Where's the deterrent for shіthead scumbags in society?

El_Bee · 08-04-2019 11:34PM

Deleted User wrote: »

While scumbags when they exist should be dealt with properly, they are thankfully much rarer than they were 8 or 10 years ago and before. High living standards and being kept distracted/entertained with technology has made being an actual scumbag ludicrous to the kids who in previous times would have been at risk of becoming one. Scumbags of old became what they were after having grown up hanging around the streets with their friends in gangs - nowadays young working class guys are too busy trying to not look like a scumbag to be letting themselves down robbing cars or committing crime. Nowadays there is too much social status at stake to be seen being a scumbag and it doesn't appeal to them anyway as "being hard" is no longer the badge of honour among these kids that it once was. Nowadays it is all about how expensive their clothes are, how attractive they look with their sunbeds and skin fades - you know, the kind of stuff their older brothers/fathers punched other guys for back in the day. Also, kids from all backgrounds all go to college nowadays as they have little other choice in this psychological-pressure-cooker economy.

What fantasy land are you posting from, almost every kid around here covers their face, who the **** goes around with their face covered up at 9-10 years onwards?

Hal3000 · 08-04-2019 11:45PM

Whatever political party or politicans decide to get tough on crime will get my vote and I'm sure plenty more. 3 strike rule needs to be brought in. 30 / 40 / 50 convictions is an insult to our justice system, but it also proves that judges are totally dilusional if they think these people will ever become reformed.

Deebles McBeebles · 09-04-2019 09:26AM

El_Bee wrote: »

What fantasy land are you posting from, almost every kid around here covers their face, who the **** goes around with their face covered up at 9-10 years onwards?

If anything, there are more little gurriers walking around. Dragged up and given no manners or ambition to raise themselves out of a hovel by their lazy parents.

kildare lad · 09-04-2019 09:39AM

Sure prisons is no deterrent anymore. I know a bloke that got a 6 month sentence . I asked him, how'd ya get on in there. He said it was grand , he'd video games , tv , valium , weed . That doesn't sound to much like punishment. I wonder if prison was a bit more like a military boot camp , would people be less inclined to go back there.

topper75 · 09-04-2019 09:48AM

jay0109 wrote: »

Not if your a Solicitor/Barrister/Judge. It's a great system if your part of the racket

They are doing well for themselves.

But they are walking a tightrope over the long term; if there is ever a breakdown or revolution - they will be first up against the wall, blindfolded and praying.

Yurt2 · 09-04-2019 10:04AM

irishproduce wrote: »

We don't invest in prisons and politicians believe we don't want to.
I've said it before and I'll say it here many times. Ask politicians at your door where they stand on increasing spaces in prisons and being tough on crime. It won't change otherwise.

Interesting statbank for prisons across Europe. We have a higher prison capacity than Denmark, Finland and Norway (a good deal higher in Finland's case); all slightly larger countries than ourselves, so a good point of reference.

The Netherlands (Pop. 17m) has a prison capacity of 15'000 to our 4'300, and are in fact closing prisons and taking prisoners from other countries due to overcapacity in their system.

http://www.prisonstudies.org/country/ireland-republic

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 10:19AM

The level of government involvement needed to make sure scumbags don't behave like scumbags would be unbearable. Imagine the surveillance and government presence in our lives. Cameras everywhere, everyone would need to carry ID by law.

People get annoyed when a guard asks "where are you going?". Imagine the power guards would need to have In order to eradicate scumbag behaviour.

I've a sneaking suspicion that posters will support all sorts of measures like surveillance and garda powers for OTHER PEOPLE, but definitely not for themselves.

Lux23 · 09-04-2019 10:56AM

I suppose if you're a member of the absolute dregs of society, life can't get any worse for you. If you're living in a ****hole, surrounded by violent criminals than a trip to prison might not sound all that bad. At least you have a bed for the night and get fed three times a day. The problem is people are too focused on making prison worse rather than looking at making life on the outside better.

Hal3000 · 09-04-2019 11:27AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The level of government involvement needed to make sure scumbags don't behave like scumbags would be unbearable. Imagine the surveillance and government presence in our lives. Cameras everywhere, everyone would need to carry ID by law.

People get annoyed when a guard asks "where are you going?". Imagine the power guards would need to have In order to eradicate scumbag behaviour.

I've a sneaking suspicion that posters will support all sorts of measures like surveillance and garda powers for OTHER PEOPLE, but definitely not for themselves.

You sound just like a judge. People make mistakes fair enough, but make a mistake 30 / 40 / 50 times then you shouldn't be out on the streets. The Guards are paid to deal with scumbags, if it means more survelance for safer streets I'm all for it. Not sure who would go for dangerous streets with less survelance. ??

El_Bee · 09-04-2019 12:00PM

Yurt! wrote: »

Interesting statbank for prisons across Europe. We have a higher prison capacity than Denmark, Finland and Norway (a good deal higher in Finland's case); all slightly larger countries than ourselves, so a good point of reference.

The Netherlands (Pop. 17m) has a prison capacity of 15'000 to our 4'300, and are in fact closing prisons and taking prisoners from other countries due to overcapacity in their system.

http://www.prisonstudies.org/country/ireland-republic

They probably have a functional judicial system, big difference there.

El_Bee · 09-04-2019 12:05PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The level of government involvement needed to make sure scumbags don't behave like scumbags would be unbearable. Imagine the surveillance and government presence in our lives. Cameras everywhere, everyone would need to carry ID by law.

People get annoyed when a guard asks "where are you going?". Imagine the power guards would need to have In order to eradicate scumbag behaviour.

I've a sneaking suspicion that posters will support all sorts of measures like surveillance and garda powers for OTHER PEOPLE, but definitely not for themselves.

I'm definitely not one of those "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear" types, and I don't think that London-style surveillance would benefit over here anyway, because again you can identify criminals and bring them in, but as long as the judges are handing out joke sentences those cameras are just going to be a waste of taxpayers money.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 12:14PM

Hal3000 wrote: »

You sound just like a judge. People make mistakes fair enough, but make a mistake 30 / 40 / 50 times then you shouldn't be out on the streets. The Guards are paid to deal with scumbags, if it means more survelance for safer streets I'm all for it. Not sure who would go for dangerous streets with less survelance. ??

Thanks. I've been accused of sounding like a lot of things but never a judge.

I've a sneaking suspicion that you would have a difficult time making the case for the kind of surveillance and police powers necessary to actually deal with scumbag behavior.

I live with someone who works with criminals. Their assessment is that perpetual criminals are a different class of people. They tend to have learning difficulties, brain injuries, and the kind of upbringings that makes crime a logical lifestyle. I know this isn't what you want to hear because it isn't "ra ra lock em up".

Making terrible consequences for petty crime will have almost no effect. If they were normally functioning people they wouldn't put themselves in a position to need to commit petty crime. The snare needed to the neocortex of the brain to impair forward planning is so minimal and subtle that it could happen to anyone. A bang on the head as a child, whether it comes from a violent attach or playing sport, can create a criminal.

The person mentioned above was recently working with a bloke who was born into a crime family - low end stuff like loan sharking, protection and drugs. He just grew up with his brothers and uncles beating people up for missed payments etc. He's in his 30s with a healthy criminal record and he's just now realising that he doesn't WANT to do that for a living. He never had a choice. It was the family business.

Crime is more complicated than "ra ra lock em up". The solution is like to be more complicated than ra ra lock em up.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 12:17PM

El_Bee wrote: »

They probably have a functional judicial system, big difference there.

Yeah but they have much less emphasise on punishment and more focus on reform and helping people get into normal society. I don't think the posters in this thread want to solve the problem as much as they want to see criminals punished. Even if punishment doesn't make society any better, I think it's usually what there threads are calling for.

Feisar · 09-04-2019 12:17PM

mickdw wrote: »

Welfare is regarded a minimum living allowance so no financial penalty for them once they are on the dole.
I believe fines/ compensation should be taken directly from welfare payments when scum misbehave.

And the only this that will fund the Dutch Gold and Johnnie Blues is further thievery. Tis a complex socio economic blah blah blah.

I believe H&K perfected a solution that has been available since the Chinese invented gunpowder.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 12:18PM

El_Bee wrote: »

They probably have a functional judicial system, big difference there.

What do you think is probably better about their justice system?

PCeeeee · 09-04-2019 12:26PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Crime is more complicated than "ra ra lock em up". The solution is like to be more complicated than ra ra lock em up.

It certainly is. Preventing it however is no more difficult than locking away the individuals committing the most of it

Feisar · 09-04-2019 12:35PM

PCeeeee wrote: »

It certainly is. Preventing it however is no more difficult than locking away the individuals committing the most of it

However we the law abiding public still have to pick up the tab. So the victims have to pay? Ultimate victim blaming there. Cost should be kept to a minimum.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 12:35PM

PCeeeee wrote: »

It certainly is. Preventing it however is no more difficult than locking away the individuals committing the most of it

Case in point. Ra ra lock em up.

PCeeeee · 09-04-2019 12:39PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Case in point. Ra ra lock em up.

Ra ra? I'm acknowledging crime is complex. I wish it prevented. I present a solution. Address it if you're able.

As for the ra ra part. Cop on

PCeeeee · 09-04-2019 12:42PM

Feisar wrote: »

However we the law abiding public still have to pick up the tab. So the victims have to pay? Ultimate victim blaming there. Cost should be kept to a minimum.

Not the victims. Us all. Society. Victims. Citizens. Criminals alike.

That's what happens in a functioning state. Crime prevention and rule enforcement is vested in a agency on our behalf.

Feisar · 09-04-2019 12:45PM

PCeeeee wrote: »

Not the victims. Us all. Society. Victims. Citizens. Criminals alike.

That's what happens in a functioning state. Crime prevention and rule enforcement is vested in a agency on our behalf.

I was being a tad tongue in cheek, however I am and you are right in that the state pays. Who provides the funding to the state? The tax payer. I'm not suggesting I am directly paying for the toe rag that stole my jacket circa 10 years ago however, indirectly I am.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 12:47PM

PCeeeee wrote: »

Ra ra? I'm acknowledging crime is complex. I wish it prevented. I present a solution. Address it if you're able.

As for the ra ra part. Cop on

Lock em up doesn't make anything better. It doesn't address the causes of crime. It just fills up prisons while someone else steps up to fill the place of the criminal on the streets.

There's also a social cost to locking people up such as breaking up families and causing further problems down the line (children being raised without the parent in prison).

The only thing your Solution is good for is the prison industry who would offer to take control of the prisons for a fee and likely with similar success to G4S in the UK and the disastrous private prison system in America.

Feisar · 09-04-2019 12:50PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lock em up doesn't make anything better. It doesn't address the causes of crime. It just fills up prisons while someone else steps up to fill the place of the criminal on the streets.

There's also a social cost to locking people up such as breaking up families and causing further problems down the line (children being raised without the parent in prison).

The only thing your Solution is good for is the prison industry who would offer to take control of the prisons for a fee and likely with similar success to G4S in the UK and the disastrous private prison system in America.

I think you're right however there will always be an element of flotsam and jetsam in even a perfectly organized society. I believe this should be removed as cheaply as is possible.

PCeeeee · 09-04-2019 12:53PM

Feisar wrote: »

I was being a tad tongue in cheek, however I am and you are right in that the state pays. Who provides the funding to the state? The tax payer. I'm not suggesting I am directly paying for the toe rag that stole my jacket circa 10 years ago however, indirectly I am.

Apologies. I missed that.

Of course we pay though. I'm not sure there's another way.

What I would like to see is incarceration as a preventative measure rather than a punishment or a deterrent. The habitual criminal and those who are a danger to society should simply locked up. First second even fifth time offenders should be treated sympathetically. Attempts should be made to rehabilitate them. Some kind of multiplier based on previous convictions should apply however. More convictions should mean more time away from the rest of us.

I would suggest that the majority of crime is committed by a tiny minority. The majority of Garda time is spent on the same minority. The legal costs etc.

Geuze · 09-04-2019 12:55PM

Eamon Lynch has nearly 500 convictions.

"Teenager Shane Patton was killed in 2012 following a fatal collision with Eamon Lynch's car.

In July 2012, Eamon Lynch fatally collided with the car of Shane Patton. Mr Lynch was under the influence of alcohol, driving at speeds that averaged 100mph and he had no insurance or driving licence.

According to the BBC, Lynch had 483 convictions before the incident - including charges of drunk driving, burglary and driving without the possession of an NCT."

Drink-driving
speeding
no driving licence
no insurance
483 convictions, including 50 for burglary

and guess what?

He then tried to sue the dead teenager's family / insurance

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/killer-driver-tried-to-sue-dead-teenager-s-insurance-firm-1.2973635

https://www.donegaldaily.com/2017/02/13/driver-who-killed-teen-shane-suing-familys-insurance-company/

Ush1 · 09-04-2019 12:57PM

https://www.thesun.ie/news/3959125/vera-donovan-death-treats-son-murder-stephen-lynch-tallaght-dublin-hit-and-run/

No fear or respect for anything including a grieving mother.

PCeeeee · 09-04-2019 12:58PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lock em up doesn't make anything better. It doesn't address the causes of crime. It just fills up prisons while someone else steps up to fill the place of the criminal on the streets.

There's also a social cost to locking people up such as breaking up families and causing further problems down the line (children being raised without the parent in prison).

The only thing your Solution is good for is the prison industry who would offer to take control of the prisons for a fee and likely with similar success to G4S in the UK and the disastrous private prison system in America.

No. You're making the assumption that a certain amount of 'free' people will always be criminals. I doubt think so.

For instance. You said yourself that there may be brain issues that cause criminal behaviour. If this cohort were removed they obviously would not just be replaced.

Again I believe the majority of crime is committed by a tiny but persistent minority. For tbe common good these need to be taken out of society

biko · 09-04-2019 01:00PM

Crock Rock wrote: »

I'm sure if he hadn't appeared or there wasn't anyone else around, then they probably would have smashed the window to retrieve the GPS because there'd be absolutely no consequences for them.

Until we get Minority Report style "future crime police" possible crimes like this will continue

PCeeeee · 09-04-2019 01:00PM

Geuze wrote: »

Eamon Lynch has nearly 500 convictions.

"Teenager Shane Patton was killed in 2012 following a fatal collision with Eamon Lynch's car.

In July 2012, Eamon Lynch fatally collided with the car of Shane Patton. Mr Lynch was under the influence of alcohol, driving at speeds that averaged 100mph and he had no insurance or driving licence.

According to the BBC, Lynch had 483 convictions before the incident - including charges of drunk driving, burglary and driving without the possession of an NCT."

Drink-driving
speeding
no driving licence
no insurance
483 convictions, including 50 for burglary

and guess what?

He then tried to sue the dead teenager's family / insurance

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/killer-driver-tried-to-sue-dead-teenager-s-insurance-firm-1.2973635

https://www.donegaldaily.com/2017/02/13/driver-who-killed-teen-shane-suing-familys-insurance-company/

A case in point

conorhal · 09-04-2019 01:14PM

Yurt! wrote: »

Interesting statbank for prisons across Europe. We have a higher prison capacity than Denmark, Finland and Norway (a good deal higher in Finland's case); all slightly larger countries than ourselves, so a good point of reference.

The Netherlands (Pop. 17m) has a prison capacity of 15'000 to our 4'300, and are in fact closing prisons and taking prisoners from other countries due to overcapacity in their system.

http://www.prisonstudies.org/country/ireland-republic

Well if they have too much capacity then that's just fine. We however lack the capacity to jail even violent offenders here, and that still needs to be addresssed.
Low prision capacity requirement tends to go hand in hand with the level of social cohesion and the degree of wealth disparity in a society.
As we dismantle social cohesion and widen the gap between rich and poor the more prison space you'll need.
I'd put it to you that compared to Denmark, Finland and Norway, Ireland has much lower social cohesion, shared values and a higher gap between rich and poor.

Where's the deterrent for shіthead scumbags in society?

Comments