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

We need 3 strikes laws

Pkiernan

This filthy animal had 215 criminal convictions before ruining a young students life forever.

https://www.thejournal.ie/paul-connelly-eight-and-half-years-for-man-who-drove-into-pedestrians-on-footpath-after-taking-drugs-and-alcohol-4619152-May2019/

This country is utterly incapable of self governance.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Will I Am Not

For someone to have 3 convictions for hit and run and still be free to do it again is outrageous.

Hal3000

100% behind this and whoever brings it in gets my vote ! Here are the problems. No political party will take it on, and it will be shot down here by posters who compare it to the U.S and tell you we must understand crime first !! I don't understand how people can't see how violent this country is becoming....

troyzer

3 strike laws are an awful idea.

Anything that removes jurisprudence means that there will be cruel and unusual cases of people getting disproportionate sentences. There are people in America who get life sentences for being caught with a joint.

Having said that, something needs to change.

Hal3000

troyzer wrote: »

3 strike laws are an awful idea.

Anything that removes jurisprudence means that there will be cruel and unusual cases of people getting disproportionate sentences. There are people in America who get life sentences for being caught with a joint.

Having said that, something needs to change.

Mandatory sentence for violent crimes then. Something has to change. We will have a society of victims soon maybe then something might happen.

Pkiernan

troyzer wrote: »

3 strike laws are an awful idea.

Anything that removes jurisprudence means that there will be cruel and unusual cases of people getting disproportionate sentences. There are people in America who get life sentences for being caught with a joint.

Having said that, something needs to change.

You're spouting BS.

3 strikes laws in the US must include at least 2 violent felonies, so the smoking a joint argument is pure rubbish.

Sentencing here needs to be taken away from judges. They should just be there to ensure a fair trial.

Mr_Muffin

Three previous hit and runs. It was only matter of time before number 4, and he's only 37. At this rate he'll probably end of with 10 hit and runs on his record!

Hal3000

troyzer wrote: »

3 strike laws are an awful idea.

Anything that removes jurisprudence means that there will be cruel and unusual cases of people getting disproportionate sentences. There are people in America who get life sentences for being caught with a joint.

Having said that, something needs to change.

The US comparison... Quicker than expected.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

troyzer wrote: »

3 strike laws are an awful idea.

Anything that removes jurisprudence means that there will be cruel and unusual cases of people getting disproportionate sentences. There are people in America who get life sentences for being caught with a joint.

Having said that, something needs to change.

Depends on what the three strikes are for. I'm generally against the idea but for serious crimes like this, yeah - no problem.

Hal3000

Mr_Muffin wrote: »

Three previous hit and runs. It was only matter of time before number 4, and he's only 37. At this rate he'll probably end of with 10 hit and runs on his record!

Different story if it was a family member of a judge...

Pkiernan

Hal3000 wrote: »

The US comparison... Quicker than expected.

His post was pure lies too.

Hal3000

troyzer wrote: »

3 strike laws are an awful idea.

Anything that removes jurisprudence means that there will be cruel and unusual cases of people getting disproportionate sentences. There are people in America who get life sentences for being caught with a joint.

Having said that, something needs to change.

jurisprudence for 200 plus convictions ?

troyzer

Hal3000 wrote: »

The US comparison... Quicker than expected.

It's where three strike laws come from?

And no, they don't need to have two violent crimes. They just have to have two felonies which can include a college student dealing weed for example. Where it works, fine. But I wouldn't want to live in a society which dishes out massively disproportionate sentences as a consequence of also sending the right people to prison. It's too high a price.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

troyzer wrote: »

It's where three strike laws come from?

And no, they don't need to have two violent crimes. They just have to have two felonies which can include a college student dealing weed for example. Where it works, fine. But I wouldn't want to live in a society which dishes out massively disproportionate sentences as a consequence of also sending the right people to prison. It's too high a price.

You've also got to consider the costs of having a much higher jail population, which will passed back on to people via taxes, which they will blame the government for even though it was ti implement THEIR chosen idea.

troyzer

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You've also got to consider the costs of having a much higher jail population, which will passed back on to people via taxes, which they will blame the government for even though it was ti implement THEIR chosen idea.

I think that's a secondary problem but not an insignificant one. There's an over crowding problem as it stands and nobody wants a prison built near them.

I think we all agree that you shouldn't get away with 200 convictions. But three strikes is too far in the other direction. Even the fact that it's three strikes is so arbitrary. It's just a baseball analogy. If baseball had four strikes then it would be a four strike rule.

I don't like arbitrary justice.

Hal3000

troyzer wrote: »

It's where three strike laws come from?

And no, they don't need to have two violent crimes. They just have to have two felonies which can include a college student dealing weed for example. Where it works, fine. But I wouldn't want to live in a society which dishes out massively disproportionate sentences as a consequence of also sending the right people to prison. It's too high a price.

Doesn't that already happen ? If you don't pay a fine you'll be jailed but if you've 300 convictions you'll get off !!

Signore Fancy Pants

3 strikes are enough.

1 free exposure then if you don't be a good boy or girl a second one removes any financial State assistance if applicable. If not applicable, a hefty fine. In both cases, mandatory 5000hrs community service.

3 strikes and yer out...or in as it were.

judeboy101

What about 18 months suspended for the lads who defiled the special needs girl. Funny how we call it "defilement" now to soften it up. It's rape, plain and simple.

hatrickpatrick

troyzer wrote: »

3 strike laws are an awful idea.

Anything that removes jurisprudence means that there will be cruel and unusual cases of people getting disproportionate sentences. There are people in America who get life sentences for being caught with a joint.

Having said that, something needs to change.

Make it only for violent offences. America's system is idiotic because it doesn't differentiate between the type of offence covered. Three strikes and you're out for being a violent piece of sh!t seems reasonable to me.

EmmetSpiceland

A “three strikes” rule wouldn’t work unless with privatised the prisons, like with Direct Provision.

soups05

a poster on a similar thread came up with the greatest solution i have heard to date. on multiple convictions, each one counts as a month added on to current. so 215 months for the guy in the op. that's 17 years before he gets punished for the current crime.

I would add, use them as hard labor to build another prison, social housing etc. none of the cushy crap.

Pkiernan

troyzer wrote: »

It's where three strike laws come from?

And no, they don't need to have two violent crimes. They just have to have two felonies which can include a college student dealing weed for example. Where it works, fine. But I wouldn't want to live in a society which dishes out massively disproportionate sentences as a consequence of also sending the right people to prison. It's too high a price.

You're lying again.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law&ved=2ahUKEwjAiNOejoDiAhW2SxUIHQD5DEAQFjAYegQIDxAI&usg=AOvVaw2g2rY_V8SAONxAh6_4rEM2

These laws require a person guilty of committing both a severe violent felony and two other previous convictions to serve a mandatory life sentence in prison.[5][6] The purpose of the laws is to drastically increase the punishment of those convicted of more than two serious crimes.[2]

troyzer

soups05 wrote: »

a poster on a similar thread came up with the greatest solution i have heard to date. on multiple convictions, each one counts as a month added on to current. so 215 months for the guy in the op. that's 17 years before he gets punished for the current crime.

I would add, use them as hard labor to build another prison, social housing etc. none of the cushy crap.

I suppose it depends on what you see the criminal justice system as being for.

lalababa

300 strikes and you're in for good ..ha ha. Alot of serious crime Rape/murder committed by people who graduate up through less serious sexual assaults/violence. Build a f**k off big prison near Athlone and start getting serious . Also cuts in social welfare and have more community service. Take a leaf from Countries that are safer. This case is shocking.

Shai

Pkiernan wrote: »

You're lying again.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law&ved=2ahUKEwjAiNOejoDiAhW2SxUIHQD5DEAQFjAYegQIDxAI&usg=AOvVaw2g2rY_V8SAONxAh6_4rEM2

These laws require a person guilty of committing both a severe violent felony and two other previous convictions to serve a mandatory life sentence in prison.[5][6] The purpose of the laws is to drastically increase the punishment of those convicted of more than two serious crimes.[2]

he's not lying, just confused. He's probably only familiar with California's implementation of three-strike laws which count misdemeanor offenses as well.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

soups05 wrote: »

a poster on a similar thread came up with the greatest solution i have heard to date. on multiple convictions, each one counts as a month added on to current. so 215 months for the guy in the op. that's 17 years before he gets punished for the current crime.

I would add, use them as hard labor to build another prison, social housing etc. none of the cushy crap.

One month? Terrible idea. Make it six months per conviction and I'm on board. (But again, keep it for more serious crimes)

troyzer

Shai wrote: »

he's not lying, just confused. He's probably only familiar with California's implementation of three-strike laws which count misdemeanor offenses as well.

Nope. California is just the extreme end member.

Though most states will count any felony.

biko

People need to stop quoting crap they saw in american films.

TeaBagMania

Go old school, throw them over the side of the boat off the shore of Australia

soups05

troyzer wrote: »

I suppose it depends on what you see the criminal justice system as being for.

For me, I see it as putting away the two scrotes who gave me a kicking back in jan 17. broke my jaw, left me in hospital for 4 days, nearly ruined my college efforts, wrecked my hands (i was using them to protect my head from the kicks) and the case has just come to court this week.

sentencing in July, can't wait but don't hold out much hope for a long stretch.

But at least I have the compensation to look forward to.......oh wait, that's right, there won't be any cos they are lifers on the dole.

yeah!!!!!

Sorry, rant over.

jay0109

We'll never have a 3 strikes policy in this country, It would mean too many criminals behind bars and thus less income for Barristers, Solicitors, Judges and the other leeches in the legal and NGO industries.

So the ordinary law abiding tax-paying system has to suck it up and take the beatings. Progress I think they call it