Panthro wrote: » It's all dáta collection for a blog she's writing on. Ignorant men etc etc etc.
El_Bee wrote: » Congratulations, once again you've derailed the thread with nitpicking and splitting hairs. I'm baffled as to why you are like this, but I'll give you an answer before I block you, it's about taking the worst elements of society OUT of society, giving society a break from them, 10 years is a nice break for the victims of crime, but you obviously begrudge them even that, and that is why we are where we are.
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?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » I know you'll find this baffling but Im actually more Interested in the victims and preventing people becoming victims by reducing crime in the first place.
Locking people up is the most basic and unthinking thing to do. It does nothing for the victim or the criminal. It removes then from the streets for a while then they're back out to commit more crime.
Do none of you have any Interest in reducing crime rather than just waiting for crime to happen so it can be punished?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » 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?
Jane98 wrote: » I totally agree. As a secondary school teacher, I have become more and more concerned in recent years with what seems to be an increase in the number of students I meet who aspire to a life on the dole and nothing more. Many of these students make the job of a teacher a difficult one as they have no interest in learning, turn up to class with no pens, copies etc and expect them to be given to them by the school for free because everything else they get is given to their families for free. It is truly worrying. Many of the parents do not engage with the school too. I also think it's time we modernised our social welfare system so that people have to give something back in return for benefits. There is a huge disincentive for many in our society to take responsibility for themselves and their families. A fit and healthy 18 year old should not be handed money to sit on their arse. We are pushing the pension age for people who have worked all their lives up and up but a fit and healthy 18 year old can get free money.
Mad_maxx wrote: » I've no interest in the views of ideological leftists who arrogantly believe they know what's best in these circumstances, the left have written policy re_ delinquency this past several decades and its been an abject failure
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Where did you get any of that from? A blog on ignorant men? Crikey that's a dreadful chip on your shoulder. You're wrong on every point in that statement (not that you asked). I'm not collecting data, I don't write a blog, I'm not a woman and I didn't even consider the gender of the posters. But your reply was fascinating.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » More upper class liberals than the old school left. One of the reasons for this is there is less crime in rich areas, and one of the reasons for that is there are more police in rich areas. I know this because I see more police activity in the leafy north Dublin county town I live in than I saw in the north city working class estate I grew up in. Even now if rowdy kids from working class estates turn up here and do what they do in those estates (be rowdy, occasional gangs of shoplifters, etc) a few paddy wagons turn up while in their own backyard the police are as rare as hens teeth. The criminals are aware of this too which is why the attacks on the old are on the old and poor, not the old and rich though the latter have more money or jewellery hanging about.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » You have literally said nothing concrete to this effect. Basically you don't want a justice system. You don't even give an alternative here. Just don't lock people up. Absolutely.
Crock Rock wrote: » 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?
reg114 wrote: » To answer your question there is very little deterrent because there is no political will. Time Square Manhattan in the 80s was a cesspit of porn shops pimps pushing drugs and petty crime,very different from the epicentre of tourism and glitz that it is now and that was primarily to the then Mayor Guiliani tackling the antisocial behaviour with a zero tolerance policy. The cops put so much pressure on the criminals they eventually left the area, this coupled with a policy of dissuading adult shops and attracting legitimate family friendly retailers to the area all resulted in the Time Square you see today. Irish politicians seem to live in the dark ages when it comes to being in any way proactive about anything. I can think of literally only 3 incidences in the last 30 years when the body politic in this country demonstrated forethought and were applauded, 1 The plastic bag ban 2. The cigarette ban in workplaces 3. the decision to hold the same sex marriage referendum. As the policing authority report published only today suggests, the gardai in this country are falling shockingly short of reaching even basic targets when it comes to crime detection. When they do attempt to prosecute a crime they come up against a victorian judiciary that is simply out of touch. The judiciary in turn are provided little guidance by legislation which is also wholly insufficient and outdated. The very notion that anyone should benefit from remittance off their custodial sentence because of 'good behaviour' is utterly ridiculous. In fact everyone factors in remittance in advance of any sentence even beginning. Sentences thus are too lenient and the criminals know this. How many times have we read about some junkie before the courts for the 98th time and he then gets a suspended sentence because he he grew up with no father figure? Nonsense. The capital city in the country is a fraction of the population of Manhattan and should be easy to police but the gardai themselves could be described in one word, apathetic. The penal system itself is no deterrent. The notion that you have access to a tv in jail is laughable. The notion that there is unfettered access to drugs in jail is ludicrous. I laugh when I see former Mountjoy Governor in the media spouting his advice, especially given he presided over an epidemic of drugs within his own facility. Prisoners should fear prison and not see it as a glorified hotel. Commit murder in this country and you're free in 10 years at the most, do the same in the states and you're talking a whole life sentence or the death penalty. The irony is that the Irish population is so much smaller and offenders are so much more docile than their American counterparts primarily because of the lack of guns. Crime should be so much more under control here than it is.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » I never said I want no justice system. I also never said I don't lock people up. Instead of assuming what I think, you could simply ask what I think. That's what I've done with the posters here and it's genuinely fascinating to see what people think and how deep (or shallow) the logic behind it is.
You could keep assuming what I think but as we've seen from your assumption above that I think "just don't lock people up" and the fool who thought I was a woman collecting data for my blog about ignorant men (4 assumptions and all 4 were wrong).
Hal3000 wrote: » Well said. It's totally achievable to have a safer country, but it needs a brave - new political party to tackle the issues.
bullpost wrote: " Commit murder in this country and you're free in 10 years at the most, do the same in the states and you're talking a whole life sentence or the death penalty. " - And yet the murder rate is much higher in the States so what does that tell us?
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » I’ve asked you numerous times. You have no proposals. You ask questions about what should be done with the perps on the recent case and when I give you an answer you then ask why 10 and not 5, implying that any period of lock up is purely arbitrary. The last sentence is a slight put down (we are to infer that everybody’s logic except yours is shallow? The opposite in fact). We are still not actually getting what you think concretely think on specific cases. It’s also not my or other poster’s job here to work out what you think, why do you need a question at all? Every time someone mentions locking people up you have scorned the idea. You keep saying there’s a better way. There are no concrete examples but you are clearly hostile to incarceration, while also hostile to people thinking you are hostile to incarceration. But here goes. What should happen to the gangs terrorising old folks when caught. The fact that you are responding to me and including in your reply what someone else might have said is typical of your misdirection. Again it’s a logical fallacy, somebody got four things wrong about you, I also said something about you, so therefore I am wrong. Edit. Actually you said this. And yet apparently it’s a misrepresentation to say you are opposed to locking people up.
Sultan of Bling wrote: » It tells us that if they had the same setencing structure for murder as they do over here, their murder rate would be 10 times worse.
bullpost wrote: » " Commit murder in this country and you're free in 10 years at the most, do the same in the states and you're talking a whole life sentence or the death penalty. " - And yet the murder rate is much higher in the States so what does that tell us?
reg114 wrote: » It tells us they have more guns than they have people , north of 300 million guns at last count.
Matt Barrett wrote: » "what's the point?" There's your societal problem in a nutshell. You treat poor people like sh*t, their neighborhoods are rife with drugs and criminality. The government(s) couldn't care less once it's NIMBY. They see crappy minimum low wage jobs and rents they can't afford and owning a home is a fantasy. They grow up in that, likely bail out of school often with disinterested teachers as early as they can, if they go at all and fall into the cycle, because what's the point of doing anything else? Not supporting it just saying it's not as straight forward as one kid going to university or getting a job with good prospects OR deciding to be a scumbag hassling people in town. The legal system is jaded because it tackles symptoms not causes. Nobody tackling causes.
begbysback wrote: » In short 1) apply zero tolerance to move criminals from one area to another 2) apply same logic to crime as the smoking ban 3) take away prisoner remission for good behavior 4) take away tv from prisoners 5) somehow do what no other prison in the world has achieved and eradicate drugs from prisons See any problem here?
bullpost wrote: » Ok , so the murder rate is not linked to deterrents , but more to the availability of weapons?
dxhound2005 wrote: » When Child Benefit (Childrens Allowance) was introduced in 1944, the payment was only for the third child and subsequent children. Nothing for the first two. Reverting to this or something similar would easier than sterilisation. Back in those days families in general were much larger, despite the lack of generous welfare schemes.
