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

Is Ireland's justice system lenient?

hezarkani

Or is it the norm for other European nations/countries around the world? I've lived in Africa (South Africa), North America (US, Canada) and Europe (Ireland, UK). I must say that Ireland's system is pretty progressive.

Sure it has its faults but it's far better than the U.S system or South African system. Living in Johannesburg like any developing city, it's a totally different way of life. You don't just worry about some teenage scumbags robbing you. It's constant paranoia that doesn't leave you. I was advised by an expat never to wear jewellery/have electronics while walking, don't walk at night, don't leave valuables in your car when walking away and always have a guard dog to protect you at night from burglaries. This is on a different level to what most people in this country experience.

SA has a harsh justice system but crime is still as high as ever. Living in the U.S. was much safer and you definitely don't get teens mugging you, but they've implemented 'housing segregation' that's created ghettos which are far unsafer than Ballymun, Tallaght. Even with their high incaceration rates, crime in impoverished areas continues to remain high.

I think we should implement a model like the Scandinavians. They have prisons and a justice system which could be described as a 'cakewalk' but from my Irish friends who have lived in Norway, it's far safer than here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Start a poll OP.

Im neutral tbh.

Scuid Mhór

hezarkani wrote: »

Or is it the norm for other European nations/countries around the world? I've lived in Africa (South Africa), North America (US, Canada) and Europe (Ireland, UK). I must say that Ireland's system is pretty progressive.

Sure it has its faults but it's far better than the U.S system or South African system. Living in Johannesburg like any developing city, it's a totally different way of life. You don't just worry about some teenage scumbags robbing you. It's constant paranoia that doesn't leave you. I was advised by an expat never to wear jewellery/have electronics while walking, don't walk at night, don't leave valuables in your car when walking away and always have a guard dog to protect you at night from burglaries. This is on a different level to what most people in this country experience.

SA has a harsh justice system but crime is still as high as ever. Living in the U.S. was much safer and you definitely don't get teens mugging you, but they've implemented 'housing segregation' that's created ghettos which are far unsafer than Ballymun, Tallaght. Even with their high incaceration rates, crime in impoverished areas continues to remain high.

I think we should implement a model like the Scandinavians. They have prisons and a justice system which could be described as a 'cakewalk' but from my Irish friends who have lived in Norway, it's far safer than here.

Yes, far too lenient with the result that it’s damaging communities, keeping money flowing in a circular way within the legal profession, and offering no rehabilitation to repeat offenders who are allowed to terrorise law abiding citizens or worse without real repercussion.

Lmkrnr

Is it cheaper to have people out then in. I can't get my head around the light sentencing.

A case in the USA i came across where the culprit's were only giving a few years for killing an Uber eats driver. Two young black girl's who after killing him were only worried about leaving her phone in the car. Watch the video its around the net.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9437615/Two-teenage-girls-accused-car-jacking-killing-Uber-Eats-driver-reach-plea-deal.html

That's very soft sentencing.

[Deleted User]

Ireland's justice system in and off itself is not too lenient. It's the lack of support services around it that's the issue.

con747

Just say you were from a broken home have a drink problem and ended up on drugs. Always works in Ireland. :rolleyes:

Lmkrnr

con747 wrote: »

Just say you were from a broken home have a drink problem and ended up on drugs. Always works in Ireland. :rolleyes:

Its doesn't matter what u say aslong as u tick a box. You have a headline sentence that will always be chipped away at by the culprit's. If you look at sentences and appeals you will see how it works from historical cases. Being remorseful even if thought most don't mean it means another %off. First offence %off ect.

[Deleted User]

One prominent Irish judge is very lenient when it comes to a specific crime...

mcmoustache

Deleted User wrote: »

One prominent Irish judge is very lenient when it comes to a specific crime...

I'd say most of us know exactly who you're on about.

[Deleted User]

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'd say most of us know exactly who you're on about.

And of course there's nothing suspicious at all about his or her behaviour.

[Deleted User]

Martin Nolan lol. Why the eggshells. Every ****e sentence he dishes out is there for all the public to see.

Pauliedragon

I think if you speak to people in most Western countries there's a lot of people who think they have a soft justice system.

Atlantic Dawn

If you are an upstanding citizen who has a job and never been in trouble with the law before and have no violin story in your background the justice system in this country is usually not very leniant when compared to a case of someone with 50 previous convictions.

Leinster90

Anyone can make a mistake and those with say between 1 and 5 convictions should be forgiven and helped to get back on the right track.

However, those with 50+ convictions are obviously no-hopers and the objective should be to get them off the streets until they are too old and weak to be a threat to society. There should be a multiplier effect for previous convictions when it comes to sentencing.

That being said, we would need more prisons and a two-tier prison system. One section for those who want to turn themselves around and are most deserving of resources, and another for the no-hopers where they would get the bare minimum until they are so feeble that they are released.

These policies would have a dramatically positive effect on society, making it safer and better for the overwhelming majority of residents.

jmayo

There are needless horrific deaths thanks to our very lenient justice system.

Some of the most famous ones are visitors to our shores Manuela Riedo and Bettina Poeschel, but there are also natives like Nancy Nolan and Sylvia Roche Kelly.

These deaths could all have been prevented if the murdering scum had been in jail for the crimes they had already committed and if there wasn't a fooking joke of bail laws in this country.

And in two of these cases the judges that allowed them free should be struck off for gross negligence.

[Deleted User]

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

If you are an upstanding citizen who has a job and never been in trouble with the law before and have no violin story in your background the justice system in this country is usually not very leniant when compared to a case of someone with 50 previous convictions.

The chance cards in the Irish version of Monopoly:

"You miscalculated the tax on your garlic imports, do not pass Go, go directly to jail"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17320460

"You accidentally stabbed stabbed someone, ah sure you didn't mean it, have a suspended sentence on us".

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/fingalindependent/news/suspended-sentence-for-skerries-man-after-stabbing-27769617.html

[Deleted User]

Leinster90 wrote: »

Anyone can make a mistake and those with say between 1 and 5 convictions should be forgiven and helped to get back on the right track.

However, those with 50+ convictions are obviously no-hopers and the objective should be to get them off the streets until they are too old and weak to be a threat to society. There should be a multiplier effect for previous convictions when it comes to sentencing.

That being said, we would need more prisons and a two-tier prison system. One section for those who want to turn themselves around and are most deserving of resources, and another for the no-hopers where they would get the bare minimum until they are so feeble that they are released.

These policies would have a dramatically positive effect on society, making it safer and better for the overwhelming majority of residents.

A friend and I were getting a taxi to McCarran airport in Las Vegas. Our driver was a lady and we were chatting to her. She mentioned her son had just been sent to jail for a 5 year stretch. We were curious and asked what he'd done. He was caught with some weed when he was 16. When he was 18 he stole a car, and most recently he stole a DVD from a shop and was caught. Nevada operates the three strike rule, so the third conviction meant a minimum sentence of 5 years.

We were discussing it in the bar waiting for the flight and agreed it sounds very harsh but also agreed, how f&%king stupid do you have to be to steal a DVD when you already have 2 convictions, and a 3rd means jail.

Meanwhile in Ireland, we have lads wondering around with 50+ convictions and havn't spent a day in prison.

There is surely a happy medium. If 3 convictions is too low, can we agree that after 10 convictions they should see 2 years in prison?

.42.

Ireland's justice system is not lenient, Its inconsistent.

X breaks the law and gets a suspended sentence
Y breaks the same law and goes to Prison

GhostyMcGhost

Northernlily wrote: »

Martin Nolan lol. Why the eggshells. Every ****e sentence he dishes out is there for all the public to see.

His one exception, Garlic Man

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

There is surely a happy medium. If 3 convictions is too low, can we agree that after 10 convictions they should see 2 years in prison?

^^^^^^^^ this.

baldshin

Let's not forget that many judges, on occasion, let people buy their way not only out of imprisonment, but even convictions by means of charitable donations. Absolutely ridiculous and in no way is justice applied in these scenarios.

Cilldara_2000

Deleted User wrote: »

The chance cards in the Irish version of Monopoly:

"You miscalculated the tax on your garlic imports, do not pass Go, go directly to jail"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17320460

"You accidentally stabbed stabbed someone, ah sure you didn't mean it, have a suspended sentence on us".

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/fingalindependent/news/suspended-sentence-for-skerries-man-after-stabbing-27769617.html

First quote. The article does not give off the vibe that this was a miscalculation. It was fraud plain and simple. I'm glad he was put away for it in a country which is notoriously soft on white collar crime.

The second article, reading it down, it's not necessarily that bad. Seems like two friends having a row that went too far.

Like most other people, I don't like reports of scumbags with multiple convictions terrorising people in viscous assaults and burglaries etc. Up in court and getting off with more light sentences. At some point these people have to put away for society's safety. I'm all for rehabilitation, education and so on but it can't be at the expense of the safety of ordinary law abiding people.

Leinster90 wrote: »

Anyone can make a mistake and those with say between 1 and 5 convictions should be forgiven and helped to get back on the right track.

However, those with 50+ convictions are obviously no-hopers and the objective should be to get them off the streets until they are too old and weak to be a threat to society. There should be a multiplier effect for previous convictions when it comes to sentencing.

That being said, we would need more prisons and a two-tier prison system. One section for those who want to turn themselves around and are most deserving of resources, and another for the no-hopers where they would get the bare minimum until they are so feeble that they are released.

These policies would have a dramatically positive effect on society, making it safer and better for the overwhelming majority of residents.

Agreed on the multiplier concept. It doesn't completely tie judges hands like, say, three strikes in US, but would still force them to up the ante on scumbags.

Obviously though such approaches require more prisons. How does everyone feel about paying for these?

kapisko1PL

hezarkani wrote: »

Or is it the norm for other European nations/countries around the world? I've lived in Africa (South Africa), North America (US, Canada) and Europe (Ireland, UK). I must say that Ireland's system is pretty progressive.

Sure it has its faults but it's far better than the U.S system or South African system. Living in Johannesburg like any developing city, it's a totally different way of life. You don't just worry about some teenage scumbags robbing you. It's constant paranoia that doesn't leave you. I was advised by an expat never to wear jewellery/have electronics while walking, don't walk at night, don't leave valuables in your car when walking away and always have a guard dog to protect you at night from burglaries. This is on a different level to what most people in this country experience.

SA has a harsh justice system but crime is still as high as ever. Living in the U.S. was much safer and you definitely don't get teens mugging you, but they've implemented 'housing segregation' that's created ghettos which are far unsafer than Ballymun, Tallaght. Even with their high incaceration rates, crime in impoverished areas continues to remain high.

I think we should implement a model like the Scandinavians. They have prisons and a justice system which could be described as a 'cakewalk' but from my Irish friends who have lived in Norway, it's far safer than here.

Maybe not so much for the adults but for the general feral teen population I certainly believe it is!

baldshin

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

Obviously though such approaches require more prisons. How does everyone feel about paying for these?

The cost of prison expansions would likely be offset by the dramatic drop in costs of free legal aid from the inevitable follow up crimes committed if not imprisoned.

Cilldara_2000

baldshin wrote: »

The cost of prison expansions would likely be offset by the dramatic drop in costs of free legal aid from the inevitable follow up crimes committed if not imprisoned.

I think you're vastly overestimating what's spent on legal aid: https://www.thejournal.ie/legal-aid-spend-ireland-3296584-Mar2017/

baldshin

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

I think you're vastly overestimating what's spent on legal aid: https://www.thejournal.ie/legal-aid-spend-ireland-3296584-Mar2017/

Fair enough. I'll revise that to somewhat offset! Increased prison spaces would also free up a huge amount of Garda hours wasted on repeat offenders, enabling a much better policing service to communities, as an aside.

gary550

GhostyMcGhost wrote: »

His one exception, Garlic Man

Yeah he took exception to garlic man, even going so far as to say "it gives me no pleasure to jail a decent man" while handing down an astronomical sentence :pac:

Meanwhile you have the most heinous deplorable people in front of him and he gives them suspended sentences for sickening crimes.

I think the problem with the Irish system is the lack of standardised sentences irregardless of aggravating circumstances. That would stop the "hard upbringing" or "tough situation", "moment of madness" or "drug and alcohol problems" excuses being used to justify a more lenient sentence.

I'd also propose anyone with child abuse images be sentenced to 13+ years minimum - no negotiation or suspending in part either.

Actual child abusers to 25+ years with no leeway for suspending part.

Same for rape or sexual assault too 25+ years with no leeway for anything other than a full and whole custodial sentence.

If when released they commit the same crime again and are convicted - whole life order with no hope of ever being released.

yoke

baldshin wrote: »

The cost of prison expansions would likely be offset by the dramatic drop in costs of free legal aid from the inevitable follow up crimes committed if not imprisoned.

Spaces in prisons could be freed up if we allowed people to volunteer for hard labour for a reduction in time served, which would in turn allow for tougher sentencing overall.

Lowering social welfare payments for repeat offenders might be another option.

Yet another one might be to impose large fines instead, and if they cannot pay, then arrange for it to be taken out of their estate/paycheck/social welfare bill/location of council house if they are housed by the council and have no estate.

Varik

Deleted User wrote: »

A friend and I were getting a taxi to McCarran airport in Las Vegas. Our driver was a lady and we were chatting to her. She mentioned her son had just been sent to jail for a 5 year stretch. We were curious and asked what he'd done. He was caught with some weed when he was 16. When he was 18 he stole a car, and most recently he stole a DVD from a shop and was caught. Nevada operates the three strike rule, so the third conviction meant a minimum sentence of 5 years.

We were discussing it in the bar waiting for the flight and agreed it sounds very harsh but also agreed, how f&%king stupid do you have to be to steal a DVD when you already have 2 convictions, and a 3rd means jail.

Meanwhile in Ireland, we have lads wondering around with 50+ convictions and havn't spent a day in prison.

There is surely a happy medium. If 3 convictions is too low, can we agree that after 10 convictions they should see 2 years in prison?

Shoplifting isn't generally a felony, and a quick google say it needs to be over $650 previously and $1200 today to become one. Unless by DVD she meant cow, or gun in which case it's always a felony. The minimum is 5 years to max 20, but it's discretionally and doesn't have to be applied at all.

3 would be fine it we had it limited to the equivalent of 3 violent felonies as it is in most states.

Would add a 2 strike for one particular situations, if someone is banned for driving and then drives **** them.

[Deleted User]

yoke wrote: »

Spaces in prisons could be freed up if we allowed people to volunteer for hard labour for a reduction in time served, which would in turn allow for tougher sentencing overall.

Lowering social welfare payments for repeat offenders might be another option.

Yet another one might be to impose large fines instead, and if they cannot pay, then arrange for it to be taken out of their estate/paycheck/social welfare bill/location of council house if they are housed by the council and have no estate.

Jail should really be for removing someone who is a threat to society from the streets. For non-violent offences, community service would be a good option.

Garlic man should have been banned from running a business and given 6 months community service. Not 6 years in jail. Meanwhile Whacker got a suspended sentence for his vicious assault because theres no prison room.

[Deleted User]

Varik wrote: »

Shoplifting isn't generally a felony, and a quick google say it needs to be over $650 previously and $1200 today to become one. Unless by DVD she meant cow, or gun in which case it's always a felony. The minimum is 5 years to max 20, but it's discretionally and doesn't have to be applied at all.

3 would be fine it we had it limited to the equivalent of 3 violent felonies as it is in most states.

Would add a 2 strike for one particular situations, if someone is banned for driving and then drives **** them.

First off, I'm just relaying the story the lady told me.

From: https://www.shouselaw.com/

Nevada law defines shoplifting as intentionally stealing items from a retail establishment. The crime is formally referred to as larceny. The degree of larceny depends on the value of the stolen merchandise. Taking less than $1,200 worth of items is misdemeanor petty larceny. Taking $1,200 or more is prosecuted as the more serious crime of felony grand larceny.

Penalties

Petty larceny is a misdemeanor in Nevada. It carries a maximum of six months in jail and $1,000 in fines plus restitution. However, judges rarely impose jail for a first-time offense.

This was his third offense, so maybe the judge figured it appropriate to jail him.

Harsh, yes. But compare it to here with stuff like: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/more-than-50-convictions-in-just-six-years-26500265.html