This can't go on.

12-07-2018 06:59PM

Just came upon a cyclist lying on the road between Stillorgan and Blackrock in the past hour and a lady in a VW Golf next to him and other people on phones. Hope he's OK (a young cyclist was killed not far from him outside UCD earlier this year).

Regarding these teenagers, the government could do worse than re-open Spike Island as a massive juvenile detention centre just as they opened it for Dublin's joyriders in the 1980s. It would make the lives of other people in those areas more bearable. It would also allow the kids in those areas to learn in classrooms and advance. Too many poor areas held to ransom by such people.

One eyed Jack · 12-07-2018 07:08PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But you're still not addressing the fact that the simplest and most effective solution would be to stop jailing people for victimless crimes so that people who commit crimes with victims, such as those mentioned in the OP, could be locked up more often and for longer periods.

The alternative is of course building more prisons, but there seems to be absolutely no political will to do it. What I'm advocating is that in a situation with prison shortages, those who commit violent crimes should be at the absolute top of the list of priorities in terms of who "gets" a space. And we shouldn't put a single non-violent person in jail if there are violent people going free due to lack of space.

Even if you don't agree with decriminalising non-victim "crimes", fair enough, but would you at least agree with prioritising the violent? The gang who attacked this cyclist should spend several years in jail, and if the only way to make that happen is to let some tax evaders and drug users go, so be it. Punish them some other way, but the priority in terms of locking people up should be to rid the streets of those who make the streets unsafe for others.

It's a bit pointless talking about these things when we already have fundamentally different ideas on concepts like 'victimless' behavior, what constitutes a crime, what constitutes a violent crime, and what are the appropriate responses to those crimes.

Analog for you. You're a cop. Your under-resourced police station has only one holding cell. You arrest two people simultaneously, one for selling cocaine and the other for setting fire to peoples' houses for fun, causing people to be hospitalised.

Which one "gets" the one holding cell you've got, and which one do you let go due to lack of space to hold them?

You didn't really compare like for like there at all. You presented the consequences for other people of the arsonists behavior, but you neglected to mention the consequences for other people of the drug dealers behavior. Personally, I'd have them share the cell, give the arsonist a zippo lighter and the drug dealer a joint, and see could they understand the value of mutual cooperation for their greater benefit (they both get off their tits and don't give me any grief), or would their desire to fulfil their own selfish needs motivate them to continue their respective patterns of behavior. My moneys on the arsonist coming out the better of that scenario :pac:

But it also means one less drug dealer selling drugs to 10 year olds and destroying whole communities and causing children to go assaulting and robbing people to fund their habit.

hatrickpatrick · 12-07-2018 07:15PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's a bit pointless talking about these things when we already have fundamentally different ideas on concepts like 'victimless' behavior, what constitutes a crime, what constitutes a violent crime, and what are the appropriate responses to those crimes.

You didn't really compare like for like there at all. You presented the consequences for other people of the arsonists behavior, but you neglected to mention the consequences for other people of the drug dealers behavior. Personally, I'd have them share the cell, give the arsonist a zippo lighter and the drug dealer a joint, and see could they understand the value of mutual cooperation for their greater benefit (they both get off their tits and don't give me any grief), or would their desire to fulfil their own selfish needs motivate them to continue their respective patterns of behavior. My moneys on the arsonist coming out the better of that scenario :pac:

But it also means one less drug dealer selling drugs to 10 year olds and destroying whole communities and causing children to go assaulting and robbing people to fund their habit.

Alright, so putting our differences around drugs policy aside - replace the drug dealer in my analogy with a tax evader. And suppose that for one reason or another, you'd not allowed to have them share a cell - you have to let one of them go. Do you let the tax evader or arsonist walk?

One eyed Jack · 12-07-2018 07:30PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Alright, so putting our differences around drugs policy aside - replace the drug dealer in my analogy with a tax evader. And suppose that for one reason or another, you'd not allowed to have them share a cell - you have to let one of them go. Do you let the tax evader or arsonist walk?

It's pointless talking hypothetical scenarios like that either though HP because they very rarely ever map well to reality. You present a set set of circumstances like it's a zero-sum game and all things are equal, and that obviously isn't true. You're comparing things by saying all circumstances are equal, and then saying I should have to excuse one and punish the other. That means the circumstances can't have been equal in the first place. It's just not a very well thought out thought experiment as there's too much scope to introduce all sorts of crazy stuff altogether.

It could simply come down to which one of 'em is wrecking my bulb more, I won't want to be listening to either of them screaming all night that they don't deserve to be locked up because their victimless crimes shouldn't be seen as criminal behavior.

hatrickpatrick · 12-07-2018 07:53PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's pointless talking hypothetical scenarios like that either though HP because they very rarely ever map well to reality. You present a set set of circumstances like it's a zero-sum game and all things are equal, and that obviously isn't true. You're comparing things by saying all circumstances are equal, and then saying I should have to excuse one and punish the other. That means the circumstances can't have been equal in the first place. It's just not a very well thought out thought experiment as there's too much scope to introduce all sorts of crazy stuff altogether.

It could simply come down to which one of 'em is wrecking my bulb more, I won't want to be listening to either of them screaming all night that they don't deserve to be locked up because their victimless crimes shouldn't be seen as criminal behavior.

My point is that our top priority should be locking up these scumbags where they can't continue to f*ck with random people for no reason. That's literally the only point I'm trying to make. How you want to accomplish that is up to you, I've outlined how I want to accomplish it. You seem to be advocating for not locking them up at all, in which case, I again ask you, what do you do? Should we make it legal for a civilian to carry a weapon and use it to defend him or herself should he or she encounter a gang such as that described in the OP? That hasn't worked out too well in the US. Should we electronically tag such people and put them under house arrest? That sounds like a great idea in my book, except how do you enforce it? What penalties do you have for them violating their geographical restrictions? And how many more Gardai do you have to hire to police scumbags who are dispersed throughout communities by being under house arrest, as opposed to the comparatively fewer guards needed if they're all held in the same building, AKA jail?

You're all for shooting down proposals here, but the only counter-proposals you've made are ones which might solve the problem in twenty years. I'm asking what we do here, now, today, so that the good Irish people of this day, Thursday the 12th of July 2018, can go about their business without fear of an unprovoked attack from a bunch of asshole scumbags like those mentioned in the OP.

Have you any suggestions to offer? Anything at all?

12-07-2018 07:56PM

Well, what happens when you remove corporal punishment from parents, and adults without replacing it with a more effective manner of punishment? They just went and banned corporal punishment... replacing it with pink flowers and good wishes.

12-07-2018 08:00PM

Deleted User wrote: »

This kind of behaviour is the one thing that would make me consider leaving Ireland. Contrary to an earlier poster, I don't actually think it happens everywhere.

Well... UK/Ireland are the only places where I'm actually worried about the consequences of defending myself... and where I'm very cautious around groups of teenagers.

One eyed Jack · 12-07-2018 08:08PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

My point is that our top priority should be locking up these scumbags where they can't continue to f*ck with random people for no reason. That's literally the only point I'm trying to make. How you want to accomplish that is up to you, I've outlined how I want to accomplish it. You seem to be advocating for not locking them up at all, in which case, I again ask you, what do you do? Should we make it legal for a civilian to carry a weapon and use it to defend him or herself should he or she encounter a gang such as that described in the OP? That hasn't worked out too well in the US. Should we electronically tag such people and put them under house arrest? That sounds like a great idea in my book, except how do you enforce it? What penalties do you have for them violating their geographical restrictions? And how many more Gardai do you have to hire to police scumbags who are dispersed throughout communities by being under house arrest, as opposed to the comparatively fewer guards needed if they're all held in the same building, AKA jail?

You're all for shooting down proposals here, but the only counter-proposals you've made are ones which might solve the problem in twenty years. I'm asking what we do here, now, today, so that the good Irish people of this day, Thursday the 12th of July 2018, can go about their business without fear of an unprovoked attack from a bunch of asshole scumbags like those mentioned in the OP.

Have you any suggestions to offer? Anything at all?

One very simple suggestion to start with - more community policing, and Gardai forging better links with the community. Better resources to fund community development and working towards a greater sense of community and making people feel like they have a contribution to make to their communities as opposed to simply immediate gratification of their own selfish desires. If you're not setting an example of the kind of behaviors and attitudes you expect from other people, then why are you surprised when they're following the example you want to set for society? They're as much about wanting more from society as you are without feeling they owe society anything.

c.p.w.g.w · 12-07-2018 08:13PM

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/

First offense warn both parents, second time take the child's left hand, third offence right hand

hatrickpatrick · 12-07-2018 08:14PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

One very simple suggestion to start with - more community policing, and Gardai forging better links with the community. Better resources to fund community development and working towards a greater sense of community and making people feel like they have a contribution to make to their communities as opposed to simply immediate gratification of their own selfish desires. If you're not setting an example of the kind of behaviors and attitudes you expect from other people, then why are you surprised when they're following the example you want to set for society? They're as much about wanting more from society as you are without feeling they owe society anything.

I agree with all that. But again, this is a long term solution. In the immediate term, if we don't have enough space in prison for the scrotes described in the OP, and you're not up for prioritising one kind of crime over another in terms of who gets a jail cell, how should we be restricting their movements so as to keep them away from decent people who don't deserve to be randomly attacked for no reason?

One eyed Jack · 12-07-2018 08:42PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I agree with all that. But again, this is a long term solution. In the immediate term, if we don't have enough space in prison for the scrotes described in the OP, and you're not up for prioritising one kind of crime over another in terms of who gets a jail cell, how should we be restricting their movements so as to keep them away from decent people who don't deserve to be randomly attacked for no reason?

It's very simple - you offer them alternatives that they can actually see a greater value in for themselves. This not only gives them something to do, it gives them something to work towards and a sense of being proud of their achievements that they can see are a positive contribution to society. This is what I mean by a sense of community development, being proud of their own communities. If they see the value in something, they want to protect it rather than destroy it.

Attempting to restrict their movements to keep them away from people who regard them as scumbags isn't working. It just makes those people more deserving of their contempt in their eyes. Prejudice and bigotry begets prejudice and bigotry.

weldoninhio · 12-07-2018 08:46PM

Certain areas of Dublin need no-nonsense vigilantes. A few weeks in hospital on a soup only diet would soften some of these hard men.

tom1ie · 12-07-2018 08:58PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's very simple - you offer them alternatives that they can actually see a greater value in for themselves. This not only gives them something to do, it gives them something to work towards and a sense of being proud of their achievements that they can see are a positive contribution to society. This is what I mean by a sense of community development, being proud of their own communities. If they see the value in something, they want to protect it rather than destroy it.

Attempting to restrict their movements to keep them away from people who regard them as scumbags isn't working. It just makes those people more deserving of their contempt in their eyes. Prejudice and bigotry begets prejudice and bigotry.

I think this line of thought is what got us to the situation we are in now. If you are training a dog you teach the dog when he has done wrong, by some sort of punishment and reward when he has done right.
These people have received no training and are probably too far gone for rehabilitation.
I think repeat offenders, ie someone with 10+ serious crimes should be warned the next time they are in court, if they commit a serious crime, ie assault, robbery etc they will face mandatory sentences of 10+ years no parole no remission. For those of you saying we have no prison spaces, container ships can be repurposed as floating prisons.

You DONToffer them alternatives, you give them no choice in facing the full extent of justice and the law.

Roger Hassenforder · 12-07-2018 09:03PM

tom1ie wrote: »

I think this line of thought is what got us to the situation we are in now. If you are training a dog you teach the dog when he has done wrong, by some sort of punishment and reward when he has done right.
These people have received no training and are probably too far gone for rehabilitation.
I think repeat offenders, ie someone with 10+ serious crimes should be warned the next time they are in court, if they commit a serious crime, ie assault, robbery etc they will face mandatory sentences of 10+ years no parole no remission. For those of you saying we have no prison spaces, container ships can be repurposed as floating prisons.

You DONToffer them alternatives, you give them no choice in facing the full extent of justice and the law.

That's very unfair to compare these people to dogs.

Dogs are capable of love, loyalty, friendship and protection.

Noveight · 12-07-2018 09:14PM

Alison Fynes, defending, said the boy was adamant about turning his life around and has been going to classes in custody.

Bahahahaha. Good one, Alison.

One eyed Jack · 12-07-2018 09:22PM

tom1ie wrote: »

I think this line of thought is what got us to the situation we are in now. If you are training a dog you teach the dog when he has done wrong, by some sort of punishment and reward when he has done right.

It hasn't, because over the last two decades successive Governments haven't bothered to support communities in dire socioeconomic circumstances. They've just thrown money at the problem and built new developments with lack of any proper foresight and planning. They've created ghettos rather than communities to segregate people off from society, with no thought for social mobility or providing services that created communities.

We don't treat dogs the way the State treats some people.

These people have received no training and are probably too far gone for rehabilitation.
I think repeat offenders, ie someone with 10+ serious crimes should be warned the next time they are in court, if they commit a serious crime, ie assault, robbery etc they will face mandatory sentences of 10+ years no parole no remission. For those of you saying we have no prison spaces, container ships can be repurposed as floating prisons.

They're children. They're not at all gone so far that they can't turn their lives around, and in the case in the opening post, the child had been on drugs from an early age, and is now drug free and making progress. Jail time would only have hardened his resolve to continue his behavior - in for a penny, in for a pound sort of thinking. Prison would simply become like a home away from home. Container ships and floating prisons are the stuff of Hollywood movies.

You DONToffer them alternatives, you give them no choice in facing the full extent of justice and the law.

And what has that ever achieved? It doesn't change their behaviors or their attitudes, it only reinforces their attitudes and behaviors and feeds into the cycle of recidivism and escalation you're trying to prevent in the first place.

tom1ie · 12-07-2018 09:23PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

That's very in fair to compare these people to dogs.

Dogs are capable of love, loyalty, friendship and protection.

My apologies, I was merely stating that behavioral traits have to be established early and with boundary’s. An animals instinct is to be curious and push boundary’s. Scum are no different in this respect, when they push the boundaries there has to be reprucutions.

Vic_08 · 12-07-2018 09:25PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's very simple - you offer them alternatives that they can actually see a greater value in for themselves. This not only gives them something to do, it gives them something to work towards and a sense of being proud of their achievements that they can see are a positive contribution to society. This is what I mean by a sense of community development, being proud of their own communities. If they see the value in something, they want to protect it rather than destroy it.

Attempting to restrict their movements to keep them away from people who regard them as scumbags isn't working. It just makes those people more deserving of their contempt in their eyes. Prejudice and bigotry begets prejudice and bigotry.

You possess a very odd mix of puritanism (sex is bad, drugs are bad) and bleeding heart liberalism (hug a thug, it's all our fault for not being nicer to them that they act badly).

It would be most helpful for those attempting to correct your posts if you would stick to one stupid discredited worldview at a time.

tom1ie · 12-07-2018 09:28PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It hasn't, because over the last two decades successive Governments haven't bothered to support communities in dire socioeconomic circumstances. They've just thrown money at the problem and built new developments with lack of any proper foresight and planning. They've created ghettos rather than communities to segregate people off from society, with no thought for social mobility or providing services that created communities.

We don't treat dogs the way the State treats some people.

They're children. They're not at all gone so far that they can't turn their lives around, and in the case in the opening post, the child had been on drugs from an early age, and is now drug free and making progress. Jail time would only have hardened his resolve to continue his behavior - in for a penny, in for a pound sort of thinking. Prison would simply become like a home away from home. Container ships and floating prisons are the stuff of Hollywood movies.

And what has that ever achieved? It doesn't change their behaviors or their attitudes, it only reinforces their attitudes and behaviors and feeds into the cycle of recidivism and escalation you're trying to prevent in the first place.

I’m sorry but the softly softly approach simply doesn’t work. Repeat offenders know they’ll get off lightly as there is light sentencing in most cases and prison time to these type of people is nice and easy.
I agree they should get some level of rehabilitation if they want it, but only after they come to realize there are serious repercussions if they break the law. Unfortunately at the moment there isn’t.

Uncharted · 12-07-2018 09:32PM

Little ****s like this teen in question should be forced to do military service beginning immediately. Regardless of age.

Aside from him,all teens,male and female should do military service.

Aged between14-15 the service should apply during the summer holidays and one weekend a month and again from 17-18 for a full time year long term.

This country is full of entitled little scrotes.
A little bit of hardship might open their eyes.

1eg0a3xv7b82of · 12-07-2018 09:43PM

Set up a secret state police with one objective the complete eradication of the scum benefit class that is destroying the very soul of what makes this country great
Burn them all

wexie · 12-07-2018 10:33PM

Kora Young Lifeguard wrote: »

Set up a secret state police with one objective the complete eradication of the scum benefit class that is destroying the very soul of what makes this country great
Burn them all

And what will they do when they've accomplished that goal?

I'm sure they won't mind giving up all that power when they're no longer needed right?

One eyed Jack · 12-07-2018 11:14PM

tom1ie wrote: »

I’m sorry but the softly softly approach simply doesn’t work. Repeat offenders know they’ll get off lightly as there is light sentencing in most cases and prison time to these type of people is nice and easy.
I agree they should get some level of rehabilitation if they want it, but only after they come to realize there are serious repercussions if they break the law. Unfortunately at the moment there isn’t.

You're right, it isn't there at the moment, and the reason it isn't there at the moment is simply because nobody really gives a shìt. The reason nobody gives a shìt is because they regard these people as scumbags beyond redemption and therefore not even worth trying to help. That's the situation as it currently stands, and fast forward another generation and there's going to be yet another generation of scumbags and the scumbags who condemn them.

This isn't the softly softly approach at all, it's the 'nip it in the bud' approach. It starts with the current generation of parents and their children, and continues on in those children's children, so that rather than grow up to be scumbags who look down on other people, there's a better chance they may actually grow up with the attitude of actually contributing to society rather than thinking society has to be all about them, regardless of whether they grow up in Darndale or D4.

Ginger83 · 12-07-2018 11:41PM

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

First offense warn both parents, second time take the child's left hand, third offence right hand

Most practical solution i'd read in 8 pages.

12-07-2018 11:53PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're right, it isn't there at the moment, and the reason it isn't there at the moment is simply because nobody really gives a shìt. The reason nobody gives a shìt is because they regard these people as scumbags beyond redemption and therefore not even worth trying to help. That's the situation as it currently stands, and fast forward another generation and there's going to be yet another generation of scumbags and the scumbags who condemn them.

I'd suggest that in the rush to give everyone rights and to reduce the harshness of punishments on criminals or those who break the law... nobody knows how to do anything about it now. It's not as if they can go backward. Once you give rights or remove punishments, there would be outcry at reinstating them. And no politician or official is going to face the public over that...

There are no clear ways to punish or to provide a deterrent to crime in our very liberal society. Everything that could be done is unlikely to actually shock or make criminals afraid of committing a crime that could see them caught.

This isn't the softly softly approach at all, it's the 'nip it in the bud' approach. It starts with the current generation of parents and their children, and continues on in those children's children, so that rather than grow up to be scumbags who look down on other people, there's a better chance they may actually grow up with the attitude of actually contributing to society rather than thinking society has to be all about them, regardless of whether they grow up in Darndale or D4.

And I agree with you... except that we are still talking about a minority. The majority of the population already avoids crime. The education and morals we have in place already work to stop "normal" people from turning to crime. However, education alone is not going to stop that minority because they are different to the majority. They think different and their perception of risk vs reward is also different.

Personally, I feel there should be some harsher punishment that goes beyond imprisonment that is wheeled out occasionally to punish the worst offenders. At the moment, we don't have anything beyond imprisonment. And Yes, I know many posters will go nuts at me suggesting anything like it, because in their eyes it's wrong... but then, I rarely hear any practical suggestions from them on how to resolve things except vague references to rehabilitation.

Atoms for Peace · 13-07-2018 08:14AM

We need a tropical colony with malaria.

gandalf · 13-07-2018 08:20AM

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

We need a tropical colony with malaria.

We've got Skellig Michael, tell them their going on a "Star Wars" tour and just leave em there. I'm sure a few months stranded on the island will learn them.......

The J Stands for Jay · 13-07-2018 08:33AM

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:

There should be "severe tyre damage" spikes that pop up from the road at all red lights. That'd get the 9 cars and 2 bikes that run every red light.

Foggy Jew · 13-07-2018 08:39AM

'The teen, who lacked parental supervision, hadn't been in school since third class'. So, what age was he, 8 or 9 when he left school? How did that slip under the radar? The parent(s) abdicated responsibility for this kid. What other way was he going to end up? I'm not making excuses for him, I'm simply asking the question. He would have been salvageable at age 8.

The J Stands for Jay · 13-07-2018 08:40AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

.

EDIT: You'll have read this morning of the Gardai making a drug bust in Davitt Flats in Drimnagh and uncovering a mushroom growing operation. This is a perfect example of the waste of justice system resources on non-victim "offences" - how many feral scumbags were able to act like feral scumbags in other parts of the Sundrive Station catchment area this morning because an overstretched police force had to commit resources to something which shouldn't be any of their concern to begin with?

And what's more, this wasn't a crime until about 10 years ago...

This can't go on.

Comments