Free Legal Aid - John O'Mahoney

AlekSmart wrote: »

It's nothing really to do with the presumption of anything.

It's about the ease which recidivist offenders and serious criminal types can access the FLAS.

It urgently needs attention,with some focus being paid to the number of previous Convictions for particular crimes the applicant already has.

In addition the type of Crininal Activity equally requires some inspection as if I (as a system funder) am being constantly required to fund a Legal Defence Team for some individual with 40+ previous CONVICTIONS,then I suggest we need to rething this persons right-of-access to further FLA.

I've no issue with providing a legal representative for any accused in need of it,but it's quite clear the system is being run for the benefit of a growing number of Proffessional Claimants....;)

absolutely the presumption of innocence is enshrined in the Constitution i believe, so that's not up for dispute.

some of these scum know more about the system than a lot of solcs.
it seems to me that we are rewarding/subsidising repeat offenders.

kupus

AlekSmart wrote: »

I've no issue with providing a legal representative for any accused in need of it,but it's quite clear the system is being run for the benefit of a growing number of Proffessional Claimants....;)

As far as I see its run for the benefit of the professionals (in this case lawyers.) unlimited amount of scummers needing free legal aid makes it a gravy train job.
Jobs for the boys and all that.

This effects everybody on this island whether you like to believe it or not.

increased home insurance, psychological strain, etc.

ffs I read in the indo a few days ago about a rapist who got out cos he paid victim 75000 euro and is now living the good life in dubai on holiday.

We can all laugh at other countries that have stupid rulings about men being jailed for drinking baileys, but from what I read everyday in irish courts makes me sick to the stomach, a

i commend John O'Mahony for raising this issue.
clearly the system is being milked/abused (by solcs. AND scum alike) for the benefit of a tiny minority.
the state aka you & me the taxpayer can save serious money on this, if proper reforms are introduced.

hopefully we will see some action, but i'm sure a constitutional challenge will not be far behind.

9959

space_man wrote: »

of course these scummers must be presumed innocent. no body is disputing that!
what i am disputing is my and other taxpayers having to pay for them to prove it.
let them pay for it out of their social.
maybe then we might have less crime being committed.

Earth calling.

"pay for it out of their social"

Our learned friends 'don't come cheap', so we'd certainly have fewer trials, and a trial by judge and jury in a court of law would become the exclusive prerogative of those who could afford to pay for a legal defense from their own pockets.
Otherwise.....GUILTY by virtue of socio/economic status.

That type of thing?

9959 wrote: »

Earth calling.

"pay for it out of their social"

Our learned friends 'don't come cheap', so we'd certainly have fewer trials, and a trial by judge and jury in a court of law would become the exclusive prerogative of those who could afford to pay for a legal defense from their own pockets.
Otherwise.....GUILTY by virtue of socio/economic status.

That type of thing?

might be a useful way to clean up the streets?

kraggy

How about a 3 strikes rule? Not for sentencing but in regard to receiving legal aid.

So if you are convicted 3 times, next time you're on your own in court with no representation unless you pay for it yourself.

It wouldn't act as a deterrant to reoffending, but it would save some money and maybe take an ounce of the sense of entitlement away from these scumbags.

I'd apply it to Social Welfare as well. You commit a crime 3 times, bye bye benefits.

Why on earth should a scumbag criminal get dole money from law-abiding peoples' taxes?

9959

space_man wrote: »

might be a useful way to clean up the streets?

....or empty them.

space_man wrote: »

might be a useful way to clean up the streets?

oh dear, you really haven't thought this through have you? having a country where one is found guilty because of their income or where they live because they can't afford legal representation is not a country i and i suspect many others want to live in, thankfully it won't happen as we would have constitutional challenges and probably the EU on our backs (and we don't want to get on the EU'S bad side now do we)

kraggy wrote: »

How about a 3 strikes rule? Not for sentencing but in regard to receiving legal aid.

can't see it happening or working out to be honest

kraggy wrote: »

So if you are convicted 3 times, next time you're on your own in court with no representation unless you pay for it yourself.

i can't see that working out to be honest but who knows?

kraggy wrote: »

It wouldn't act as a deterrant to reoffending, but it would save some money and maybe take an ounce of the sense of entitlement away from these scumbags.

i'm glad you mentioned that it wouldn't be a deterrant to re-offending, as some would say that it would when infact as you said (and i agree) that it wouldn't be.

kraggy wrote: »

I'd apply it to Social Welfare as well. You commit a crime 3 times, bye bye benefits.

i think their was a proposal something like this in the UK in the wake of the riots but i'm open to correction on it.

kraggy wrote: »

Why on earth should a scumbag criminal get dole money from law-abiding peoples' taxes?

ideally they shouldn't or wouldn't however not giving them it could increase the crime rates further (i know their commiting crime anyway) but the question has to be asked is not providing these people wellfare worth the risk of possibly increasing crime? its a hard one

kraggy wrote: »

How about a 3 strikes rule? Not for sentencing but in regard to receiving legal aid.

So if you are convicted 3 times, next time you're on your own in court with no representation unless you pay for it yourself.

It wouldn't act as a deterrant to reoffending, but it would save some money and maybe take an ounce of the sense of entitlement away from these scumbags.

I'd apply it to Social Welfare as well. You commit a crime 3 times, bye bye benefits.

Why on earth should a scumbag criminal get dole money from law-abiding peoples' taxes?

sounds good to me.
having a country where we do not have to subsidise recidivist scum is exactly the sort of country i would like to live in.
and if they continue committing crime, then 3 strikes and they go to prison for a decent stretch. yep sounds good to me!

Annasopra

There is no such thing as free legal aid

what we need in this country is a few very big prisons to house them in.
land and construction costs are very reasonable now, we have lots of unemployed construction workers who would be delighted with the work/contracts.
sounds like a WIN WIN.

space_man wrote: »

what we need in this country is a few very big prisons to house them in.
land and construction costs are very reasonable now, we have lots of unemployed construction workers who would be delighted with the work/contracts.
sounds like a WIN WIN.

Yeah, mega-prisons..... works well in the states......

One in every 32 American adults -- were behind bars, on probation or on parole at the end of last year. The United States has 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the world's incarcerated population.

mikom wrote: »

Yeah, mega-prisons..... works well in the states......

the 2 are not in any way comparable.
a bit like comparing our navy with that of the US?
silly tbh.

space_man wrote: »

the 2 are not in any way comparable.
a bit like comparing our navy with that of the US?
silly tbh.

You go building mega prisons on the cheap due to tight economic times, and you will be going down the road of the "prison business".
A money racket, where prisoners are raw material............ and ya know businesses gotta keep getting their raw materials.

100200 shih

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The sentencing needs to be looked at certainly, you mentioned the Swiss girl case for instance, I know that Barry animal killed a young man from Roscrea in Galway back in 96. He wasn't fit to be released but was because he went to prison on a manslaughter charge.

The problem with legal aid is what happens if you cut it off after a certain number of offences? A Rights issue will emerge.

At the time of the Swiss girls murder , he was out on bail for raping another girl:mad:

space_man wrote: »

the 2 are not in any way comparable.
a bit like comparing our navy with that of the US?
silly tbh.

no it isn't, in america you can end up in prison for the smallest of things (things we wouldn't even consider a crime here) of course you can end up in prison for little things here to such as not being able to afford bin charges and tv licence and so on, america can afford to imprison people for any little thing, we can't, so we have to prioratise who we send to prison even if we did build megga prisons, violent crimes should get most priority, when we get that working we can then imprison the person who doesn't pay a fine

mikom wrote: »

You go building mega prisons on the cheap due to tight economic times, and you will be going down the road of the "prison business".
A money racket, where prisoners are raw material............ and ya know businesses gotta keep getting their raw materials.

i think you are exagerrating things there.
but even if you were not, personally i would prefer a situation where the state/tax payers were making money out of the scum, than the scum costing us.

space_man wrote: »

personally i would prefer a situation where the state/tax payers were making money out of the scum, than the scum costing us.

Please explain to me how you see the state/tax payers making money out of the "scum".

100200 shih wrote: »

At the time of the Swiss girls murder , he was out on bail for raping another girl

A tax evader or some lad who grew 3 or 4 cannabis plants probably taking up his cell.

mikom wrote: »

Please explain to me how you see the state/tax payers making money out of the "scum".

A tax evader or some lad who grew 3 or 4 cannabis plants probably taking up his cell.

Is there something wrong with that?

If the crime merits prison, then surely that's where those folk should be.

Bloody*Mary wrote: »

Is there something wrong with that?

If the crime merits prison, then surely that's where those folk should be.

You have one prison cell (let's be honest they are at a premium).
Who would you put in it........ a tax evader, some lad who grew 3 or 4 cannabis plants, or a guy with previous for manslaughter and rape (who then went on to murder another girl.

I'll give you a clue.
One of them is a victimless crime.

mikom wrote: »

You have one prison cell (let's be honest they are at a premium).
Who would you put in it........ a tax evader, some lad who grew 3 or 4 cannabis plants, or a guy with previous for manslaughter and rape (who then went on to murder another girl.

I'll give you a clue.
One of them is a victimless crime.

Don't really need any clues .

If the crime merits a prison sentence according to the legislation, then the perpetrators should be in prison.

That's fairly straight forward to me.

We don't want a la carte justice surely?

Bloody*Mary wrote: »

Don't really need any clues .

If the crime merits a prison sentence according to the legislation, then the perpetrators should be in prison.

That's fairly straight forward to me.

We don't want a la carte justice surely?

Tell that to Manuelas parents.
You can be damn sure there was a lad a lot more decent than Gerard Barry sitting in a cell while Barry roamed the streets.

A la carte justice is dispensed every day in this country.

Bloody*Mary wrote: »

Don't really need any clues .

If the crime merits a prison sentence according to the legislation, then the perpetrators should be in prison.

That's fairly straight forward to me.

We don't want a la carte justice surely?

as were a bankrupt country which has to cut costs we have to prioratise who we send to prison, murderers rapists paedophiles and anyone found guilty of other violent crimes should be given priority for prison

mikom wrote: »

Tell that to Manuelas parents.
You can be damn sure there was a lad a lot more decent than Gerard Barry sitting in a cell while Barry roamed the streets.

A la carte justice is dispensed every day in this country.

You are perfectly correct in that, however if the crime deserves jail according to the legislation, then jail it should be.

either the authorities enforce the law or they don't, and it's up to them to ensure accommodation is available.

Anything other than that makes an ass of the law, in my opinion.

ScumLord

Bloody*Mary wrote: »

You are perfectly correct in that, however if the crime deserves jail according to the legislation, then jail it should be.

either the authorities enforce the law or they don't, and it's up to them to ensure accommodation is available.

Anything other than that makes an ass of the law, in my opinion.

Tax evaders and cannabis users are a lot more common than murders and rapists. Taking your stance we'll have filled up the prison with non violent criminals by the time a violent one comes along.

It's not as simple as lock them all up because we simply can't lock them all up. We don't have the resources or even the ability to get the necessary resources.

ScumLord wrote: »

Tax evaders and cannabis users are a lot more common than murders and rapists. Taking your stance we'll have filled up the prison with non violent criminals by the time a violent one comes along.

It's not as simple as lock them all up because we simply can't lock them all up. We don't have the resources or even the ability to get the necessary resources.

Spot on.
Going down that route you would be back to the mega-prison business model with prisoners as the raw material.

ScumLord wrote: »

Tax evaders and cannabis users are a lot more common than murders and rapists. Taking your stance we'll have filled up the prison with non violent criminals by the time a violent one comes along.

It's not as simple as lock them all up because we simply can't lock them all up. We don't have the resources or even the ability to get the necessary resources.

My stance is if a crime merits a prison sentence then either the perp. goes to prison or the crime is designated as not a jail-able offence.

There is no use in having rules on the statute book which are unenforceable.

It causes people to lose respect for the law and leads to frustration among the forces who enforce the law.

It's just plain stupid.

Bloody*Mary wrote: »

It causes people to lose respect for the law and leads to frustration among the forces who enforce the law.

Believe me, that's happened a long time ago............ on both sides of the fence.