Woman rakes up 648 convictions

Hal3000 · 17-07-2019 10:15am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Funny that you were never the slightest bit curious about the cost of imprisonment but now you're PWC.

I've no doubt it would be expensive. I've repeatedly referred to it as an investment. Prison is expensive and it's not an investment in anything. It's just warehousing criminals in an environment full of drugs and criminals.

Oh yes it would require "experimentation" as you call it. I call it research led practice. That means we actually evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of programmes. Improve or replace the ones that are delivering poor results. Evaluate the interventions against each other to find what works best and for which criminal groups and individuals.

Then there would be the return to the community procedures for those who are deemed ready. Monitoring and support for those returning to civilian life. Support to get a job, apply for appropriate benefits, apply for education and training.

Would this guarantee that the person will never commit a crime again? No.
Recidivism rates would need to be measured against rates for those who haven't been through the rehabilitation.

That's brief overview of the kind of performance audits I would support but I'm obviously a lay man.

So, I took your question seriously and gave a considered response. How would you audit the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of the approach you propose?

Yes I propose that people with 648 convictions are jailed indefinitely. The very thread you're debating in. I also propose a 3 strike system for serious crime. I don't belive anymore who commits 3 serious violent offences can be rehabilited or gently introduced back into society. I also don't think our citizens or community's should be offered as lab rats and staging areas to prove rehabilitation is possible. Sorry, but serious crimes must have serious consequences or we will have no deterrents for crime. We could try your programs on moderate offenders with a line drawn in the sand when it's approaching 650 offences. Would that staisfy you? Or should violent repeat offenders also be offered this assistance too?

splinter65 · 17-07-2019 10:35am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's not a million miles away from my approach. If she can learn to live a relatively normal life then she could be released to the community. If not then she should stay in the forensic hospital.

No. Living in the “community” for 44 years has not had any positive affect on this unfortunate lady and she has caused only heartache and pain to the “community” despite I suspect many many attempts to help her to cope with life.
In order for “rehabilitation” to be successful, the addict must first of all acknowledge that she has an addiction and that it’s bad, and secondly want to actually deal with the addiction.
Over at least 25 years this lady has shown no interest in these things. Lots of alcoholics don’t. It’s a common theme in alcoholics that they blame everyone and everything else for their unhappiness. It’s part of the disease.
For her own sake and the sake of the community her freedom to live her life as she chooses needs to be taken away from her now as she’s never displayed any signs of making any other decisions except for bad ones. Long term care facility with a structured day involving work to try and cover the costs and the opportunity for education and some leisure activities. But no more ever again wandering around the city tormenting herself and everyone else.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2019 10:48am

Hal3000 wrote: »

Yes I propose that people with 648 convictions are jailed indefinitely. The very thread you're debating in. I also propose a 3 strike system for serious crime. I don't belive anymore who commits 3 serious violent offences can be rehabilited or gently introduced back into society. I also don't think our citizens or community's should be offered as lab rats and staging areas to prove rehabilitation is possible. Sorry, but serious crimes must have serious consequences or we will have no deterrents for crime. We could try your programs on moderate offenders with a line drawn in the sand when it's approaching 650 offences. Would that staisfy you? Or should violent repeat offenders also be offered this assistance too?

OK, just to clarify, you wouldn't do any evaluation because it's skin,to using people as lab rats? Do you'll never have any clue how effective your proposed approach would be. I sometimes wish I could get behind that kind of approach. Is it liberating to not care about the impact of your proposals? It must be.

I don't see how someone could possibly get to 650 offences under my proposal. If they demonstrate they can't live a relatively normal, crime free life, then their release would be delayed Until they show the necessary progress.

The prison approach is arbitrary. "6 months, that'll learn them", 2/5/7/10 years then release them back without support to readjust. It's a recipe for recidivism.

Prison is a deterrent for people who are unlikely to commit crimes. I spoke with a bloke who was a bit add l middle class guy with a good family and professional parents and who was arrested under suspicion of dealing weed while he was in school. He said the worst thing was his mother seeing him in handcuffs. He avoided prison and never did it again because of the Shame he inflicted on his mother.

Most repeat offenders aren't particularly smart as nd the cast majority of the prison population has mental illness, approximately 70-80% in the UK. Prison isn't a deterrent to those people because a deterrent requires forward planning and those people aren't in a good position to plan the future.

I don't expect you to address all the point that don't suit your narrative, but do try to address some of them.

JustAThought · 17-07-2019 10:49am

Protect the community and retail industry and workers..

Lock her up and throw away the key.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2019 10:58am

splinter65 wrote: »

No. Living in the “community” for 44 years has not had any positive affect on this unfortunate lady and she has caused only heartache and pain to the “community” despite I suspect many many attempts to help her to cope with life.

That doesn't disprove the point I'm.nsling because I'm pretty sure she hasn't had the interventions I'm proposing -I say that because they aren't practiced in Ireland in the large scale way I'm proposing.

splinter65 wrote: »

Over at least 25 years this lady has shown no interest in these things.

Now, you'll excuse me while I call shenanigans on this. Neither of us know this person and neither of us know what she has or hasnt shown interest in in her life. All you know is what's reported in one article. Please try to keep the guff to a minimum

splinter65 · 17-07-2019 11:09am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That doesn't disprove the point I'm.nsling because I'm pretty sure she hasn't had the interventions I'm proposing -I say that because they aren't practiced in Ireland in the large scale way I'm proposing.

Now, you'll excuse me while I call shenanigans on this. Neither of us know this person and neither of us know what she has or hasnt shown interest in in her life. All you know is what's reported in one article. Please try to keep the guff to a minimum

There are many programs in Ireland to help people who want to address the addiction issues they acknowledge they suffer from.
The mistake you and lots of others make is assuming that she either acknowledges or wants to deal with her problems.
This is patronizing and somewhat condescending.
I’m quite sure that if she wanted to get sober she could.
She doesn’t.
This is where the “community’s” rights kick in and also a concerted effort to prevent her life from ending prematurely.
Long term residential care.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2019 11:14am

splinter65 wrote: »

There are many programs in Ireland to help people who want to address the addiction issues they acknowledge they suffer from.
The mistake you and lots of others make is assuming that she either acknowledges or wants to deal with her problems.
This is patronizing and somewhat condescending.
I’m quite sure that if she wanted to get sober she could.
She doesn’t.
This is where the “community’s” rights kick in and also a concerted effort to prevent her life from ending prematurely.
Long term residential care.

I didn't say I think she wants to deal with her problems. I'll thank you for reading what I say and if you're unsure about something, feel free to ask.

I'll ask you how on year you know what she wants? I know some people very well and don't claim certainty of what they do or don't want. So how can you claim to know what a complete stranger wants? I don't know what she wants -and neither do you, whether you're honest enough to admit it or not. Behaviours are complex unfortunately.

Forgive me for not paying along and pretending you're a mind reader. I get that it ruins your approach but it's just not realistic.

Greyfox · 17-07-2019 11:57am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I've no doubt it would be expensive. I've repeatedly referred to it as an investment

In that case it would be a disgrace to waste money on a criminal when there's loads of non criminals we should be spending the money on instead. In any case some people are not able to be rehabilitated so it could be money for nothing anyway.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 17-07-2019 11:58am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That doesn't disprove the point I'm.nsling because I'm pretty sure she hasn't had the interventions I'm proposing -I say that because they aren't practiced in Ireland in the large scale way I'm proposing.

Now, you'll excuse me while I call shenanigans on this. Neither of us know this person and neither of us know what she has or hasnt shown interest in in her life. All you know is what's reported in one article. Please try to keep the guff to a minimum

There’s a drug clinic Pearse street with 100 or more employees. Lots of money is spent on this, to no great effect.

Eric Cartman · 17-07-2019 12:03pm

Graces7 wrote: »

for small thefts? so what do you intend for murder then?

You have also clearly led a very protected sheltered life .

Well id advocate the death penalty but that will cause a whole other liberal meltdown

What excuse could you possibly gove somevody being caught and prosecuted 10 times for a crime

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2019 12:04pm

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

There’s a drug clinic Pearse street with 100 or more employees. Lots of money is spent on this, to no great effect.

How do you claim,to know the effect of that particular clinic?

Have you had a chance to quote where anyone said the response to this woman should be to not lock people up? Shall we out tgat gown to a little porky pie on your part with no need to embarrass yourself like that again?

So where does your claim about the effective the clinic come from?

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 17-07-2019 12:10pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How do you claim,to know the effect of that particular clinic?

I don’t know the effect of the clinic, however there it is. Money spent by us on rehabilitation. The hundreds of million was referring to all the money we have spent on drug rehabilitation schemes.

Have you had a chance to quote where anyone said the response to this woman should be to not lock people up? Shall we out tgat gown to a little porky pie on your part with no need to embarrass yourself like that again?

You’ve lost me here. That said you tend to barge into these threads demanding rehabilitation and then when that’s called out you say you never supported non incarceration. It’s never clear what you want.

So where does your claim about the effective the clinic come from?

I literally said nothing about the clinic except that it is there.

Mr E · 17-07-2019 12:21pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't expect you to address all the point that don't suit your narrative, but do try to address some of them.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Please try to keep the guff to a minimum

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Forgive me for not paying along and pretending you're a mind reader. I get that it ruins your approach but it's just not realistic.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Shall we out tgat gown to a little porky pie on your part with no need to embarrass yourself like that again?

Mod: Cut out the snark and condescending comments please. It's not adding anything to this thread.

Graces7 · 17-07-2019 12:59pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well id advocate the death penalty but that will cause a whole other liberal meltdown

What excuse could you possibly gove somevody being caught and prosecuted 10 times for a crime

Excuse? odd word.

Eric Cartman · 17-07-2019 1:05pm

Graces7 wrote: »

Excuse? odd word.

Ok , what possible justification can you give for somebody with 10+ previous convictions walking around freely on our streets.

Graces7 · 17-07-2019 1:05pm

splinter65 wrote: »

No. Living in the “community” for 44 years has not had any positive affect on this unfortunate lady and she has caused only heartache and pain to the “community” despite I suspect many many attempts to help her to cope with life.
In order for “rehabilitation” to be successful, the addict must first of all acknowledge that she has an addiction and that it’s bad, and secondly want to actually deal with the addiction.
Over at least 25 years this lady has shown no interest in these things. Lots of alcoholics don’t. It’s a common theme in alcoholics that they blame everyone and everything else for their unhappiness. It’s part of the disease.
For her own sake and the sake of the community her freedom to live her life as she chooses needs to be taken away from her now as she’s never displayed any signs of making any other decisions except for bad ones. Long term care facility with a structured day involving work to try and cover the costs and the opportunity for education and some leisure activities. But no more ever again wandering around the city tormenting herself and everyone else.

Many here are referring to some kind of //custodial?? rehab? I mentioned that way back there were facilities for this, in the UK at least, that were not prisons as such. These got scrapped there as they cost too much, in favour of
"care in the community which never worked as the community did no t care

I would suspect that levels of this kind of crime went up greatly at that time.

splinter65 · 17-07-2019 1:09pm

Anyone’s perspective on how we should deal with chronic persistent offenders with addiction issues is born out of experience really.
If you are a shopkeeper trying to run a business in Baggot st, employ people, pay your rates and taxes overheads insurance etc then you are absolutely entitled to make a comfortable life for your family and yourself, have nice holidays, provide your children with extra opportunities, enjoy some luxuries etc because after all YOU took the risk to open this business, YOU had the idea and the skill and possibly did the training to make the whole thing happen....sure what is the whole effort for if not to get the rewards?
To be told then that you have to be “patient” with this woman and all the other shop lifters stealing sometimes €1000s per week from you, between goods being taken and scaring away your customers and threatening violence on your staff is very immoral and especially when most of the people telling you to be patient are not impacted in any way by this kind of anti social anti business behavior themselves.
It must be great to sit comfortably safely somewhere bemoaning the “lock em up” attitude of others who are or have been on the receiving end of this “addiction related” behaviors.

splinter65 · 17-07-2019 1:12pm

JustAThought wrote: »

Protect the community and retail industry and workers..

Lock her up and throw away the key.

I absolutely agree with you. Everyone should be safe at least at work and on the way to and from. I don’t know why workers don’t march for this.

splinter65 · 17-07-2019 1:19pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Ok , what possible justification can you give for somebody with 10+ previous convictions walking around freely on our streets.

The real reason they’re walking around is that we don’t want to admit that “care in the community” is a total and complete failure and we will have to return to removing people who cannot or will not change from society in order to protect themselves and the “community”.
The mad middle class libs who are not affected in any way by the consequences of repeat offenders marauding the streets reeling havoc will not countenance any change in the current situation so we will just have to wait for common sense to return. I’ll be dead by then though.

Sonny noggs · 17-07-2019 1:19pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think the fewer facts and figures you post, the more certain you can be. Being completely free of either, your absolute certainty is to be expected even if it's not merited.

At a relativey conservative 1,500 per week in prison for 40 years, it comes out at over 3m. It's absolutely incredible that you would be willing to spaff 3.m of taxpayer's money without even consider a way to rehabilitate the person to the betterment of society.

Some people are just married to the idea of punishment.

Would love to see the facts around her being rehabilitatable.

splinter65 · 17-07-2019 1:23pm

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Would love to see the facts around her being rehabilitatable.

To have clocked up those convictions she’d have to be living this life for 20 years. She can’t be rehabilitated. She won’t see 50 either if she’s not removed from her current lifestyle permanently.
Some of the libs would rather she was actually dead then see her “civil rights” removed from her.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2019 1:24pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Ok , what possible justification can you give for somebody with 10+ previous convictions walking around freely on our streets.

Easy. Mental illness, trauma, personality disorder. There's three. I wouldn't call any of them excuses or justifications though. But they often explain 10+ convictions. And while prison isn't any use for those people, I wouldn't advocate for them "walking around freely on our streets". There are places for them such as psychiatric institutions, forensic hospitals, or residential rehab. Or maybe supervised or limited freedom to walk the streets but certainly not the way you phrased it.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2019 1:25pm

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Would love to see the facts around her being rehabilitatable.

I doubt it

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2019 1:32pm

Graces7 wrote: »

Many here are referring to some kind of //custodial?? rehab? I mentioned that way back there were facilities for this, in the UK at least, that were not prisons as such. These got scrapped there as they cost too much, in favour of
"care in the community which never worked as the community did no t care

I would suspect that levels of this kind of crime went up greatly at that time.

Precisely this. I know someone who works in that area. She's involved in the process of moving people back into the community. She says there are often people who are in the process of making great progress but are not ready to go back to the community without re offending and it's only a matter of time before they're back.
But the Tories have cut funding for residential care. It's purely political. It swings every 15years or so from residential rehab to community based care. Pity because when it's done well it has a positive effect on the individual, their family and their community and the taxpayer who doesnt have to pay to police, serve justice and warehouse the person repeatedly.

Hal3000 · 17-07-2019 1:53pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Easy. Mental illness, trauma, personality disorder. There's three. I wouldn't call any of them excuses or justifications though. But they often explain 10+ convictions. And while prison isn't any use for those people, I wouldn't advocate for them "walking around freely on our streets". There are places for them such as psychiatric institutions, forensic hospitals, or residential rehab. Or maybe supervised or limited freedom to walk the streets but certainly not the way you phrased it.

That's a lovely system for the offenders, a person to watch over them as they gently assimilate back into society. Tell me this, who looks after our victims when they can't face going out the door anymore?

Sonny noggs · 17-07-2019 2:52pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I doubt it

No, they would likely show she cannot be rehabilitated so I would love to see them. But you are not interested in that, you want to maintain the possibility that she MIGHT be rehabilitated so you can’t be proven wrong. Even if she had 10,000 convictions you would still claim that she can be rehabilitated.

Eric Cartman · 17-07-2019 2:54pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Easy. Mental illness, trauma, personality disorder. There's three. I wouldn't call any of them excuses or justifications though. But they often explain 10+ convictions. And while prison isn't any use for those people, I wouldn't advocate for them "walking around freely on our streets". There are places for them such as psychiatric institutions, forensic hospitals, or residential rehab. Or maybe supervised or limited freedom to walk the streets but certainly not the way you phrased it.

No excuse, 1, 2, 3 convictions perhaps, you get to double digits and theres no reforming you and you have no place in society

Hal3000 · 17-07-2019 3:05pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

No excuse, 1, 2, 3 convictions perhaps, you get to double digits and theres no reforming you and you have no place in society

Don't bother, this El Dude will argue with you that sentencing is wrong until the cows come home. What they want is a reformist society where we assist violent repeat offenders until they suddenly have this light bulb moment and realise that what they've been doing is wrong. This may not happen on their first, second or third conviction, but as long as it happens eventually then everything will be fine and crime rates will plummet. The citizens are now just colletaral damage in the offenders healing process. Utter sh*t in other words.

splinter65 · 17-07-2019 3:10pm

Hal3000 wrote: »

That's a lovely system for the offenders, a person to watch over them as they gently assimilate back into society. Tell me this, who looks after our victims when they can't face going out the door anymore?

Victims are nobodies and don’t really matter to the lib lunatics whose hearts bleed constantly for the poor 145 times convicted heroin addict who, according to them, needs to be treated like cut glass, by society at large and their own “community” ( just not the community the lib lunatic lives in, thanks very much).

hatrickpatrick · 17-07-2019 3:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

The thing is, we are all free to do what we want.... then we face the consequences.

What's your suggestion, beheading, cut off her hands perhaps... Maybe a good old fashioned stoning....

While "your Heart Bleeds" do you have a reasonable solution to societal problems like this?

If not I'd suggest you keep your great idea's and nuggets of useless wisdom to yourself.

Have a look at my suggestion a few pages back - life (meaning life) sentences for career criminals, with the possibility of parole tied directly to sincere and measurable attempts to rehabilitate whilst behind bars.

splinter65 · 17-07-2019 3:21pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

No excuse, 1, 2, 3 convictions perhaps, you get to double digits and theres no reforming you and you have no place in society

This is true. It’s not that I want people brutalized or punished.
I want people to live their best lives always just under permanent supervision and in a place where they can no longer do any damage to themselves or others.
Work is very important in this aspect.
Growing fruit and vegetables and tending to chickens etc and the general upkeep and maintenance of the residential facility in return for board and lodgings and medical care and luxuries like restricted internet access and some online shopping would be dignified and good for mental health.
The opportunity should be there for further education too.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2019 3:23pm

Hal3000 wrote: »

That's a lovely system for the offenders, a person to watch over them as they gently assimilate back into society. Tell me this, who looks after our victims when they can't face going out the door anymore?

If it has the effect of making them less likely to reoffend then its in everyone's interest. Wouldn't you agree?

It's not just about the offender really, it's primarily about keeping society safe

Just to clarify, this is why I believe you have more interest in punishment than keeping the society safe or preventing future victims from being created. You, didn't even wonder if the measures would work (they do BTW) instead you were afraid that it's a lovely system FOR THE OFFENDER! It's not really about the offender, it's about the society.

The victims is a separate discussion but if you think my approach to offenders is radical or too lefty, then you'd probably have a conniption if you heard about the money I'd spend on victim support from counselling to restorative justice. But that's another story.

First and foremost it would be about preventing future victims being created.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2019 3:24pm

Sonny noggs wrote: »

No, they would likely show she cannot be rehabilitated so I would love to see them. But you are not interested in that, you want to maintain the possibility that she MIGHT be rehabilitated so you can’t be proven wrong. Even if she had 10,000 convictions you would still claim that she can be rehabilitated.

There isn't a question in this post. Just a lot of incorrect assumptions.

Graces7 · 17-07-2019 3:25pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Precisely this. I know someone who works in that area. She's involved in the process of moving people back into the community. She says there are often people who are in the process of making great progress but are not ready to go back to the community without re offending and it's only a matter of time before they're back.
But the Tories have cut funding for residential care. It's purely political. It swings every 15years or so from residential rehab to community based care. Pity because when it's done well it has a positive effect on the individual, their family and their community and the taxpayer who doesnt have to pay to police, serve justice and warehouse the person repeatedly.

inhumane. I remember the terror and confusion in the UK; even finding rented accommodation ? and imagine that now. There used to be a saying in the US that ex cons would reoffend to get " three hots and a cot" however they could and prison provides that. It fits this person.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2019 3:28pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

No excuse, 1, 2, 3 convictions perhaps, you get to double digits and theres no reforming you and you have no place in society

You can say that with conviction without there being a serious attempt to reform people.

But there are some people who cant be rehabilitated, or perhaps cant be rehabilitated with the knowledge we currently have. But the effect is the same.

I never said any different. The fact is we don't focus on rehabilitation but so many people are declaring it a failure. Isn't that interesting in and of itself? People are curious creatures

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2019 3:39pm

Graces7 wrote: »

inhumane. I remember the terror and confusion in the UK; even finding rented accommodation ? and imagine that now. There used to be a saying in the US that ex cons would reoffend to get " three hots and a cot" however they could and prison provides that. It fits this person.

Fascinating fact about that is sexual offenders tend to find it very hard to find accommodation (obviously enough). So when they find accommodation they tend to end up living together. They tend to band together to either conspire to abuse people or they end up ganging up on one of the people in the house. Usually a learning disabled one.

Rehabilitation in a controlled forensic hospital means they can actually keep them in if they're not ready to return to the community (political meddling aside).

Sonny noggs · 17-07-2019 4:39pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There isn't a question in this post. Just a lot of incorrect assumptions.

No worse then the skutter you keep coming out with, which has no facts or basis in reality.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2019 4:46pm

Sonny noggs wrote: »

No worse then the skutter you keep coming out with, which has no facts or basis in reality.

You're just being silly now.

Sonny noggs · 17-07-2019 5:33pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're just being silly now.

Like you have been from your first post in this thread.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2019 6:29pm

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Like you have been from your first post in this thread.

That's a real zinger. Rolly eye emoji

But you're gone off topic. Let me know if you are interested Interested in discussing the topic.

Wtf ? · 17-07-2019 8:22pm

Why is a Skanger getting so much airtime on boards ? I see a tut tut mentality here making some posters feel better about themselves ? Personally I could not give a **** but this thread is dragging on and on and on etc... I really don't understand why this thread has so much traction, Move along and forget it.
There will be a new thing to get ''Outraged'' about tomorrow.

Ronaldinho · 17-07-2019 11:01pm

Wtf ? wrote: »

Why is a Skanger getting so much airtime on boards ? I see a tut tut mentality here making some posters feel better about themselves ?

Can only speak for myself but seeing someone like this just totally take the piss committing crime after crime and then you consider the cost to the state of the courts and prison and then you think of all the better ways that money could be spent.

There's a lot of people out there that are in a bad spot through absolutely no fault of their own through illness/bereavement as an example. It's a pity we can't channel more resources to these people that I would see as more deserving of it.

For me it's the same with Govt. overspending on other stuff like the Children's Hospital. Pi$$ing money away needlessly when there's better things we could be doing with it.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 18-07-2019 11:27am

Wtf ? wrote: »

Why is a Skanger getting so much airtime on boards ? I see a tut tut mentality here making some posters feel better about themselves ? Personally I could not give a **** but this thread is dragging on and on and on etc... I really don't understand why this thread has so much traction, Move along and forget it.
There will be a new thing to get ''Outraged'' about tomorrow.

Welcome to a discussion board. Here we discuss things.

joe swanson · 18-07-2019 11:46am

High time there was root and branch reform of sentencing policy in this country and more emphasis on victims . Punishments need to actually mean something.

I would suggest that if you receive ten convictions for indictable offences you should face a ten year sentence with no exceptions.

Time to stop the softly softly approach.

splinter65 · 18-07-2019 11:54am

joe swanson wrote: »

High time there was root and branch reform of sentencing policy in this country and more emphasis on victims . Punishments need to actually mean something.

I would suggest that if you receive ten convictions for indictable offences you should face a ten year sentence with no exceptions.

Time to stop the softly softly approach.

More again today with a woman who attacked a Garda when drunk, really violently, being given no jail time due to her brief giving the usual sob story.
If you attack a front line service person drunk or sober, I don’t care, it should be 12 months inside automatically once it’s proven it did happen.
This is pathetic.

hatrickpatrick · 18-07-2019 5:52pm

Wtf ? wrote: »

Why is a Skanger getting so much airtime on boards ? I see a tut tut mentality here making some posters feel better about themselves ? Personally I could not give a **** but this thread is dragging on and on and on etc... I really don't understand why this thread has so much traction, Move along and forget it.
There will be a new thing to get ''Outraged'' about tomorrow.

Some of us have directly experienced anti social behaviour (IE, petty or violent crime) from scumbags like this, and indeed some of us have experienced this on multiple occasions. When they are allowed to continue like this and not be imprisoned for it, it is evidence of the justice system failing in one of its main objectives, that being to ensure that decent, law abiding folk are able to go about their lives free from crime. I'm a lucky one, the most annoying thing I remember happening to me because of scumbags being scumbags was having my iPhone stolen, but I do distinctly remember that when the thief was eventually busted by the Gardai a month or two later, not only did they have multiple stolen phones in their posession and numerous previous convictions, but walked out of court with a suspended sentence. I have no doubt that some other poor f*cker went on to become another victim of this individual after they were let off - and for all we know, that person may have had a far more urgent need for their phone than I did, such as a sick relative, a pregnant partner, an urgent work commitment, etc.

It's pretty reasonable for people to be outraged in that context, tbh. These f*ckers commit crimes ranging from stealing peoples' phones and randomly assaulting or harassing passers by, to seriously injuring people and vandalising their homes. Why shouldn't we be outraged that people who engage in that kind of behaviour are not restrained from doing so by the justice system whose entire raison d'etre is to ensure that decent people do not become the victims of such crime on an ongoing basis?

Hal3000 · 18-07-2019 5:59pm

splinter65 wrote: »

More again today with a woman who attacked a Garda when drunk, really violently, being given no jail time due to her brief giving the usual sob story.
If you attack a front line service person drunk or sober, I don’t care, it should be 12 months inside automatically once it’s proven it did happen.
This is pathetic.

If you get someone to write a letter to the judge you can get off

Hobosan · 18-07-2019 7:36pm

I wonder if we implemented laws like, 'don't give your phone to a stranger' or 'don't grow food and sell it to shops', would degenerates like this be stupid enough to break them?

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2019 8:16pm

joe swanson wrote: »

High time there was root and branch reform of sentencing policy in this country and more emphasis on victims . Punishments need to actually mean something.

I would suggest that if you receive ten convictions for indictable offences you should face a ten year sentence with no exceptions.

Time to stop the softly softly approach.

What would you suggest should be done for the victims?

Nermal · 18-07-2019 10:17pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What would you suggest should be done for the victims?

Give them the comfort that the criminals who wronged them are removed from society...

Woman rakes up 648 convictions

Comments