jmayo wrote: » Yes left/liberals whatever term you want to use were originally fighting for non discrimination of minorities, non discrimination of races, for equality between sexes, then equality for people with different sexual orientation. But somewhere along the way that group or a sizeable portion started fighting for the rights of criminals. Rehabilitation became the buzzword and the idea was that prisoners would be rehabilitated, would receive lesser sentences and be allowed back out into society a better person. Except there isn't any worthwhile rehabilitation, but there are the lower sentences. When did the concepts of suspended sentences, remission for not getting into trouble when actually in prison come into being ? How can people manage to amass 50 plus convictions, often including violent crime, and yet be walking around free ? Everytime there is a discussion here about the latest one of these awful crimes it usually works out the same. The perpetrators usually have a long string of previous convictions, often a prison terms or suspended sentences along the way. Some posters come on and say the guilty should be shot and whatnot. And the next thing you know the leftie/liberal posters arrive defending the system that yet again has allowed yet another multi-conviction suspended sentence criminal be free to commit a murder or rape. A poster above referenced we should not call them scum because it breeds and "us and them" and that is not good for solving the issues or rehabilitation, etc. Well to me it is quiet simply US and THEM. US are the ones who want to live our lives peacefully without fear of attack, treat people with a bit of respect and keep the possessions that we worked hard for. THEM are the fooking **nts who do not treat anyone with respect, want to take our hard earned possessions, do not care if they mentally or physically hurt us, rape or kill us. It is fooking groundhog day here everytime one of these incidents is debated. But we can go quiet until the next one and there will be a next one and one after that. The thing is, for the family of that poor man they can't just forget about it until the next one, they will have to live with this for the rest of their lives.
ThinkProgress wrote: » Fantastic. Great to hear he's doing well then... :rolleyes: Because prison holds no fear for many of these chaps... in many cases it's just a continuation of the life they've been leading outside prison. They get to hang out with like-minded individuals - perhaps even some of their mates or family members too... They don't have to work or have any responsibilities. The state looks after them, full bed and board... as much drugs as they want etc. It's a fcuking holiday camp! We are far too liberal in the way we treat our prisoners in this country. In order for prison to be a proper deterrent to criminals, it needs to be seriously hard fcuking time.... It needs to be a drug-free zone. Prisoners should be drug tested frequently... anyone found with drugs in their system should get automatic solitary confinement and any privileges such as TV etc removed. Also I think hard manual labor would do the trick for many of these guys... WHY? Because the thought of a hard day's work is actually more frightening to them than the thought of being banged up in prison! That's the reality... For some people, removing their freedom is a big deal. But not for everyone... some people quite like prison life. That should change. Nobody should ever be able to enjoy prison life. It's supposed to be a punishment. If you make sure it feels like punishment for everyone, you'll certainly bring down the rates of re-offenders. (if not crime in general)
HensVassal wrote: » Your post is complete and utter bullshit. First of all if you would like to read the AMA thread with the prison officer you will find that there IS drug testing in the prisons. And the holiday camp cliche is getting seriously tired at this stage. As for horrible prisons being a deterrent....you haven't thought that out very well have you? Ever see the inside of a Brazilian or Mexican jail? How about the Phillipines? These places are the gateways to hell yet crime in these countries is epidemic
MartyDublin wrote: » He didnt start his night with lads, he didnt carry baseball bat, he did not strike the man with the bat. He tried to dispose of evidence. I seen the book of evidence detective said in his statement he didnt believe matthew cummins contributed to cause of death.
MartyDublin wrote: » Yes he was an accessory to the fact. But lets get this right- definition of a murder conviction is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that person was resonsible solely or by joint enterprise this could not be proved as he didnt inflict injury upon toddy as stated by his 2 co accused. He did try dispose of the body. Im a person who is currently awaiting a murder trial and know what needs to be proven
MartyDublin wrote: » For a start i will beat my murder trial. I was issued bail, they state know i will beat it. Im innocent. Lets get this right as poster said above. Being charged with murder doesnt allocate guilt upon a person. Amanda knox? Raffaelle sollecito?
jmayo wrote: » 69 previous convictions for a 22 year old. Some of which includes arson. Remind us again how they set fire to the other woman's home, with her in it. Remind us again how they tried to burn the body of the victim. Coincidence maybe. :rolleyes: Could you answer this, you can just answer yes or no. Have you previous criminal convictions and do any include violent crime ? Ehhh previously convicted killer and suspect rapist gerard barry was issued bail. Being issued bail in this state doesn't say much for ones innocence.
kunst nugget wrote: » Ah… I'm not going to bother getting involved…
69 convictions, 7 convictions, 21 convictions. Scum like that should have been jailed for life long ago.
HensVassal wrote: » You make salient points but my problem is with the mouthbreathers who rant about death penalty and anal rape and what not. These people are the very hypocrites who express revulsion at The Provos for orchestrating punishment beatings and punishment shootings against "scumbags". You live by the sword, you die by the sword. It is like when one drug dealer killers another. A lot of people don't care because being honest they don't see it being much of a loss to society. There is a lot to be said for rehabilitation. It works in other countries. Why does it not work in Ireland? Because obviously it's not employed properly or employed at all. I would consider myself progressive, open-minded.....what others would call a lefty. But I ain't no tree-hugger. I would be very tough on crime and even tougher on punishment. If a guy gets banged up for a few years for a violent crime, I would prefer that he was put through an intensive and extensive program of rehabilitation so that when he gets out he has a sense of purpose, a sense of self worth and hopefully a marketable skill that would translate into a contructive job. Maybe then he might enter mainstream society and become productive rather than just lapse into the prisoner hierarchy while inside only to be released to reoffend. Taking a solely reactive approach to crime means you're always going to be chasing your tail. One has to be proactive as well otherwise you'll never make progress.
All the people calling for the death penalty are wrong IMO. Some ridiculous suggestions above. It costs more to actually administer it, than to keep them in prison. Also I'm not a major fan of state sanctioned murder as I like to think I live in a civilised country
MartyDublin wrote: » Im embarrassed at some of the rubbish on here. Fallacies, and rumours.
Idbatterim wrote: » you dont think that it would be a more civilised country with these f**ckers dead or in jail. Also the cost of jailing these scum for life. The money could be spent keeping tens of thousands alive in the third world, helping genuinely vulnerable Irish people at home or on a million other more worth causes...
MartyDublin wrote: » *Face palm* Do you believe the B.S your writing.
tomofson wrote: » Most of them don't want a serious debate, they just want people to agree with them and reinforce their own bias opinions. They actually get angry when someone politely disagrees and has a respectful discussion with them. I have been banned on this site a few times simply just for going against the flow. What is the point of a debate forum without any debate?
MartyDublin wrote: » Ive previous convictions yes.
MartyDublin wrote: » And barry was given bail in an assault case. High court need to issue bail on a murder charge not a district court which bailed barry. Murder accused rarely get bail unless an aspect of the case is challenged.
tomofson wrote: » Coincidence maybe about the arson? my first thought was he had nothing to do with it if an experienced arsonist wanted to set a fire it wouldn't have just been an "attempt". Major fail on your behalf
LexieOnRale wrote: » And yet not a bit embarrassed of previous convictions, convicted murderers as friends, and being on bail awaiting a murder trial. Nah, they're badges of honour. Its easy embarrass you.
jmayo wrote: » Thanks for answering that. But because of your answer I then have to assume you are a criminal and in my world you are one of THEM. barry was also a suspect at the time into a very serious rape case. The Gardaí had asked for no bail. He had a long list of convictions including for leading a gang that killed an innocent guy in the street. Well maybe he wasn't on the top of his game that night. BTW my definition of a successful experienced arsonist would be one that wasn't caught for it like he obviously had been previously.
Most of them don't want a serious debate, they just want people to agree with them and reinforce their own bias opinions. They actually get angry when someone politely disagrees and has a respectful discussion with them. I have been banned on this site a few times simply just for going against the flow. What is the point of a debate forum without any debate?
The sad thing is he probably does, but only for those disadvantaged people who go on to commit murders certainly not the wayne o'donoghues or murderer of raonaid murray who hasn't even been charged because hes father is a rich businessman. There is a vile classist undertone to most of the "contributors" on here.
tomofson wrote: » A criminal is someone involved in organized criminality not anyone with a conviction of any caliber. I know what you really mean when you say "one of THEM" though.
Idbatterim wrote: » what debate do you want? they are scum, they are a threat to society! have you been a victim of crime before and suffered from these scum? Im sick of the attitude here, its my fault, your fault, the fault of everyone but these scum!
tomofson wrote: » I have been a victim of crime before yes I don't mind saying that not only crime though but violent crime. I don't consider the people who randomly attacked me and beat me up to be scum though. I don't wish death on them for that offence prison time yes but it certainly doesn't deserve the death sentence. What attitude is there to be "sick" most people agree with you bar two people. Are you that offended by a minority of people having a difference in opinion it makes you "sick". Nobody is ever "scum" people react to the circumstances they are born into and their reactions are natural. so thats why some people behave in the manner they do. Most do not go on to commit murder.
What attitude is there to be "sick" most people agree with you bar two people. Are you that offended by a minority of people having a difference in opinion it makes you "sick". Nobody is ever "scum" people react to the circumstances they are born into and their reactions are natural. so thats why some people behave in the manner they do.
Nobody is ever "scum" people react to the circumstances they are born into and their reactions are natural. so thats why some people behave in the manner they do.
Idbatterim wrote: » hang on. the best thing would that people would be locked up early for serious convictions and be rehabilitated, in my opinion... I understand why it is far more likely to happen to some than others. Thats obvious, what we do when it happens is the issue. what would you refer to the 3 perpetrators as?
