Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009

humanji · 01-07-2009 10:04AM

waitinforatrain wrote: »

I'd like to draw your attention to this. Definition of criminal gang changed from:

to this:

Suddenly any "serious offence" (i.e. punishable by 4+ years in prison) is considered a criminal organisation. What is the implications of changing this and what is the reason it is being changed?

They got Capone for tax evasion. If they had this change in the US laws at the time, they could of sent his entire organisation down for it.

drunkmonkey · 01-07-2009 10:33AM

humanji wrote: »

They got Capone for tax evasion. If they had this change in the US laws at the time, they could of sent his entire organisation down for it.

And wasn't Capone's rise to power amplified by the Prohibition era of the 1920's & 30's, the same goes for our crime lords today, their Power is supported by Prohibition of "New" drugs, Tobacco, Mushrooms, Acid, Marijuna, Ecstacy, Cocaine and to a lesser extent Herion.
Prohibition didn't work then and it dosen't work now!

People are suggesting arming the Garda along with the eroding of basic Human Rights, this is going to lead to one thing, more voilent deaths, Prohibition has to stop now before our street really start to run with the blood of fallen Heroes.

We should listen to history, it eventually got it right.

humanji · 01-07-2009 11:34AM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

And wasn't Capone's rise to power amplified by the Prohibition era of the 1920's & 30's, the same goes for our crime lords today, their Power is supported by Prohibition of "New" drugs, Tobacco, Mushrooms, Acid, Marijuna, Ecstacy, Cocaine and to a lesser extent Herion.
Prohibition didn't work then and it dosen't work now!

People are suggesting arming the Garda along with the eroding of basic Human Rights, this is going to lead to one thing, more voilent deaths, Prohibition has to stop now before our street really start to run with the blood of fallen Heroes.

We should listen to history, it eventually got it right.

You not think it might be an idea to get people to stop abusing alcohol before flooding the market with a load of other drugs?

Dyr · 01-07-2009 11:38AM

Stargal wrote: »

The Bill specifies that people who are charged under it have to have involved with *criminal* activities of the gang. Let's face it, it's not normal, law-abiding people who are going to get charged under this. The guards know exactly who these guys are but haven't been able to get them under existing legislation. Is it breaching the civil liberties of the criminals?

Allow me to stick a big horsesh*te tag on that concept. Our glorious leaders brought in lovely stuff like abolition of the right to silence, offences against the state, the special criminal courts, extended detention periods and told us they were extraordinary adn temporary powers to protect the state from the danger of being overthrown by the bleedin provos. We were assured that these powers would never become the norm, and they did. I'm sick of the govt lowering the bar just because the gardai cant get results.

drunkmonkey · 01-07-2009 11:54AM

humanji wrote: »

You not think it might be an idea to get people to stop abusing alcohol before flooding the market with a load of other drugs?

All the drugs are already there, there's going to be no mass flood of drugs were already at saturatiuon point. We need to take the power from the criminal gangs, there's only 2 ways to do that, one is to shoot every mother fupper in the room and the other is start the legilisation and regulation process.

I'm not pro drugs but i'm anti prohibition.

humanji · 01-07-2009 12:09PM

Well there's many more options than the two you gave, and simply legalising drugs won't get rid of gangs. A drugdealer isn't going to say to himself "Hmm, drugs are legal now. It's time for me to go to college and get that IT degree I've been hankering for."

And besides this thread isn't about only going after drug dealers. These gangs are into a lot more than just that.

TobyZiegler · 01-07-2009 12:23PM

In general regular people may not be 100% law abiding but how many regular citizens go around committing serious (4+ years imprisonment) offences? .

This Act is obviously aimed only at gangland crime which includes being able to convict the person who gives the orders aswell as the person who pulls the trigger. Its aimed at protecting witnesses. Its aimed at cracking down on an area that is very difficult to police.

Of course it is open to abuse - like most laws - but in fairness a guard on a personal vendetta would want to be out of his mind to go before the special criminal court unless he has something very solid to go on.

Perhaps the word of one guard should be changed to the word of one guard ranking not lower than x.. or the word of two guards or whatever.

WindSock · 01-07-2009 12:25PM

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Uve nothing to worry about if ur a model citizen.

About time they started cracking down hard on the scum.

Thats all well and good if you are not detained. Any model citizen can be a suspect for a crime.

01-07-2009 12:32PM

Iang87 wrote: »

great idea about time these pricks were targetted properly

Local-womanizer wrote: »

It would make that much of a difference to the normal citizen.The Gardai are not going to waste their time pulling you up on every little thing you do wrong.

Local-womanizer wrote: »

This bill will be used to go after those that everyone knows it was brought in for,the drug gangs.

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Uve nothing to worry about if ur a model citizen.

About time they started cracking down hard on the scum.

Relevant wrote: »

This bill takes away the one thing that was protecting these scumbags and now finally they will be held accountable for their actions.

magick wrote: »

i completely support, if anything the bill doesnt go far enough

Stargal wrote: »

So if it means that there's less people dealing drugs, killing each other, intimidating witnesses and all the other shít that these gangs have been up to over the past few years, well, bring it on.

This makes me so worried. How can there be so many people who have no concept of their own civil liberties?

It doesn't matter who the Bill is aimed at. The Offences Against the State Act was aimed at the IRA. That is EXACTLY who it was aimed at. How often has it been used for other purposes? It is one of the most detested pieces of legislation in the western hemisphere.

This Bill might be aimed at gangland crime but it is, in essence, a tool and tools can be used for more than one purpose.

Relevant · 01-07-2009 12:46PM

Deleted User wrote: »

This makes me so worried. How can there be so many people who have no concept of their own civil liberties?

My civil liberties aren't going to be impacted in the slightest. I am not involved in criminal activities so have no need to worry about the ERU kicking in my door and detaining me for 7 days. On the other hand all the criminal gangs who are going about their business safe in the knowledge that the law is protecting them will now no longer have the upper hand in certain parts of the country.

sunnyjim · 01-07-2009 12:48PM

For the paranoid types who are bringing up McBrearty and Fairbrother etc... We didn't have the Garda Ombudsman back then.

thelordofcheese · 01-07-2009 12:53PM

Relevant wrote: »

My civil liberties aren't going to be impacted in the slightest.

Magenta'd for filthy lies.

Protip - laws impact everyone in the country, just because you think you're not a criminal doesn't mean this (or any) law won't affect you. By virtue of the fact you recognise that the civil liberties of "scum" are being affected, so too are yours.

Thinking otherwise is just foolish.

Run_to_da_hills · 01-07-2009 12:54PM

THE IRISH Human Rights Commission (IHRC) has criticised several provisions of a new Bill aimed at organised criminal gangs, describing them as disproportionate and unnecessary.

The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill, was yesterday published by Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern and is expected to become law before the Oireachtas summer recess.

It includes a new offence of directing or controlling a criminal organisation and provides for organised crime offences to be tried in the Special Criminal Court. Organised crime offences will be “scheduled offences”, bringing them within the ambit of the Offences Against the State Act so that they will be tried in the non-jury Special Criminal Court.

Mr Ahern called the legislation “ground-breaking”.

However, at a media briefing yesterday, human rights commission member Michael Farrell said the section of the Bill which creates new “scheduled offences” struck at the centuries-old right to trial by jury

It would not solve the problem of the intimidation of witnesses who were identified in the Special Criminal Court in the same way as in ordinary courts, he said.

Mr Farrell said the commission recognised the problem posed by organised crime, but he questioned the haste with which this Bill was being rushed through.

Director of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties Mark Kelly said provisions such as “secret detention hearings and detention on the unsupported word of a single garda, trample upon the rule of law.”

The Bill introduces a new offence of “directing” the activities of a criminal organisation, which carries a sentence of up to life imprisonment. An actual crime does not have to be committed to invoke this offence.

It will also be possible to refuse bail to those suspected of involvement in a gang in certain circumstances. The Bill would also allow expert Garda opinion on the operations of criminal gangs to be admissible in evidence, including hearsay. There is also a provision that certain information supporting the application may be given in the absence of the suspect and his or her legal representative.
Fine Gael’s spokesman on justice Charlie Flanagan said increased resources for the office of the DPP and the Garda Síochána was the way to tackle gangland activity.

The Labour Party said the Bill could be unconstitutional by abandoning the right to trial by jury and the party opposed the Bill as it stood.

Irish Times
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0701/1224249838748.html?digest=1

Wise Up Journal.
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=982

peasant · 01-07-2009 12:54PM

Relevant wrote: »

My civil liberties aren't going to be impacted in the slightest. I am not involved in criminal activities so have no need to worry about the ERU kicking in my door and detaining me for 7 days.

Who's to say that it won't happen to you?
Can you vouch for all the people that you've ever had dealings with?
Will you happily walk away with a "sorry, old chap, seems we got it wrong" shouted after you when they kick you back out on the pavement after 7 days of heavy interrogation?

Dinter · 01-07-2009 12:58PM

When gangs began interfering with witnesses and jurors through intimidation and assault it was only a matter of time before the State began to interfere with their civil liberties.

If I were a gangland figure I would be more concerned about the State's ability to disrupt my activities when this law is enshrined than I would be at the moment. That is the important thing.

While I am not comfortable with all of the sweeping changes contained in it I do believe the State needed to take action and will watch closely the results.

ScumLord · 01-07-2009 01:05PM

From nanny state to police state I can see it happen quite easily in this country. I don't trust the government, I'd be completely opposed to giving them any more power or money.

There's a growing crime problem because of the way this country and it's systems are set up. Thought and planning are alien concepts to the people in power they can't even see the source of the problem so they've absolutely no hope of fixing it.

The government are trying to bash a thumbtack with a sledgehammer all they're going to cause is more conflict and encourage the bad guys to continue to raise the stakes and become more violent. It completely sickens me that they gladly make the same stupid mistakes every other country did 20 years ago.

Wertz · 01-07-2009 01:15PM

ScumLord wrote: »

From nanny state to police state.

It's like you read my mind.

+1 on the rest of that btw.

chem · 01-07-2009 01:37PM

Just a point to all in favour of this bill. If we follow this to its conclusion. We will be passing laws to lock up 8 year old kids that are been used by criminals to carry guns/drugs for them.

Criminals will always find a way to stay one step ahead of the law.

This law, if passed, is bringing Ireland close to what Nazi Germany was like. Noone liked the Jews (seen as scumbags in there time) and so people allowed laws to be passed that done away with there rights.

If we lived in a perfect world, where every member of the Gardai was honest and true. Id support this law. But this is not the way life is. People hold a grudge, have other agendas etc..........."Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it" William Pitt 1770

Relevant · 01-07-2009 01:52PM

chem wrote: »

This law, if passed, is bringing Ireland close to what Nazi Germany was like. Noone liked the Jews (seen as scumbags in there time) and so people allowed laws to be passed that done away with there rights.

Are you comparing the rounding up and mass execution of people based on religion to the passing of a law which makes it more difficult to direct a criminal gang, shoot people and sell drugs?

Shacklebolt · 01-07-2009 02:28PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Was that not always the case? I don't think I've ever seen anyone walk around a town openly toking on a joint regardless of garda presence

I smoked a joint whilst walking by a guard once... Fun times

humanji · 01-07-2009 02:42PM

chem wrote: »

Just a point to all in favour of this bill. If we follow this to its conclusion. We will be passing laws to lock up 8 year old kids that are been used by criminals to carry guns/drugs for them.

They wouldn't be locked up. They'd quite rightly be put into care and away from those who are abusing them.

chem wrote: »

This law, if passed, is bringing Ireland close to what Nazi Germany was like. Noone liked the Jews (seen as scumbags in there time) and so people allowed laws to be passed that done away with there rights.

That's just a moronic thing to say. This amended act is a f*ck up, and was perfect described above as trying to bash a thumbtack with a sledgehammer. But comparing it to Nazi Germany is Godwining the thread for no good reason, as well as pissing on the memory or people who really suffered from an abuse of power.

K-9 · 01-07-2009 02:47PM

I've heard this a 100 times before on new laws introduced to increase powers from groups like the civil liberties crowd,

Time Magazine · 01-07-2009 03:04PM

<Generic Orwellian reference>

peasant · 01-07-2009 03:08PM

chem wrote: »

This law, if passed, is bringing Ireland close to what Nazi Germany was like. Noone liked the Jews (seen as scumbags in there time) and so people allowed laws to be passed that done away with there rights.

Leave the jews out of it and replace with "communists" and you've got a valid point.

Some light reading on what "emergency legislation" and "special powers" can be mis-used for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

(Warning: link not safe for typical AH audience, tl;dr)

Professey Chin · 01-07-2009 03:18PM

The Economist wrote: »

<Generic Orwellian reference>

<Generic Apple Superbowl advert reference>

Time Magazine · 01-07-2009 03:47PM

peasant wrote: »

Some light reading on what "emergency legislation" and "special powers" can be mis-used for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

And some light reading on why historical lessons may not be relevant here: Learning.

Society knows that emergency powers can be misused. Martin Van der Lubbe is relevant here only insofar as it shows that we should be cautious when governments bring in special powers, not that they should never be used again. The lessons of Nineteen Eighty-Four have been learned. The Limerick feuds are not a government-designed plot aimed at dictatorship. The CJB is not a government-designed plot to arrest Enda Kenny, Eamon Gilmore and Gerry Adams. They're laws aimed at stopping the rot destroying an entire community.

To paraphrase Niemöller: they're not coming for the Opposition, they're not coming for the Protestants, they're not coming for the poor. They're coming for scum. This government is absolutely brutal at overseeing the economy, but I do not think for a second there's anything under-handed about this Bill.

I trust that if anyone if unfairly detained under this law that there will be outrage. I also trust that people will continue to die unless you're allowed to detain these pricks.

Sparks · 01-07-2009 04:02PM

The Economist wrote: »

I trust that if anyone if unfairly detained under this law that there will be outrage.

Oh, indeed.
And as we all know, that source of 99% of Irish Outrage, indymedia.ie is highly respected. And those displays of Irish Outrage, the Protest Marches, are always listened to.

It's not so much that I disagree with you TE, it's just that if outrage is the mechanism which you foresee being the check or balance to this bill, I'm wondering why you think that mechanism would ever have any effect on any government, made up of any party.

Dyr · 01-07-2009 04:14PM

The Economist wrote: »

And some light reading on why historical lessons may not be relevant here: Learning.

Society knows that emergency powers can be misused. Martin Van der Lubbe is relevant here only insofar as it shows that we should be cautious when governments bring in special powers, not that they should never be used again. The lessons of Nineteen Eighty-Four have been learned. The Limerick feuds are not a government-designed plot aimed at dictatorship. The CJB is not a government-designed plot to arrest Enda Kenny, Eamon Gilmore and Gerry Adams. They're laws aimed at stopping the rot destroying an entire community.

To paraphrase Niemöller: they're not coming for the Opposition, they're not coming for the Protestants, they're not coming for the poor. They're coming for scum. This government is absolutely brutal at overseeing the economy, but I do not think for a second there's anything under-handed about this Bill.

I trust that if anyone if unfairly detained under this law that there will be outrage. I also trust that people will continue to die unless you're allowed to detain these pricks.

They were coming for the 'RA twenty years ago and those laws are still in place despite that particular bogieman being long gone. Our leaders have shown that they don't like putting the genie back in the its bottle in these situations. If they can't secure convictions against these f***ers its not because they lack draconian legislation.

There was outrage over nicky kelly...he still did time, there was outrage over the mcbrearty's didn't make any difference to them. Outrage isn't enough.

Time Magazine · 01-07-2009 04:24PM

Sparks wrote: »

It's not so much that I disagree with you TE, it's just that if outrage is the mechanism which you foresee being the check or balance to this bill, I'm wondering why you think that mechanism would ever have any effect on any government, made up of any party.

Because I'm taking a broader perspective. There will always be corruption that will go unpunished, but thankfully in Ireland it's the odd case here or there, or something relatively minor. On the other hand, criminal gangs are really ruining lives (and indeed ending them) in parts of this country. It's possible there will be one or two innocent people who will suffer as a consequence of the law, it's maybe even likely, but it will almost certainly save more than one or two lives. With any luck it will stop the rot that will ruin thousands.

When I talk about outrage, I talk about the potential for serious abuse of this Bill. From what I can see, the main points are transferral of the administration of justice from intimidated juries to a panel of three judges; and the ability to detain for a week. We're more than capable of showing outrage at poor judicial decisions and detention for a week is hardly internment. The debate about this Bill should include a reference to the Reichstad fires, but primarily because society now knows to watch the execution of powers under such acts with much more caution than others.

ScumLord · 01-07-2009 04:24PM

The Economist wrote: »

This government is absolutely brutal at overseeing the economy, but I do not think for a second there's anything under-handed about this Bill.

I don't think the government are trying anything under handed as such. I don't believe they're bad people out to cripple the country and I suppose it wouldn't be fair to call them idiots either. I'm sure they're intelligent people.

They're just short and narrow sighted they can't be trusted to make the best decisions for the country over they're own vested interests and popularity.

The system can't handle the modern world as far as I'm concerned. Burn it! Burn it all down. :eek:

Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009

Comments