Where's the deterrent for shіthead scumbags in society?

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 01:17PM

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.

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 · 09-04-2019 01:23PM

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

I would expect it to be as cheap as possible. And I'm not bothered with a fix. I want them removed from circulation.

Hal3000 · 09-04-2019 01:34PM

Our fundamental failure is locking up repeat offenders. No one is asking for locking up everyone, mistakes can happen and rehabilitation can work, but 500 offences. Christ Almighty... When will people realise that these guys are beyond help. Usually the people calling for a soft touch approach have never experienced crime or have never been a victim. You'll usually find their tone changes quite quickly if they experience it themselves.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 01:54PM

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.

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 · 09-04-2019 02:02PM

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

Why does the average person have to pay for anything to do with these leeches though?

PCeeeee · 09-04-2019 02:22PM

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

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.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 03:13PM

Feisar wrote: »

Why does the average person have to pay for anything to do with these leeches though?

Why do we collectively pay to solve problems in our society? That's just how society works I suppose. Cost of living in a civilised, safe country. It's in our own collective Interest to reduce crime so we have a safe environment for ourselves and each other.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 03:21PM

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.

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?

09-04-2019 03:22PM

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.

09-04-2019 03:28PM

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?

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.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 03:32PM

[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.

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!

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 03:37PM

[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.

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.

Hal3000 · 09-04-2019 03:46PM

Can you have some type of movement to repeal our sentencing or a campaign to change our overly lientent justice system ? Must be hundreds of victims that would support it. I know I would.

09-04-2019 04:02PM

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!

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 · 09-04-2019 04:28PM

[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.

The TV theft example is actually very good. For someone like you and me the current deterrents are enough to make sure we don't steal the TV. Morals, caring about society, the chance of being caught, getting a criminal record and the knock on effect on future employment. Not to mention the holy mortifying shame my mother would feel pic her child was a thief.

But if you're someone who struggles to plan fir the future then the strength of the deterrents won't matter. If you struggle to plan for the future you're more likely to end up in a position where you need money quickly andire likely to take risks to get the money.

Criminals tend to have a different makeup which neans they're not drleterred by the consequences. Even countries with the death penalty have loads of crime.

Yurt2 · 09-04-2019 05:05PM

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.

I'd agree with most of that. Ireland, despite what we tell ourselves, has poor social cohesion (much like all Anglo nations).

El_Bee · 09-04-2019 05:28PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Case in point. Ra ra lock em up.

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.

PCeeeee · 09-04-2019 05:35PM

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?

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_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 06:25PM

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.

We lock up lots of people. May e you think it's working so well that its the best option.
Without even giving an alternative a try? I wouldn't say Ireland has a great record of innovative or Intensive rehabilitation or crime prevention by finding out what causes crime and attempting to deal with that.

Maybe you think Ireland has given all the other options a try, but I wouldn't agree.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 06:26PM

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.

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?

Franz Von Peppercorn · 09-04-2019 06:57PM

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.

Surely anybody can commit serious crimes.

If there’s any class bias with regard to sentencing in this country it’s a bias towards liberalism in the upper middle classes because criminality doesn’t affect them so much.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 09-04-2019 06:59PM

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?

This isn’t the US so we don’t really lock people up to any great extent. We are mid ranking in Europe as far as I can see.

PCeeeee · 09-04-2019 07:05PM

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?

Why do you think me so disingenuous? You have already reduced my first response to ra ra which I can only assume is a comment on my intelligence. Then you implied I was a hypocrite and now your starting gambit doubts my stance on prevention. I have a different view than you, I'm not some kind of bogey man.

In answer I haven't the time or the inclination to research this subject more. There. Swing away at that. My chin is wide open.

But two qs for you:

What have you against locking up the 50 plus convictions crowd?

The gent in the thread earlier. 500 convictions. At what point should he have been locked up? Sometime before he was you'd think?

Hal3000 · 09-04-2019 07:13PM

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?

So what is the best course ? Let people with multiple serious convictions roam the streets and keep committing crimes because rehabilitation works and it's the best course of action ? If you seriously think these people care about contributing to society in any meaningful way you're mistaken. As I said before people make mistakes, but scrotes with 20 plus convictions... Forget it. Long sentence is only answer.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 09-04-2019 07:19PM

The thing is if you want to rehabilitate people with 50+ convictions then the state needs to actual try to do it. The much celebrated Norwegian justice system does rehabilitate within the prison system but you have to go to prison. Even if you wanted to rehabilitate outside prison there would have to be some mandatory work or community service, the failure to attend such should see you incarcerated.

The Irish justice system washes its hands of what it considers low level criminality and makes no attempt to either reform recidivists or to protect society from career criminals.

El_Bee · 09-04-2019 08:06PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We lock up lots of people.

We LITERALLY don't, people are walking around with triple digit convictions ffs, ask anyone outside of Ireland if that's normal and they'll think your insane, people are getting 4-5 years for rape or murder, insanity.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 09:16PM

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Surely anybody can commit serious crimes.

If there’s any class bias with regard to sentencing in this country it’s a bias towards liberalism in the upper middle classes because criminality doesn’t affect them so much.

Lol. Look at the controversy over drink driving in the morning. The only difference is that anyone could be caught for being over the limit in the morning. Not just other people.

Anyone could commit a serious crime. The kinds of people who commit the crimes they're discussing in this thread are a fault specify subset of people. Not "us" surely.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 09-04-2019 09:21PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lol. Look at the controversy over drink driving in the morning. The only difference is that anyone could be caught for being over the limit in the morning. Not just other people.

Once again let me assure you that everybody can engage in any crime.

Anyone could commit a serious crime. The kinds of people who commit the crimes they're discussing in this thread are a fault specify subset of people. Not "us" surely.

The crimes mentioned in this thread in fact make the lives of many poor people far more uncomfortable than the lives of the rich. If our judiciary were from a wider spectrum of society they might actually appreciate that. As it happens because the leafy suburbs are the safest places in Dublin and Ireland and they have no relatives, no matter how distant, in the kind of housing estates where anti social behaviour thwarts people’s lives the judiacry are happy to throw the poor to the wolves.

Skeleton Key · 09-04-2019 09:41PM

If being soft on crime worked then Ireland and Sweden would be crime free utopias.

irishproduce · 09-04-2019 09:54PM

kildare lad wrote: »

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.

Its not about deterring them. The issue for me is keeping them away from the law abiding population
6 months in jail means some law abiding citizen won't be robbed or killed by the perpetrators during that time.

Where's the deterrent for shіthead scumbags in society?

Comments