70 Burglaries!

This cross-border burglary spree was detected and stopped within a month of beginning, and five people are now in custody.

If this is a "poor performance", what do you think should have happened?

Satisfying picture.

I accept not everyone appreciates this type of comment but it's a pity they didn't go up in smoke like the other scumbags.

I'm going to go out on a limb, and assume they have extensive criminal records already.

If that's the case, they should have already been serving multi-decade prison sentences for repeat offences under a three-strikes rule.

From the Independent: "The 21-year-old, from the Ardmore area of Tallaght, has been centrally involved in organised burglaries since he was a teenager.".

The three-strike rule as used in the US is far too susceptible to ordinary citizens ending up spending a lifetime behind bars for relatively minor offences so I wouldn't be in favour of it's being signed into law here. A ten strike rule I could certainly get on board with though!

What a brilliant comparison! Fagin!! This lot have been grooming their kids in to burglary and scams for years. Kids are harder to send to prison and fit into smaller windows and openings.

They "settled" in West Dublin because of it's centralised motorway position. Nothing's really far away, the city, the rest of the country. Can't get rid of them now.

While you might like to think that sentencing policy has an effect on crime figures, all the research, from many different countries, shows that it has only a marginal effect. And, since prison is expensive, you can spend a massive amount of money acheiving a minimal reduction in crime by doing this.

Over in the other thread, Nermal dismisses the research because "it's created by left-wing institutions that are committed to removing the element punishment from the justice system". For Nermal, the punishment is the point; he doesn't greatly care whether it reduces crime. But, if your objective is protecting the community from crime, the conclusion is clear; long-sentence laws are massively, massively expensive, and if you're willing to spend that amount of money reducing crime there are much more effective ways in which you could spend it that would produce a much greater reduction in crime. They're not so cruel, though, if cruelty is your number one priority.

Dont most of those figures on prison terms not reducing crime look at recidivism rates?

If the repeat offender is locked up instead and cannot reoffend, it wont be measured as a reduction in repeat offenses because they wont get the chance. Its still an absolute reduction in crime however.

X-strike rules don't achieve anything. Scumbags on their last strike don't stop committing crimes, they just become more dangerous to avoid being caught. If you're facing life in prison, then what does it matter that you run over a few Gardai and children while you're escaping?

You end up locking up people who are no real danger to society, but have found themselves engaging in small crimes to feed habits.

As Peregrinus points out, the link between harshness of prison sentences and crime rates is surprisingly loose. If reductions in crime are what we seek, then we need to look at solutions from countries that are succeeding - like Denmark or Finland - rather than copying policies from countries that are failing - like the United States.

Yeah, me too. You'll find that they too have their share of multi-conviction scumbags. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they have a bad system. The overall crime rate is what you want to be looking at.

Solutions here are multi-generational and cross all sorts of competencies. There is no solution that can be enacted next week and make the bad men disappear a week later. It starts with addressing the reasons people start getting into crime in the first place, and building from there. But you don't have to wait 20 years for results.

As we can see from Fagin there, if those kids had been wrestled from his influence earlier, then he'd just be a sad old fvcker getting his belly stuck as he climbed through windows.

Improvements are possible in 5-10 years, but it takes effort across disciplines and across society.

You're assuming that crime is caused by criminal individuals; if I lock up A, who would have stolen my car if not already locked up, my car doesn't get stolen.

But this isn't so. The factors that would have cause A to steal my car are still at work, and may cause B to steal my car and, if they do, I don't experience any reduction in crime; just an increase in my taxes to pay for the (now longer) imprisonment of both A and B. I would rather my extra taxes should go into measures that will deter both A and B from stealing my car.

This isn't a radical lefty thought; it's a simple observation. If any business is closed because of measures that target that one business, then other businesses will usually pop up, or expand, to take advantage of the opportunities that the closed business can no longer take advantage of. Why should it be different if the business happens to be a criminal one?

The studies don't just look at recidivism; they also look at overall crime rates.

What makes you think that judges don't already decide questions like whether there are genuine extenuating circumstances, or whether someone is a habitual criminal?

As for review of sentencing decisions by a different judge or panel, isn't that one of the things the appeal system does? You can appeal against sentence as well as (or instead of) appealing against conviction.

Your point about stupidity is a good one. Criminals, generally are (relative to the rest of the population) impulsive, not given to deferring gratification, find it harder to take the long view. These are personality traits, not moral failings. One of the reasons mandatory long sentences don't work so well is that for such a person fearing or anticipating a five-year sentence (say) is much the same as fearing or anticipating a fifteen-year sentence.

Twaddle, absolute twaddle. B is waiting in the wings, ready to steal cars but not yet doing so, and only steps into the breach once A is imprisoned?

Crime is caused by criminal individuals, not by 'factors'.

It is the moral responsibility of those criminals alone.

It is incontrovertible that locking more of them up for longer reduces their opportunity to commit further crimes.

Yes. It's called reproduction. When you put one scumbag in prison, there's always another one to step into the breach.

People become criminals by factors that drive them there.

Unless your assertion is that some people are born criminals and it's in the genes, in which case there's not really point in having a discussion.

I know somewhere that a fundraiser a few years ago.

That night the premises was broken into. The alarm was going off and people stopped and saw the suspects.

There was an older man waiting in a car and two young teenagers ran from the premises.

The money raised was logged in a bank.

What chance do these young lads have really in life.

They are often brought robbing by fathers/uncles/etc.

Social services and the Gardai need to be able to do more to support these youths/children.

CAB also needs further powers to seizes assets.

You've families on social welfare whilst driving new cars and buying luxury goods. I'm not talking about the odd treat or splurge.

They're not just 3 random crimes.

At least 1 has to be a felony, and it's a violent felony in many states with some being the last offence being the felony.