Politician in good idea shocker

thomasm · 28-02-2013 07:03PM #1

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2013/0228/breaking31.html

The Government will consider legislation to force those prosecuted for burglary to repay the costs of damage they have done.

Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore described as pragmatic and appropriate a suggestion by Independent TD John Halligan that burglars should be obliged to make redress.

Mr Halligan said home burglaries in Waterford city in his constituency had risen in January by more than 30 per cent compared to 2012, which was on a par with the rest of the country, although in some areas burglary levels had almost trebled.

The Waterford TD asked the Tánaiste if he would consider legislation to force those found guilty of burglary, regardless of whether they received a community or custodial sentence, to repay the costs of the damage they did. He had seen on many occasions when "an out of touch judge, because of some do-gooder, will say kind words about the perpetrator and the victim is left abandoned".

Mr Halligan said the criminal justice system is failing victims of burglary, and there is that fear with people that they are being abandoned.

Legislation, he said, would provide that every district court judge, would be instructed under legislation that the perpetrator, regardless of their means, should have reparation deducted from their wages or social welfare payments. He said its a crime that has gone unnoticed (compared) to the very serious crimes of damage to the person but this is destroying peoples lives all over the country.

The Tánaiste described the Waterford TDs suggestion as a very constructive one. I know that the Minister for Justice has a very strong personal view in favour of restorative forms of justice and penalties. "I will bring to his attention what I think is a very constructive and worthwhile suggestion... and I will ask him to have what you have said looked at," Mr Gilmore said.

Such reparation could never repair the sense of violation, the sense of damage experienced by somebody whose home had been burgled. There was an absolute sense of violation by the victims of burglaries, he said.

"But I think it may be a more pragmatic, a more effective and a more appropriate way of dealing with the perpetrators of home burglaries than perhaps some of the ways they’re being dealt with at the moment," he said.

Think this is a great idea. Hit scumbags in the pocket. Would it ever get implemented though ?

mikehammer67 · 28-02-2013 07:07PM

they'd prob commit more burglaries to pay back the victims

ScumLord · 28-02-2013 07:07PM

thomasm wrote: »

Think this is a great idea. Hit scumbags in the pocket. Would it ever get implemented though ?

I think it's s good idea, I was just talking about something like this with friends last night. We don't make criminals repay their debt to society we just punish them.

I'm sure some will argue that forcing a thief to pay out money will just encourage them to rob more stuff.

washman3 · 28-02-2013 07:09PM

Great idea. will the scumbags in Dail Eireann then be forced to repay the money they have stolen from me over the last 4 or 5 years to repay the debts incurred by their cronies.:mad:

catallus · 28-02-2013 07:15PM

Nice idea, but the term "restorative justice" in the article shows this idea up.

The idea is the criminal makes amends to his victim: a lovely idea thought up by paper-pushing know-nothings.

This idea will be twisted to fit the idea of restorative justice which demands that the victim of crime allows his violator to invade his life, firstly by meeting him face to face and allow the criminal to lie and give an insincere apology.

It is just another idea which focuses primarily on the feelings of the perpetrator.

That said, if Halligan's idea of making them pay cash without all this airy-fairy restorative stuff were implemented it would be good to get some monetary redress for the victim. But I won't hold my breath.

GalwayGuy2 · 28-02-2013 07:22PM

Hmmm, could make it harder for recently evicted criminals to make a life and stay out of crime.

And I wonder would it be before or after they're in prison.

P_1 · 28-02-2013 07:23PM

To be fair, it seems a tad more productive than just locking somebody up

Degag · 28-02-2013 07:25PM

Didn't some burglar who injured himself while breaking into a property successfully sue the homeowner a few years ago?

Now that's something that needs changing.

ScumLord · 28-02-2013 07:27PM

Degag wrote: »

Didn't some burglar who injured himself while breaking into a property successfully sue the homeowner a few years ago?

Now that's something that needs changing.

It has been, now you can shot him after he falls through your roof. I think.

walrusgumble · 28-02-2013 07:29PM

I think it is an idea worth giving a judge legislative options on. Some criticism made by the posters above is valid, and sadly they are being pragmatic ("sadly" because, in an ideal world this is a brilliant , fail proof idea, but alas, there is no such thing as a uptopia)

Considering that criminals, even on legal aid, end up offering from €200- to €4000 grand to avoid jail time in assault cases or are made to put money in the poor box for public order offences etc, maybe this should still be giving a test.

Where To · 28-02-2013 07:29PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK3uf5V0pDA

walrusgumble · 28-02-2013 07:31PM

ScumLord wrote: »

It has been, now you can shot him after he falls through your roof. I think.

well the shooting bit, will still need to be considered last resort (well not strictly). However, as a Supreme Court case (dpp v barnes 2010ish) shows, the court will likely favour the victim and understand that they don't have time to think due to fear etc. just make sure that the gun is legally held

Yes, thankfully , one can't be sued, whether through the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 (within reason) and the new legislation - Dwelling and defence Act 2011

kupus · 28-02-2013 07:35PM

walrusgumble wrote: »

well the shooting bit, will still need to be considered last resort (well not strictly). However, as a Supreme Court case (dpp v barnes 2010ish) shows, the court will likely favour the victim and understand that they don't have time to think due to fear etc. just make sure that the gun is legally held

Yes, thankfully , one can't be sued, whether through the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 (within reason) and the new legislation - Dwelling and defence Act 2011

Always remember the second shot goes through the ceiling

walrusgumble · 28-02-2013 07:39PM

kupus wrote: »

Always remember the second shot goes through the ceiling

hit yourself a few times to make it look that he hit you first

ciano1 · 28-02-2013 07:43PM

mikehammer67 wrote: »

they'd prob commit more burglaries to pay back the victims

Would probably commit more even if they didn't have to pay them back.
Once a thieving scumbag, always a thieving scumbag!

Pumpkinseeds · 28-02-2013 07:53PM

I think it would be a great to force convicted criminals to pay financially for the crimes they commit. The system we currently have isn't working. Merely locking someone in prison presumes that being denied their freedom is something that repeat offenders care about. We have repeat offenders regularly coming before the courts, they are provided with free legal aid and more often than not they will not serve the full term of whatever custodial sentence they are given.

Why can't the cost of the legal aid be deducted from whatever wages/benefits they have? Likewise with anti-social behaviour, why can't we have a system whereby anyone who is evicted say twice for arguments sake, loses their entitlement to housing benefit/council housing. Of course that would mean that their children would have to be taken into care if the parents couldn't support themselves, however with some of those famillies the kids might be better off.

Degag · 28-02-2013 07:55PM

walrusgumble wrote: »

well the shooting bit, will still need to be considered last resort (well not strictly).

If some fcuker is in my home its my first resort.

My name is URL · 28-02-2013 07:58PM

Legislation, he said, would provide that every district court judge, would be instructed under legislation that the perpetrator, regardless of their means, should have reparation deducted from their wages or social welfare payments.

That'll be the latter then! Instead of the scumbag paying back what they have stolen, it'll be the taxpayer paying for their scummy deeds.. sounds about right for Ireland!

walrusgumble · 28-02-2013 08:05PM

Degag wrote: »

If some fcuker is in my home its my first resort.

naturally

blow their shagging head off.

awec · 28-02-2013 08:09PM

Good idea, but if a burglar breaks in to my gaff and causes 5 grand worth of damage how is he going to pay me back if he's on welfare?

123.ie will have to start offering insurance for burglars. Previous convictions will hike your premium.

The Davestator · 28-02-2013 08:14PM

My name is URL wrote: »

That'll be the latter then! Instead of the scumbag paying back what they have stolen, it'll be the taxpayer paying for their scummy deeds.. sounds about right for Ireland!

If they are on social welfare, it's costing the tax payer anyway so instead of them getting it, the injured party receives it.

Boombastic · 28-02-2013 08:17PM

Great idea, should be deducted directly from their benefits

Dwork · 28-02-2013 08:18PM

The Davestator wrote: »

If they are on social welfare, it's costing the tax payer anyway so instead of them getting it, the injured party receives it.

Not.Going.to.happen. Ever.

Some bleeding heart will come up with a "good" reason why.

awec · 28-02-2013 08:28PM

The Davestator wrote: »

If they are on social welfare, it's costing the tax payer anyway so instead of them getting it, the injured party receives it.

I imagine that the government would be paying out and the burglar would be in debt to the government to pay back the money.

Which isn't going to happen.

Which leaves the taxpayer out of pocket.

My name is URL · 28-02-2013 08:33PM

The Davestator wrote: »

If they are on social welfare, it's costing the tax payer anyway so instead of them getting it, the injured party receives it.

Then they should have their payment stopped or reduced accordingly. The money shouldn't be redirected to the victims of their crimes. What sort of message does that send out... that the sate will happily pay for actions of scrotes? Seems bizarre to me.

Perhaps make them do community service work in the areas they targeted instead?

seamus · 28-02-2013 08:35PM

It's a nice idea in theory but like many others is made by someone too separated from the reality.

The burglar will be standing in court after doing €5k worth of theft and damage saying, "Ah jaaaysssus judge, I have me missus and five little sh1ts to feed and I need me smokes and a few cans at the weekend and I need to get the bus to the Fás course I'm gonna sign up to next week, and they're already takin money off me for dat thing I got done for last year". And the judge makes an award of €5 a month for two years. That'll show him.

TeddyTedson · 28-02-2013 08:35PM

This is a brilliant idea, but, I just know it's never going to happen in this country.
It's too radical for Ireland right now. We're too conservative with our justice system.

King of Kings · 28-02-2013 09:01PM

great idea but is a crook is on welfare - I'd be afraid of the penalty being taken out of their kids food budget rather than his dutch gold budget.

Grayson · 28-02-2013 09:04PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I think it would be a great to force convicted criminals to pay financially for the crimes they commit. The system we currently have isn't working. Merely locking someone in prison presumes that being denied their freedom is something that repeat offenders care about. We have repeat offenders regularly coming before the courts, they are provided with free legal aid and more often than not they will not serve the full term of whatever custodial sentence they are given.

Why can't the cost of the legal aid be deducted from whatever wages/benefits they have? Likewise with anti-social behaviour, why can't we have a system whereby anyone who is evicted say twice for arguments sake, loses their entitlement to housing benefit/council housing. Of course that would mean that their children would have to be taken into care if the parents couldn't support themselves, however with some of those famillies the kids might be better off.

have you seen the HSE?

I'm in favour of criminals paying back. But I don't think it's practical. If they had the money or a way of getting it they wouldn't be stealing.

And to make it affordable, it would have to be small monthly deductions.

Mr. Incognito · 28-02-2013 09:07PM

In ancient Ireland there were no jails.

ALL Crimes were punishable by compensation to the victim, including murder although I believe the family could chose to take the compo or have the murderer killed.

Much better system imo.

Pumpkinseeds · 28-02-2013 09:17PM

Grayson wrote: »

have you seen the HSE?

I'm in favour of criminals paying back. But I don't think it's practical. If they had the money or a way of getting it they wouldn't be stealing.

And to make it affordable, it would have to be small monthly deductions.

I'm basing my opinion on first hand experience I had with some neighbours, the appalling way they treated their kids and the fact that the parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts all had multiple criminal convictions. Of course that is a very limited experience I'll admit but I pity kids trapped in that kind of family. The future for them is teen pregnancy, being treated like a punchbag by some piece of scum and the boys will follow the rest of the family into a life of crime and repeat offences. The cycle just continues from generation to generation.

Politician in good idea shocker

Comments