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
124678

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 532 ✭✭✭Turquoise Hexagon Sun


    Assuming Ireland's sentencing is lenient (like how the OP just arrives at that conclusion in his question) might be because sending someone away to prison for a long time maybe isn't a deterrent. I'm not against some criminals being made examples of, particularly when there looks like an upward trend in a particular type of crime but there is little or no evidence to show that harsher sentences deter crime.

    In order for harsh sentencing to be a deterrent, we would have to assume many things about the would-be criminal. Things like;

    1. The would-be criminal is not impulsive and makes rational decisions (ex. thinks before what they're about to do).
    2. The would-be criminal has impeccable impulse-control.
    3. The would-be criminal cares so much not to go to prison because their lives are going great on the outside and have a lot to live for.
    4. The would-be criminal isn't in a state of hopelessness.

    I'm sure there are more things but I can't think of them now. The reality is that the would-be criminal shows opposite signs and behaviours/emotions of not 1 of the above or more or all 4. Harsher sentencing is going to be jack-**** on the radar of someone showing contrarty 1-4 of the above.

    It might deter white-collar crime where someone more rational and calculated might be thinking to defraud someone or some institution or steal from an employer. But if you are talking about impulsive, violent crimes associated with low-income, low-prospects etc. Or drug-related where a person has a drug debt and steals - the risk of getting the **** kicked out of you or their parent's house windows bricked and mother intimidated is worth the risk of mugging someone for cash (in the short term) versus a (potential but not guaranteed) non-lenient sentence isn't in the forefront of the would-be criminal.

    Then there's the fact that people think suspended sentences aren't stressful, shameful and near traumatising. Going court and dealing with the legal system and/or being publically shamed if your crime is reported is huge too. It's not to be underestimated. And a suspended sentence means that if that person is out, and commits a crime and is caught, their custodial sentence will be activated. That's a good deterrent to not to commit crime. And, communities don't lose a father, mother, brother, sister. Whereas a custodial sentence can separate families and the chief income earner then goes to prison etc. I'm not justifying it but there are so many knock-on effects and variables to consider.

    I'm not against some harsher sentencing either. But I think to make examples. For example the latest spate of street crime and teens with knives. I think some non-lenient sentencing for some violent street crimes wouldn't go amiss to show that the state does take it seriously and it has the backing of the public. If we can't live in a civilized society where one feels safe to walk down the street, then what have we got? Get the basics in order.


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


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Is there any evidence that mandatory sentence (we have it for life and drug offences over a certain amount) are effective or maximum penalties a more effective way to approach it. All the articles suggest the latter. Tariff I. E. Minimum amount of incarcerated is found to be a less effective method.

    I am not in any way disagreeing with you but what is it that you are hoping to achieve with the approach?

    Looking to achieve less scum on the streets committing crimes. If you are in a cell you can't mug someone, you can't break into their house, you can't beat a member of the public up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 601 ✭✭✭RandRuns


    Looking to achieve less scum on the streets committing crimes. If you are in a cell you can't mug someone, you can't break into their house, you can't beat a member of the public up.

    It never ceases to amaze me that the "this study from Liberal Humanities University of Baltimore shows that jailing people doesn't deter them from crime" brigade don't get this.
    Put a repeat offender in jail = he's not on the street stabbing/robbing/raping people.

    Yes, he'll do it again when he comes out, but he's not doing it while he's locked up.

    Simples.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭McGinniesta


    I often wonder this myself.

    Is it the police?

    Is it the solicitors?

    Is it the judges?

    Is it the law itself?

    I don't know. I dare say that even those well versed in how the legal system really works will have difficulty unpacking that one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 532 ✭✭✭Turquoise Hexagon Sun


    The problems that then occur with having a large long-term prison population is that the it's going to keep growing. People wont be deterred. It will have a huge impact on the communities where men and women will serve mandatory long-term sentences. After serving longer sentences the chances of rehabilitating are then reduced once these people are on the outside because if someone is doing 10 years as apposed 5, or 20 instead of 10, then what prospects will these people have when returning to society? None. Your just putting a plaster on the situation. Not tacking the root-cause.

    Also, whos going to foot the bill for having a large prison population? Crime is still going to happen on the outside. Your just locking up people longer. Splitting communities longer. Reducing prospects of prisoner post-release and then putting a strain in the economy to pay for criminals to be incarcerated for longer. If you lock 10 scum off the streets, there's going to be 10, 20, 100 more scum to fill their place.

    What happens then? State sub-contracts prisons to private companies. Then you've just created a prison industrial complex. It will be profitable for businesses to be in the locking people up game.

    I'd rather rehabilitation, lenient sentencing, and leniency for non-violent drug crimes or decriminalization of possession of small quantities of drugs.

    What needs to be tackled is the root causes of the crimes in the first place. Prevention rather than the cure.

    Grand Prize Jury winning documentary on the prison industrial complex. This is what we can expect if we're to start handing down mandatory long sentences.



    https://youtu.be/QlPNRaXj2OQ


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    The problems that then occur with having a large long-term prison population is that the it's going to keep growing. People wont be deterred. It will have a huge impact on the communities where men and women will serve mandatory long-term sentences. After serving longer sentences the chances of rehabilitating are then reduced once these people are on the outside because if someone is doing 10 years as apposed 5, or 20 instead of 10, then what prospects will these people have when returning to society? None. Your just putting a plaster on the situation. Not tacking the root-cause.

    Also, whos going to foot the bill for having a large prison population? Crime is still going to happen on the outside. Your just locking up people longer. Splitting communities longer. Reducing prospects of prisoner post-release and then putting a strain in the economy to pay for criminals to be incarcerated for longer. If you lock 10 scum off the streets, there's going to be 10, 20, 100 more scum to fill their place.

    What happens then? State sub-contracts prisons to private companies. Then you've just created a prison industrial complex. It will be profitable for businesses to be in the locking people up game.

    I'd rather rehabilitation, lenient sentencing, and leniency for non-violent drug crimes or decriminalization of possession of small quantities of drugs.

    What needs to be tackled is the root causes of the crimes in the first place. Prevention rather than the cure.

    Grand Prize Jury winning documentary on the prison industrial complex. This is what we can expect if we're to start handing down mandatory long sentences.



    yeah because we are so close to the american model in terms of law enforcement :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,052 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    I often wonder this myself.

    Is it the police?

    Is it the solicitors?

    Is it the judges?

    Is it the law itself?

    I don't know. I dare say that even those well versed in how the legal system really works will have difficulty unpacking that one.

    What exactly is it that you wonder?

    Before you can discuss the causes it must be confirmed that the initial issue is correct. Is it possible that it's not lenient in the vast majority of the time and cherry picking cases may be flawed?


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


    The problems that then occur with having a large long-term prison population is that the it's going to keep growing. People wont be deterred. It will have a huge impact on the communities where men and women will serve mandatory long-term sentences. After serving longer sentences the chances of rehabilitating are then reduced once these people are on the outside because if someone is doing 10 years as apposed 5, or 20 instead of 10, then what prospects will these people have when returning to society? None. Your just putting a plaster on the situation. Not tacking the root-cause.

    Also, whos going to foot the bill for having a large prison population? Crime is still going to happen on the outside. Your just locking up people longer. Splitting communities longer. Reducing prospects of prisoner post-release and then putting a strain in the economy to pay for criminals to be incarcerated for longer. If you lock 10 scum off the streets, there's going to be 10, 20, 100 more scum to fill their place.

    What happens then? State sub-contracts prisons to private companies. Then you've just created a prison industrial complex. It will be profitable for businesses to be in the locking people up game.

    I'd rather rehabilitation, lenient sentencing, and leniency for non-violent drug crimes or decriminalization of possession of small quantities of drugs.

    What needs to be tackled is the root causes of the crimes in the first place. Prevention rather than the cure.

    Grand Prize Jury winning documentary on the prison industrial complex. This is what we can expect if we're to start handing down mandatory long sentences.


    What prospects do the scum with 20, 50, 100, 150, 300, 400 convictions have? They are not compatible with living within society's rules and norms, so lock them up and keep them away from decent people. Less scum, less scummy role models.

    Where is the data that incarcerating people leads to "10, 20, 100 more scum to fill their place"? There's a finite amount of people in Ireland and a finite amount of scum.


  • Registered Users Posts: 532 ✭✭✭Turquoise Hexagon Sun


    Mad_maxx wrote: »
    yeah because we are so close to the american model in terms of law enforcement :rolleyes:

    What does that even mean? I never said we were. Why bother limping in with such an inane statement. Yeah and Guards didn't carry guns back in the day either, did they? Things change.

    Now, lets stick to the points.

    What do you think is going to happen in 20 years time when you've been locking up people for long times? Reasonable enough to assume more prisons. Reasonable enough to assume more broken homes when parents are locked up for longer? Reasonable to assume the public has to pay for the prisons. Reasonable to assume the government is incompetent and that the prison service is going to be overrun so outsourcing prison services to private companies is a logical and very likely step.

    When you make locking up the population a commodity and profitable, then we have problem.

    Does anyone here actually believe that we can just lock up all the criminals and crime will go down because all the criminals are in jail? lol I think people are underestimating the amount of people willing to commit crime. We need to tackle the issues that spurn the criminals to commit crime. Simple as.

    If anyone actually believes longer sentencing is a deterrent. Then why is there so much crime in the USA (most incarcerated prison population in the world). Heck, people still commit crime in death-sentence states. It's not a deterrent.


  • Registered Users Posts: 532 ✭✭✭Turquoise Hexagon Sun


    What prospects do the scum with 20, 50, 100, 150, 300, 400 convictions have? They are not compatible with living within society's rules and norms, so lock them up and keep them away from decent people. Less scum, less scummy role models.

    Where is the data that incarcerating people leads to "10, 20, 100 more scum to fill their place"? There's a finite amount of people in Ireland and a finite amount of scum.

    What about someone with 1 or 2 convictions? Do they not deserve another chance?

    Nobody is debating locking criminals up. We're debating the length of time.

    And yes, look at the most incarcerated country in the world. They keep locking people up and crime keeps happening.

    Do you actually have any other ideas how to rehabilitate, or solve crime issues other than locking everyone up? Is that the only thing you can think of? Live in a police/prison state?

    The problem is you start locking scum up for 10, 20 years and the crime keeps happening. What are you going to do then? Show me evidence that handing down large sentences has eradicated crime. Heck, even in the Islamic State where adultery can get you stoned to death, people still cheat on their husbands and wives. Even in the most dirt-poor country where being caught stealing can get you lynched and necklaced, people still commit crime and steal and do all the bad stuff. Your not going to lock everyone up. It's not plausible. Its fantasy. It's ridiculous!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,423 ✭✭✭batman_oh


    What does that even mean? I never said we were. Why bother limping in with such an inane statement. Yeah and Guards didn't carry guns back in the day either, did they? Things change.

    Now, lets stick to the points.

    What do you think is going to happen in 20 years time when you've been locking up people for long times? Reasonable enough to assume more prisons. Reasonable enough to assume more broken homes when parents are locked up for longer? Reasonable to assume the public has to pay for the prisons. Reasonable to assume the government is incompetent and that the prison service is going to be overrun so outsourcing prison services to private companies is a logical and very likely step.

    When you make locking up the population a commodity and profitable, then we have problem.

    Does anyone here actually believe that we can just lock up all the criminals and crime will go down because all the criminals are in jail? lol I think people are underestimating the amount of people willing to commit crime. We need to tackle the issues that spurn the criminals to commit crime. Simple as.

    If anyone actually believes longer sentencing is a deterrent. Then why is there so much crime in the USA (most incarcerated prison population in the world). Heck, people still commit crime in death-sentence states. It's not a deterrent.

    There are a lot more social issues and actual poverty in the USA and entire areas that are complete kips that have been left to rot.
    A lot of those committing crimes here are living fairly well in comparison off generous social welfare and coming from places where they got next to free housing and everything handed to them that they needed to do something useful. A huge issue here is incentivising people that have no interest in raising their kids to have them by rewarding them with free stuff, while basically punishing people that work and want kids with ridiculous childcare costs, property prices etc


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


    What about someone with 1 or 2 convictions? Do they not deserve another chance?

    Nobody is debating locking criminals up. We're debating the length of time.

    And yes, look at the most incarcerated country in the world. They keep locking people up and crime keeps happening.

    Do you actually have any other ideas how to rehabilitate, or solve crime issues other than locking everyone up? Is that the only thing you can think of? Live in a police/prison state?

    The problem is you start locking scum up for 10, 20 years and the crime keeps happening. What are you going to do then? Show me evidence that handing down large sentences has eradicated crime. Heck, even in the Islamic State where adultery can get you stoned to death, people still cheat on their husbands and wives. Even in the most dirt-poor country where being caught stealing can get you lynched and necklaced, people still commit crime and steal and do all the bad stuff. Your not going to lock everyone up. It's not plausible. Its fantasy. It's ridiculous!

    For the below, no, they shouldn't get another chance.

    Possession of a knife
    Possession of a gun
    Possession of Class A drugs for sale/supply
    Sexual abuse of a minor
    Rape
    Sexual Assault
    Murder
    Attempted Murder
    Manslaughter
    Driving while Banned
    Drunk Driving

    We are not America, we've no ghettos, we've very few gangs. In dirt poor countries people steal to survive, there is no need for that in Ireland. Crime will never be eradicated, but we can keep the criminals away from the decent people. It would have the added bonus of stopping scum from banging out kids they've no intention of supporting/raising.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    What does that even mean? I never said we were. Why bother limping in with such an inane statement. Yeah and Guards didn't carry guns back in the day either, did they? Things change.

    Now, lets stick to the points.

    What do you think is going to happen in 20 years time when you've been locking up people for long times? Reasonable enough to assume more prisons. Reasonable enough to assume more broken homes when parents are locked up for longer? Reasonable to assume the public has to pay for the prisons. Reasonable to assume the government is incompetent and that the prison service is going to be overrun so outsourcing prison services to private companies is a logical and very likely step.

    When you make locking up the population a commodity and profitable, then we have problem.

    Does anyone here actually believe that we can just lock up all the criminals and crime will go down because all the criminals are in jail? lol I think people are underestimating the amount of people willing to commit crime. We need to tackle the issues that spurn the criminals to commit crime. Simple as.

    If anyone actually believes longer sentencing is a deterrent. Then why is there so much crime in the USA (most incarcerated prison population in the world). Heck, people still commit crime in death-sentence states. It's not a deterrent.

    the USA has no welfare state , ours is just about the most generous in the world , there are no parallels and forgive me for not trusting those who have been wrong for thirty years ( liberals ) when it comes to what is the best course of action

    we,ve been hearing how we need to " look at the cause " forever and a day , thats the trouble with liberals , they get things horribly wrong for decades yet still insist on their way being followed


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,052 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    For the below, no, they shouldn't get another chance.

    Possession of a knife
    Possession of a gun
    Possession of Class A drugs for sale/supply
    Sexual abuse of a minor
    Rape
    Sexual Assault
    Murder
    Attempted Murder
    Manslaughter
    Driving while Banned
    Drunk Driving

    We are not America, we've no ghettos, we've very few gangs. In dirt poor countries people steal to survive, there is no need for that in Ireland. Crime will never be eradicated, but we can keep the criminals away from the decent people. It would have the added bonus of stopping scum from banging out kids they've no intention of supporting/raising.

    Is 'not another chance' meaning full life. So you are saying that the crimes outlined are full life in prison.


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


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Is 'not another chance' meaning full life. So you are saying that the crimes outlined are full life in prison.

    Jesus wept. They are a list of crimes I’d have mandatory sentences for. Do you not remember asking me for them about 15 posts back?? They’ll have another chance when they finish their full mandatory sentence.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,052 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Jesus wept. They are a list of crimes I’d have mandatory sentences for. Do you not remember asking me for them about 15 posts back?? They’ll have another chance when they finish their full mandatory sentence.


    It was just confusing when you said that they should not get another chance. It appeared that you were saying that it was it. But my mistake. Apologies.

    Again I suppose the fact that mandatory sentences or three strikes don't reduce the crime rate is the first thing that is an issue. The fact that you believe that a finite amount of criminals exist is unusual. Alot of the crimes outlined are opportunistic rather than because of what you described as predetermined criminal means that it's not finite. It is also external factors that will impact.

    Do you honestly think that all crime is committed by a certain number of people that the more are locked up the less crime exists. Did drug trafficking diminish after Pablo was killed or racketeering stop after the heads of the mafia were locked up.


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


    joeguevara wrote: »
    It was just confusing when you said that they should not get another chance. It appeared that you were saying that it was it. But my mistake. Apologies.

    Again I suppose the fact that mandatory sentences or three strikes don't reduce the crime rate is the first thing that is an issue. The fact that you believe that a finite amount of criminals exist is unusual. Alot of the crimes outlined are opportunistic rather than because of what you described as predetermined criminal means that it's not finite. It is also external factors that will impact.

    Do you honestly think that all crime is committed by a certain number of people that the more are locked up the less crime exists. Did drug trafficking diminish after Pablo was killed or racketeering stop after the heads of the mafia were locked up.

    Criminal gets locked up for ten years. How many crimes can he commit while locked up? There’s a reduction straight away.

    We’ve very few organised crime gangs or drug lords in Ireland.

    The fact you think there are infinite criminals is bonkers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,052 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Criminal gets locked up for ten years. How many crimes can he commit while locked up? There’s a reduction straight away.

    We’ve very few organised crime gangs or drug lords in Ireland.

    The fact you think there are infinite criminals is bonkers.

    I did not say an infinite amount of criminals. I said that due to the opportunistic nature of a lot of crimes means that its not as simple as outlined. Take assault as an example. How many people are found guilty of it because of the situation they fo themselves in and additional factors like alcohol stress, etc. Can occur in isolation of a finite amount.

    With regards to sale and supply of drugs, vast amount facing trial are not the top people. So please explain how it will reduce the amount of people who will commit said crime.

    Drink driving is the same.

    Other crimes outlined will not be like this such as some of the s3xual ones referred to. But if you are saying that it's the person in isolation that determine an outcome then I disagree.


  • Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭chuck eastwood


    It's hard to stomach some of the decesions in the media but no doubt there are countless more we don't hear about


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,188 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    joeguevara wrote: »
    I did not say an infinite amount of criminals. I said that due to the opportunistic nature of a lot of crimes means that its not as simple as outlined. Take assault as an example. How many people are found guilty of it because of the situation they fo themselves in and additional factors like alcohol stress, etc. Can occur in isolation of a finite amount.

    With regards to sale and supply of drugs, vast amount facing trial are not the top people. So please explain how it will reduce the amount of people who will commit said crime.

    Drink driving is the same.

    Other crimes outlined will not be like this such as some of the s3xual ones referred to. But if you are saying that it's the person in isolation that determine an outcome then I disagree.

    Sentencing is firstly a deterrent, punishment and to protect the public..

    If you did 2 years out of 3 years that you were sentenced to for assault causing harm... a year after release... arrested and convicted for the same thing again... what should a judge be doing ? Let you off with a slap on the wrist? You didn’t learn your lesson! You know it’s wrong, you were convicted, punished , but, you still wanted to and chose to repeat your behavior.... You CHOSE to commit a crime... that comes with a price, or should, your liberty..

    How many people are abusing alcohol, drugs or under stress ultimately because of decisions they made themselves ? People need to be made take responsibility for their actions... because something bad happened in your life should not give you a pass to cause misery, difficulty or pain to and for anybody...

    If I hold up a lady with a knife, demand and relieving her of cash, phone and jewelry....scare her witless, leaving her in a heap on the path... I shouldn’t have a judge asking me about my upbringing, mental health, family life or career... shouldn’t come into it....

    The facts are...On Feb 4th...

    - I left my house while in possession of a six inch bread knife

    - I was recorded on CCTV hanging around the bus stop by the church eyeing up people ...

    - i robbed the lady at knifepoint, premeditated, violent.

    If the plea is guilty, an apology meant and sincere...a small amount of leniency...but a custodial sentence appropriate to the crime.

    If your pet chihuahua just died, the bloke they think is your dad has been diagnosed with Alkaptonuria... so what...that should not result in a lenient sentence..


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,052 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Strumms wrote: »
    Sentencing is firstly a deterrent, punishment and to protect the public..

    If you did 2 years out of 3 years that you were sentenced to for assault causing harm... a year after release... arrested and convicted for the same thing again... what should a judge be doing ? Let you off with a slap on the wrist? You didn’t learn your lesson! You know it’s wrong, you were convicted, punished , but, you still wanted to and chose to repeat your behavior.... You CHOSE to commit a crime... that comes with a price, or should, your liberty..

    I am of the opinion that sentencing is not an effective deterrent.

    I agree with the rest of your post but in the cases of serious assault, I don't think that people will be let off if they commit a serious assault again.

    The portrayal of a person who has 100 previous convictions are usually very minor or different crimes. It sounds horrendous to the public and should not occur. But the point is that the vast amount of people who are found guilty receive appropriate sentences and the system is not as lenient as espoused.

    Also the weight judges place on hard luck stories is not nearly as much as the media claim.

    People are often mistaken on the whole sentence imposed. The amount of times that I've read or heard that murderers get out after 8-10 years is absolutely wrong.

    Some sentences are not appropriate but I think that they are outliers rather than the norm.

    I am not going to discuss hypothetical situations designed to be controversial and not the point made.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,531 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    Free legal aid is meant to give someone the same chance to seek justice or defend themselves as someone with money but it's not even, look as those fighting deportation they can spend a million of free legal aid to fight it but who else can do that.
    Someone could be financially ruined fighting a false charge, and then even if they manage to get cost awarded it's usually not full amount. Sorry not sorry but you spent too much money keeping yourself out of prison for something we couldn't prove.
    Would rather it be changed to something similar to a state funded retainer rather than what it is now, legal eagles get there steady income and the normal people can get a little legal advice when they need it for the normal stuff.

    Organized crime is already dealt with differently, and the criminal asset bureau could broadening it's scope to less serous crime when dealing with drugs or other financially driven crimes would be the bigger help than just increasing sentencing there.

    Drink driving is already dealt with differently in Ireland than in many parts of the world, an American commented to me that all their stuff for it was along the lines of "don't drink and drive as you might get caught and fined" vs ours which is "don't drink and drive as you're going to kill some kid".


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


    joeguevara wrote: »
    A lot of good ideas in this post but let's take number 6 as an example. The 3 strikes rule appears to be a good instrument for punishment. However do you not think that it is a breach of human rights law that prohibited disproportionate sentences. But even if it doesn't what empirical evidence is available to show it works. For example this paper is evidence that it has not been. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol29_2002/spring2002/hr_spring02_vitiello/

    As for 2, what offences do you think mandatory sentence is required?

    The American three strike rule is for convictions at what would be at least Circuit Court level over here.

    You could argue that it’s proper order that one is put away for a very long time after having committed two armed robberies and a serious assault.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,188 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    joeguevara wrote: »
    I am of the opinion that sentencing is not an effective deterrent.

    I agree with the rest of your post but in the cases of serious assault, I don't think that people will be let off if they commit a serious assault again.

    The portrayal of a person who has 100 previous convictions are usually very minor or different crimes. It sounds horrendous to the public and should not occur. But the point is that the vast amount of people who are found guilty receive appropriate sentences and the system is not as lenient as espoused.

    Also the weight judges place on hard luck stories is not nearly as much as the media claim.

    People are often mistaken on the whole sentence imposed. The amount of times that I've read or heard that murderers get out after 8-10 years is absolutely wrong.

    Some sentences are not appropriate but I think that they are outliers rather than the norm.

    I am not going to discuss hypothetical situations designed to be controversial and not the point made.

    If I need my car for work... it’s in my contract that I should have a fully clean and current driving license... the law is already a deterrent. I’m saying, “ ok, we are going for food and drinks tonight, but we are taxiing it, even though I’ll have only probably two or three beers with a four course meal over 90 minutes I’m not chancing it... that’s the law, being a deterrent.... I can’t afford to loose my license.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,531 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    The American three strike rule is for convictions at what would be at least Circuit Court level over here.

    You could argue that it’s proper order that one is put away for a very long time after having committed two armed robberies and a serious assault.

    The US also requires that one of those strikes be a serious violent felony, which they define as a violent crime punishable by X years or more.

    Most states have it as 10 years or more.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,052 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    The American three strike rule is for convictions at what would be at least Circuit Court level over here.

    You could argue that it’s proper order that one is put away for a very long time after having committed two armed robberies and a serious assault.

    The Mandatory nature is proven to be ineffective

    https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol29_2002/spring2002/hr_spring02_vitiello/#:~:text=A%20number%20of%20recently%20published,in%20lowering%20California's%20crime%20rate.&text=One%20study%20found%20that%20crime,drop%20in%20the%20toughest%20counties.

    But for the sake of the discussion, in Ireland what do you think that a person who committed two armed robberies and a serious assault will serve in prison?

    What is the average sentence handed down for one armed robbery. Do you have any evidence that a person convicted of two will be dealt with leniently? And add an assault causing serious injury, any evidence of a light sentence after two armed robberies?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,947 ✭✭✭kravmaga


    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    Thats it both there. Remember Thornton Hall... They said they needed it.
    Status today: Never built
    .

    Should have been built, spent millions on buying the land from the farmer in North County Dublin, only worth about 1/2 the price they paid for it.

    It would have provided, 1400 spaces, badly need now.

    http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Visual%20Rep%20002.pdf/Files/Visual%20Rep%20002.pdf

    Thornton Hall timeline
    January 2005: Then-Justice Minister Michael McDowell announces Thornton Hall, 150 acres of farmland in north county Dublin, has been selected as the site of a 1,400-cell prison to replace the outdated Mountjoy complex. The State pays €29.9m for the land, or just under €200,000 an acre.

    September 2005: C&AG John Purcell finds the State paid at least twice the market value for the land.

    April 2007: Leargas, a consortium involving Michael McNamara Construction and Barclays Private Equity, is chosen to build the prison under a public-private partnership which will cost €400m.

    October 2008: Talks with Leargas stall after it says it needs an additional €80m.

    May 2009: Negotiations end. The Government announces it cannot afford to press ahead.

    July 2010: The plans are scaled back, with the Government only committing to the construction of two blocks holding 700 prisoners by 2014.

    November 2011: The new Government 'mothballs' the project due to budget cuts.

    February 2015: The Department of Justice announces it is conducting a review to decide on the future of the site, as overall costs top €50m.

    Irish Independent


  • Registered Users Posts: 965 ✭✭✭CucaFace


    Its a pity we can't sue the judges.

    I mean if i or someone close to me was seriously assaulted or worse by someone with 40 convictions and they were only on the streets to commit this crime because the last judge decided to once again that they should be given yet another chance, then i would feel that the judge should be held accountable to some degree for their poor decision that led to the next crime to be committed.

    If judges were to be held to account, you would see how quickly things would change.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 118 ✭✭Daragh1980


    The Left in Ireland only care about locking people up for
    1 White collar crime
    2 Violent crime but only if the perp is middle / upper class


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 55,316 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Lads, you’ll hear one case out of hundreds everyday where it appears to be lenient.

    Anyone who thinks the system is lenient in the main hasn’t a clue. Yes it can be very disheartening to hear about these in the paper, but that’s exactly why they’re printed; to cause outrage.

    If you had every sentencing or every ruling printed every day then the newspaper would be like a novel.

    Ok,

    But can you point to sentences that are tough and lengthy and deserving?

    There are so many examples of the opposite

    Not to mention non stop repeat offenders

    Persons with dozens and dozens of convictions in and out. And some very serious convictions

    When you can murder someone and go for release/parole after 7 years, you know damn well your country is fooked! The most heinous and serious of crimes on our books!!

    And it trickles down..


Advertisement