Finally some justice metted out

nlgbbbblth · 28-06-2005 8:47pm

zachler wrote:

Getting back to the original case in Limerick, there's an interesting overview and some background here: http://aliveinlimerick.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-kind-of-people.html

interesting, thanks for that link

if those guys were from stable, middle class backgrounds with no previous convictions then would the Bacik/Morning Stars of this world be as willing to defend them?

I doubt it.

RicardoSmith · 29-06-2005 1:33am

No ones opinion is more or less valid than anyone. Trying to pin some sort of value metric on people opinion is pointless and inane. This is forum which is an "open discussion or voicing of ideas".

You have to persuade people of your opinion through your comments. Saying your comments have weight because you say they do is really very weak and who is going to be convinced by that? You could be a trained criminal psychologist. But maybe you are rubbish at it? Only your posts matter on the boards. If they are not persuasive, thats all that matters.

The Guards mentioned at their sentencing that crime on Limerick’s Southside had dropped significantly since their arrest.

That speaks for itself. If these guys were locked up, think of how many fewer victims there would be. Rehabilitate them all you like as long it doesn't create any more victims. For me the only way thats possible is to seperate them from society and make the imprisionment and/or rehabilitation contribute to the society in some form.

WizZard · 29-06-2005 9:18am

Sleepy wrote:

Let me clarify my last point for you then. Society's duty is to maximise it's benefits for all. However, when someone continuously acts in a damaging manner towards the rest of that society they lose the right to it's protection. They are dangerous to that society and, as such, it is that society's duty to eliminate the threat they pose towards it's members. Whether that be through imprisonment, killing them or some wonder-drug that can miraculously turn them into upstanding members of the community. Unfortunately, psychology is an inexact science (at best) and has light-years to go before it can claim to be able to rehabilitate the truly criminal element of society (i.e. the re-offenders).

I'm not suggesting we instantly lock people away for life or kill them because they've broken the law. We do, however, have to stop letting the unreformed criminals to leave prison in anything other than a coffin.

Hear Hear...

MorningStar · 29-06-2005 11:36am

Sleepy wrote:

Economics, My own Moral Compass and Common Sense.

Common sense the great common denominator. People claimed the world was flat because of common sense. Moral compass like a real compass points depending on where you are and was also used to kill and torture people for questioning religious beliefs. Economics where the rich pay no taxes and where people on unemployment do!

I understand what you are saying and I have some of thoses feelings but it just doesn't pan out from known research. The problem is people view it from their own understanding and upbringing and find it difficult to understand that others don't even vaguely match.
I would feel differently if these people were from middle class backgrounds. I would want harsher sentences.
The system failed everybody here. Some of the assalants should have been in prison and some should have been taken away from the parents prior to this.

Sleepy wrote:

And in my opinion, an unjust one.

A real open mind you have there. There really isn't enough info there to decide anything.

RicardoSmith wrote:

That speaks for itself.

Not picking on you as I generally agree with your last point. As Lional Hutz says" hearsay and conjecture are kinds of evidence". In a similar vien it has been said cops exagerate things to help in sentencing. I heard of a cop say somebody could produce over a 1000 joints out of a 1oz of hash in court.

mycroft · 29-06-2005 1:03pm

Sleepy wrote:

If any child I reared turned out to be a vicious rapist I honestly wouldn't deny another parent the right to kill them.

Are you trolling? Seriously?

Pot/kettle etc.......

Where you see all people as equal, I see naieveté. Well-meaning naieveté, but naieveté nonetheless. Some people are of no use to society. Some people are cancerous, evil beings (regardless of their upbringing). These people need to be kept away from the rest of society. If they could be reformed that'd be great but the fact is, it's just too damn expensive in terms of money, lives and repeat crime levels to be bothered.

If we're talking pure economics. Okay.

You're fundamentally wrong. We spend more per captia on prison than we do on 3rd level education. We lock them up. More money is spent on drug prevention than rehabilation, we aren't able to stop drugs getting into prison and we're not giving addicts any facilities to cure.

As for the it's not worth it, in terms of repeat crime. What do you want leaving prison, another blank brutalised face that doesn't know anything more that what they did when they walked in there how many years before they went to prison? Or someone with some self believe? A skill? Education? Rehabilation? Drugs councilling? Which one is less likely to re offend?

This is Irwin James he was the guardian's prison correspondent for years. He was well suited to this role because he was at the tail end of a twenty year stretch. It's never stated what the sentence was for but he's mentioned he's spent most of his life in prison so I'm going to take a punt it wasn't for parking tickets and violence was involved.

For the last few years of his sentence Irwin was in an open prison, he had a job with a charity, he was going through councilling, he even owned a car. He walked out of prison with things he never had before, a chance to make an honest start. He now writes a column about readjusting to life outside. His columns are heartwarming, intelligent and funny.

What do you want coming out of prison? You cannot lock people up forever. This isn't the bastille, we have rights and freedoms. The same guy who walked in ten years ago older and meaner, with no skills no training, no councilling, or somone who has a job to go to, something to focus on, and some education? From a financial point of view which one is likely to reoffend? Spare me the prison works nonsense. Its not a deterant, and you can't lock people up for all eternity.

The difference between us is that I'm prepared to place more emphasis on the rights of the law-abiding to their lives than on the criminals to theirs.

Really? where has he said he doesn't feel for the victims? It's that you've got such an overwhelming opinion that anyone who doesn't want these people fed to dogs and then the dogs fed to alligators is a wuss liberal and beneath contempt.

A criminal's life is worth less than an innocent persons. It's a proveable economic fact.

Really? Then you'll show me where it's written then.

I'm a criminal in that I commit illegal acts on occasion, and I'm sure you do too. I'd love you to show how I'm less economically viable then the next person.

From a moral perspective, the survival of the majority outweigh's the survival of the few that want to damage the survival of the rest.

No from a pure darwinal survival of the fitness. Morality is when you apply a higher philosophical principle over gain.

I'm not suggesting we instantly lock people away for life or kill them because they've broken the law. We do, however, have to stop letting the unreformed criminals to leave prison in anything other than a coffin.

And pray how do they reform? You've pretty much stated in your opinion any form of rehabilitation isn't financial viable? What do you suggest we chuck em in a big hole and shovel food in now and then, every few years we drag em back up and ask "so yis reformed yet"?

Gurgle · 29-06-2005 1:14pm

MorningStar wrote:

People claimed the world was flat because of common sense.

Just have to point out that this isn't true.
Centuries before Columbus, the Greeks had established that the world, like all 'heavenly bodies' was round. They, and everyone following them, just thought that taking off across the Atlantic to get to Asia was lunacy because you would have to bring such a large supply of preserved food & fresh water to complete the trip that it was pointless, you'd have no room for trade goods. By Columbus' time, ships were being built of a size and speed that the idea would have become more efficient.

MorningStar wrote:

Moral compass like a real compass points depending on where you are and was also used to kill and torture people for questioning religious beliefs.

1. Your confusing morality with religious zeal
2. A real compass always points north, no matter where you are

MorningStar wrote:

The problem is people view it from their own understanding and upbringing and find it difficult to understand that others don't even vaguely match.

No, the problem is that a teenage thug with 36 previous convictions was out and about at 3am looking for trouble, when he should have been locked down in a reform school / juvenile detention centre / boot camp dormitory.

MorningStar wrote:

I would feel differently if these people were from middle class backgrounds. I would want harsher sentences.

So you're all in favour of class discrimination.
'Liberty, fraternity, equality' mean anything to you?

MorningStar wrote:

I heard of a cop say somebody could produce over a 1000 joints out of a 1oz of hash in court.

I reckon about 300 average strength joints, if you made them conservatively you might stretch it to 600. Its not that extreme of an exaggeration to stretch 600 to 1000.

Sleepy · 29-06-2005 1:56pm

I'm only going to answer the points that haven't been dealt with by Gurgle already.

MorningStar wrote:

Economics where the rich pay no taxes and where people on unemployment do!

You have a strangely warped sense of what economics are.

The system failed everybody here. Some of the assalants should have been in prison and some should have been taken away from the parents prior to this.

I agree, however, I'd point out that all the assailants had records long enough to warrant them having still been behind bars at the time of the attack.

A real open mind you have there. There really isn't enough info there to decide anything.

A young child was brutally raped at knifepoint. That's enough information in my opinion to justify a parent murdering the rapist.

Not picking on you as I generally agree with your last point. As Lional Hutz says" hearsay and conjecture are kinds of evidence". In a similar vien it has been said cops exagerate things to help in sentencing. I heard of a cop say somebody could produce over a 1000 joints out of a 1oz of hash in court.

Did you ever stop to think why the cops have to exagerate things to help in sentencing? Perhaps because the court system here is far too lenient and allows criminals back on the streets mere months after violent assaults?

I agree with you that prisons should be places of education, counselling etc. However, I also believe that a prison sentence shouldn't allow it's inmates to have televisions, consume drugs or dinner menus. A prison sentence is supposed to be tough. In a perfect world we'd have prisons that wouldn't be nice places to be, where inmates would learn more that more how to be better criminals and where they truly would be reformed. In the absence of that system, I'd rather see long-term sentences to keep the criminals off the streets than our current revolving door system. The reform of the criminals is, in my opinion, of secondary importance to the safety of the rest of society.

Sleepy · 29-06-2005 3:08pm

mycroft wrote:

Pot/kettle etc.......

Fair point.

If we're talking pure economics. Okay.

You're fundamentally wrong. We spend more per captia on prison than we do on 3rd level education. We lock them up. More money is spent on drug prevention than rehabilation, we aren't able to stop drugs getting into prison and we're not giving addicts any facilities to cure.

As it stands, I believe you could pay for more efforts at rehabilitation by reducing prisoner's creature comforts and making sweeping changes to the way the prison service is run. How much does it cost to have a television in every cell in Mountjoy for example? How many more prison guards could you hire if you broke the prison guards union and got rid of the excessive overtime bills? How much money could be saved by enforcing longer sentences instead of constantly putting the same people through the court process? How much drug rehabilitation would be needed if the supply was cut off completely? Sure, cold turkey isn't a pleasant way to come off an addiction but by the very fact that these people are in prison, you can be sure they aren't pleasant people.

As for the it's not worth it, in terms of repeat crime. What do you want leaving prison, another blank brutalised face that doesn't know anything more that what they did when they walked in there how many years before they went to prison? Or someone with some self believe? A skill? Education? Rehabilation? Drugs councilling? Which one is less likely to re offend?

Do you honestly believe that a few months worth of counselling is going to ensure that the criminal won't reoffend? A few years in prison with proper counselling services may help prevent repeat offenses, twelve months is extremely unlikely to.

This is Irwin James he was the guardian's prison correspondent for years. He was well suited to this role because he was at the tail end of a twenty year stretch. It's never stated what the sentence was for but he's mentioned he's spent most of his life in prison so I'm going to take a punt it wasn't for parking tickets and violence was involved.

For the last few years of his sentence Irwin was in an open prison, he had a job with a charity, he was going through councilling, he even owned a car. He walked out of prison with things he never had before, a chance to make an honest start. He now writes a column about readjusting to life outside. His columns are heartwarming, intelligent and funny.

Well that's a great example of long sentencing working isn't it?

What do you want coming out of prison? You cannot lock people up forever. This isn't the bastille, we have rights and freedoms. The same guy who walked in ten years ago older and meaner, with no skills no training, no councilling, or somone who has a job to go to, something to focus on, and some education? From a financial point of view which one is likely to reoffend? Spare me the prison works nonsense. Its not a deterant, and you can't lock people up for all eternity.

I don't believe our current prison system works and never have I said that I do. I will make the point that if someone's behaviour in prison demonstrates that despite counselling etc that they haven't reformed, society is better off if that person is kept away from the rest of society and so, sometimes it is better to leave someone locked up for the rest of their natural lives.

Really? where has he said he doesn't feel for the victims? It's that you've got such an overwhelming opinion that anyone who doesn't want these people fed to dogs and then the dogs fed to alligators is a wuss liberal and beneath contempt.

Who's putting words in who's mouth now? My problem with MorningStar's posts is that he seems to believe these thugs have been treated harshly. I can't disagree with this more. Anyone involved in a crime spree of that extent that ends up in the brutal gang rape of a woman needs at least a ten year sentence to stand a chance of being rehabilitated.

Really? Then you'll show me where it's written then.

I'm a criminal in that I commit illegal acts on occasion, and I'm sure you do too. I'd love you to show how I'm less economically viable then the next person.

I obviously use the word in a stronger sense than you do. dictionary.com offers us a quite loose definition of the word criminal. In my usage it would imply someone who has been convicted of a serious crime. You would seem to apply it to anyone that breaks the law in any fashion.

From my usage of the word, we have a criminal who's incarcerated at tax-payer's expense and a law-abiding citizen who pays taxes. The former of these two individuals leeches from the economy whilst having already detracted from society. The latter contributes to the economy and society at large. Ergo, the criminals life is worth less to society and the economy than the normal tax-paying citizen's.

No from a pure darwinal survival of the fitness. Morality is when you apply a higher philosophical principle over gain.

I'm not talking about "a pure darwinal survival of the fitest". I mean that according to my morality the wellbeing of the majority (i.e. the non-criminal part of society) is more important than the wellbeing of those that have detracted from the wellbeing of the law-abiding. I find it difficult to understand how anyone could logically argue otherwise.

And pray how do they reform? You've pretty much stated in your opinion any form of rehabilitation isn't financial viable? What do you suggest we chuck em in a big hole and shovel food in now and then, every few years we drag em back up and ask "so yis reformed yet"?

Rehabilitation may be an option but it is a long process and I have to question how worthwhile it is to society at large to pay for ten to twenty years of counselling, incarceration, food etc to reform this individual who has already detracted from the very society that is forced to pay for their rehabilitation.

I freely admit that I don't place an enormous value on a human life in and of itself. To paraphrase Batman Begins (strange place to take a quote from on a humanities board, I know, but I agree with the philosophy):

"It's not who you are deep inside, it's your actions that define who you are"

MorningStar · 29-06-2005 3:09pm

Ok Gurgle pick out petty points.
Common sense has come up with lots of stupid things and if you don't think so say that rather than pick on the example. Anyway common knowledge believes that people thought the world flat which proves that the masses might not always have full information.
Morality depends on where you are, the religious zeal you talk about is guided by a percieved values. People felt they were morally justified because it questioned there values. The nazi party thought they were morally right. The point is morality is relative.

No, the problem is that a teenage thug with 36 previous convictions was out and about at 3am looking for trouble, when he should have been locked down in a reform school / juvenile detention centre / boot camp dormitory.

Gurgle wrote:

No, the problem is that a teenage thug with 36 previous convictions was out and about at 3am looking for trouble, when he should have been locked down in a reform school / juvenile detention centre / boot camp dormitory.

A limited view IMHO, he shouldn't have been left with his drug dealing family. Nobody chooses where they are born so if you think you would magically have been a better person in that environment you are kidding yourself

Gurgle wrote:

So you're all in favour of class discrimination.
'Liberty, fraternity, equality' mean anything to you?

Equal rights does not mean equal treatement for the same crime. The circumstances of the crime are the important thing. Violence is the language

You reckon the cops practicly doubling the crime of a person is not that much of a stretch! It might not be a full established story but still we are talking about a minor drug and I doubt 600 anyway.

Sleepy wrote:

You have a strangely warped sense of what economics are.

Really the individuals in this country who made the most money fom this country paid no tax on their income. Did you accuse me of not living in the real world?

Sleepy wrote:

Did you ever stop to think why the cops have to exagerate things to help in sentencing? Perhaps because the court system here is far too lenient and allows criminals back on the streets mere months after violent assaults?

Yes I do, they have limited views and understanding due to becoming hardened on the streets. They lie a few times in court after seeing people getting out easily. They then see no harm in placing some evidence here and there to catch the criminal. Realise the evidence isn't there they sometimes beat and torture people into confessing. Bored without even a crime they go off and great things like arms finds just to get a promotion. That is pretty much what is wrong with a police service that lies regardlless of their intent.

Sleepy wrote:

I agree with you that prisons should be places of education, counselling etc. However, I also believe that a prison sentence shouldn't allow it's inmates to have televisions, consume drugs or dinner menus. A prison sentence is supposed to be tough. In a perfect world we'd have prisons that wouldn't be nice places to be, where inmates would learn more that more how to be better criminals and where they truly would be reformed. In the absence of that system, I'd rather see long-term sentences to keep the criminals off the streets than our current revolving door system. The reform of the criminals is, in my opinion, of secondary importance to the safety of the rest of society.

Magic prsions then! Any place that is to induce education can't at the same time be a prison to punish. Longer prison time creates more criminals and costs more in a western society that protects human rights. THe prison cycle needs to be broken if society is to be safer. We both want the same thing in the end but it appears that you are saying you want a pound of flesh too. I really suggest you look up reports on crime and penal reform. Longer prison times don't actually deter people or rehabilitate anybody and are more likely make a person more violent.
You never answered why the poorer people are the ones who commit most of the crime.

Sleepy wrote:

A young child was brutally raped at knifepoint. That's enough information in my opinion to justify a parent murdering the rapist.

Would anything change your mind? Say if the daughter had stabed his own childs eye out? What about the girl had tormented the man for a year and he repeatedly asked the parents to stop her but they laughed at him? The rapist may have had the same view as you about punishing scumbags maybe he thought rape was a fair punishment because he saw it morally fair!
There is always a need for information. You appear to not need any information as you moral compass and common sense and little inforamtion make you a great judge of crime :rolleyes: . It sounds like a sheltered up bringing and or recent freedom, just finished college in your first job maybe?

MorningStar · 29-06-2005 3:37pm

Sleepy wrote:

Who's putting words in who's mouth now? My problem with MorningStar's posts is that he seems to believe these thugs have been treated harshly. I can't disagree with this more. Anyone involved in a crime spree of that extent that ends up in the brutal gang rape of a woman needs at least a ten year sentence to stand a chance of being rehabilitated.

I will repeat this again to you. I do not think the sentences were harsh. What I did think was harsh is thugish and a similar attitude to that of the rapists was the cries for corpral punishment. You for some reason ignore every time I point out this. I have even defended the sentences. Stop judging me with half facts as seems to be your appraoch to all things. (I'm judging you by your actions

)

Sleepy wrote:

I freely admit that I don't place an enormous value on a human life in and of itself. To paraphrase Batman Begins (strange place to take a quote from on a humanities board, I know, but I agree with the philosophy):

"It's not who you are deep inside, it's your actions that define who you are"

I know a fair bit about Batman. He doesn't kill or mutilate people as that is wrong ! The whole point is Batman believes everybody can change and he is going to save the vunrible including criminals. He is aware the Joker is mentally ill as our most of the other Gotham baddies.

Batman is full aware that by kill he would be no better than them. If sombody has to carry out the death penalty what effect would it have on them. Try to think in a wider view other than what you know. Challange your mind for a bit, and maybe you will get past the media hype that can easily taint your views

Sleepy · 29-06-2005 3:48pm

MorningStar wrote:

A limited view IMHO, he shouldn't have been left with his drug dealing family. Nobody chooses where they are born so if you think you would magically have been a better person in that environment you are kidding yourself

I agree that the kid shouldn't have been left with a drug dealing family. However, a bad background cannot be used as an excuse for criminal behaviour.

Equal rights does not mean equal treatement for the same crime. The circumstances of the crime are the important thing. Violence is the language

A crime can have mitigating circumstances yes, but which is better for the criminal (and society at large) a sentence long enough to help the person reform, or a shortened sentence (lessening the likelihood of reform) because the kid came from a bad background?

Really the individuals in this country who made the most money fom this country paid no tax on their income. Did you accuse me of not living in the real world?

That is the real world, yes. Economics, however is (according to dictionary.com) "The social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with the theory and management of economies or economic systems." (I would append "based on the application of logic" to the end of that if you were to ask for my definition). The failings of a government in the application of an economic system do not invalidate the economic theories themselves.

Magic prsions then! Any place that is to induce education can't at the same time be a prison to punish.

I take it you never attended a Christian brother's school then?

One of the most successful prisons in Britain (in terms of re-offending rates) was one based almost entirely on group therapy. There were few luxuries in the prison and some inmates described the therapy as being akin to "mental torture". I can't remember the name of the place but the Sunday Times Magazine did an interesting article on the place about a year ago. Proof that a prison can both punish and educate.

Longer prison time creates more criminals and costs more in a western society that protects human rights The prison cycle needs to be broken if society is to be safer. We both want the same thing in the end but it appears that you are saying you want a pound of flesh too. I really suggest you look up reports on crime and penal reform. Longer prison times don't actually deter people or rehabilitate anybody and are more likely make a person more violent.

I don't see your logic as to how long sentences create more criminals. It may certainly create more inmates but how it creates more criminals I don't see. A prison "cycle" can only exist where sentences are short and criminals are release unreformed. Let me put it like this: In your *ideal* prison which prisoner is likely to reoffend ceterus paribus, the one who serves 12 months, or the one who serves 8 years?

You never answered why the poorer people are the ones who commit most of the crime.

It's a link that will always exist when there's differing levels of wealth within society (not to say that having differing levels of wealth is a bad thing). We're all human, and greed is the classic failing of the human condition. Those that can afford things don't need to steal them, those that can't either have to save for them or can choose to steal them.

Would anything change your mind? Say if the daughter had stabed his own childs eye out? What about the girl had tormented the man for a year and he repeatedly asked the parents to stop her but they laughed at him? The rapist may have had the same view as you about punishing scumbags maybe he thought rape was a fair punishment because he saw it morally fair!

How rape could ever be considered fair punishment for anything (other than perhaps rape itself) I don't know but I see your point.

There is always a need for information. You appear to not need any information as you moral compass and common sense and little inforamtion make you a great judge of crime :rolleyes: . It sounds like a sheltered up bringing and or recent freedom, just finished college in your first job maybe?

I conceded the point off your logic in the penultimate quote from your post, there was no need for this bit. However, I've lived far from a sheltered life and while I'm still in my first job since college, I've been here over two years and have had my freedom since my 18th birthday.

MorningStar · 29-06-2005 4:33pm

Sleepy wrote:

I agree that the kid shouldn't have been left with a drug dealing family. However, a bad background cannot be used as an excuse for criminal behaviour.

It's not an excuse it is the reason.

Sleepy wrote:

A crime can have mitigating circumstances yes, but which is better for the criminal (and society at large) a sentence long enough to help the person reform, or a shortened sentence (lessening the likelihood of reform) because the kid came from a bad background?

It depends on the person. A long sentence can disrupt peoples lives to an extent that it is counter productive. There is no one size fits all.

Sleepy wrote:

That is the real world, yes. Economics, however is (according to dictionary.com) "The social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with the theory and management of economies or economic systems." (I would append "based on the application of logic" to the end of that if you were to ask for my definition). The failings of a government in the application of an economic system do not invalidate the economic theories themselves.

That's the scientific definition it's simply the financial aspects of something in real terms.

Sleepy wrote:

I take it you never attended a Christian brother's school then? One of the most successful prisons in Britain (in terms of re-offending rates) was one based almost entirely on group therapy. There were few luxuries in the prison and some inmates described the therapy as being akin to "mental torture". I can't remember the name of the place but the Sunday Times Magazine did an interesting article on the place about a year ago. Proof that a prison can both punish and educate.

Fair point and generally what I am advocating but that is pretty different.

Sleepy wrote:

I don't see your logic as to how long sentences create more criminals. It may certainly create more inmates but how it creates more criminals I don't see. A prison "cycle" can only exist where sentences are short and criminals are release unreformed. Let me put it like this: In your *ideal* prison which prisoner is likely to reoffend ceterus paribus, the one who serves 12 months, or the one who serves 8 years?

Families seperated from a parent for longer periods of time put children at risk of becomining criminals. The cycle I am talking about is childern of criminals becoming criminals. THat is why some parents get reduced sentances as it is understood that priosn time may cause more damage than good in the long run. A child who doesn't have his mother for a year versus not seeing her outside of a priosn untill after their communion.

Sleepy wrote:

It's a link that will always exist when there's differing levels of wealth within society (not to say that having differing levels of wealth is a bad thing). We're all human, and greed is the classic failing of the human condition. Those that can afford things don't need to steal them, those that can't either have to save for them or can choose to steal them.

You think greed is the reason!!! That is really a Nazi view, number one on the list of arsnel they used about the Jews. I can't begin to tell you how simplist that view is.

Sleepy wrote:

How rape could ever be considered fair punishment for anything (other than perhaps rape itself) I don't know but I see your point.

Who could see murder as a valid punishment.

Rape as a suitable punishment for rape is quite sick.

Sleepy wrote:

I conceded the point off your logic in the penultimate quote from your post, there was no need for this bit. However, I've lived far from a sheltered life and while I'm still in my first job since college, I've been here over two years and have had my freedom since my 18th birthday.

Fair enough but you keep assuming my views and claiming I said things I didn't . So I decided to assume things about you for a change the strange things is I was partially right.

Sleepy · 29-06-2005 4:40pm

MorningStar wrote:

I will repeat this again to you. I do not think the sentences were harsh. What I did think was harsh is thugish and a similar attitude to that of the rapists was the cries for corpral punishment. You for some reason ignore every time I point out this. I have even defended the sentences. Stop judging me with half facts as seems to be your appraoch to all things. (I'm judging you by your actions )

You're also being insulting. I'm judging you by your posts. You've argued that the thugs involved weren't responsible for their actions because of their backgrounds. I didn't see where you've defended the sentences so I think it was reasonable to believe you thought the sentences were harsh given that you don't seem to believe they are accountable for their actions. Yes, the circumstances these kids grew up in need to be changed but it cannot be used as an excuse for criminal behaviour of this nature.

I know a fair bit about Batman. He doesn't kill or mutilate people as that is wrong ! The whole point is Batman believes everybody can change and he is going to save the vunrible including criminals. He is aware the Joker is mentally ill as our most of the other Gotham baddies.
Batman is full aware that by kill he would be no better than them.

I take it you're only refering to the movie Batman? Read the comics sometime, Batman kills.

If sombody has to carry out the death penalty what effect would it have on them. Try to think in a wider view other than what you know. Challange your mind for a bit, and maybe you will get past the media hype that can easily taint your views

What do you think I'm doing here? I've already conceeded a few points in this debate. It might not hurt you to do the same

Sleepy · 29-06-2005 4:55pm

MorningStar wrote:

It's not an excuse it is the reason.

I'd see it as a contributing factor but neither "the" reason or a valid excuse. Otherwise are we to assume that all people growing up in poverty will be rapist thugs?

It depends on the person. A long sentence can disrupt peoples lives to an extent that it is counter productive. There is no one size fits all.

Isn't the entire purpose of rehabilitation to disrupt the criminal's life and trade that life for a better one?

That's the scientific definition it's simply the financial aspects of something in real terms.

As someone who studied economics for over 6 years in college and still reads it for pleasure, believe me, it was the scientific definition I intended when I used the word economics.

Fair point and generally what I am advocating but that is pretty different.

Nice to see I'm not the only one who can conceed a point occasionaly

Families seperated from a parent for longer periods of time put children at risk of becomining criminals. The cycle I am talking about is childern of criminals becoming criminals. THat is why some parents get reduced sentances as it is understood that priosn time may cause more damage than good in the long run. A child who doesn't have his mother for a year versus not seeing her outside of a priosn untill after their communion.

IMHO, that child would be better to be taken into the State's care if the parent outside of prison is incappable of raising them to respect law, order and other people.

You think greed is the reason!!! That is really a Nazi view, number one on the list of arsnel they used about the Jews. I can't begin to tell you how simplist that view is.

And Godwin's law is invoked :rolleyes: Greed, the desire for more is one of humanity's defining traits and tbh, it has been one the factors which has driven us to be so successful, however far humanity has taken us, we want more. What other motive is there for theft other than greed? Social Welfare may not be much but it does take care of man's basic needs...

Who could see murder as a valid punishment. Rape as a suitable punishment for rape is quite sick.

Well, killing someone means that the state and society no longer have to pay to incarerate them for the rest of their human lives. It's an economic rather than moral motive though it falls down on the assumption that the person is completely irredeemable to many people. I however, believe that these people do exist, determining whom these individuals are is something I'm far from qualified for though I'd be surprised if any true psychpath (e.g. Jeffret Dalhmer etc) could be reformed.

rooferPete · 30-06-2005 1:48am

This whole thread makes for interesting reading, we have people who advocate castration by whatever form, others the death penalty, I was impressed by the lump hammer.

Then we have the economics, lets call it what it really is, Hard Cash, of course the deprived areas get a mention, and our brilliant "State Care" facilities for children.

One poster is holding to a line that there is an endimic problem with our society, (not his / her words mine) but nobody appears to be looking at the bigger picture.

Middle / upper class usually (not always) means a better education and a more stable home life, maybe both parents are working but they are paying for the best childcare they can buy, this follows on to schools and college.

One poster will hand over their own 14 year old to the mob baying for blood ????????

The Government and the prison service get a mention, more than once (I wasn't counting) how many realise we are the Government ? we vote them in and give them charge of the public purse therefore they act on our behalf.

There have been many very educated people who were born and raised in these deprived areas who if measured by there financial wealth could probably buy all of our assets combined, their have been many who subscribe so much to our society we could never pay them with money.

I think it is very offensive to attempt to catogorise people by their address or post code, to presume the middle classes are better people overall is also offensive, some just buy better defence for the courts, or has that young man who was stomped to death outside Annabells night club been forgotten already ?

What I have been reading is I believe what amounts to little more than the pack mentallity that appears to have been in full force on the night of the attack on the two innocent people who happend to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I would not defend the criminals, I could not defend such action, but the person with the lump hammer about to crush the genitalia of a 14 year old would have to get passed me until my dying breath.

Yes the same 14 year old would probably laugh at me, but there must be a line that the members of any society that claims to be modern, cultered, educated and democratic must never cross.

I don't claim to know it all, if I even knew the beginning of how to prevent these young and not so young behaving in such a barbaric way or putting in place a rehabilitation program that truly worked then that is where I would be working.

Walking into a bar and setting a person on fire is not the answer, a child had her innocence ripped away from her and now her mother is gone too, if any who read this pray I think a moments thought for that young woman would be well served.

We all can be forgiven for acting in anger, but that anger should have been dealt with by professionals while the man was in prison, I know it was Spain all that means is their society does not look after those in need any better than ours does.

The problems in this society of which we all are members will not be solved on this message board, perhaps we will get an insight into the society we want and are willing to pay for.

Gurgle · 30-06-2005 8:45am

rooferPete wrote:

we have people who advocate castration by whatever form, others the death penalty, I was impressed by the lump hammer.

Not so much advocating castration/death penalty as commenting its what these particular scum deserve, including the 14yo.
Corporal and capital punishment cannot ever be allowed into law again in any civilized country because every legal system is inherently fallible. It would be nice if we could throw the thrill-killers on a bonfire and hack the nuts off rapists but its inconceivable to allow a judge that power. Many judges are bigoted biased megalomaniacs whose interest lies more in self-glorification than justice.

MorningStar · 30-06-2005 8:46am

Sleepy wrote:

I'd see it as a contributing factor but neither "the" reason or a valid excuse. Otherwise are we to assume that all people growing up in poverty will be rapist thugs?

Well spotted it is obviously not the only reason but at least you see it as a contributing factor

Sleepy wrote:

Isn't the entire purpose of rehabilitation to disrupt the criminal's life and trade that life for a better one?

That's fine for the criminal but it effects those around them. By punishing one person you can punish others. On an economic side it can mean a family need state aid.

Sleepy wrote:

As someone who studied economics for over 6 years in college and still reads it for pleasure, believe me, it was the scientific definition I intended when I used the word economics.

Unless you studied the economics of the prison services it doesn't make much difference. It is also fair to say then your studies on morality might not be as fine tuned as your economic sense.

Sleepy wrote:

IMHO, that child would be better to be taken into the State's care if the parent outside of prison is incappable of raising them to respect law, order and other people.

I would agree in some cases but as a general guide it would be counter productive due to emotional trauma. And a person in jail for non payment of fines doesn't deserve their kids taken away.

Sleepy wrote:

And Godwin's law is invoked :rolleyes: Greed, the desire for more is one of humanity's defining traits and tbh, it has been one the factors which has driven us to be so successful, however far humanity has taken us, we want more. What other motive is there for theft other than greed? Social Welfare may not be much but it does take care of man's basic needs...

The desire to belong is the ultimate drive in people. People match the society they are around as it is the nature. The reason people want to kill the various rapists and murderers because it threatens there society. As you have studied economics you may thing greed drives the world but I strongly disagree. Violence being driven by greed is a strech. I don't think rape is driven by greed. Violence is a language to some people due to what they have learnt.

Sleepy wrote:

Well, killing someone means that the state and society no longer have to pay to incarerate them for the rest of their human lives. It's an economic rather than moral motive though it falls down on the assumption that the person is completely irredeemable to many people. I however, believe that these people do exist, determining whom these individuals are is something I'm far from qualified for though I'd be surprised if any true psychpath (e.g. Jeffret Dalhmer etc) could be reformed.

The cost of things is more than financial. State sanctioned murder has a huge moral and social cost. If it is meant to be a detterant there are a few cases where people killed more people as they knew they would get the death penalty. I am glad to say Ireland acknowledge that it has a duty of care to it's citizens. Dalhmer and other such people are quite important in psychology to find out what makes a person like that and try to prevent more. Nature and society throw these people out, to treat a syptom rather than the problem is short sighted. Ireland has two pretty sick serial English rapist brothers locked up in the basement in Mountjoy for I think 20 years and I doubt they will ever get out or ever be a threat to another person. If you are into punishment they are getting it.

As alway Pete calm and measured

toiletduck · 30-06-2005 8:46am

rooferPete wrote:

I would not defend the criminals, I could not defend such action, but the person with the lump hammer about to crush the genitalia of a 14 year old would have to get passed me until my dying breath.

i think it's most interesting that you don't (also) say the rapists "would have to get passed me until my dying breath"

MorningStar · 30-06-2005 9:44am

toiletduck wrote:

i think it's most interesting that you don't (also) say the rapists "would have to get passed me until my dying breath"

Equally interesting that you advocate torturing a 14 year old boy. Two wrongs don't make a right.

ionapaul · 30-06-2005 10:11am

The 14 year old *might* have a chance at rehabilitation (a very slim chance, but possible) - you and I know the 24 year old with 36 previous conviction cannot be reformed, and for the protection of society (not punishment, not rehabilitation) he should NEVER be allowed out of prison, except in a wooden box. I would never advocate torture, but would have no problem with a state execution of such an individual. Either that or life imprisonment means life imprisonment, not 7 years on good behaviour!

MorningStar · 30-06-2005 10:58am

ionapaul wrote:

The 14 year old *might* have a chance at rehabilitation (a very slim chance, but possible) - you and I know the 24 year old with 36 previous conviction cannot be reformed, and for the protection of society

No we don't know. Did you evaluate him? I didn't and I don't know what he is like. I could easily make up summery judgement and join a mob but I like to think myself a bit better than that. Have you ever met some of these people that are classed as desposible like this?

What do you feel and think after you see films or read books like "Les Misérables", "Lord of the Flies" and "The Basketball Diaries"? Do you have any compasion that could relate to these people?

Protection of society must cover the people who are born to the worst part and lnot cared for by the rest of society.

toiletduck · 30-06-2005 11:50am

ionapaul wrote:

Either that or life imprisonment means life imprisonment, not 7 years on good behaviour!

i agree, but the problem of having a life sentance as the ultimate punishment means that the person convicted has a free hand to kill other inmates and prison officers, knowing that even if he/she is caught, they cant be punished any further.

ionapaul · 30-06-2005 11:56am

Yes, I had much compassion for both Ralph, Simon and Piggy. Not much for Jack and the rest of the hunters. I know which group you cared for more - the cruel island society drove Jack and Roger to kill, they were misunderstood and should not be punished, rather we should punish ourselves for letting them down, right?

Society does provide a level of protection to those born to the worst part - in fact, I think you will find the vast VAST majority of those 'born to the worst part' are decent, law-abiding citizens. There are many born to the 'best part' that incorrigable law-breakers, and they should be punished for there actions as much as those from poorer backgrounds. I believe that there is a point which can be crossed, a point when criminals can lose their right to membership of our society and lose their claim to humanity. At that point protection of society, rather than punishment or rehabilitation, must guide our decisions.

MorningStar · 30-06-2005 12:54pm

ionapaul wrote:

Yes, I had much compassion for both Ralph, Simon and Piggy. Not much for Jack and the rest of the hunters. I know which group you cared for more - the cruel island society drove Jack and Roger to kill, they were misunderstood and should not be punished, rather we should punish ourselves for letting them down, right?

Society does provide a level of protection to those born to the worst part - in fact, I think you will find the vast VAST majority of those 'born to the worst part' are decent, law-abiding citizens. There are many born to the 'best part' that incorrigable law-breakers, and they should be punished for there actions as much as those from poorer backgrounds. I believe that there is a point which can be crossed, a point when criminals can lose their right to membership of our society and lose their claim to humanity.

You don't know what I think! Just because you assume I am liberal doesn't mean you are right. You are missing a huge point about the book if you think it's about who is good and who is bad. It's about the nature of society and human instinct. Pack mentality playing a big part as probably the case in the rape.

THe level of protection is not enough. I really get bothered when I here people have 4 kids and live in a one bed flat with damp. First off I think why did these people keep on having kids have they no responibilty and second I think what are these children going to be like and what chances do they have.
I also think certain areas are full of criminals not serious crime but crime none the less. I wouldn'nt buy something that is stolen but in some areas that is standard. In many areas in Dublin if you were running from the cops you could call on any door and the'd let you in to hide. I really am not kidding on this. The level of mistrust and view of authorities is quite stunning , a child in that environment isn't going to grow up to have great values. From that level it progresses upwards to lesser levels of such behaviour. Of course depending on your general class you think tax fraud isn't so bad but benifit fraud is terrible or reverse if from a different class.
I think if there really is a line where you loose your humanity you cross it when you condone torture and murder of children.

Sleepy · 30-06-2005 2:15pm

rooferPete, it's very easy to stand back, point out all the problems and offer nothing constructive in terms of a solution. Luckily, governments don't have that option.

MorningStar wrote:

That's fine for the criminal but it effects those around them. By punishing one person you can punish others. On an economic side it can mean a family need state aid.

I would agree in some cases but as a general guide it would be counter productive due to emotional trauma. And a person in jail for non payment of fines doesn't deserve their kids taken away.

Let me once again clarify that I'm talking about violent criminals as opposed to people who've made mistakes. I do not believe that any criminal should be allowed to raise children. The state has a responsibility to these children to remove them from the damaging environment they are in and I, for one, believe that this responsibility is more important than the emotional trauma suffered by unfit parents.

True, it'll cause trauma for the kids too, but time and time again it is demonstrated how resilient children are, particularly if they were taken into a care facility which provided proper counselling facilities for kids. Being around lots of other children in the same circumstances woould also help bring the children around to the point where they could successfully be placed with foster families. (A generalisation I know, but when speaking in such abstract terms that's all you can plan for and at the very least, those children that do have trouble adjusting are surrounded by proper care professionals).

The desire to belong is the ultimate drive in people. People match the society they are around as it is the nature. The reason people want to kill the various rapists and murderers because it threatens there society. As you have studied economics you may thing greed drives the world but I strongly disagree. Violence being driven by greed is a strech. I don't think rape is driven by greed. Violence is a language to some people due to what they have learnt.

If there was no desire for more driving humankind, we'd still be living in caves. A desire to belong is indeed one of the elements that drives us in society but it's far from the only one.

The cost of things is more than financial. State sanctioned murder has a huge moral and social cost. If it is meant to be a detterant there are a few cases where people killed more people as they knew they would get the death penalty. I am glad to say Ireland acknowledge that it has a duty of care to it's citizens. Dalhmer and other such people are quite important in psychology to find out what makes a person like that and try to prevent more.

Nature and society throw these people out, to treat a syptom rather than the problem is short sighted. Ireland has two pretty sick serial English rapist brothers locked up in the basement in Mountjoy for I think 20 years and I doubt they will ever get out or ever be a threat to another person. If you are into punishment they are getting it.

It's not about punishment, it's about ensuring the safety of the rest of society. I see your point about the death penalty and I acknowledged it in my previous post. Like Gurgle state, it would be nice to be able to rid society of the financial burden of supporting the irredeemable but in reality, unfortunately (imho) it's not something we'll ever be able to do.

Unless a psychiatrist is prepared to be the one to inform the potential future victims' loved one's in the event that a reformed(?) individual reoffends on their release, I'm not happy for that person to be released on that psychiatrists recommendation. Are you?

Sleepy · 30-06-2005 2:21pm

MorningStar wrote:

THe level of protection is not enough.

I agree entirely

I really get bothered when I here people have 4 kids and live in a one bed flat with damp. First off I think why did these people keep on having kids have they no responibilty and second I think what are these children going to be like and what chances do they have.

I also think certain areas are full of criminals not serious crime but crime none the less. I wouldn'nt buy something that is stolen but in some areas that is standard. In many areas in Dublin if you were running from the cops you could call on any door and the'd let you in to hide. I really am not kidding on this. The level of mistrust and view of authorities is quite stunning , a child in that environment isn't going to grow up to have great values.

Then society has a duty to take the child out of that environment.

From that level it progresses upwards to lesser levels of such behaviour. Of course depending on your general class you think tax fraud isn't so bad but benifit fraud is terrible or reverse if from a different class.

They're equally bad and should be equally punished. No allowing the rich to pay a fine instead of a jail sentence. Six months behind bars and repayment of all monies defrauded from the state (through either means, with the capacity to garnish someone's wages over a period of time if they haven't the facility to repay it immediately).

MorningStar · 30-06-2005 3:02pm

Sleepy wrote:

rooferPete, it's very easy to stand back, point out all the problems and offer nothing constructive in terms of a solution. Luckily, governments don't have that option.

I felt he added to the thread

Sleepy wrote:

True, it'll cause trauma for the kids too, but time and time again it is demonstrated how resilient children are, particularly if they were taken into a care facility which provided proper counselling facilities for kids.

I was talking about the kids mostly.

Sleepy wrote:

If there was no desire for more driving humankind, we'd still be living in caves. A desire to belong is indeed one of the elements that drives us in society but it's far from the only one.

You said GREED was the driving force not the desire to improve or become inventive. The sense of belonging is really fundemental, I don't want to insult you but what you have expressed with regard to human nature and why people comitt crime are really scarey. I would only expect views similar from a young teenager. I can get not agreeing with why people do things but ...

Sleepy wrote:

It's not about punishment, it's about ensuring the safety of the rest of society. I see your point about the death penalty and I acknowledged it in my previous post. Like Gurgle state, it would be nice to be able to rid society of the financial burden of supporting the irredeemable but in reality, unfortunately (imho) it's not something we'll ever be able to do.

So basically you don't codone mutilation and murder for violent criminals but would "nice" to be able to? It's also unfortunate that we can't?

Sleepy wrote:

Unless a psychiatrist is prepared to be the one to inform the potential future victims' loved one's in the event that a reformed(?) individual reoffends on their release, I'm not happy for that person to be released on that psychiatrists recommendation. Are you?

Right... mmmm... potential future victims' loved ones... That is a stretch, I guess you just caught up in that one.

I didn't say they should be let out as such. I suggested studied.

Sleepy wrote:

Then society has a duty to take the child out of that environment.

Well it's about how you do it. Improve the neighbourshoods appears to be the easiest and most humane way.

Sleepy wrote:

They're equally bad and should be equally punished. No allowing the rich to pay a fine instead of a jail sentence. Six months behind bars and repayment of all monies defrauded from the state (through either means, with the capacity to garnish someone's wages over a period of time if they haven't the facility to repay it immediately).

You are aware that the majority of people are in prison for non payment of fines? The reason they are there as they can't afford to be garnished so some choose to go to prison as it is easier for them to afford. In saying that due to the easy nature of some things people don't pay their council rent yet pay for SKY Sports.

WizZard · 30-06-2005 3:16pm

Gurgle wrote:

Not so much advocating castration/death penalty as commenting its what these particular scum deserve, including the 14yo.
Corporal and capital punishment cannot ever be allowed into law again in any civilized country because every legal system is inherently fallible. It would be nice if we could throw the thrill-killers on a bonfire and hack the nuts off rapists but its inconceivable to allow a judge that power. Many judges are bigoted biased megalomaniacs whose interest lies more in self-glorification than justice.

Sadly you are quite correct Gurgle.

DemonOfTheFall · 30-06-2005 3:27pm

EDIT : never mind. delete me

nlgbbbblth · 30-06-2005 6:49pm

rooferPete wrote:

I think it is very offensive to attempt to catogorise people by their address or post code, to presume the middle classes are better people overall is also offensive, some just buy better defence for the courts, or has that young man who was stomped to death outside Annabells night club been forgotten already ?

rubbish
what about the Swedish man beaten to death in New Ross?
Eight perpetrators who were from 'working class' backgrounds. Four get off, the other four get suspended sentences. Plus the pub owner/wife get off.
No one complained about those verdicts but if the defendants had been middle class there would have been uproar at such light sentencing.

Finally some justice metted out

Comments