El_Duderino 09 wrote: » If it's all about prevention, the why haven't you even bothered to ask what has worked in other countries before concluding locking em up is the best course?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » But like I said, I'll bet you're not interested in harsh punishment for crimes that you personally might commit. I don't know the ins and puts of sentencing but I'd be shocked if you GBH someone so they can't walk again and they get a slap on the wrist as you said.
PCeeeee wrote: » I don't really care about punishment. This would be purely preventative. And of course I take exactly the same line with 'crimes I might commit myself'. If you, for instance, underd-eclare tax 50 times then you clearly have no respect for the rule of law. Its about quantity and frequency of offense. Too many or too many in short period and you're taken out of society to protect the rest of us. Learn to live by the rules and not make **** for the rest of us or begone. Continue by all means with all the rest of what you're saying but get rid of these people. All it costs is a few prison places.
El_Bee wrote: » We've had decades and decades of NOT locking them up, it doesn't work here, decades to implement the kind of infrastructure you're talking about on the continent, it hasn't happened. Meanwhile innocent people are the victims of people who should not be walking the streets, but get out because of nonsense excuses and stupid/greedy judges. So yeah, lets give locking people up a try.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » I already said you can't eradicate crime. It just doesn't work like that. There will always be some people who can't live by the rules of society. I accept that. And you can lock people away for years for petty crimes. Sure. If the underlying causes of crime are Increasing then you'll end up with an ample supply of people to take the place of the criminals you lock away. If you don't even want to know what causes high crime and recidivism, then you're never going to get the crime rate down reliably. It depends on what your objective is. Is your objective primarily to know people are being punished or to make the environment safer with fewer crimes? But I'll bet you're not on for taking a consistently harsh approach to crimes that you personally might commit though. Lock people away for years for breaking the speed limit or under reporting income?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Case in point. Ra ra lock em up.
conorhal wrote: » 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.
[Deleted User] wrote: » A stronger deterrent is always going to be more effective than a lackadaisical one though. If you see me carrying a new tv into the house, and i leave it inside the door, to run upstairs and use the toilet.. you think about stealing it, currently you know you'll never be caught or face any punishment, but wouldn't you think a bit harder about if there was an actual chance of getting a hefty fine and prison stint. (I realise my example of the crime itself is silly but you get the idea). Money, fines, can help. money is the biggest motivator we have. Severe welfare and income cuts for those with convictions would be a start. As for crimes i personally commit, although im struggling to think of any, i have no issue facing the punishment for them. I sometimes speed when driving, if i come upon a speed van then thats my own tough luck. I'm not gonna say id a poor upbringing to wriggle my way out of it.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » What makes you think getting tough is the solution? It's genuinely amazing they the conversation doesn't follow this line: There's a problem with crime. How to we get the crime rate down? I don't know. Let's see what works and what doesn't work in other comparable countries. Instead the conversation is: There's too much crime. Why aren't we harsher on crime? We'll, does being harsher on crime actually reduce crime? I don't care about all that lilly liveried guff. Lock em up!
[Deleted User] wrote: » There's a massive difference in under-declaring to revenue and beating someone so much, for no reason, that they never walk or eat properly again (one will likely see you imprisoned, heavily fined and under scrutiny for years, the other will be a slap on the wrist and set free without ever seeing a prison). This country does not come down hard on malicious crime at all. Everyone's in agreement that all crimes should be punishable, but assaults, burglaries, etc. get treated far too softly, to the extent that they may needn't bother actually trying to get the person at all. It's a farcical system.
[Deleted User] wrote: » I find it odd that this same discussion is taking place for so long, yet not a single thing has been done to change anything to be tougher on criminals in Ireland. Literally nothing. The emergency services were making noise a while back that there should be a mandatory minimum sentence if you attack a member of the emergency services, and even that hasn't gotten anywhere (not that it should - mandatory minimum sentences should be for an attack on anyone, not just emergency service workers, which is probably why very few people got behind it). It's a crazy situation that the government haven't announced extending/re-opening an existing prison or building a new prison. The country is overflowing with dirtbags and there's absolutely no consequence. You can (literally!) get into the 100+ convictions without ever doing any meaningful prison stint, facing any fines, or paying a cent towards the legal representation you get.
PCeeeee wrote: » You're presenting it like we can 'fix' crime. If that is what you believe then that is where we fundamentally disagree. There will always be a habitual criminal element. These are identifiable simply by the quantum and frequency of their detected crimes. Locking these people away from the rest of us would reduce crime.
Feisar wrote: » Why does the average person have to pay for anything to do with these leeches though?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Pay to remove them from circulation but not fox the problem for the future. That's incredibly short sighted. You could start killing petty criminals if you like because that would be a whole lot cheaper than imprisonment or actually fixing anything. Bit drastic though
Feisar wrote: » I would expect it to be as cheap as possible. And I'm not bothered with a fix. I want them removed from circulation.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Why would you expect something so important to be cheap to fix? There are solutions but the ones that work are rarely the cheap option
Feisar wrote: » 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.
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
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-1.2973635https://www.donegaldaily.com/2017/02/13/driver-who-killed-teen-shane-suing-familys-insurance-company/
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.
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.
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5029bac657ae68f2ca4b7fa18994db0d.svg)
