Niner leprauchan wrote: » And what happens when they leave the house as they must certainly will, on a daily basis?
Gerry T wrote: » Then lock them up. But a high percentage would much prefer to be out, living with wife and kids with restrictions rather than in prison. Also, with the bracelet you know where they are 24/7, so if there is a break in at 3pm at zxy house you can check if any bracelet wearers were anywhere near by. Take it a step further, if a bracelet wearer after serving his time was then caught again. Then he might have to wear a bracelet for 15yrs, which stops him doing any future crimes with the geo-tag. Feck his civil rights, the rights of honest people are far more important
Montage of Feck wrote: » I want an AD 2000 justice system.
Gerry T wrote: » I've a friend living in California and he told me people there fear that criminals will be more desperate and would resort to that. The ankle braclet is a GPS device, so basically using geo-tagging if your say 20m from your house/apartment after curfew then the police get a alarm and they can go pick you up. They can even use google maps to get you ! The beauty is you heat your own house, buy and cook your own food, pay your rent (maybe). I don't think asking them to just stay at home would work but it really annoys me that these people cost us so much money. Don't get me wrong, rapists & known violent people should always be put in prison. These people could work in society, cutting grass, painting walls, sweeping streets etc... during the day to get some money to help them pay their rent. But "punishing" people I don't think is a deterrent.
Niner leprauchan wrote: A, right well that is too be honest, a truly terrible supporting statement. Your friend thinks people will do something. Right. I will disregard that then and go with cold hard statistics and direct personal experience. I think we can leave that one behind.......
Gerry T wrote: » . These people could work in society, cutting grass, painting walls, sweeping streets etc... during the day to get some money to help them pay their rent. But "punishing" people I don't think is a deterrent.
Stovepipe wrote: » A story I was told was that, a guy was give 240 hours of civic service, sweeping streets,picking up papers and so on,or he'd get no dole,etc. He turned for a few days and then intimidated the monitoring staff so much that he was essentially allowed to go free; turn up for an hour and then disappear and then attend for the last day to be seen working and then get his release. I prefer locking up scum like that.
IAMAMORON wrote: » I would say that we need another 1,500 beds at least, 3-4 prisons? If they introduced a tax scheme to invest in 3-4 private prisons it would get wolfed up by taxpayers. It is simply too good an idea. You could build the prisons very quickly. Allow tax breaks on investment and then allow 10 year debentures on the operating costs, via tax breaks. It would run itself. Total no-brainer. It would shore up a lot of holes and it would be the end of the line for guttersnipes throughout the country. Currently they can't get locked up until they are 18 and even then they have no issue getting off the streets for a few months while their street rep develops. Criminals would definitely think twice if they knew that their sentences would be served. We waste enough money on legal aid as it is. The more you lock up the less crime we will have. I respect that not everyone gets a fair chance sometimes. But **** roaming our streets after 500 convictions is a disgrace. There are hundreds of thousands of people from impoverished backgrounds who are not involved in crime, this country needs to get tougher with **** that are.
end of the road wrote: » nope, it's highly unlikely they would run themselves at all regardless of how much or many tax breaks or other stuff you would give, as a prison costs money to run and it's costs generally seem to be fixed. for any private investment in prisons, serious guarantees would be needed to guarantee a return, the only way to really give such guarantees is via a guaranteed number of inmates and in all likely hood a serious amount of public funding which the state probably couldn't afford vs a public system. there isn't always going to be a certain amount of the particular inmates we would like to be in prison, so therefore the numbers will in all likely hood be made up from low hanging fruit and i would expect our revolving door issue would have to continue, if not increase. so no, i don't see the tax payers wolfing up this idea.
Gerry T wrote: » It's not terrible, it's a fact and very logical. A criminal on strike 2 facing life if caught will have a different attitude to being caught if he has no strikes. As it costs near 1,800 to house a criminal a week in prison I think there are hugh savings to having him sit in his own house. If hes in prison the state is in most cases still paying for his house outside, why add an extra 1,800. If hes on lock down and leaves he can be tracked, it's very simple technology and it wouldn't take long to pick him up. That would end with the time the bracelet is on being extended. Some as you say will go back to crime but with the tag you know they did it, no need for courts, just a quick hearing and additional sentence. Repeat offenders go back to prison, but there are many that would follow the rules and that would save alot of money. Not all prisoners get social housing benefits and have no job.
IAMAMORON wrote: » I would also use current prisoners to build it, that is right, free labour. They would get the option of working to reduce their sentence.
Niner leprauchan wrote: » Well first up,That's slave labor and against both un and eu agreements and laws. Secondly, there's plenty of areas where a bit of diy works fine but a maximum security prison is probable not one of them. Especially when it's in the interests of the builder to ensure a bad job.
Grab All Association wrote: » Lobotomies or psychiatric treatment for repeat offenders is the only way to stop Jimmy the scumbag types. There’s medications that can change people’s personalities, failing that lobotomies. Scumbags tend to have 7 scumbags who go on to have their own little crotch goblins. Eventually we’ll become the minority
s1ippy wrote: » Maybe if people were afforded basic human rights as a certainty they wouldn't attack each other, literally in the streets and ideologically on the stupid Internet.
Niner leprauchan wrote: » Where was that?
IAMAMORON wrote: » I would also use current prisoners to build it, that is right, free labour. They would get the option of working to reduce their sentence. I think private enterprise is the only way forward. The building itself would have a solid value, but there is profit to be made in leasing it back to the government. If you privatise the workforce also it would increase current wages for prison employees, I doubt you would hear any complaints there. If I was a career criminal I would invest in one for sure. It makes economic sense and it would be a great way of laundering my money. Talk about leaving a trail right in the systems' face. I guarantee you organised crime invests in the US prisons, the income is steady and guaranteed.
IAMAMORON wrote: » Absolutely, prison is supposed to be punishment and a deterrent to crime. Make the **** work rather than sit in cells doing gear and playing computer games. Security would not be an issue, just chain workers up in groups of three. If they all make a run for it they would not get far. The EU will be disbanded before long, it has not solved the criminal crisis. They assassinated a prosecuting solicitor in Rotterdam last year. That's what happens when you start giving **** too much free reign. Lock them up and make them work. I don't buy into any rehabilitation garbage, criminals need to be punished and locked up. They didn't think about speaking to criminal psychologists when they were shooting rival gang members or intimidating their families.... lock the **** up and make them work, hard labour.
end of the road wrote: » free forced labour is not going to be used to build infrastructure, it's not going to happen, it breaches international and other laws i would expect. leasing the building back to the government when they could just spend the money themselves to build the prison sounds like way to much of a risk for the tax payer, it would i suspect end up costing more as the government is paying and they want the building badly enough.
end of the road wrote: » making them work would require quite a bit of resources that just aren't justifiable for a country our size, + i believe hard labour may breach human rights and international law. the EU will be fine, it's not it's job to solve any criminal crisis, that is a domestic issue for each country to deal with. i would be interested in your claim that the EU assassinated a prosecuting solicitor in Rotterdam last year. more so in relation to the EU being responsible for the killing. it doesn't matter whether you buy into rehabilitation or not, it does work some times.
IAMAMORON wrote: » Pay them a minimum wage, that would get Amnesty international off our back and allow this country to efficiently deal with the criminal problem it has. International law is dreamt up by SJW's who have no concept of the crime problem this country has.
IAMAMORON wrote: » It has become socially acceptable, there is even a thread on this forum where criminals, journalists and undercover Gards are discussing gun crime and shooting openly as if they are taking about salmon fishing. It is disgusting, shootings in residential areas where kids are playing on the street has become the new norm... lovely. Look up the car crime statistics in Germany and come back and talk to me. The Germans don't ponce around with criminals, they study their facilities and calculate their efficiency. It stops guttersnipes robbing and burning cars for starters.
IAMAMORON wrote: » Irish criminals laugh their tits off at international liberals who meet up for taxpaid law conferences worldwide to discuss how to "tackle" crime. They spend the afternoon nodding at each other and the evening committing adultery and then back to their families for the weekend. In the meantime Irish teenagers are stashing glock pistos and kilos of heroin because they cannot do real time for it. They are laughing at us. Make them build their own prison and phuck them in it. Get on with it.
IAMAMORON wrote: » Some 30something over educated Harvard Law school bullshighter should have no say on what they think is the internationally correct way to "rehabilitate" criminals. They need to be rehabilitated by getting locked the phuck up for 15 years and made do hard labour.
end of the road wrote: » amnesty international have nothing to do with this, international law is put together, not dreamed up, by experts of multiple opinions and viewpoints who bring their expertese together from which laws are formed and countries signup to them. ireland has no more of a crime problem then other countries really, in our case it's easily cut, but it will never be eradicated.
end of the road wrote: » it has not become socially acceptable. there is a thread discussing gangland criminality yes, not sure what the issue is . if you have evidence that there is a major issue with the thread then use the channels of the site to bring it to the attention of the relevant mods/admins etc. people will always commit crime, it's not something that can be stopped. we are in a lucky position where a small few things will reduce it. more gardai, more publically funded prison spaces and longer sentences.
end of the road wrote: » yeah, yeah. sure. it doesn't matter how much or long the time is one does, it will never deal with drugs. only legalisation will help deal with the problems associated with drugs as it will be treated as the public health issue it should be treated as. it is not possible or viable to make them build their own prisons. so not get on with it.
end of the road wrote: » there is no such thing as being over-educated. experts with expertese and experience absolutely should decide what is the internationally correct way to do something as they will have the correct expertese and experience based on multiple factors to come together and work everything out. hard labour is not going to happen as it breaches i suspect, international law, human rights law, and there would probably be some health and safety breaches also as you are having people doing work they have no experience of actually doing.
sdanseo wrote: » Like most things when comparing US systems to European ones, there is a balance. There's everything to be said for a hardline approach on crime when you compare it to the likes of Martin Nolan letting a person walk free with their 137th conviction after battering some wan's face in. It's also complete overkill to lock up a homeless guy for smoking a joint in the street for 30, 60, 90 days when in another state of the same country it's perfectly legal. Or parade kids accused of terrible things through the courts in orange jumpsuits when here, they'd probably be below the age of criminal responsibility altogether. Having 2% of your population incarcarated is a reflection on your society's failure. Letting people go systematically unpunished for their umpteenth crime is also a failure.
Das Reich wrote: » I prefer way more the Iran justice system than the American (I think OP was referring to the USA).
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b866050111185697984c86572569f0ea.svg)
