Prisons & Sentencing in Ireland

The Mighty Quinn

I'm not sure if this is a current affairs thread, or a politics thread.

I don't have figures to hand, and this is based on media reports of cases more than experience, but it would appear that a large chunk of convicted crimes in Ireland receive suspended or partially suspended sentences.

Do we ever see consecutive sentencings, or are they all concurrent?
We've all seen the reports of X in court with 115 previous convictions
We have all seen the reports of people committing serious crimes while out on bail.

What is the reasoning behind this? This article seems to be advocating for suspended sentences, or at least discussing the benefits of same;

https://www.irishlegal.com/article/blog-a-suspended-sentence-is-a-real-punishment

Is the problem lack of prison space? Are judges hesitant to sentence as they know there's no capacity? If so, why don't we build a new modern prison with a large capacity?

Are we bound by legal precedent, X crime = Y months suspended. How is this changed, surely can't be permanently bound by the past?

That seems to bring up another question, do we want to become a state with high levels of incarceration, akin to the US. I don't. However, I do want to see real punishments for real crimes. I'm sure somebody will find me a link or tell me that serious sentencing is not a deterrent to committing serious crimes, and it probably isn't, but at least that person will be off the streets and out of the way of the general public for a period when they are caught.

Is the reason we don't have a large capacity new prison the cost of it? The cost of construction probably isn't the issue, which wouldn't be cheap either, but probably the cost of maintaining and housing and feeding and supervising the prisoners. Are there any numbers on this?

I'm just so tired of seeing people seemingly get away with more and more all the time as our prison and courts system is swamped, and the law abiding decent people of Ireland are the ones who are suffering because of it.

arctictree

Why do you think the legal profession are arguing for more suspended sentences? Think about it.

JustAThought

arctictree wrote: »

Why do you think the legal profession are arguing for more suspended sentences? Think about it.

We’ve seen what was allowed happen when the banks were let regulate and govern themselves.

And the insurance industry.

And the legal industry.

Yet the government stands by clapping their hands like sealions at the zoo and doing nothing.

Meanwhile Joe Public, the taxpayer and victims pay the price. We have seen other countries who have radically overhauled their justice system but God forbid our popular contest boyos even have the courage to think about that. Impotent lazy disinterested leeches & sloths.

Donald Trump

The give the suspended or early releases as something that the convicted can aim for no? In theory I mean. So that they have something to lose if they don't try to behave a bit.

Eric Cartman

Concurrent sentencing and suspended sentences shouldnt be available to anyone with previous convictions. 1 ‘mistake’ is enough for anyone in their lifetime.

Prison spaces is the core issue.

Galway had a prison, closed. I'm sure other counties did as well.

In recent times Pat's closed, Spike Island closed.

Growing population but let's close prisons down.

We have one prison in the West of Ireland dealing with a population of 500k, seems a bit low to me.
One in Dublin and over a million people.

Theres only something like 150 prison spaces for women in the entire country, when you consider how many women are committed for murder it really means being a scumbag and female pays.

I was watching "60 days in.." recently and there was probably 150 women in that prison in Clark County. I'm going to assume the population catchment doesn't near 6 million either.

You can talk about courts and judges all you want but if there isn't sufficient space the rest of the factors are irrelevant.

The Mighty Quinn

gilberto_eire wrote: »

I was watching "60 days in.." recently and there was probably 150 women in that prison in Clark County. I'm going to assume the population catchment doesn't near 6 million either.

Just finished it, partly what prompted the thread as it got me thinking about prisons and applying it to an Irish context.

gilberto_eire wrote: »

You can talk about courts and judges all you want but if there isn't sufficient space the rest of the factors are irrelevant.

Which is what I was asking in part, why don't we build a large prison, or a few of them? Is it purely financial, what are the costs associated with it? Is there any cost offset by not having the same thousand people in and out of courts all the time on repeat offence after offence?

theguzman

There would be no need for extra prisons only buy a few metres of rope and some timber for a gallows, I don't care what circumstances were in play but anyone with 115 convictions etc should just be hung, no more repeat offending guaranteed and no €80k per prisoner per year cost either. We should be executing 500-1000 scumbags per year and the first that should be swung are the corrupt Judges and legal profession that have this country destroyed.

Donald Trump

theguzman wrote: »

There would be no need for extra prisons only buy a few metres of rope and some timber for a gallows, I don't care what circumstances were in play but anyone with 115 convictions etc should just be hung, no more repeat offending guaranteed and no €80k per prisoner per year cost either. We should be executing 500-1000 scumbags per year and the first that should be swung are the corrupt Judges and legal profession that have this country destroyed.

You any relation to the bould Joaquín?

The Mighty Quinn

Some figures I've found;

There are 4,209 people in prison custody in Ireland (28 Feb 2020).

Not particularly high.

As of February 2020, there were 494 sentenced prisoners aged 50+

Only 12% odd over 50, interesting.

The rate of imprisonment in Ireland is approximately 84 per 100,000 of the general population (end of Feb 2020).

In the US it's something like 700 per 100,000. In England it's about 140 per 100,000.

In 2019, the average cost of an “available, staffed prison space” was €75,349.

How is this? How does it cost this much? Is it salaries of prison staff, insurances, etc? I just can't comprehend it being that high.

The majority of Irish prisoners have never sat a State exam and over half left school before the age of 15

Education, education, education... it really is so important!

The average number of females in custody in 2019 was 170, a 3% increase on the 2018 average of 165.

Seems very low.

As of January 2020, 2,107 (53%) prisoners were accommodated in single cells.

Is this part of the high cost? I know it may be apples and oranges, but most US cells don't seem to be single, at least 2 and up to 4 in a cell.

In 2011, over 70% of prisoners were unemployed on committal and a similar percentage self-report as not having any particular trade or occupation.

Idle hands are the devil's playground, etc?

From 1996 to 2017, the numbers in custody increased by 78% (2,191 to 3,893).

So it is an upward trend, is this because more spaces have been made available, or were prisons emptier 20 years ago?

mynamejeff

gilberto_eire wrote: »

Prison spaces is the core issue.

Galway had a prison, closed. I'm sure other counties did as well.

In recent times Pat's closed, Spike Island closed.

Growing population but let's close prisons down.

We have one prison in the West of Ireland dealing with a population of 500k, seems a bit low to me.
One in Dublin and over a million people.

Theres only something like 150 prison spaces for women in the entire country, when you consider how many women are committed for murder it really means being a scumbag and female pays.

I was watching "60 days in.." recently and there was probably 150 women in that prison in Clark County. I'm going to assume the population catchment doesn't near 6 million either.

You can talk about courts and judges all you want but if there isn't sufficient space the rest of the factors are irrelevant.

mountjoy
dochas
cloverhill
wheatfeild
arbourhill

all in Dublin

plus midlands and portlaoise for areas on the edge of Dublin

but I agree wholehearted with you , more prison means more work for staff and builders and aux services more places for people who should not be left walk among the rest of us.

arctictree

I think another reason we get all these suspended sentences is that the judge (or jury) should not be aware of previous history when deciding on a case.

If you think about it, peoples prejudices would nearly automatically assume a defendant is guilty if they knew has has 100+ previous convictions. What chance would he/she have? Its only the journalists afterwards reporting the amount of convictions they have.

skooterblue2

The Mighty Quinn wrote: »

I'm not sure if this is a current affairs thread, or a politics thread.

What is the reasoning behind this? This article seems to be advocating for suspended sentences, or at least discussing the benefits of same;

https://www.irishlegal.com/article/blog-a-suspended-sentence-is-a-real-punishment

Is the problem lack of prison space? Are judges hesitant to sentence as they know there's no capacity? If so, why don't we build a new modern prison with a large capacity?

Are we bound by legal precedent, X crime = Y months suspended. How is this changed, surely can't be permanently bound by the past?

That seems to bring up another question, do we want to become a state with high levels of incarceration, akin to the US. I don't. However, I do want to see real punishments for real crimes. I'm sure somebody will find me a link or tell me that serious sentencing is not a deterrent to committing serious crimes, and it probably isn't, but at least that person will be off the streets and out of the way of the general public for a period when they are caught.

Is the reason we don't have a large capacity new prison the cost of it? The cost of construction probably isn't the issue, which wouldn't be cheap either, but probably the cost of maintaining and housing and feeding and supervising the prisoners. Are there any numbers on this?.

What a complex thread you have opened with.
We have made massive investments into prisons and rehabilitation and with no return.
Once we had one of the worlds smallest prison populations per capital.
I am a firm believer that the criminal is predetermined by two factors his nature and his upbringing. His personal choices are of little consequences compared to his environment and nature. By the time he comes to the attention of the penal system there is little that can be done. He has made his life choices.
I think the same money is better invested in after schools programs like supervised homework clubs, sports and arts.

I also think that prison is too cushy. TV in every room, en suite, short sentences because we dont have the capacity. Prison in Ireland is like Butlins for thugs. Why wouldnt you want to do a 8 week stint to get away from the wife and have a few weeks to chill out and get some proper meals (most women dont know how to cook these days unlike our mothers).

Society across the western world is plummeting in standards, nobody seems ashamed of a relative going to prison. Drug use is common place in every strand of society. There is very little respect for law enforcement, as a profession and as being an institution, myself included in light of Maurice McCabe (the honest were punished and the dishonest were promoted). We are heading for some very dangerous times, the markers are all laid out.

ohnonotgmail

arctictree wrote: »

I think another reason we get all these suspended sentences is that the judge (or jury) should not be aware of previous history when deciding on a case.

If you think about it, peoples prejudices would nearly automatically assume a defendant is guilty if they knew has has 100+ previous convictions. What chance would he/she have? Its only the journalists afterwards reporting the amount of convictions they have.

The judge has full knowledge of the defendants previous convictions when passing sentence.

arctictree

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The judge has full knowledge of the defendants previous convictions when passing sentence.

Is that just from personal knowledge or does he have a document in front of him which states how many previous convictions this defendant has?

skooterblue2

arctictree wrote: »

Is that just from personal knowledge or does he have a document in front of him which states how many previous convictions this defendant has?

I would imagine the Judge has read the DPP's file. He has to oversee everything.

skooterblue2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I would imagine the Judge has read the DPP's file. He has to oversee everything.

You imagine wrong. The judge does not read the DPPs file!

When someone is found guilty in court, their previous convictions are read to the judge, by the guard or state solicitors

Gregor Samsa

arctictree wrote: »

Is that just from personal knowledge or does he have a document in front of him which states how many previous convictions this defendant has?

Previous criminal record is officially taken into account at sentencing.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_trial/sentence.html#

As you correctly pointed out previously, it is (usually) not brought up in the trial itself, due to its potentially prejudicial nature.

ohnonotgmail

arctictree wrote: »

Is that just from personal knowledge or does he have a document in front of him which states how many previous convictions this defendant has?

he has a document with the defendants full criminal history.

The Mighty Quinn

Why the reluctance to build a large facility then?

Difficulties finding a location/NIMBYSM?
Unaffordable?
Head in sand/denial there's a problem?
Field of dreams/if you build it they will come.. Spike in crime perceived if higher numbers in prison?

skooterblue2

The Mighty Quinn wrote: »

Why the reluctance to build a large facility then?

Difficulties finding a location/NIMBYSM?
Unaffordable?
Head in sand/denial there's a problem?
Field of dreams/if you build it they will come.. Spike in crime perceived if higher numbers in prison?

Damned if I want it next to me. I think they should be accommodated in the communities they come from.
I think there should be cost saving put in place, televisions and playstations, full Irish breakfasts,..... aww come on!!!
Rehabilitation on Junkies and criminals in wasted. Focus on the ones you can save.

Mark25

As someone who has been through the “system” I was going to give my opinions. You mightn’t agree with them all but it’s just my take on the things people are talking about on here:

I think the number of convictions given can be misleading. Some time these can be bench warrants for not turning up in court. If you get arrested for something like a fight you can get charged sat with assault, threatening behaviour, drunk and disorderly and each of them count as convictions so it means people have loads of convictions. But some people do have a crazy number of convictions.
Women definitely get an easier time in the justice system. They don’t really seem to want to send women to prison and even when they do most of them go to the Dochas Centre and from what I know that is nothing like Mountjoy or the other male prisons.

The cost figure per prisoner does seem high but I think it is mainly wages. Prison Officers get paid more than Gardai and have guaranteed overtime.
So based on my own experience -

First time I was in was just a few months and didn’t change much. I had got a suspended sentence before so knew I would probably get prison. Nobody normal wants to go to prison but when you are young and are getting into trouble it just sort of happens and you have to get on with it. When I was in the first time it was only in for a few months and there wasn’t really training or education or even much work to do. I spent most of the time just in my cell or on the landing or in the yard. I knew a few other lads in there at the time and just hung around with them. I felt bad for my family and missed home but it wasn’t too bad. I didn’t really think about what I had been doing to end up there either.
The Joy was bad back then – there was still slopping out and there were shared cells and much more trouble going on – stabbings and a couple of killings around then. It was a crazy place.

It annoys me when people say prison is a holiday camp. It isn’t. Maybe it is alright if you are on the streets or if you have nothing important in your life. Yes you have a TV in your cell, can go to the gym but they aren’t really luxuries. Even the Prison Officers will say that doing this is better as it keeps people quieter and there is less trouble inside and makes their jobs easier too.

Second sentence I got 3 years with 1 suspended so that was longer and I was a bit older and wanted to sort my life out. There were more courses and education to keep busy with instead of just hanging around. I got them easier too by having a longer sentence. People were talking about so many people having single cells and I had a single cell this time and it was much better. The prison was being refurbished and I had a proper toilet in my cell. It was really different being in your cell at night having been busy during the day and you could get away from all the crap going on and keep out of other people’s business and watch TV or whatever.

I was luckier than a lot of other lads as I still had my family on the outside, had done alright at school, not on drugs or have mental health problems. People would be amazed at the numbers inside who can barey right and are drugged up with legal or illegal drugs. At least if you are in prison for a while thee s a chance to get new skills or clean up a bit. It doesn’t make sense locking people up if they don’t deal with big problems they have. For prison to be any good it has to help people who need help. Some people will take the help and others won’t but they should offer it.

So many people say when they are getting out that they won’t be coming back and want to settled down with their family or girlfriend or whatever. Even people who seem to be sorting things out when inside just mess up again after getting released. I sort of did the first time. It’s just that your life is so controlled in prison – you get what you need and there aren’t the temptations/freedom to do what you might up doing in the outside. And after being inside for a while freedom can go to your head a bit and then it can be like trying to make up for lost time.
For me the second sentence worked but it wasn’t easy. I got transferred to the Training Unit where you get more freedom but messed up and was back in regular prison – this time sharing a cell in a different prison. I knew I let people both at home and some of the staff down and just worked at staying out of trouble and finishing my sentence. You have to want to get away from things that make you end up getting in trouble. They also say some people just grow out of crime/getting in trouble and that is what sorta happened to me I think.
6 months after getting out I went back to college after moving away from home for a fresh start. Best think that ever happened me. I had done first year in college after school but didn’t work at it and failed my exams and started getting into other things. Going back was much different as I was moe ready for being at college and worked hard and eventually ended up with a degree a few years ago.

I worked hard for what I got but I know I was lucky to get support. There are other people like me who have turned their lives around and a few have published books about it and produced podcasts. I never would have thought it at the time and found it tough some times but ending up getting a long enough prison sentence was probably the best thing that could have happened e then and helped me turn things around.

I am in my mid 30s now and think I have grown up. I am working and tring to get on with life like everybody else. I am not proud of some of the things I did when I was younger and people would have probably called me a scumbag but I was a different person then. I have a 9 tear old son who I try to be the best Dad I can be for. It would kill me if he ended up making the same mistakes and making the bad decisions I did. I’m sure he won’t though.
I know I’ve gone off and am probably off topic but thought I would just add a different view on the issue.

Well done Mark, fair play to you.

I think most of society don't have any idea what prison or criminals are like. They get their ideas from TV or movies.
Criminals are just people, people who have done bad things, and prison is definitely not a holiday camp.

Congrats on sorting your life out, I've dealt with a lot of people that went to prison, very few sorted themselves out, unfortunately.

Zebra3

The Mighty Quinn wrote: »

I'm not sure if this is a current affairs thread, or a politics thread.

I don't have figures to hand, and this is based on media reports of cases more than experience, but it would appear that a large chunk of convicted crimes in Ireland receive suspended or partially suspended sentences.

Do we ever see consecutive sentencings, or are they all concurrent?
We've all seen the reports of X in court with 115 previous convictions
We have all seen the reports of people committing serious crimes while out on bail.

What is the reasoning behind this? This article seems to be advocating for suspended sentences, or at least discussing the benefits of same;

https://www.irishlegal.com/article/blog-a-suspended-sentence-is-a-real-punishment

Is the problem lack of prison space? Are judges hesitant to sentence as they know there's no capacity? If so, why don't we build a new modern prison with a large capacity?

Are we bound by legal precedent, X crime = Y months suspended. How is this changed, surely can't be permanently bound by the past?

That seems to bring up another question, do we want to become a state with high levels of incarceration, akin to the US. I don't. However, I do want to see real punishments for real crimes. I'm sure somebody will find me a link or tell me that serious sentencing is not a deterrent to committing serious crimes, and it probably isn't, but at least that person will be off the streets and out of the way of the general public for a period when they are caught.

Is the reason we don't have a large capacity new prison the cost of it? The cost of construction probably isn't the issue, which wouldn't be cheap either, but probably the cost of maintaining and housing and feeding and supervising the prisoners. Are there any numbers on this?

I'm just so tired of seeing people seemingly get away with more and more all the time as our prison and courts system is swamped, and the law abiding decent people of Ireland are the ones who are suffering because of it.

How much extra tax will you pay to fund X amount of new spaces?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIpsM2gIEto

LuasSimon

We have the same amount of prision space as we had in the 70s when there was a lot lot less crime .
The judges unless you murder someone are encouraged to give suspended sentences as there’s no room for many who should be in jail .

Unless we build 2 or 3 more prisons burglars , muggers , dog robbers etc etc will continue to get suspended sentences

The Mighty Quinn

Mark, thanks a million for sharing your experience.

I wouldn't advocate for taking away some of the 'privileges' such as going to a gym etc, I would be of a similar view that surely it helps remove the restless element of things and perhaps prisoners will be easier to deal with and the place will be a little more peaceful if there is some outlet rather than just having the four walls and a toilet to entertain yourself.

Also, where you said that "for prison to be any good it has to help people who need help", yes, sounds good, but I think the people who need help and the people who want help may not always align. How do you help somebody who refuses to engage or help themselves? What in your opinion could be done to improve the rehabilitation aspect of it? I know that I would prefer a prisoner to leave prison resolving not to go back than one who was chalking down the days to get out to his old life.

skooterblue2

Zebra3 wrote: »

How much extra tax will you pay to fund X amount of new spaces?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIpsM2gIEto

Or we keep the area the same and increase the numbers of prisoners. IF you are a bit crushed you should have thought about that before you went in there.

The Mighty Quinn

Zebra3 wrote: »

How much extra tax will you pay to fund X amount of new spaces?

I don't believe tax increases should be required. There's plenty of money, it's just being squandered. If we tightened up on welfare fraud and the organisational structure of the HSE etc, I think the money is there. It's just mis spent.

That said, I believe tax increases would be required through wastefulness and poor financial management. How much extra could it cost per capita to fund a prison?

skooterblue2

Has anyone been out in Cobh on a cold morning in February? I have and its nasty at the best of days in the winter.
Now imagine the Prison officer waking you up for your daily cold shower at 6 AM and you going for a 5K Jog around Spike Island before a porridge breakfast and again at 8pm?
You will certainly remember it the next time you are upto no good.

Mark25

LuasSimon wrote: »

We have the same amount of prision space as we had in the 70s when there was a lot lot less crime .
The judges unless you murder someone are encouraged to give suspended sentences as there’s no room for many who should be in jail .

Unless we build 2 or 3 more prisons burglars , muggers , dog robbers etc etc will continue to get suspended sentences

A quick Google check came up with this:

The prisoner population climbed significantly from 1970 onwards reaching over a 1,000 persons by 1972. It then stayed close to that level for nearly 10 years until 1981. until it reached 3,165 persons in the year 2001 - an increase of 2,000 prisoners over a 20 year period.
Department of Justice

.... Another poster earlier said it was about 4,000 noe so still going up. Think it might have been higher when they were still sending people to prison for non payment of fines but I think they have stopped that now. That was pretty pointless as they would only be in a couple of days at most

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Damned if I want it next to me. I think they should be accommodated in the communities they come from.
I think there should be cost saving put in place, televisions and playstations, full Irish breakfasts,..... aww come on!!!
Rehabilitation on Junkies and criminals in wasted. Focus on the ones you can save.

Jnow I'm biased but disagree with that. Unless it has changed in the last few years there is only one "full Irish Breakfast" and that is on Christmas Day - the rest its a packet of cereal and toast or you buy something yourself from your grat. And everybody has TVs these days is it really that big of a deal? Some people are in their cells 22/23 hours a day and even normally just having a TV keeps things calmer and gives you something to do

Mark25

The Mighty Quinn wrote: »

Mark, thanks a million for sharing your experience.

I wouldn't advocate for taking away some of the 'privileges' such as going to a gym etc, I would be of a similar view that surely it helps remove the restless element of things and perhaps prisoners will be easier to deal with and the place will be a little more peaceful if there is some outlet rather than just having the four walls and a toilet to entertain yourself.

Also, where you said that "for prison to be any good it has to help people who need help", yes, sounds good, but I think the people who need help and the people who want help may not always align. How do you help somebody who refuses to engage or help themselves? What in your opinion could be done to improve the rehabilitation aspect of it? I know that I would prefer a prisoner to leave prison resolving not to go back than one who was chalking down the days to get out to his old life.

That was exactly my point about the "privileges" thing but you put it much better. Like I remember when a rumour went around that they were thinking of banning smoking in the cells - if they did that things would kick off.

I don't know really about the "rehabilitation" thing. I know what worked for me but everybody is different. Some people (not too many but some) will walk out and never be in trouble again - stuff like fraud maybe.

But if you have a bit of a record I think it is more important what happens when you get released. You sign your release papers and mostly off you go and that's pretty much out. Whatever people say having been in prison is a big stigma that stays with you.

You might be surprised but I think the best thing would be to have strict conditions when you got out. They should let people out with accomodation and work sorted and you only stay out if you meet whatever conditions you are given. You could chose to stay in prison if you didn't like them. And they would need to be strictly enforced to give people the incentive to abide by them. Things like working a certain number of hours, curfew, drug tests, engaging with some services. It is really carrot and stick. It wouldn't work for everybody but I think it might for some.

There is a thing a bit like that - think its called Community Return Scheme where prisoners get out a bit early after doing longer sentences. They have to sign on every day and do unpaid work 3 days a week as part of their "sentence" and their accomodation is sorted. I know somebody who was doing that and it seemed to be going well for him.

skooterblue2

Mark25 wrote: »

Jnow I'm biased but disagree with that. Unless it has changed in the last few years there is only one "full Irish Breakfast" and that is on Christmas Day - the rest its a packet of cereal and toast or you buy something yourself from your grat. And everybody has TVs these days is it really that big of a deal? Some people are in their cells 22/23 hours a day and even normally just having a TV keeps things calmer and gives you something to do

Its not that prisoners are sequestered, they must also be punished and it is done at great cost to the tax payer. I dont see the Irish Prison systems as that bad, you see Prison break or Orange is the New Black and their uniforms seem coarse and cold. that looks like real prison. I reckon I could time no problem in an Irish prison with no effect. I would crack like a little girl in one of the american prisons within 2 weeks. I reckon I suffer the physical part it is the mental part I wouldnt be able to hack with the no privacy or facility to develop.

irishproduce

The Mighty Quinn wrote: »

Just finished it, partly what prompted the thread as it got me thinking about prisons and applying it to an Irish context.



Which is what I was asking in part, why don't we build a large prison, or a few of them? Is it purely financial, what are the costs associated with it? Is there any cost offset by not having the same thousand people in and out of courts all the time on repeat offence after offence?

That second part is the issue. The legal profession lobbies heavily to ensure there is continued business at the expense of the rest of us.

The legal profession lobbying on the idea of more suspended sentences, and succeeding in getting same implemented, is akin to a business celebrating winning a large order of future orders.

statesaver

Isn't there 2 men in women's prisons ?

joeguevara

arctictree wrote: »

Why do you think the legal profession are arguing for more suspended sentences? Think about it.

Is the entire legal profession and where are they arguing for this?

JustAThought

joeguevara wrote: »

Is the entire legal profession and where are they arguing for this?

And criminals on this site bleeting for accommodation and jobs lined up for themselves when they are let out. Newsflash. Honest law abiding people do not want to share a room or office space with criminals. And let your family or friends put you up on their couches or bedrooms - why should you be rewarded with a house or appartment as a consequence of being caught and sentenced because of the crimes you committed. There are no ‘victimless’ crimes - the violence, threatening behaviour, burglaries, thefts, breakins - all have victims - rule one of prison shouod be to punish not reward and part of the sentence should be financial reparations to the victim - meaningful ones that stay with you until they are paid - not rewards with houses and handy jobs.

As for those who think its only a few sentences - these were the times you were caught. And a few criminal convictions is 100% too many. There is plenty wring with the american system
but there is plenty right too - up at dawn, no TV, work to pay your keep, and hard manual labour.

The Japanese punish as part of their system too - mindless marching and obedience training. The self entitlement of criminals and their families has been facilitated too long in the country. Start with CAB auditing the families of criminals to ensure they are not living off the profils of crimes of their relations or children, and prosecute ans seize assets accordinhly. And stop the endless churn of free legal aid for recidivist criminals like this one here - if they hd to pay for laywers, their crimes and time instead of expecting houses and apartments and jobs when they emerge they
might just begin to have the fundamentals
of what is expected to live and contribute to society instead of begging, stealing and having the hand out and being a burden on taxpayers and the decent law abiding public who ultimately pay for everything for them. Scabs and crims. Lock them up and make them
work and pay their debt to society - not run around expecting handouts, suspended sentences, concurrent sentences, houses and everything paid for or handed to them because they are convicted criminals. This just makes me sick. Margaret Ward and her husband all
over. That elderly lady ‘just’ burgled never returned for fear to the house she hd worked for and earned and lived in her whole life. Yet now we have criminals blithely expecting houses and jobs to be handed to them in a black recession and no responsibilities or obligations on them. It makes me sick.

skooterblue2

JustAThought wrote: »

And criminals on this site bleeting for accommodation and jobs lined up for themselves when they are let out. Newsflash. Honest law abiding people do not want to share a room or office space with criminals. And let your family or friends put you up on their couches or bedrooms - why should you be rewarded with a house or appartment as a consequence of being caught and sentenced because of the crimes you committed. There are no ‘victimless’ crimes - the violence, threatening behaviour, burglaries, thefts, breakins - all have victims - rule one of prison shouod be to punish not reward and part of the sentence should be financial reparations to the victim - meaningful ones that stay with you until they are paid - not rewards with houses and handy jobs.

As for those who think its only a few sentences - these were the times you were caught. And a few criminal convictions is 100% too many. There is plenty wring with the american system
but there is plenty right too - up at dawn, no TV, work to pay your keep, and hard manual labour.

The Japanese punish as part of their system too - mindless marching and obedience training. The self entitlement of criminals and their families has been facilitated too long in the country. Start with CAB auditing the families of criminals to ensure they are not living off the profils of crimes of their relations or children, and prosecute ans seize assets accordinhly. And stop the endless churn of free legal aid for recidivist criminals like this one here - if they hd to pay for laywers, their crimes and time instead of expecting houses and apartments and jobs when they emerge they
might just begin to have the fundamentals
of what is expected to live and contribute to society instead of begging, stealing and having the hand out and being a burden on taxpayers and the decent law abiding public who ultimately pay for everything for them. Scabs and crims. Lock them up and make them
work and pay their debt to society - not run around expecting handouts, suspended sentences, concurrent sentences, houses and everything paid for or handed to them because they are convicted criminals. This just makes me sick. Margaret Ward and her husband all
over. That elderly lady ‘just’ burgled never returned for fear to the house she hd worked for and earned and lived in her whole life. Yet now we have criminals blithely expecting houses and jobs to be handed to them in a black recession and no responsibilities or obligations on them. It makes me sick.

Exactly why would you expect a change in behaviour when you get all these goodies for bad behaviour? There are no consequences for bad behaviour, in fact I would go so far to say it is incentivised by all accounts.

Free Legal Aid costs the tax payer. I am not against anyone being properly represented in court but when there is no consequence of Free Legal Aid. After the third time legal costs should be deducted from social welfare at €50 a week. Puts a whole lot of solicitors out of work. Why should anyone change their behaviour when tax payers put up the tax hikes.

Change this and watch things change over night.

JustAThought

I wouldn’t give them free legal aid a second or third time. I’d have them reviewed in advance of the court date on whatever cctc and witnesses were available and their sworn statements and I’d have them locked up & safely away from the law abiding public until they were convicted on the same evidence. No bail, no hanging around dossing and committing other crimes while waiting for trial. And I’d also have an increased weighting of sentence for every single conviction after the first. If you are going to act beyond the rules of society you are going to be put away from society to protect it and others from you. And no suspended sentences or concurrent sentences. Lock the criminals up and keep them locked up and punish them - they should be paying their victims and debt to society - not lawers.

joeguevara

JustAThought wrote: »

And criminals on this site bleeting for accommodation and jobs lined up for themselves when they are let out. Newsflash. Honest law abiding people do not want to share a room or office space with criminals. And let your family or friends put you up on their couches or bedrooms - why should you be rewarded with a house or appartment as a consequence of being caught and sentenced because of the crimes you committed. There are no ‘victimless’ crimes - the violence, threatening behaviour, burglaries, thefts, breakins - all have victims - rule one of prison shouod be to punish not reward and part of the sentence should be financial reparations to the victim - meaningful ones that stay with you until they are paid - not rewards with houses and handy jobs.

As for those who think its only a few sentences - these were the times you were caught. And a few criminal convictions is 100% too many. There is plenty wring with the american system
but there is plenty right too - up at dawn, no TV, work to pay your keep, and hard manual labour.

The Japanese punish as part of their system too - mindless marching and obedience training. The self entitlement of criminals and their families has been facilitated too long in the country. Start with CAB auditing the families of criminals to ensure they are not living off the profils of crimes of their relations or children, and prosecute ans seize assets accordinhly. And stop the endless churn of free legal aid for recidivist criminals like this one here - if they hd to pay for laywers, their crimes and time instead of expecting houses and apartments and jobs when they emerge they
might just begin to have the fundamentals
of what is expected to live and contribute to society instead of begging, stealing and having the hand out and being a burden on taxpayers and the decent law abiding public who ultimately pay for everything for them. Scabs and crims. Lock them up and make them
work and pay their debt to society - not run around expecting handouts, suspended sentences, concurrent sentences, houses and everything paid for or handed to them because they are convicted criminals. This just makes me sick. Margaret Ward and her husband all
over. That elderly lady ‘just’ burgled never returned for fear to the house she hd worked for and earned and lived in her whole life. Yet now we have criminals blithely expecting houses and jobs to be handed to them in a black recession and no responsibilities or obligations on them. It makes me sick.

Not the question asked. I wanted to know which part of the legal profession wants more suspended sentences.

Rodin

Judicial system far too soft here.

Even when you kill a cop you get an automatic 25% remission.
He was also given a concurrent sentence for robbery (14years)... may as well have let the xxxx off

JustAThought

JustAThought wrote: »

I wouldn’t give them free legal aid a second or third time. I’d have them reviewed in advance of the court date on whatever cctc and witnesses were available and their sworn statements and I’d have them locked up & safely away from the law abiding public until they were convicted on the same evidence. No bail, no hanging around dossing and committing other crimes while waiting for trial. And I’d also have an increased weighting of sentence for every single conviction after the first. If you are going to act beyond the rules of society you are going to be put away from society to protect it and others from you. And no suspended sentences or concurrent sentences. Lock the criminals up and keep them locked up and punish them - they should be paying their victims and debt to society - not lawers.

So you would decide whether someone is guilty or not before they go to court for a fair trial?

Paul Hudson

Paul Hudson wrote: »

Gerald Barry was sentenced to three life sentences for murder and multiple rapes but these are running concurrently. He could technically be out in few years.

How is that right?

Life is the longest sentence anyone can get, how could he be given any more?

mynamejeff

bubblypop wrote: »

Life is the longest sentence anyone can get, how could he be given any more?

think what people actually want is full life tariffs like in the uk where some one will never be considered for release .

short of capital punishment that's the only way to ensure that they put no one else in danger

mynamejeff

mynamejeff wrote: »

think what people actually want is full life tariffs like in the uk where some one will never be considered for release .

short of capital punishment that's the only way to ensure that they put no one else in danger

Well at the moment, they can give life, so that's it really
Some prisoners do serve very lengthy life sentences, Evans and Shaw spring to mind. McArthur too.

jenneyk19

you are seeing more drug crimes and drug muders

to keep all the life sentances they need to build a new prison

mynamejeff

bubblypop wrote: »

Well at the moment, they can give life, so that's it really
Some prisoners do serve very lengthy life sentences, Evans and Shaw spring to mind. McArthur too.

yes but why not have that kind of sentencing for gangland normal scumbag murders .

the likes of Arron Bready and anyone else convicted of murdering a garda should never be allowed to breath free air again , ditto any gang or feud related murder

any killing for money or greed or where excessive violence was used

JustAThought

mynamejeff wrote: »

yes but why not have that kind of sentencing for gangland normal scumbag murders .

the likes of Arron Bready and anyone else convicted of murdering a garda should never be allowed to breath free air again , ditto any gang or feud related murder

any killing for money or greed or where excessive violence was used

Excessive violence. So just a bit of terrorising using a gun and screaming and a threatening to kill is ok. Or is just a bit of shooting ok -
like a leg or a hip - not really excessive -
they still have the other leg, or one arm left. There are no victimless crimes and no ‘soft’ violence. There is also the very
raal psychological damage that is done which can last ling after bullets have been removed.

Life in Ireland does not mean what it does in Japan, or the US, or even the UK. And concurrent sentences and 20% off for behaving like a normal human should and further eligibility for early parole makes a mockery of the sentencing.

As for people being locked up in advance of a trial - yes - I do agree with it. Technology, phone tracking, facial recognition software and CCTV on every corner has transformed what we can prove and know and how we can make judgements to protect the public. We need to be using those resources to protect society and the public - not protecting criminals.

Graces7

skooterblue2 wrote: »

What a complex thread you have opened with.
We have made massive investments into prisons and rehabilitation and with no return.
Once we had one of the worlds smallest prison populations per capital.
I am a firm believer that the criminal is predetermined by two factors his nature and his upbringing. His personal choices are of little consequences compared to his environment and nature. By the time he comes to the attention of the penal system there is little that can be done. He has made his life choices.
I think the same money is better invested in after schools programs like supervised homework clubs, sports and arts.

I also think that prison is too cushy. TV in every room, en suite, short sentences because we dont have the capacity. Prison in Ireland is like Butlins for thugs. Why wouldnt you want to do a 8 week stint to get away from the wife and have a few weeks to chill out and get some proper meals (most women dont know how to cook these days unlike our mothers).

Society across the western world is plummeting in standards, nobody seems ashamed of a relative going to prison. Drug use is common place in every strand of society. There is very little respect for law enforcement, as a profession and as being an institution, myself included in light of Maurice McCabe (the honest were punished and the dishonest were promoted). We are heading for some very dangerous times, the markers are all laid out.

Idiotic statement of the week.

Graces7

theguzman wrote: »

There would be no need for extra prisons only buy a few metres of rope and some timber for a gallows, I don't care what circumstances were in play but anyone with 115 convictions etc should just be hung, no more repeat offending guaranteed and no €80k per prisoner per year cost either. We should be executing 500-1000 scumbags per year and the first that should be swung are the corrupt Judges and legal profession that have this country destroyed.

Then you become the killers? Great!

joeguevara

mynamejeff wrote: »

think what people actually want is full life tariffs like in the uk where some one will never be considered for release .

short of capital punishment that's the only way to ensure that they put no one else in danger

Not sure if you understand what tariffs mean and how it impacts sentences in the UK. Firstly it was ruled that indeterminate sentences was not a breach of human rights. Tariffs such as 15, 20 or 25 years specifies minimum jail time but in fact specifies a time that could be less than a life sentence. Actual evidence shows that inmates with a tariff serve less time than those with an indeterminate life sentence.

Also public perception of the length of time served for murder is drastically different to reality. Average time served for murder is 18 years as opposed to 7-8 that people think.

Anyone who describes Irish prison as butlins is obviously reading articles in the british tabloids. Firstly we have no butlins and prisons like Mountjoy or port laois are hell holes. Inmates in Mountjoy have only recently stopped slopping out. United nations human rights reviews have described Irish prisons as inhuman.

As for removing the innocent until proven guilty by using cctv and other tracking is beyond fcucuked up.

JustAThought

JustAThought wrote: »

Technology, phone tracking, facial recognition software and CCTV on every corner has transformed what we can prove and know and how we can make judgements to protect the public. We need to be using those resources to protect society and the public - not protecting criminals.

And the place to prove those things is in a court of law.