If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)
Hi all, The AutoSave Draft feature is now disabled across the site. The decision to disable the feature was made via a poll last year. The delay in putting it in place was due to a bug/update issue. This should serve as a reminder to manually save your drafts if you wish to keep them. Thanks, The Boards Team.

70 Burglaries!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,242 ✭✭✭ brokenangel

    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

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,846 ✭✭✭✭ Peregrinus

    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.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,463 ✭✭✭ timmyntc

    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.

  • Registered Users Posts: 68,318 ✭✭✭✭ 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.

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,578 ✭✭✭✭ Geuze

  • Registered Users Posts: 68,318 ✭✭✭✭ seamus

    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.

  • Registered Users Posts: 187 ✭✭ 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

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,846 ✭✭✭✭ Peregrinus

    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.

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,287 ✭✭✭✭ denartha

    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.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,846 ✭✭✭✭ Peregrinus

    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.

  • Registered Users Posts: 68,318 ✭✭✭✭ 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.

  • Registered Users Posts: 830 ✭✭✭ 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?

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭ Patrick2010

    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?

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,091 ✭✭✭✭ Varik

    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.

  • Advertisement