One eyed Jack wrote: » Tax credits for children already exist. It would cost more to attempt to recoup the cost of child benefit than it does to pay it, and even then the amount recouped wouldn't even come close to covering the cost of court appearances and policing. It's a no-brainer of an idea alright. No thought put into it whatsoever. It may have been some people's intent to introduce abortion to deal with undesirables that way, but reality had other ideas if we look at the US and the UK. Their juvenile crime statistics are even worse than ours! See point two above. It would simply cost more to incarcerate children than it would to allow them to remain with their parents. We've already tried incarceration of the undesirables in Irish society, and now we look back at that time in our recent past and condemn those people who incarcerated the undesirables in Irish society at the time. One would hope the next generation would have learned from the experiences of generations that went before them, but apparently not.
One eyed Jack wrote: » We've already tried incarceration of the undesirables in Irish society, and now we look back at that time in our recent past and condemn those people who incarcerated the undesirables in Irish society at the time.
corner of hells wrote: » What should we do ?
freedominacup wrote: » Well the canal was right there apparently and we were talking about grown men vs kids in at least a couple of cases in the article. A quick swim for one or two of them?
Uriel. wrote: » Child benefit is effectively a cash payment at the moment as is my understanding. The "benefit" of having a child for a cash benefit is obviously reduced if the welfare parent doesn't get cash and can't make use of the credit because they are sitting on their ass at home all day. The purpose of recouping (part of) the costs is not for direct financial gain to the public purse, rather it is the act as a penalty to the absent parents and perhaps also to help discourage children for welfare attitudes.
Uriel. wrote: » I never mentioned incarceration. There are other options, particularly for children. The child in question here hasn't been in school since third class. At that stage he should have been removed from the parents and cared for by the State via foster families or other appropriate means. Yes that does cost money, but I would wonder the long-term benefits or cost savings to be gained by putting that child on the right path at an early stage rather than have him spend decades wasting court, policing, hospital, welfare and other State services. I am certainly not talking about incarceration or for example, mother and baby home style scenarios.
1.2 Research on Outcomes for Children in Care: An Overview In Ireland children frequently enter care due to abuse and neglect in the family home. The literature from Ireland largely corroborates international studies of factors predicting a child’s entry into care, although there are some differences which may be attributable to Ireland’s distinctive ‘care histories’ (O’Brien, 2013). This literature is detailed in the chapters that follow. Generally speaking, the research broadly indicates that poverty and dependence on social welfare, homelessness and family break-up, experience of violence in the family home, the child’s mental health and the intellectual capacity of parents are predictive factors indicating a child’s placement in Ireland’s care system (McSherry et al., 2008). Other compounding factors identified in the Northern Irish and international literature as increasing the likelihood of entry into care include alcohol misuse, particularly by the child’s biological mother, and substance misuse (Malet et al., 2010). Children in care frequently experience placement instability and multiple moves, significant behavioural and psychological problems, education deficits, and difficulties in maintaining familial contact and social networks (Rock et al., 2013; Daly and Gilligan, 2005). Those in long-term care are more likely than other children to experience difficult transitions to independent life and to experience homelessness and poverty and other social harms in adulthood. Such findings are consistent with international and UK literature which postulates that children who experience care placements are 10 times more likely to be more excluded from school, 12 times more likely to leave with no qualifications, and 60 times more likely to become homeless later in life (see McSherry et al., 2008).
One eyed Jack wrote: » That argument doesn't arise though if the children in question are removed from the care of their parents. The 'kids for cash' argument is a bit of a non-starter anyway because it assumes the persons primary motivation is a cash incentive of €35 per week from the State. There are much easier ways to make €35 a week while indeed sitting at home on their asses all day. One doesn't need a degree in economics to work out that their primary motivation is unlikely to be financial gain. Where do you imagine children are taken when they are removed from the care of their parents? They are incarcerated in facilities considered appropriate by the State. If you're genuinely wondering about the long-term cost/benefit analysis to these children and to society of removing children from the care of their parents, the answer may well surprise you: Taken from here.
stevensi wrote: » One day I'd love one of the defense lawyers for these kids turn up and say...actually your honour this guy is a scumbag and deserves a heavy sentence! Do they really believe the bull they spout when they talk about a hard upbringing/fell in with the wrong crowd etc...
hatrickpatrick wrote: » It's just a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of dilemma. I despise Dublin scumbags with a fiery passion, but at the same time if they're doing the Lord's work by engaging in anti-cyclist vigilantism, they have to earn some brownie points, dammit. Here's a nice idea for a compromise: We pay them to take their rope and use it at traffic-lighted junctions in the city - but they're only allowed to deploy it during moments of the lights actually being red. They get a slap from a baton-wielding robocop type yoke any time they use it inappropriately, but they get a fiver any time they successfully decapitate a light-breaking menace to humanity. Everyone wins. In other news: Welcome to AH, we hope you enjoy your stay :pac:
hatrickpatrick wrote: » That's because the definition of "undesirables" included people who had committed absolutely no offence to any other human being, but against society's ideologies. They were wrongly labelled "undesirables". Those who set out to hurt others because they enjoy hurting others are genuine "undesirables", this has been true for all of human history and always will be true. Or are you suggesting that you can foresee a future in which assaulting people against their will is no longer seen as wrong? Most problems with "mass incarceration" including the "mass" nature of it, totally disappear when victimless "crimes" stop being regarded as crimes and grounds for incarceration. Even in the present day, how many people currently in prison wouldn't be there if the "crime" of either using or providing mind-altering substances was no longer considered wrongdoing, as it crucially doesn't involve an unwilling victim? Assaulting people is and always will be considered scumbaggery. It's not something which is ever likely to change, unlike the moronic phenomenon of labelling victimless actions as wrongdoing.
Judge O’Connor noted that the boy, who was accompanied to court by his mother and his barrister, was found by the Probation Service to be at a high risk of re-offending. The court heard he had been taking 15 to 20 tablets a day and had been out of education since third class in primary school. He was drug free since going into custody on remand. Alison Fynes, defending, said the boy was adamant about turning his life around and has been going to classes in custody. He had been found to have Attention Deficit Disorder, the barrister said. A previous welfare report stated the teen lacked victim empathy but counsel said that there has been an improvement in relation to the boy’s attitude toward victims. ... He noted from reports that the teen started smoking cigarettes then moved on to cannabis, then tablets and cocaine.
Sam Quentin wrote: » Why is this ALLOWED to happen, just patrol the area more regularly or ...., even just flood those areas with Gardaí!? But it has to be stopped.http://www.thejournal.ie/canal-crime-courts-4122979-Jul2018/
Uriel. wrote: » IF, the child benefit was of course the only benefit derived from the State, which isn't the case. Naturally, I haven't read that research yet, but outcomes for children who are in care are bad compared... to what? children from functional families? As a matter of interest does the research compare the outcomes for children brought into State care versus those children left in dysfunctional families - e.g. like the one outlined in the OP?
One eyed Jack wrote: » It does, and the comparison is outcomes for children removed from their parents versus children who remain with their parents, the outcomes are still worse.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » Well even so it does keep the canals safe for the working classes who need to commute. You seem to be proposing no action at all. By the way why isn’t the fact that children from dysfunctional families don’t do well in State care an issue to fix in care, rather than a cudgel to blame society, or propose no incarceration at all.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You appear to be ignoring the fact that the people who committed these crimes against other people were also indulging in what you prefer to call a 'victimless crime': It would suggest to me anyway that in order to fund what you consider their 'victimless' crimes, they had no empathy for the victims of their crimes. It would appear that your definition of a 'victimless crime', and societal standards of 'victimless crimes' are at odds with each other. They were at odds with each other then, and they're at odds with each other now. Of course how you define 'scumbags' and 'undesirables' is also a matter of opinion. I would also say that if we were to release people from prison who feel that they shouldn't be there because they feel their crimes were 'victimless', then of course the numbers of people in prison would plummet, but the number of people who commit crimes who have no empathy for the victims of their criminal enterprise, would increase dramatically.
Ipso wrote: » So how is a society meant to deal with a serial pest?
One eyed Jack wrote: » By coming up with new long-term approaches in preventative strategies, as opposed to falling back on old short-term, ill-thought out approaches to deal with the symptoms of those short-term approaches, which have been shown from past experience to be wholly ineffective, inefficient, and do more damage to society in the long-term.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » It's not difficult to design a system in which crimes that hurt other people are punished harshly, and actions which do not hurt other people are not considered crimes. In such a system, the people getting locked up would be people who hurt others, which would mean that there were fewer people hurting others free to roam the streets and hurt others. Let me simplify: These scumbags should be locked up because they were engaging in violence against innocent people. There are many people who are locked up despite not engaging in violence against innocent people. That's what I'm seeing as a problem in our scenario. Your conflation of this issue with Ireland's past of locking people up for sexual immorality is ridiculous. It literally has nothing to do with it. Nobody except you seems to be arguing that violent assholes shouldn't be locked up for acting like violent assholes, so it's kinda up to you to justify why they shouldn't. The justification for locking them up is obvious - fewer violent assholes on the streets = fewer innocent people falling victim to the actions of violent assholes.
One eyed Jack wrote: » The system you're proposing is the one we have already HP, and it's clearly not very effective.
Keyzer wrote: » As much as I abhor these scumbags, what's the solution? Seriously, ask yourself what is the solution? Throw them in jail? Rehabilitate them? Sterilize them? Lock them all up in a giant walled scumbag enclosure? None of the above - society will always have this kind of bjollox going on. Its never going to change. Even if the cops went down and beat the living sh1te out of them on a daily basis, they'd still do it. Sorry to sound deafist but this kind of crap goes on in every country on the planet.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » It isn't, not by a long shot. And it won't be as long as peoples' natural desire to get high is criminalised, which both wastes valuable prison spaces with non-violent "offenders" and also fuels criminality by removing the provision of such substances from the legitimate marketplace and into an unregulated and unpoliced criminal underworld.
One eyed Jack wrote: » People who care more about their natural desire to get high, will place their natural desire to get high above all else, and that leads to people indulging in hurting and harming other people as a means to an end. It's their desire to put their desires above the welfare of all others which leads to fuelling criminality to meet the demand for people's natural desire to get high, and fuelling their desire to to get high is what fuels people's compulsive criminal behavior, which leads to them needing to get high to escape having to empathise with the people who are hurt by their behavior.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » So you're denying the obvious fact that taking and selling drugs being illegal means that the justice system has to waste time dealing (pun intended) with criminal cases involving the aforementioned, which means less time to deal with violent crime - and the same for valuable prison space? What you're saying is the establishment line on drugs now. When they were banned it wasn't about that, it was part of the same misguided belief that consenting adults could commit a "wrong" entirely between themselves which led to us locking up young women for being sexually active out of wedlock. Drugs were banned for now-outdated reasons of social conservatism, nothing more.
One eyed Jack wrote: » No, it clearly doesn't keep the canals safe for anyone, and I'm not proposing no action. It is the Gardaí who are suggesting that patrolling the canal to prevent criminal behaviour is not their responsibility. The fact that children don't do well in State care is the responsibility of the State, and one that the State doesn't take seriously, because society doesn't take the issue seriously. It's not that I'm saying society is responsible for children in care, but rather that society is responsible for society. If people in society don't like it, then the responsibility is on them to make the State take action against these people, and who are the agents of the State charged with responsibility for maintaining public order? The Gardaí, the people who say it isn't their responsibility.
One eyed Jack wrote: » What I'm saying is that people's desire to put themselves and their desires above the welfare of other people is the cause of their anti-social behavior which is harmful to other people. People who want to ingest drugs don't care about the harm that sourcing those drugs causes to other people, any more than people who want to indulge their sexual desires don't care about the harm that their behavior causes for other people. That's why we institute laws, for the good of society, as opposed to pandering to the whims and desires of a tiny minority of people who just want to get high or have sex, and not have to think about the ill-effects of their behavior on society. Society doesn't generally tend to look kindly on those sorts of people who only act in their own self-interest.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » Blaming “society” is blaming everyone and no one. Society pays taxes. If the state agencies are failing to do their job then it is still their responsibility to fix.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e6e89bccb203e9478ee7a43346bf4937.svg)