Peter Mcverrys support for syringe criminal.

09-05-2019 11:48AM

Addicts need rehab, for sure, but only a certain amount of them will turn their life around.
There should be more help for those that need it.
We should not be punishing addicts for possession of small amounts of their drugs etc. But we do need to punish people for their crimes, including burglary & robberies etc which people commit because of addiction.
Addiction should not be taken as an excuse.
Prisons definitely need to become better at rehabilitation, but they are still places of punishment.

KikiLaRue · 09-05-2019 11:59AM

bubblypop wrote: »

Addicts need rehab, for sure, but only a certain amount of them will turn their life around.
There should be more help for those that need it.

How would you decide who gets help and who doesn't?

bubblypop wrote: »

We should not be punishing addicts for possession of small amounts of their drugs etc. But we do need to punish people for their crimes, including burglary & robberies etc which people commit because of addiction.

Agreed. I don't think anyone is suggesting addiction should be a "get out of jail free" card. 'Crimes' like possession of small amounts shouldn't exist.

bubblypop wrote: »

Prisons definitely need to become better at rehabilitation, but they are still places of punishment.

Well, there are five main purposes of a prison sentence and punishment is only one of them.

They are:

Retribution.
Incapacitation.
Deterrence.
Rehabilitation.
Restoration.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-05-2019 12:30PM

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Well, there are five main purposes of a prison sentence and punishment is only one of them.

They are:
Retribution.

Incapacitation.

Deterrence.

Rehabilitation.

Restoration.

The last two, Rehabilitation and Restoration, are sorely lacking. Though my Mrs says Ireland is actually one of the better ones in Europe at restorative justice. I suspect it would make victims a lot happier to get restorative justice when the circumstances are right.

begbysback · 09-05-2019 12:45PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

I've a brother who was/is a coke addict. Brought trouble on the family home, attacked me with a machete when in a drug induced psychosis etc. He's pondscum. My mother doesn't see that and thinks he's grand and he's changed. I'll never talk to him again and if he disappeared tomorrow I wouldn't think a second thought of him.

That’s rough mate, but is he like that without cocaine?

The only valid argument I can see against legalization of drugs is that they effect people in different ways, I’ve seen people enter psychosis from the effects of acid or cannibas, whereas others seem to have a great time.

SexBobomb · 09-05-2019 12:56PM

Being threatened with a dirty syringe is literally my worst nightmare, Id rather they had a knife or a gun 100%

Wheeliebin30 · 09-05-2019 06:34PM

SexBobomb wrote: »

Being threatened with a dirty syringe is literally my worst nightmare, Id rather they had a knife or a gun 100%

But sure 3 years is enough according to the bleeding hearts here.

The poor chap rabble rabble...

dermo888 · 09-05-2019 06:49PM

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

But sure 3 years is enough according to the bleeding hearts here.

The poor chap rabble rabble...

I've never been to prison personally, and I only know two people personally who have - one for violence who I'd cross the street to avoid, the other for white collar fraud.

Each case is different, theres so many variables involved, but I'm no bleeding heart liberal by any means. I would'nt be as harsh as the United States, but three years is too little. Something like 8 to 10 years comes to mind.

09-05-2019 06:56PM

dermo888 wrote: »

I've never been to prison personally, and I only know two people personally who have - one for violence who I'd cross the street to avoid, the other for white collar fraud.

Each case is different, theres so many variables involved, but I'm no bleeding heart liberal by any means. I would'nt be as harsh as the United States, but three years is two little. Something like 8 to 10 years comes to mind.

The problem is once you change sentencing that dramatically, you disrupt the whole dynamic of prison sentences.

It's not unreasonable to assume that some criminals would engage in some morbid calculus and conclude that it's worth taking the risk to murder someone altogether.

Changing the sentencing parameters for all violent crimes would have a serious financial cost, bearing in mind that it costs 100k - 300k to imprison one person for one year depending on where they are detained.

As Kiki has said the focus should be on rehabilitation and training, simply extending the sentencing is only going to cost us more for doubtful returns.

Galwayguy35 · 09-05-2019 07:00PM

Was reading a case the other day, this tramp with 158 previous convictions threw boiling water as a shop assistant who simply asked her to pay for the coffee she was going to take.

She got 3 years with 18 months suspended. they should have given her 10 years for that assault.

Edgware · 09-05-2019 07:06PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Was reading a case the other day, this tramp with 158 previous convictions threw boiling water as a shop assistant who simply asked her to pay for the coffee she was going to take.

She got 3 years with 18 months suspended. they should have given her 10 years for that assault.

You just keep paying your taxes.

lawred2 · 09-05-2019 07:07PM

KikiLaRue wrote: »

In a fairly long article, this is the only reference to Peter McVery

It's a factual statement about how the man is getting on in rehab, it doesn't say he's a good guy or to go easy on him.

Is he qualified to make that statement?

Galwayguy35 · 09-05-2019 07:26PM

Edgware wrote: »

You just keep paying your taxes.

Yeah to support lifelong scumbags like in the case I mentioned.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-05-2019 07:27PM

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

But sure 3 years is enough according to the bleeding hearts here.

The poor chap rabble rabble...

Can you quote one post which says poor chap or something to that effect?

El_Duderino 09 · 09-05-2019 07:37PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Was reading a case the other day, this tramp with 158 previous convictions threw boiling water as a shop assistant who simply asked her to pay for the coffee she was going to take.

She got 3 years with 18 months suspended. they should have given her 10 years for that assault.

Why is 10 years the magic number? I asked some of the same posters what they would give for a completely different crime and they each said 10 years. The poster above said 8-10 years for another completely different crime. I tried to ask for the rationale and they said “20 years seemed too many. 5 years seemed too few. I don’t think they understood what I was asking.

Sentencing should have a rationale. Plucking a random number out of the air is silly. It’s using that 10 years seems to keep coming up

pinkyeye · 09-05-2019 07:40PM

SexBobomb wrote: »

Being threatened with a dirty syringe is literally my worst nightmare, Id rather they had a knife or a gun 100%

That's so ridiculous. The chances of you ending up dead if someone has a knife or a gun are quadrupled. Really silly fear you have there.

tayto lover · 09-05-2019 07:42PM

pinkyeye wrote: »

That's so ridiculous. The chances of you ending up dead if someone has a knife or a gun are quadrupled. Really silly fear you have there.

No it’s not.
Some people have a morbid fear of spiders and would prefer to be confronted by someone with a needle.
All things are relative.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-05-2019 07:43PM

lawred2 wrote: »

Is he qualified to make that statement?

It’s something he could easily find out if he has anything to do with the man’s case file or asked the service providers. References are more about the referee and their status than any academic qualifications the referee has.

09-05-2019 07:44PM

pinkyeye wrote: »

That's so ridiculous. The chances of you ending up dead if someone has a knife or a gun are quadrupled. Really silly fear you have there.

Yeah, I'm struggling with understanding that one too. Even if you were injured, you'd be given prophylactic treatment to prevent serious blood borne illnesses arising.

I guess an embolism could be a risk, but nothing like the risk if bleeding to death from a severed blood vessel or other organ.

Galwayguy35 · 09-05-2019 07:45PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why is 10 years the magic number? I asked some of the same posters what they would give for a completely different crime and they each said 10 years. The poster above said 8-10 years for another completely different crime. I tried to ask for the rationale and they said “20 years seemed too many. 5 years seemed too few. I don’t think they understood what I was asking.

Sentencing should have a rationale. Plucking a random number out of the air is silly. It’s using that 10 years seems to keep coming up

What's silly is a judge giving someone less than 2 years in prison for burning an innocent person with water, anyone with 158 previous convictions has no interest in changing.

Brendan Delaney · 09-05-2019 07:50PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Yeah, I'm struggling with understanding that one too. Even if you were injured, you'd be given prophylactic treatment to prevent serious blood borne illnesses arising.

I guess an embolism could be a risk, but nothing like the risk if bleeding to death from a severed blood vessel or other organ.

Yeah nothing scary at all about some filthy junkie stabbing you with his aids blood.

09-05-2019 07:53PM

Brendan Delaney wrote: »

Yeah nothing scary at all about some filthy junkie stabbing you with his aids blood.

There was a good thread recently about post-exposure prophylaxis. You'll be delighted to know that contracting HIV, nevermind developing AIDS, wouldn't be remotely likely.

Brendan Delaney · 09-05-2019 07:55PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There was a good thread recently about post-exposure prophylaxis. You'll be delighted to know that contracting HIV, nevermind developing AIDS, wouldn't be remotely likely.

Yeah and I'd be extremely freaked out if some scumbag stabbed me a needle.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-05-2019 08:01PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

What's silly is a judge giving someone less than 2 years in prison for burning an innocent person with water, anyone with 158 previous convictions has no interest in changing.

I didn’t say the person wants to change. Nor did I say I think 2 years is the right sentence. You said 10 years is he right sentence and haven’t offered any reason why that’s the magic number.

So, why 10 years?

Galwayguy35 · 09-05-2019 08:04PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I didn’t say the person wants to change. Nor did I say I think 2 years is the right sentence. You said 10 years is he right sentence and haven’t offered any reason why that’s the magic number.

So, why 10 years?

Because IMO that's what it should be for a serious assault like that.

dermo888 · 09-05-2019 08:18PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The problem is once you change sentencing that dramatically, you disrupt the whole dynamic of prison sentences.

It's not unreasonable to assume that some criminals would engage in some morbid calculus and conclude that it's worth taking the risk to murder someone altogether.

What makes you think that they are'nt doing that already? There are times that I think the justice, rehabilitation, welfare, legal profession, judiciary are just one large self serving machine that feels it can keep paying itself from the taxpayers pocket.

Thats why the skanger problem has never been properly dealt with. If they dealt with it properly, they'd render themselves redundant, would'nt they?

And - I mean - I don't mean 'brutally' solving the skanger problem, or anything of the sort. Merely that its 'dealt' with in a humane fashion beneficial to modern Irish society.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-05-2019 08:31PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Because IMO that's what it should be for a serious assault like that.

Ok. Why do you think that’s what it should be? What’s your opinion based on? This should be easy enough to explain if you have reasons which led to your conclusion that 10 years was the right sentence.

lawred2 · 09-05-2019 08:37PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s something he could easily find out if he has anything to do with the man’s case file or asked the service providers. References are more about the referee and their status than any academic qualifications the referee has.

?

You can't just ask for an unrelated person's case files...

A reference is a separate thing.. Peter McVerry seems to have made a statement as to the man's treatment. Can't see how he is in any position to do so.

Galwayguy35 · 09-05-2019 08:46PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. Why do you think that’s what it should be? What’s your opinion based on? This should be easy enough to explain if you have reasons which led to your conclusion that 10 years was the right sentence.

Jaysus you're like a dog with a bone, as i've said numerous times it's my own personal opinion based on what I think it should be for a serious assault.

Pkiernan · 09-05-2019 08:49PM

McVerry is as far hard ultra left as you can get without renouncing God.

He's a product of the no consequences Church; little wonder he supports the no consequences lifestyle of the non-working classes.

KikiLaRue · 09-05-2019 08:54PM

lawred2 wrote: »

?

You can't just ask for an unrelated person's case files...

A reference is a separate thing.. Peter McVerry seems to have made a statement as to the man's treatment. Can't see how he is in any position to do so.

The Peter McVerry Trust runs drug treatment programmes. Most likely the guy asked for a reference and gave him permission to check in with his Counselors.

Peter Mcverrys support for syringe criminal.

Comments