Margaret Cash steals €300 worth of clothes from Penneys and aftermath/etc!

VonZan wrote: »

Women tend to get away with it a lot more due to children being involved, at least that's my experience. Gardai won't even press charges most of the time, even for repeat offenders.

I understand how that court case went for her as it was reported in the papers.
But how did she claim to an interviewer that stealing from someones house is harmless but doing the same in Penny's was stupid?

VonZan

tuxy wrote: »

How did she get away with claiming the other crimes were harmless? It's well known that she also assisted in the burglary of peoples homes in Enniscorty.

Women tend to get away with it a lot more due to children being involved, at least that's my experience. Gardai won't even press charges most of the time, even for repeat offenders.

RaichuMGS wrote: »

I’d like to see proof America’s crime rates have risen as a direct causation of increased incarceration rates.

You won't, the proof is that they haven't gone down despite the increased incarceration rates.

Unless of course you want to argue that they would be higher still without those rates?

'just' deciding to start sticking more people in prison is like sticking a plaster on a festering wound, looks good, makes it seem like you're doing something worthwhile but doesn't actually achieve anything. If anything it takes away attention from the real problems.

Unless of course you want to just stick them in prison and leave them there. Which I guess would be kind of a solution. While there are certainly people in our country for whom I don't think that would be unreasonable I wouldn't classify Margaret Cash as one just yet.

Effects

RaichuMGS wrote: »

I’d like to see proof America’s crime rates have risen as a direct causation of increased incarceration rates.

Effects wrote: »

She said she had no prior convictions. Then when asked about the previous convictions reported in the press she shrugged them off as only being driving offences.

I guess she thinks driving to someones home to liberate the contents is a driving convictions but how did this get past the person interviewing her?

Effects

tuxy wrote: »

How did she get away with claiming the other crimes were harmless? It's well known that she also assisted in the burglary of peoples homes in Enniscorty.

She said she had no prior convictions. Then when asked about the previous convictions reported in the press she shrugged the majority of them off as only being driving offences.

Transcript of the segment on 98FM:

AK: You've a load of previous convictions Margaret, have you learned your lesson?

MC: I don't have a load of previous convictions...for shop lifting. I've one, one, one shop lifting charge.
I have other previous convictions and they're all road traffic offences. They're all road traffic offences, every one of them.

She was charged and convicted of handling stolen goods in 2017, from a burglary in 2013. This hardly counts as shop lifting.

tuxy wrote: »

It's been done in other countries and has made the situation worse. What would we do different?

So copy the American system and increase our incarceration rates and crime rates simultaneously?

I’d like to see proof America’s crime rates have risen as a direct causation of increased incarceration rates.

How did she get away with claiming the other crimes were harmless? It's well known that she also assisted in the burglary of peoples homes in Enniscorty.

fritzelly

Effects wrote: »

She's only sorry she was caught tbh.

As are most criminals

Effects

fritzelly wrote: »

She already said she knew it was stupid and won't do it again, no point going to jail to learn the lesson.

That's what you're supposed to say. So the judge goes easier on you.
The majority of people before the judge don't mean it.
She's already been on the radio and disregarded 37 of her previous convictions as not being real crimes.
She's only sorry she was caught tbh.

fritzelly wrote: »

I re-edited the post with the sarcasm font

There's a special font? Why didn't I know about this? :eek:

fritzelly

I re-edited the post with the sarcasm font

Gatling

wexie wrote: »

Well....no offence to her but I for one won't be holding my breath.

Wonder is Paddy Power giving any odds, I'm not a gambler but that'd be worth a punt...

Shure isn't it cultural theft

fritzelly wrote: »

She already said she knew it was stupid and won't do it again, no point going to jail to learn the lesson.

Well....no offence to her but I for one won't be holding my breath.

Wonder is Paddy Power giving any odds, I'm not a gambler but that'd be worth a punt...

And I should probably add that I don't actually care how she learns her lesson, just as long as she does.

fritzelly

'you know what, this really sucks, I shouldn't have ended up in here. But now that I'm here I'm going to use every resource available to me to make sure that I won't have to come back'

She already said she knew it was stupid and won't do it again, no point going to jail to learn the lesson.

RaichuMGS wrote: »

If judges started handing down custodial sentences to people like her on their first or second offence then they’d soon start learning to behave.

It's been done in other countries and has made the situation worse. What would we do different?

RaichuMGS wrote: »

Well then adopt a system of parole similar to the US. If a board of parole officers doesn’t feel you’ve rehabilitated then boo hoo too bad for you, back to your cell for another 6 months. We can’t allow this revolving door carry on anymore.

So copy the American system and increase our incarceration rates and crime rates simultaneously?

end of the road

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I do think there is room for improvement with the amount of subjects being offered in secondary school especially in the senior end. Maybe more trade or practical stuff could be offered that is currently being offered in college of further education.
Now I do think it's important that the subjects are realistic and you have some hope of getting work from them. There's no point of having over wishy washy thing.

yes absolutely. a lot of children aren't academic and studious and there seems to be a bit of an issue with actually recognising this and providing an alternative to pure academic education. ireland isn't the only one guilty of that mind.

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Actually it's not that complex: make certain welfare payments contingent on meeting reasonable expectations (looking for work for JSA, children attending school for child benefit, working poor at top of housing list etc) and impose proportionate punishments for criminality, particularly repeat offenders.

Within a generation you'd disincentize a large amount of the traveling community (and many others) from the lifestyle that keeps them less educated, less healthy, more suicidal, more incarcerated, more violent and less employed than the settled community.

Of course this would require hard work from the state and cost political capital (in sustained attack from the quango sector) for any government. So it's easier to keep things going as a taxpayer funded free for all that fails both communities. Easier that is until voters demand better.

i have a feeling that the more likely reason it won't happen is that it would likely be unworkable and is unlikely to incentivise anything.

RaichuMGS wrote: »

Well then adopt a system of parole similar to the US. If a board of parole officers doesn’t feel you’ve rehabilitated then boo hoo too bad for you, back to your cell for another 6 months. We can’t allow this revolving door carry on anymore.

Couldn't agree more, but as it stands I'm not even sure if reoffending actually even triggers suspended sentences. I've heard of many cases where people have been convicted of crimes while already serving a suspended sentence. They then get to serve both sentences concurrently. Kinda like a BOGOF

on the last post, here's a good quote from the AMA currently happening :

I'm a Psychologist, AMA wrote: »

Research tells us that punishment doesn't stop people doing bad things, it just makes them more careful about being caught. But care and compassion and helping people get their needs met in safe or legal ways will be much more powerful in reducing the odds of ongoing offending behaviour.

Well then adopt a system of parole similar to the US. If a board of parole officers doesn’t feel you’ve rehabilitated then boo hoo too bad for you, back to your cell for another 6 months. We can’t allow this revolving door carry on anymore.

RaichuMGS wrote: »

That is the purpose of prison though?? To punish and rehabilitate criminals.

Ah....and there we have it...

From what I gather in Irish prisons rehabilitation is 'optional'....entirely up to the individual whether or not they want to engage (or at least that is what I have been told, I'd be delighted to be proven wrong).

Now....what do you think the odds are an individual like Margaret Cash is going to come into prison, sit herself down and think to herself :

'you know what, this really sucks, I shouldn't have ended up in here. But now that I'm here I'm going to use every resource available to me to make sure that I won't have to come back'

Personally I think those odds are somewhere between me getting to bed Scarlet Johansson and me having a drink (or a few) with Dean Martin

And yes she hasn't actually been in prison, but there should be no reason she can't be told (as part of a suspended sentence) : you're going on this course, you're going to make an effort, if you don't we'll be seeing you back in here.

RaichuMGS wrote: »

It’s a scandal that you have to be a murderer or pedo or similar to be incarcerated.

Yes it is

wexie wrote: »

No, but would you really compare your self to her?

And I never said we should just let her at it, I said that sticking her in prison won't solve anything or make anything better. Literally the only thing it would achieve is to stop her robbing stuff while she's in prison.

I think we should be more focused on solving the actual problem rather than temporarily hiding it.

What kind of attitude? I think you're either misreading what I'm saying or being a little awkward. I've been pretty clear that the current system doesn't work, it provides neither real punishment nor real improvement. It's just keeping the wheels turning.

That is the purpose of prison though?? To punish and rehabilitate criminals. And I wouldn’t liken myself to her either, however no one wants to be confined to a small cell 20+ hours a day for months or years. These criminals aren’t stupid and they are well aware they can more or less get away with anything “minor”. If judges started handing down custodial sentences to people like her on their first or second offence then they’d soon start learning to behave. I mean as has been said why bother your barney to be law abiding when you won’t see the inside of prison walls. It’s a scandal that you have to be a murderer or pedo or similar to be incarcerated.

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Where is Margaret's partner in all this? I think the kids all have the same father so does he not have some responsibility to provide for his kids?

Well....he should do...whether or not he shares that sentiment, or by what means he feels he should be providing is a different thing altogether.

Paddy Cow

Where is Margaret's partner in all this? I think the kids all have the same father so does he not have some responsibility to provide for his kids?

RaichuMGS wrote: »

I don’t know because she hasn’t been put in prison. But I can tell you from spending some time in a cell for mental illness reasons if someone locked me in there for years I wouldn’t be begging to go back.

Besides that whether or not she goes back to being a criminal or not does not mean she just be left to do as she wants. How does that even make any sense to you? We’re not talking about whether to ground a rebellious teenager here, incarceration of a criminal should not be debated. It should be done. This kind of attitude is why there’s little ****s with hundreds of convictions and nary a day spent in a prison.

No, but would you really compare your self to her?

And I never said we should just let her at it, I said that sticking her in prison won't solve anything or make anything better. Literally the only thing it would achieve is to stop her robbing stuff while she's in prison.

I think we should be more focused on solving the actual problem rather than temporarily hiding it.

What kind of attitude? I think you're either misreading what I'm saying or being a little awkward. I've been pretty clear that the current system doesn't work, it provides neither real punishment nor real improvement. It's just keeping the wheels turning.

wexie wrote: »

So stick her in the klink for a few years (at higher or fairly similar costs) then let her out and send her back to her 50k a year?

How's that going to solve anything?

Btw don't think that I'm saying she and people like her don't need to be addressed, I just don't think that sticking them in prison for a few years and sending her on her way is going to achieve anything.

If anything you then all of a sudden have 7 kids who now have a disturbed attachment to one (or more likely both) parents, further complicating their issues (and believe me when I say this kids will already have issues) a mother with even more of a grudge against the system (and she's not exactly well adjusted to start with) and you've still achieved nothing....

Do you think a few years in jail will teach her not to go right back to her lifestyle?

I don’t know because she hasn’t been put in prison. But I can tell you from spending some time in a cell for mental illness reasons if someone locked me in there for years I wouldn’t be begging to go back.

Besides that whether or not she goes back to being a criminal or not does not mean she just be left to do as she wants. How does that even make any sense to you? We’re not talking about whether to ground a rebellious teenager here, incarceration of a criminal should not be debated. It should be done. This kind of attitude is why there’s little ****s with hundreds of convictions and nary a day spent in a prison.

RaichuMGS wrote: »

Did you read what I said? She gets 50k a year benefits (of which she would not be entitled to in prison). And irrespective of whether or not it costs an extra 50 grand to house her in prison she (and any other criminal) should be put in prison. You realise also the council is paying for her to stay in hotels/B&B’s every night? I’d average that’s about €100 p/n give or take, over a year that’s about 37k. So to give her benefits and pay for hotels and B&B’s we’re at about 80k. Not too far off what it would cost to imprison her but she gets to go rob penny’s and get off Scot free. As for her children they should be removed from her custody yesterday.

So stick her in the klink for a few years (at higher or fairly similar costs) then let her out and send her back to her 50k a year?

How's that going to solve anything?

Btw don't think that I'm saying she and people like her don't need to be addressed, I just don't think that sticking them in prison for a few years and sending her on her way is going to achieve anything.

If anything you then all of a sudden have 7 kids who now have a disturbed attachment to one (or more likely both) parents, further complicating their issues (and believe me when I say this kids will already have issues) a mother with even more of a grudge against the system (and she's not exactly well adjusted to start with) and you've still achieved nothing....

Do you think a few years in jail will teach her not to go right back to her lifestyle?

Calhoun wrote: »

There has to be crime and punishment, if we don't have a mechanism to repay society we are in some trouble.

Without doubt but if you go to any district court and see what goes on I'm not sure we have yet approach anything close to an answer.

People out of prison for the day up on further charges. Laughing and joking with with their friends and family during proceedings then smirking after the judge adds a few extra months to the sentence. Nice day out for them.....