were let off - and for all we know, that person may have had a far more urgent need for their phone than I did, such as a sick relative, a pregnant partner, an urgent work commitment, etc.

It's pretty reasonable for people to be outraged in that context, tbh. These f*ckers commit crimes ranging from stealing peoples' phones and randomly assaulting or harassing passers by, to seriously injuring people and vandalising their homes. Why shouldn't we be outraged that people who engage in that kind of behaviour are not restrained from doing so by the justice system whose entire raison d'etre is to ensure that decent people do not become the victims of such crime on an ongoing basis?

Hal3000

splinter65 wrote: »

More again today with a woman who attacked a Garda when drunk, really violently, being given no jail time due to her brief giving the usual sob story.
If you attack a front line service person drunk or sober, I don’t care, it should be 12 months inside automatically once it’s proven it did happen.
This is pathetic.

If you get someone to write a letter to the judge you can get off

Hobosan

I wonder if we implemented laws like, 'don't give your phone to a stranger' or 'don't grow food and sell it to shops', would degenerates like this be stupid enough to break them?

El_Duderino 09

joe swanson wrote: »

High time there was root and branch reform of sentencing policy in this country and more emphasis on victims . Punishments need to actually mean something.

I would suggest that if you receive ten convictions for indictable offences you should face a ten year sentence with no exceptions.

Time to stop the softly softly approach.

What would you suggest should be done for the victims?

Nermal

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What would you suggest should be done for the victims?

Give them the comfort that the criminals who wronged them are removed from society...

El_Duderino 09

Nermal wrote: »

Give them the comfort that the criminals who wronged them are removed from society...

Would you even bother to ask what they want or just tell them the criminal is in prison so they ought to be happy with that?

hatrickpatrick

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Would you even bother to ask what they want or just tell them the criminal is in prison so they ought to be happy with that?

Well as someone who has been (and has had many friends be) the victim of assaulting, thieving scumbags in Dublin City Centre over the years, I can say with a massive degree of confidence that most of the victims of this kind of sh!te would indeed be delighted to know that the f*cker who did it to them wasn't free to terrorise the area anymore.

El_Duderino 09

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well as someone who has been (and has had many friends be) the victim of assaulting, thieving scumbags in Dublin City Centre over the years, I can say with a massive degree of confidence that most of the victims of this kind of sh!te would indeed be delighted to know that the f*cker who did it to them wasn't free to terrorise the area anymore.

Did you feel terrorised by the incident? Doesn't that suggest that victims would also need emotional and psychological support? Maybe professional care in some circumstances or support to do some basic tasks like leave the house to go shopping. Support to reintegrate into their social support.

How do families support their family member who was a victim.of crime? Should there be support for families to help them to support their family member and get them back to normality?

What about the financial impact of crime on the victim? Loss of earnings due to trauma, loss of goods?

What about the physical trauma of crime? Hospital appointments and associated costs?

There are lots of types of crime besides the petty crime of which you were a victim. How is it that so many posters have claimed to care about the victims, but funny enough the only solution they have for victims is the same single solution they were advocating since the start? If the only tool you have is a hammer...

How's it that I'm pretty confident I'm the only one posting in this thread who has actually researched what victims want? Prison sentences is one theme in victim support but it's by no means sufficient to support victims. For all the talk about caring for victims, you'd think you'd at least start by asking what victims actually want rather than assuming that victims would all agree with your prejudice.

Bigmac1euro

Can we just give her one more chance ?
She’s changed and I believe her.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Did you feel terrorised by the incident? Doesn't that suggest that victims would also need emotional and psychological support? Maybe professional care in some circumstances or support to do some basic tasks like leave the house to go shopping. Support to reintegrate into their social support.

How do families support their family member who was a victim.of crime? Should there be support for families to help them to support their family member and get them back to normality?

What about the financial impact of crime on the victim? Loss of earnings due to trauma, loss of goods?

What about the physical trauma of crime? Hospital appointments and associated costs?

There are lots of types of crime besides the petty crime of which you were a victim. How is it that so many posters have claimed to care about the victims, but funny enough the only solution they have for victims is the same single solution they were advocating since the start? If the only tool you have is a hammer...

How's it that I'm pretty confident I'm the only one posting in this thread who has actually researched what victims want? Prison sentences is one theme in victim support but it's by no means sufficient to support victims. For all the talk about caring for victims, you'd think you'd at least start by asking what victims actually want rather than assuming that victims would all agree with your prejudice.

Honestly, at this point it's hard to believe you really mean what you're posting.

By all means, bash in some data to back up this claim that victims (by and large) don't want criminals locked up for their crimes. Who in their right mind, would want the person who raped them, robbed from them, murdered their friend/family member etc etc etc free to roam the streets and do it again. By all means try and reform them WHILE they're incarcerated, but myself included as a victim in the past, absolutely want criminals of the above type of crimes locked up. Same logic applies to the woman who is the topic of this thread, she should 100% be in prison, clearly she is a massive risk for re-offence, so why on earth should law abiding folks have to suffer while she roams free.

How on earth you can twist all of that into somehow being prejudiced is absolutely mind boggling. It's simply common sense.

gmisk

givyjoe wrote: »

Honestly, at this point it's hard to believe you really mean what you're posting.

By all means, bash in some data to back up this claim that victims (by and large) don't want criminals locked up for their crimes. Who in their right mind, would want the person who raped them, robbed from them, murdered their friend/family member etc etc etc free to roam the streets and do it again. By all means try and reform them WHILE they're incarcerated, but myself included as a victim in the past, absolutely want criminals of the above type of crimes locked up. Same logic applies to the woman who is the topic of this thread, she should 100% be in prison, clearly she is a massive risk for re-offence, so why on earth should law abiding folks have to suffer while she roams free.

How on earth you can twist all of that into somehow being prejudiced is absolutely mind boggling. It's simply common sense.

I totally agree.


As someone who has been a victim of a fairly serious assault would I want the people responsible to be punished by being locked up? most definitely. I wouldn't want anyone else to have to try and deal with an assault, attack etc, I would think a lot of people would say the same.


There definitely should be more support for the victims of crime (There are some supports (well I was offered them via my old job at the time), there is also the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme) but this doesnt mean people who have a list of crimes (especially violent ones) as long as your arm should not be given a custodial sentence.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

Honestly, at this point it's hard to believe you really mean what you're posting.

By all means, bash in some data to back up this claim that victims (by and large) don't want criminals locked up for their crimes.
.

LOL. Now, you quoted my post and went to the trouble of bolding a sentence - which I think is probably true BTW. I reckon I'm the only one posting who has had occasion to actually look up what support victims of crime want.

The question you asked was answered in the very next line from the one you bolded. Far from me saying victims DON'T want their attacker punished, I said " Prison sentences is one theme in victim support but it's by no means sufficient to support victims". Any you ask if I'm serious.

Seems fairly self evident to me, hence the list of other support types in the post you quoted. So, have a read of the post you quoted again, and get back to me. I'll take your silence as an apology for blatantly misrepresenting my post.

Nermal

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How's it that I'm pretty confident I'm the only one posting in this thread who has actually researched what victims want?

Let me spare you the sociology PhD, friend: they want to avoid becoming victims in the first place. Something which will only happen when irredeemable criminals like this are permanently incarcerated.

El_Duderino 09

Nermal wrote: »

Let me spare you the sociology PhD, friend: they want to avoid becoming victims in the first place. Something which will only happen when irredeemable criminals like this are permanently incarcerated.

Thanks. And is that all victims want? Or do victims all only want the same thing you want?

So maybe let's not spare ourselves from actually asking victims what they want. As I said, one theme in the research is punishment. But it's not sufficient.

Wouldn't you care about what victims say they want? If it's all about victims, then surely the fact that there is lots of research on the topic would be interesting to you. But obviously it's not about the victims. It's a one-line argument that starts and concludes with "lock em up". Otherwise the people who pretend to be interested in victims would be Interested in research on victims.

Hal3000

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Thanks. And is that all victims want? Or do victims all only want the same thing you want?

So maybe let's not spare ourselves from actually asking victims what they want. As I said, one theme in the research is punishment. But it's not sufficient.

Wouldn't you care about what victims say they want? If it's all about victims, then surely the fact that there is lots of research on the topic would be interesting to you. But obviously it's not about the victims. It's a one-line argument that starts and concludes with "lock em up". Otherwise the people who pretend to be interested in victims would be Interested in research on victims.

So this research into victims says what exactly? John Doe was the victim of a violent assault, when asked if John would like to see the perpetrator punished, he replied no... Said no one EVER!

Dante7

I'm by no means a do-gooder, but when you see a case with a woman having hundreds of convictions for public drunkenness, there is something wrong with the system.

El_Duderino 09

Hal3000 wrote: »

So this research into victims says what exactly? John Doe was the victim of a violent assault, when asked if John would like to see the perpetrator punished, he replied no... Said no one EVER!

I don't know how many times I need to say it but it appears Ai need to say it at least once more. Punishment is one theme that emerges from the research but that's by no means sufficient to support victims.

I'm really surprised I need to spell it out but lots of posters have misinterpreted this sentence. It means that victims want to see perpetrators punished, bit that's only one aspect of what victims want and need.

There are lots of other strands of support that victims want. It varies by victim types, the nature and severity if the crime. Pretty standard stuff, but it might not make much sense to you if all you want to do is focus on punishment. If you care about victims, you'll have a much broader range of issues.

Kermit.de.frog

Is there any other country in the world, never mind Europe, where someone with 600 previous convictions would be walking the streets?

I don't think there is.

El_Duderino 09

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Is there any other country in the world, never mind Europe, where someone with 600 previous convictions would be walking the streets?

I don't think there is.

What are you basing that assertion on? Maybe you have plenty of knowledge of other countries and the intricacies of their legal system. Maybe you made it up. You tell me.

I think some European countries have decent rehabilitation strands to their criminal justice system so there's a great chance she'd have spent more time incarcerated in them

Hal3000

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What are you basing that assertion on? Maybe you have plenty of knowledge of other countries and the intricacies of their legal system. Maybe you made it up. You tell me.

I think some European countries have decent rehabilitation strands to their criminal justice system so there's a great chance she'd have spent more time incarcerated in them

Please show us countries that give out suspended sentences for rapists, child molesters, violent assaults, muggings and bulgarly. And also please show us countries who successfully rehabilitate these offenders. In particular repeat offenders.

El_Duderino 09

Hal3000 wrote: »

Please show us countries that give out suspended sentences for rapists, child molesters, violent assaults, muggings and bulgarly. And also please show us countries who successfully rehabilitate these offenders. In particular repeat offenders.

You have a real tendency to conflate questioning a claim with making the opposite claim. To clarify, I didn't claim I could do what you're asking.

Apart from that. I Addressed your previous question in my last post and you didn't so much as acknowledge it. One thing at a time, eh?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't know how many times I need to say it but it appears Ai need to say it at least once more. Punishment is one theme that emerges from the research but that's by no means sufficient to support victims.

I'm really surprised I need to spell it out but lots of posters have misinterpreted this sentence. It means that victims want to see perpetrators punished, bit that's only one aspect of what victims want and need.

There are lots of other strands of support that victims want. It varies by victim types, the nature and severity if the crime. Pretty standard stuff, but it might not make much sense to you if all you want to do is focus on punishment. If you care about victims, you'll have a much broader range of issues.

Why don’t you link to studies or show exactly what you mean.

Of course if victims are given the choice of punishment and rehabilitation they’d go for that. But it would have to work and there would have to be some penalty for failure to rehabilitate.

All moot in this case where there’s no real punishment nor rehabilitation.

firemansam4

Maybe this has already been brought up before but how much money is someone like this costing the state in free legal aid, garda resources ect?

Maybe there is a case that building more prisons and handing out longer custodial sentences to multiple offenders may save money in the long run?

El_Duderino 09

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Why don’t you link to studies or show exactly what you mean.

Of course if victims are given the choice of punishment and rehabilitation they’d go for that. But it would have to work and there would have to be some penalty for failure to rehabilitate.

All moot in this case where there’s no real punishment nor rehabilitation.

Because my experience is that people almost never read those studies once posted on boards. If you want to read some, just Google it.

Here's one recent one to get you started. Pleasant reading. https://victimsupport.eu/activeapp/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/VS_Understanding-victims-of-crime_web.pdf

El_Duderino 09

firemansam4 wrote: »

Maybe this has already been brought up before but how much money is someone like this costing the state in free legal aid, garda resources ect?

Maybe there is a case that building more prisons and handing out longer custodial sentences to multiple offenders may save money in the long run?

It has been raised, with great enthusiasm. But, as you did, they tended to ignore the cost of incarceration (between 1,300 and 1850 per week). And none of them have reacts with anything but derision, to the idea of investing money upfront in rehabilitation early doors in someone's life.

Seems to make perfect sense to me that the money would have been well spent, concentrated on that woman at the beginning of her criminal life. Address why she's involves in crime and give her the tools to succeed in life. Then you could discount the "sob stories" in court as you know she got the skills to get on in normal life. That approach would be expensive too, mind. It just might have drastically reduced the number of victims of crime.