70 Burglaries!

BronsonTB

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/world/stolen-high-powered-audi-that-crashed-after-garda-chase-is-linked-to-over-70-burglaries/ar-AAWF9jy?li=BBr5HCU

Car linked to 70 Burglaries...Seems excessive & only caught because they crashed....

These are the type that should be locked away not led roam & rob as they please.... Very poor performance from the authorities.

This is why more prison spaces are very badly needed.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058243598/70-burglaries

This cross-border burglary spree was detected and stopped within a month of beginning, and five people are now in custody.

If this is a "poor performance", what do you think should have happened?

macvin

Caught because of a very big Garda operation that had them tailed on Tuesday and had dozens of garda cars involved.

Seems every possible route they could take was covered with garda cars waiting on the different routes. So no matter what road they took, they were going to be caught.

Garda air unit was also involved and at the ready all day.

One Who Waits...

Satisfying picture.

I accept not everyone appreciates this type of comment but it's a pity they didn't go up in smoke like the other scumbags.

I'm sure they'll serve serious jail time and reform their ways and the Gardai involved will get a great deal of satisfaction with the outcome til they arrest them again.

Nermal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987555#Comment_118987555

I'm going to go out on a limb, and assume they have extensive criminal records already.

If that's the case, they should have already been serving multi-decade prison sentences for repeat offences under a three-strikes rule.

From the Independent: "The 21-year-old, from the Ardmore area of Tallaght, has been centrally involved in organised burglaries since he was a teenager.".

Boggles

4 of them don't look old enough to drive.

'Fagin' on the other hand, the state of him.

Sleepy

The three-strike rule as used in the US is far too susceptible to ordinary citizens ending up spending a lifetime behind bars for relatively minor offences so I wouldn't be in favour of it's being signed into law here. A ten strike rule I could certainly get on board with though!

brokenangel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987569#Comment_118987569

Pics and videos flying around watsapp last night, any hope these lads will be thrown in jail and the key lost?

From the crash they are lucky they didn't kill a few people including themselves. Absolute sc*mbags

John_Rambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987633#Comment_118987633

What a brilliant comparison! Fagin!! This lot have been grooming their kids in to burglary and scams for years. Kids are harder to send to prison and fit into smaller windows and openings.

They "settled" in West Dublin because of it's centralised motorway position. Nothing's really far away, the city, the rest of the country. Can't get rid of them now.

macvin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987634#Comment_118987634

A 3 strike rule should apply, but the third strike applies full sentence for that crime less up to 25% for guilty plea rather than life as in USA.

Consecutive sentencing for up to 3 terms should also be applied

Burglary without violence has a term of 9 years. So guilty plea + remission for good behaviour would see this as 5 years. 3 consecutive sentences = 15 minimum term.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987698#Comment_118987698

While you might like to think that sentencing policy has an effect on crime figures, all the research, from many different countries, shows that it has only a marginal effect. And, since prison is expensive, you can spend a massive amount of money acheiving a minimal reduction in crime by doing this.

Over in the other thread, Nermal dismisses the research because "it's created by left-wing institutions that are committed to removing the element punishment from the justice system". For Nermal, the punishment is the point; he doesn't greatly care whether it reduces crime. But, if your objective is protecting the community from crime, the conclusion is clear; long-sentence laws are massively, massively expensive, and if you're willing to spend that amount of money reducing crime there are much more effective ways in which you could spend it that would produce a much greater reduction in crime. They're not so cruel, though, if cruelty is your number one priority.

denartha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987634#Comment_118987634

Here we don't even have a 180 strikes law yet.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987726#Comment_118987726

Dont most of those figures on prison terms not reducing crime look at recidivism rates?

If the repeat offender is locked up instead and cannot reoffend, it wont be measured as a reduction in repeat offenses because they wont get the chance. Its still an absolute reduction in crime however.

Dial Hard

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987634#Comment_118987634

Really? I've managed to get through 40 years of my life without committing one serious crime, let alone three. Dunno what kind of "ordinary citizens" you know but everyone in my circle has also, miraculously, managed to avoid criminality.

seamus

X-strike rules don't achieve anything. Scumbags on their last strike don't stop committing crimes, they just become more dangerous to avoid being caught. If you're facing life in prison, then what does it matter that you run over a few Gardai and children while you're escaping?

You end up locking up people who are no real danger to society, but have found themselves engaging in small crimes to feed habits.

As Peregrinus points out, the link between harshness of prison sentences and crime rates is surprisingly loose. If reductions in crime are what we seek, then we need to look at solutions from countries that are succeeding - like Denmark or Finland - rather than copying policies from countries that are failing - like the United States.

Geuze

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987851#Comment_118987851

I would like to know how DK, FIN or any other modern society would deal with the likes of Eamon Lynch and his 500 convictions?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Eamon+Lynch+convictions&oq=Eamon+Lynch+convictions&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160l2.7185j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

seamus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987865#Comment_118987865

Yeah, me too. You'll find that they too have their share of multi-conviction scumbags. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they have a bad system. The overall crime rate is what you want to be looking at.

Solutions here are multi-generational and cross all sorts of competencies. There is no solution that can be enacted next week and make the bad men disappear a week later. It starts with addressing the reasons people start getting into crime in the first place, and building from there. But you don't have to wait 20 years for results.

As we can see from Fagin there, if those kids had been wrestled from his influence earlier, then he'd just be a sad old fvcker getting his belly stuck as he climbed through windows.

Improvements are possible in 5-10 years, but it takes effort across disciplines and across society.

gladvimpaker

Oh how we had great craic in the good ole days in secondary school. The local scumbags boasting in secondary school about being sat down and hit with bars of wet soap in socks until they tell the truth. Boasting about it, almost as if it was a badge of honor and they didn't whimper or complain about it. Or getting the sh1t kicked out of them by the bouncers at the back of Garfield's night club in Bunratty back in the day. Most of them started off getting 6 months in St Pats then graduated to Limerick prison. Joyriders usually sent to Spike Island. Out of 6 of them two are still alive, last I heard one is doing a long stretch at her majesty's pleasure in London somewhere the other is ten years clean and sober working in rehab trying to stop young chaps from getting involved in crime etc

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987811#Comment_118987811

You're assuming that crime is caused by criminal individuals; if I lock up A, who would have stolen my car if not already locked up, my car doesn't get stolen.

But this isn't so. The factors that would have cause A to steal my car are still at work, and may cause B to steal my car and, if they do, I don't experience any reduction in crime; just an increase in my taxes to pay for the (now longer) imprisonment of both A and B. I would rather my extra taxes should go into measures that will deter both A and B from stealing my car.

This isn't a radical lefty thought; it's a simple observation. If any business is closed because of measures that target that one business, then other businesses will usually pop up, or expand, to take advantage of the opportunities that the closed business can no longer take advantage of. Why should it be different if the business happens to be a criminal one?

The studies don't just look at recidivism; they also look at overall crime rates.

denartha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987822#Comment_118987822

I was talking to a taxi driver in Vegas of all places. Her son was in prison because he hit the 3-strike law rule. When he was 15 he stole a car. Slap on wrist. when he was 18 he was caught with weed on him. Slap on wrist. When he was 19 he stole a DVD. Boom! 5 years in prison.

She was very upset about it, naturally, and I felt for her, but I was also thinking, if you are on your second strike, how stupid do you have to be to steal a DVD? On the one hand, my anecdote shows the 3 strike rule doesn't work because some people just are that stupid.

Ive come to the conclusion that I am against any kind of mandatory minimums or x-strike laws. What I am in favour of is an overhaul of the judicial system, starting with the judges. The reason we have judges to begin with is to judge each case on its own merits. A more pragmatic approach is needed. The sob story can work for the first offence, maybe the second, but the judge needs to decide for him or herself, were there extenuating circumstances or is this individual an habitual criminal? I also think there should be a review of each conviction and sentence done by a different judge or panel who can ask was a sentence too harsh or too lenient.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987914#Comment_118987914

What makes you think that judges don't already decide questions like whether there are genuine extenuating circumstances, or whether someone is a habitual criminal?

As for review of sentencing decisions by a different judge or panel, isn't that one of the things the appeal system does? You can appeal against sentence as well as (or instead of) appealing against conviction.

Your point about stupidity is a good one. Criminals, generally are (relative to the rest of the population) impulsive, not given to deferring gratification, find it harder to take the long view. These are personality traits, not moral failings. One of the reasons mandatory long sentences don't work so well is that for such a person fearing or anticipating a five-year sentence (say) is much the same as fearing or anticipating a fifteen-year sentence.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987913#Comment_118987913

utter tosh

you have a small subset of people with ludicrous criminal records who would not be out in any other country, this is the issue

look at the difference made when those 3 lads got all toasty on the n7

consecutive sentences, getting longer with repeat offending

some people don't want to be helped, there are no other solutions to put them off offending, they aren't sob stories

the cost can be offset by all the court time that will be freed up

Nermal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987913#Comment_118987913

Twaddle, absolute twaddle. B is waiting in the wings, ready to steal cars but not yet doing so, and only steps into the breach once A is imprisoned?

Crime is caused by criminal individuals, not by 'factors'.

It is the moral responsibility of those criminals alone.

It is incontrovertible that locking more of them up for longer reduces their opportunity to commit further crimes.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987913#Comment_118987913

in the case of burglaries specifically a small number of individuals are responsible for large numbers of offences. In this case 5 individuals responsible for 70 burglaries in just one month. you have to admire their industry at least. In the case of the recent fatal crash that involved habitual burglars the burglary rate dropped by 30% in the weeks after their deaths. So in the case of burglaries in particular long prison sentences for habitual burglars would, in my opinion, reduce crime rates. and by long I mean 20 years not 5. You make the point that criminals are impulsive and long sentences will not deter them but in the case of habitual burglars this is not true. Burglary is their job. they don't do it on a whim.

seamus

 B is waiting in the wings, ready to steal cars but not yet doing so, and only steps into the breach once A is imprisoned?

Yes. It's called reproduction. When you put one scumbag in prison, there's always another one to step into the breach.

People become criminals by factors that drive them there.

Unless your assertion is that some people are born criminals and it's in the genes, in which case there's not really point in having a discussion.

Icemancometh

I'm not trying to be smart, I genuinely don't understand this. If you have a gang like this committing dozens of burglaries, you put them in prison and they can't commit any more. A different group, who weren't doing any, now start committing burglaries to make up the numbers?

freshpopcorn

I know somewhere that a fundraiser a few years ago.

That night the premises was broken into. The alarm was going off and people stopped and saw the suspects.

There was an older man waiting in a car and two young teenagers ran from the premises.

The money raised was logged in a bank.

What chance do these young lads have really in life.

They are often brought robbing by fathers/uncles/etc.

Social services and the Gardai need to be able to do more to support these youths/children.

CAB also needs further powers to seizes assets.

You've families on social welfare whilst driving new cars and buying luxury goods. I'm not talking about the odd treat or splurge.

Patrick2010

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118988096#Comment_118988096

That seems the logic alright. So the corollary must be you don't jail the gang as there no point as another gang will take over. Or maybe just build enough prisons until we run out of scumbags to jail?

Varik

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987634#Comment_118987634

They're not just 3 random crimes.

At least 1 has to be a felony, and it's a violent felony in many states with some being the last offence being the felony.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118988002#Comment_118988002

In the case of the recent fatal crash that involved habitual burglars the burglary rate dropped by 30% in the weeks after their deaths

Did it increase 30% before their deaths though?

A lot of these glut burglaries are by people out on bail or facing prison time. High reward but also high risk of getting caught.

More harsher sentencing that don't run concurrently would be a more appropriate deterrent.