Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why is Ireland's justice system so lenient?

Options
245678

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,051 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    portlygent wrote: »
    I'm genuinely astounded when I read the news. Its not uncommon for someone who has committed a serious assault to be given a fully suspended sentence, despite numerous previous convictions.

    Is it due to over-packed prisons? If so, why haven't we built more, or even re-start the Thorton Hill prison, which was planned before the crash?

    Is it an ideology that has changed? Have we become a soft touch?

    Do you have examples of fully suspended sentences for serious assault and also evidence that it's not uncommon?

    Also (not directed to you) why are posters directing scorn at the government for the so called sentence leniency when separation of powers prohibits such intervention from them apart from the sentence in legislation.

    I do agree with posters Regarding certain sentences in a particular crime that beggars belief.


  • Registered Users Posts: 522 ✭✭✭yoke


    Put your details into politcal compass and let us know.


    Thank you. It says I'm left wing libertarian so.

    It never asked me questions about attitude to guns, fighting, eating meat, so obviously if you take my attitude to all those things out, then what's left of me is quite "left wing".

    Thus, either that website is completely wrong, or the people on this website (who keep equating "left wing" with "people who don't like fun things") are completely wrong in their definition of what actually falls under "left wing".

    Economic Left/Right: -6.25
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18


  • Registered Users Posts: 29,071 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    yoke wrote:
    Thus, either that website is completely wrong, or the people on this website (who keep equating "left wing" with "people who don't like fun things") are completely wrong.

    Ah people are nuts, shur Some think I'm some loony socialist, haven't a balls notion what that actually is myself


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭malinheader


    If you have a good parish priest or your friends with a member of the gardai, better still if a family member is one then you a get out of jail card when up in front of the judge.

    Priest's and police still have alot of clout when writing these pillars of the community/ reformed character references for scumbags.


  • Registered Users Posts: 856 ✭✭✭timetogo1


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    No conclusive evidence to support, jailing more for longer, actually truly reduces crime, and it's bloody expensive

    In the case of Eamon Lynch we could probably assume that he wouldn't have been able to rack up 483 convictions. So there's one reduction.

    He might be the worst offender but how many convictions should be too much. 10? 20? 50? How about we just lock up people who have 50 convictions. Doesn't seem like a low number to me (as somebody who had managed to get through life with 0)

    Is the cost of putting a person in prison more expensive that the cost of crime on the victims. In the case of that Eamon guy it's hard to put a price on the life of the person he killed. I'd say the prison cost is worth it.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    People can blame the police, the judiciary, the free legal aid bandwagon and any number of things. But the main reason is because Irish people are soft as shyte.

    How many people contact their TDs about the ridiculous light sentencing? How many bring it up when politicians are looking for a vote? Very few, otherwise it would be a huge election issue and there would be a political will to fix it.

    People nowadays are worried only about what affects them. Crime is something they read about. People in the thread seem shocked that the driver with 400 odd convictions only got 18 months, he’ll only serve less than 10 months. Automatic remission is another joke.


  • Registered Users Posts: 29,071 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    No conclusive evidence to support, jailing more for longer, actually truly reduces crime, and it's bloody expensive
    timetogo1 wrote: »
    In the case of Eamon Lynch we could probably assume that he wouldn't have been able to rack up 483 convictions. So there's one reduction.

    He might be the worst offender but how many convictions should be too much. 10? 20? 50? How about we just lock up people who have 50 convictions. Doesn't seem like a low number to me (as somebody who had managed to get through life with 0)

    Is the cost of putting a person in prison more expensive that the cost of crime on the victims. In the case of that Eamon guy it's hard to put a price on the life of the person he killed. I'd say the prison cost is worth it.

    .............


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,772 ✭✭✭meathstevie


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    No conclusive evidence to support, jailing more for longer, actually truly reduces crime, and it's bloody expensive

    It is an indisputable fact that an individual who’s serving a sentence in prison is unable to commit crime in the community while locked up. There is on the other hand ample evidence of criminals and suspects out on suspended sentences and out on bail committing numerous crimes.

    I believe in giving people an opportunity at rehabilitation and education as an element of a custodial sentence but not for individuals with more convictions than PRSI contributions.

    Rack’em and stack’em and keep them out of circulation for as long as possible should be the only driving policy there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 29,071 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    No conclusive evidence to support, jailing more for longer, actually truly reduces crime, and it's bloody expensive
    It is an indisputable fact that an individual who’s serving a sentence in prison is unable to commit crime in the community while locked up. There is on the other hand ample evidence of criminals and suspects out on suspended sentences and out on bail committing numerous crimes.

    I believe in giving people an opportunity at rehabilitation and education as an element of a custodial sentence but not for individuals with more convictions than PRSI contributions.

    Rack’em and stack’em and keep them out of circulation for as long as possible should be the only driving policy there.

    how do you feel about paying more taxes?


  • Registered Users Posts: 856 ✭✭✭timetogo1


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    how do you feel about paying more taxes?

    The cost to society isn't free to have these guys repeatedly out and committing crimes. There's the cost to the victim, probably a cost to us as insurance premiums increase, the cost to the state in investigating and prosecuting and in some cases there's life cost.

    I'd prefer to pay more taxes than pay those costs. I have a friend who had a life changing injury caused by a guy with previous convictions. The cost to me was zero. The cost to him is incalculable. I'm sure he'd prefer to be paying some of the cost in more taxes rather than the cost it's had on his life.

    Edit: For the hard of comprehending. The monetary cost to me (in the incident I describe above) was zero as it had nothing to do with me. I'm not implying that I have no costs or don't pay taxes in Ireland. This sounds obvious and it will be to most people but some people (see the next post) will have trouble understanding.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 29,071 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    timetogo1 wrote: »
    The cost to society isn't free to have these guys repeatedly out and committing crimes. There's the cost to the victim, probably a cost to us as insurance premiums increase, the cost to the state in investigating and prosecuting and in some cases there's life cost.

    I'd prefer to pay more taxes than pay those costs. I have a friend who had a life changing injury caused by a guy with previous convictions. The cost to me was zero. The cost to him is incalculable. I'm sure he'd prefer to be paying some of the cost in more taxes rather than the cost it's had on his life.

    can you please explain to us how you have achieved a zero tax world?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Aegir wrote: »
    The verdict and sentence in the Ian Wright abuse case is laughable.

    It gives a clear message that racist abuse can be written off as a bit of boyish banter.

    You realise you are suggesting jail for calling people names though..


  • Registered Users Posts: 29,071 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    timetogo1 wrote: »
    Way to have the point go over your head.
    I didn't imply at all that I live in a zero tax world.

    you claimed your friends dreadful experience didnt cost you anything, but it obviously did, and it had a dreadful emotional cost to them and you


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,274 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Geuze wrote: »
    I still can't get over the Eamon Lynch case.

    483 convictions.

    I am genuinely curious as to what happens in UK, FR, DE if you have 483 convictions?


    He was drink-driving, at up to 100mph, with no driving licence or insurance, was banned from driving, when he ploughed into another car, the other driver was killed.

    18 months in prison.


    To add insult to injury, and this is unbelievable, Eamon Lynch then tried to sue the dead man's family insurer, trying to claim for his own injuries.

    I love Ireland, but sometimes it drives you mad.


    Would you believe it, a very similar case in the new today.

    https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/banned-driver-who-killed-farmer-was-arguing-with-girlfriend-at-time-of-crash-40050554.html

    The exact same road, Ballybofey to Letterkenny.

    Again, a banned driver is speeding.

    This time the driver was aged just 22 at the time of the incident.

    The driver was banned from driving for 7 years at the age of 22, due to other dangerous driving charges.

    The driver has 44 previous convictions, by age 24.


    All the well-intentioned happy-clappy talk from the extreme-left won't work with these people, blaming the system, etc.

    Henry Kiely was convicted 44 times. "The system" did not commit the crimes, Henry Kiely did.




    [PS How come these lads always seem to have girlfriends???]


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Is garlic man out yet? Has he reoffended?


  • Registered Users Posts: 29,071 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Is garlic man out yet? Has he reoffended?

    heard he moved into the onions market, and is trying to keep a low profile


  • Registered Users Posts: 601 ✭✭✭RandRuns


    Not sure if somebody has mentioned this already, but to those who are against longer sentences (or locking up criminals in general), statistics on whether or not this makes people more or less likely to commit a crime is moot in my opinion - locking up criminals, especially recidivist criminals gets them off the street - they won't commit any crimes while inside, so that's a win.

    We all know the "83 previous convictions, but he's doing his best your honour" types that appear in every court in the country, week in week out.
    If these people were locked up for a decent length of time, imagine the amount of crime they simply wouldn't be able to commit. Imagine the amount of Garda time and resources freed up for other duties. That's a win for society.


  • Registered Users Posts: 29,071 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    once again!
    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    No conclusive evidence to support, jailing more for longer, actually truly reduces crime, and it's bloody expensive
    RandRuns wrote: »
    Not sure if somebody has mentioned this already, but to those who are against longer sentences (or locking up criminals in general), statistics on whether or not this makes people more or less likely to commit a crime is moot in my opinion - locking up criminals, especially recidivist criminals gets them off the street - they won't commit any crimes while inside, so that's a win.

    We all know the "83 previous convictions, but he's doing his best you honour" types that appear in every court in the country, week in week out.
    If these people were locked up for a decent length of time, imagine the amount of crime they simply wouldn't be able to commit. Imagine the amount of Garda time and resources freed up for other duties. That's a win for society.


  • Registered Users Posts: 601 ✭✭✭RandRuns


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    once again!

    Read my post again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 29,071 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    RandRuns wrote: »
    Read my post again.

    why, whats it gonna do?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 601 ✭✭✭RandRuns


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    why, whats it gonna do?

    Sink in perhaps?


  • Registered Users Posts: 29,071 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    RandRuns wrote: »
    Sink in perhaps?

    sink what in?


  • Registered Users Posts: 601 ✭✭✭RandRuns


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    sink what in?

    Actually, don't bother.

    "cast not pearls before swine"


  • Registered Users Posts: 29,071 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    RandRuns wrote: »
    Actually, don't bother.

    "cast not pearls before swine"

    thanks


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭nigeldaniel


    The legal system is often tied up in knots. Lack of prison spaces, and too many solicitors/barristers who know every loophole in existance. I would say a good number of judges themselves are not too happy about things.

    Dan.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    once again!

    Hypothetical

    If someone has 50 convictions that they’ve racked up over a 5 year period so let’s say 10 a year. If they were locked up for 4 years on their tenth conviction, the crime rate is reduced by 40 crimes as they can’t commit them. It’s not rocket science.

    The system we have right now isn’t working. That’s why I asked about garlic man. He had a long sentence and if he’s out and hasn’t reoffended, then the thoughts of spending another long stint inside obviously worked.


  • Registered Users Posts: 29,071 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    but reality states.....
    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    No conclusive evidence to support, jailing more for longer, actually truly reduces crime, and it's bloody expensive
    Hypothetical

    If someone has 50 convictions that they’ve racked up over a 5 year period so let’s say 10 a year. If they were locked up for 4 years on their tenth conviction, the crime rate is reduced by 40 crimes as they can’t commit them. It’s not rocket science.

    The system we have right now isn’t working. That’s why I asked about garlic man. He had a long sentence and if he’s out and hasn’t reoffended, then the thoughts of spending another long stint inside obviously worked.

    hypothetical all yea want folks!


  • Registered Users Posts: 653 ✭✭✭Irish_peppa


    Geuze wrote: »
    I still can't get over the Eamon Lynch case.

    483 convictions.

    I am genuinely curious as to what happens in UK, FR, DE if you have 483 convictions?


    He was drink-driving, at up to 100mph, with no driving licence or insurance, was banned from driving, when he ploughed into another car, the other driver was killed.

    18 months in prison.


    To add insult to injury, and this is unbelievable, Eamon Lynch then tried to sue the dead man's family insurer, trying to claim for his own injuries.

    I love Ireland, but sometimes it drives you mad.

    I had to google this guy as if you had asked me the what the most convictions of a person was in Ireland I would say about 100. I would have figured after about 100 convictions most people would call it a day..... Im stunned ! Nearly 500 convictions holy mother ! :eek: I honestly didnt think it was possible lol


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    but reality states.....





    hypothetical all yea want folks!

    There’s no conclusive evidence because locking people up hasn’t been tried. Lock them up, compile data on whether they’ve reoffended to the same extent as a criminal that’s not locked up and then see which method provided the best results.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 20,937 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    We don't have enough prison cells.

    Also our politics is predominantly left wing liberal and progressive because that is prevailing ideology of people who enter the legal profession and academia.
    The emphasis is on the perpetrator his/her rights and toward rehabilitation rather than retribution.

    Habitual criminals usually have personality disorders due to their chaotic upbringings with a pattern of physical psychological and sexual abuse combined with poverty depravation and family breakdown contributing to their formation that led to criminality.

    This is all taken into account.

    Hence the leniency.
    boards resident expert on demographics


Advertisement