nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Where's the deterrent for shіthead scumbags in society?

Crock Rock

I just walked past a car parked outside a takeaway. There was a GPS on the dashboard, still illuminated.

As I walked past the car, filthy scum who were congregating nearby walked over and attempted to open the door. Just at that moment, the owner of the car who it turned out was a delivery driver appeared out of the door of the takeaway and ran them.

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.

Why is there no consequences for being scum vermin in Ireland?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

sydthebeat

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I suspect the main motivation for most of the posters here is simply to punish. That does almost nothing for the victim and barely affects likelihood of recidivism. But for some reason it seems to be the only thing they're Interested in discussing. ?

ive read back through the last 4 pages and i really dont see anyone saying that at all...

you keep asking what should we do...

did you read the article that i linked to?

Hal3000

mariaalice wrote: »

If punishment worked how come the Saudia Arabas system of beheading dissidents, criminals, and terrorists has not worked.

Again, this is just a crazy comparison. No one here is abdicating for barbaric punishments. Have you seen the sentencing in this country lately ? Endless amounts of suspended sentences for pretty horrific crimes. There are countless examples of judges being overly lenitent on absolute thugs in this country. Bottom line is our system is broke and needs total overhaul

Chancer3001

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.

Seems the obvious solution.

But, lets see how it works in reality.

Jo is on the dole. Wants more money anywahs for booze drugs gambling birds etc etc etc.

So he smahses the window for a gps.

Gets caught. Now hes minus 1000 euro over the next 6 month of dole payments as punishment.

So does he say, oh no, now ill go hungry and ill stay in all weekend and watch tv?

Does he hell. He goes out and tries to rob 4 GPSs this time. Make up the shortfall this way.

If hes caught maybe he gets jail. Costs tax payers a lot more. Or maybe he doesnr get jail and the situation repeats itself all over again.

El_Duderino 09

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I know you are being sneery but how and ever, Ten years is a long time as the majority of perpetrators are in the eighteen to thirty five bracket, loosing ten years during that period of your life is a big loss to reclaim

I'm not being sneery. I'm asking why10 years and you're struggling to come up with a reason.

5 years is a long time. So is 20 years a long time. Why is 10 years the magic number?

You picked 10 years out if the sky and now you're struggling to defend it. Why bother defending it if you font have a reason to?

[Deleted User]

If punishment worked how come the Saudia Arabas system of beheading dissidents, criminals, and terrorists has not worked.

El_Duderino 09

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The kind of people who do " research" in this area are invariably social studies leftists of some kind who primarily see victimhood in the perpetrator

Like I said, I'm sure you won't like the research.

So if you're going to dismiss the research without so much as considering it (very convenient) then how are you going to determine what actually works?

El_Duderino 09

Hedgelayer wrote: »

I was reading the last few pages and just wondering what you think is an appropriate sentence yourself.

In my opinion the whole system needs an over haul and maybe like the injuries board there should be a set sentence for each crime.

Zero tollerence and no suspension for good behaviour, do the crime you do the time.

Ive no idea how to figure out the appropriate sentence and neither do any of the others posting here. Im Waiting to see how long it takes them to figure that out.

I'd agree the system needs an overhaul. But we would need to figure out the purpose of the new system. Is it to punish crime? Deter crime? Reduce recidivism? Make amends to the victims?

I suspect the main motivation for most of the posters here is simply to punish. That does almost nothing for the victim and barely affects likelihood of recidivism. But for some reason it seems to be the only thing they're Interested in discussing. That's fascinating to me.

I'd be much more interested in finding out what factors lead to crime and addressing those factors to prevent crime in the first place. Mad idea, isn't it?

Mad_maxx

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you want to take the victim into consideration you won't like the research. The research suggests that some kind of reconciliation is effective. Sentencing the criminal actually does very little for the victims. They don't get much from punishing the criminal. They actually get more from a discussion with the criminal and sincere apology if it's possible.

I'm sure you won't care about that even though it's the thing that is shown to help the victim.

The kind of people who do " research" in this area are invariably social studies leftists of some kind who primarily see victimhood in the perpetrator

Mad_maxx

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why 10 years or any other number of years? Is it a matter of picking a number out of the sky?

I know you are being sneery but how and ever, Ten years is a long time as the majority of perpetrators are in the eighteen to thirty five bracket, loosing ten years during that period of your life is a big loss to reclaim

sydthebeat

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah OK. I get you. Not a deterrent for the one who committed the crime.

how do you come up with that... of course is a deterrent for the one who commits the crime... criminals do not have exclusivity for different types of crimes.

are you actually trying to argue that a sentence of 10 years is not more of a deterrent than a sentence of say 5 years? if so, why are you saying this?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How do you conclude what's an appropriate sentence then?

beyond my pay grade.

but as an external observer i can absolutely criticize what i see as lenient sentences for dangerous offenders.... or meager sentences for repeat offenders.

you should read this:
https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/sentencing-guidelines-lottery-3867865-Mar2018/

Ush1

Lux23 wrote: »

This story sort of makes me understand why lynchings happen.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/wifes-anger-as-scrambler-rider-avoids-court-over-husbands-injury-38044612.html

What sort of mother would not make any contact with them? The bottle of the barrel scum out there really know no bounds.

Lux23

This story sort of makes me understand why lynchings happen.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/wifes-anger-as-scrambler-rider-avoids-court-over-husbands-injury-38044612.html

Hedgelayer

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why 10 years or any other number of years? Is it a matter of picking a number out of the sky?

I was reading the last few pages and just wondering what you think is an appropriate sentence yourself.

In my opinion the whole system needs an over haul and maybe like the injuries board there should be a set sentence for each crime.

Zero tollerence and no suspension for good behaviour, do the crime you do the time.

Panthro

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lol. Cos Russia isa famously crime free country.

You can write about it on your blog.

El_Duderino 09

Panthro wrote: »

Have Russian style prisons. Suspend human rights once you've a conviction.

Chain the fcukers up and make them clean up public areas.

Make prison the last place they'd want to wind up.

Lol. Cos Russia isa famously crime free country.

El_Duderino 09

Hal3000 wrote: »

Light sentencing clearly hasn't worked in Ireland. Hence these guys going around with 100 plus convictions. Victim is never taken into account in sentencing. Things will only change when a judge or a politican experiences what it's like to have your life ruined by a crime.

If you want to take the victim into consideration you won't like the research. The research suggests that some kind of reconciliation is effective. Sentencing the criminal actually does very little for the victims. They don't get much from punishing the criminal. They actually get more from a discussion with the criminal and sincere apology if it's possible.

I'm sure you won't care about that even though it's the thing that is shown to help the victim.

Panthro

Have Russian style prisons. Suspend human rights once you've a conviction.

Chain the fcukers up and make them clean up public areas.

Make prison the last place they'd want to wind up.

El_Duderino 09

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The purpose is to remove the threat to other people, ten years also offers the wrongdoer more time to think on their sins

Why 10 years or any other number of years? Is it a matter of picking a number out of the sky?

El_Duderino 09

sydthebeat wrote: »

No. completely incorrect.

The sentence should be a deterrent for comitting the crime in the first instance.

Ah OK. I get you. Not a deterrent for the one who committed the crime. A deterrent for everyone else.

How do you conclude what's an appropriate sentence then?

Hal3000

Light sentencing clearly hasn't worked in Ireland. Hence these guys going around with 100 plus convictions. Victim is never taken into account in sentencing. Things will only change when a judge or a politican experiences what it's like to have your life ruined by a crime.

Ush1

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is that the only reason you can think of for asking people for their logic for sentencing?

On yeah. I'm big in the burglary scene alright &#55357;&#56900;

The logic from the two people who suggested an appropriate sentence seems to be just spunk out a number of years off the top of their head as an appropriate sentence. I think we can do better than that.

You mentioned recidivism. I'm pointing out that the people who commit violent burglaries are normally habitual recidivists which will have an impact on sentencing.

Gael23

There is none. That’s why we need to bring back the hangman

Mad_maxx

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

OK. I'm not sure you understand the question I'm asking. Why is 5 years too small and 20 too large?

What's the purpose of the prison sentence in your opinion and how is that purpose achieved by serving 10 years in prison?

The purpose is to remove the threat to other people, ten years also offers the wrongdoer more time to think on their sins

sydthebeat

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

In your ideal system wouldn't that be the way it's done though? The sentence should deter the person from committing the same crime again so it should be linked to the likelihood of recidivism rather than the actual crime itself?

No. completely incorrect.

The sentence should be a deterrent for comitting the crime in the first instance.

El_Duderino 09

sydthebeat wrote: »

Absolutely not.

But that doesn't mean that the current sentencing "just" takes the severity of the crime into account.

In your ideal system wouldn't that be the way it's done though? The sentence should deter the person from committing the same crime again so it should be linked to the likelihood of recidivism rather than the actual crime itself?

El_Duderino 09

Ush1 wrote: »

Something tells me that if you're committing violent burglaries, it's not your first rodeo.

Is that the only reason you can think of for asking people for their logic for sentencing?

On yeah. I'm big in the burglary scene alright ðŸ™„

The logic from the two people who suggested an appropriate sentence seems to be just spunk out a number of years off the top of their head as an appropriate sentence. I think we can do better than that.

sydthebeat

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If that was the case wouldn't the sentence be tailored to the likelihood of recidivism rather than the severity of the actual crime?

Absolutely not.

But that doesn't mean that the current sentencing "just" takes the severity of the crime into account.

Ush1

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If that was the case wouldn't the sentence be tailored to the likelihood of recidivism rather than the severity of the actual crime?

Something tells me that if you're committing violent burglaries, it's not your first rodeo.

El_Duderino 09

sydthebeat wrote: »

Surely the purpose of the length of the prison sentence is as a deterrent to the offender from committing the crime?
And surely the longer the sentence the bigger the deterrent?

Isn't that pretty much what this thread is about?

If that was the case wouldn't the sentence be tailored to the likelihood of recidivism rather than the severity of the actual crime?

El_Duderino 09

Hal3000 wrote: »

10 to 15 years . And for you, let me guess. 3 with 2 suspended.....

And how did you conclude that 10 to 15 years is the best sentence? Whats the purpose of the sentence and how is it achieved by serving 10 to 15 years?
Walk me through the logic you're using.