catallus wrote: » Given the under-reporting of such crime, and the rigmarole which is the taking of any such crime before a court, any person who uses the 15% stat to bolster the argument that any treatment is a success is either being deliberately dumb or deliberately defending such awful crime.
Billy86 wrote: » That can be used of a vast array of crimes though - from theft, to drugs abuses, to tax/financial fraud, and on and on. Sex offenders though, I would reckon are typically tracked a lot closer than offenders of these other crimes and thus would find it harder to get away with re-offending than a coke dealer, car thief, etc.
catallus wrote: » How can you say this? In all honesty how on earth are they tracked a lot closer? This doesn't make sense to me. I know it is an emotional subject, but if one looks at the way sex offences are treated how can anyone say they are treated any harsher? Anyway afaic, the subject of such offences are a small subset of the problem of any crime not being properly sanctioned.
Billy86 wrote: » For a start, I'm not aware of a car theft or general burglars register. Though for me, the whole prison system is a little dated. Not incarceration of course, but how parts of it are implemented - and that's a whole different conversation.
catallus wrote: » You mean that anybody in the country who has ever burgled a house or stole a car is not recorded as having done so?
osarusan wrote: » Who's being deliberately dumb now?
Billy86 wrote: » Gardai must tell neighbours about sex offenders. Does this exist for other crimes? I could be wrong here, but I don't think it even does for murder.
catallus wrote: » Well it is actually a serious question.
osarusan wrote: » No, its a weak strawman.
catallus wrote: » I can't understand how you could consider any statement I made or question I asked to be such a thing.
osarusan wrote: » Billy86: there is a register for sex offenders, unlike other offenders. Catallus: so you mean that there is no record of offences committed by other criminals? That is the definition of a strawman - deliberately misrepresent a point in order to weaken an argument.
catallus wrote: » That is all very nice and all but it is just an article saying that it might happen someday.......
catallus wrote: » Excuse me, I didn't misrepresent his point, I accepted it. I pointed out that there are obviously other registers in existence, perhaps not all of them are publicly available, but that doesn't negate the fact of their existence.
Billy86 wrote: » So you do accept that sex offenders are tracked more closely than other forms of criminals and ex-convicts?
Mint Aero wrote: » For these wankstains of society with 100+ convictions, yeah not a bother boss. Broadcast it on tv too for the L O L 'ssssssssss
catallus wrote: » No, I accept that there is a much publicised "SEX OFFENDERS REGISTER" that makes everyone feel safe about things, but in reality it is of no more or less substance than any other "register" that the law has at its disposal.
Post-release supervisionWhen a court convicts someone of a qualifying sexual offence it is obliged when sentencing the offender to consider whether or not to impose a sentence involving post-release supervision. In doing so the court must take the following into account: - The need for a period of post-release supervision of the offender - The need to protect the public from serious harm from the offender - The need to prevent the commission of further sexual offences by the offender - The need to rehabilitate or further rehabilitate the offender - In deciding whether or not to impose a sentence involving post-release supervision the court may hear evidence or submissions from any concerned person. Any period of post-release supervision imposed on the sex offender by the court will be supervised by the Probation Service which liaises with the Gardaí in order to ensure the sex offender complies with the supervision order. Examples of conditions which the court may include in the order of supervision are: - Prohibiting the sex offender from attending certain places, such as schools, sports-clubs and play-grounds - Requiring the sex offender to receive psychological counselling or other appropriate treatment during the period of supervision - If a sex offender fails or refuses to comply, without reasonable excuse, with the requirements relating to supervision, the offender is committing an offence and is liable, if convicted, to a fine not exceeding €1,900 or to imprisonment for a maximum of 12 months or both. ...EmploymentThe Sex Offenders Act, 2001 also places requires sex offenders to inform prospective employers of the nature of their conviction when applying to do work that consists mainly of the offender having unsupervised access to or contact with a child or children or a mentally impaired person. If someone fails to notify an employer the offender could be fined up to €12,697 or sentenced up to 5 years in prison or both.
Billy86 wrote: » http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/law_enforcement/monitoring_sex_offenders_in_ireland.html Now as best I know, this does not apply to other crimes. Employers may request from the individual, but there is only an onus to advise them of such if the conviction is relevant to the job (e.g. motoring offences for jobs that involve driving). Hence, sex offenders are indeed monitored more closely than other ex-convicts.
Billy86 wrote: » My point has been stated numerous times: sex offender are more closely monitored than those who were convicted of other types of crimes. Your comment about a 24hr surveillance team is very much a straw man.
Little Italy wrote: » I haven't read this thread, frankly I've no interest in doing so. However, I do not support the idea of the death penalty. I think people who do are just blood thirsty keyboard warriors. The best punishment is life in prison.
catallus wrote: » Yes, you have stated it, with no evidence, and indeed without any coherent reason why you should believe so! Is it cos the papers and internet say it then it must be true?
Billy86 wrote: » No, I've been quoting the official Garda and Citizens Information Board websites with detailed examples of how sex offenders are subjected to closer monitoring than those convicted of other crimes. You have yet to show how these same measures are taken for other types of criminal and instead have been shifting the goalposts and creating straw men throughout.
catallus wrote: » Don't stop believin', Billy For people who would like to see farther than the state and elites would like them to see, the reality is clear, with a little humility, perception and a tiny smidge of independent thought.
Billy86 wrote: » Ah yes, so now you've switched from "papers and the internet are not credible" to "official sources can't be trusted". Those goalposts, they just keep on moving, eh? :pac:
djflawless wrote: » Was too young to vote at the time but wasn't it voted in 2000-02 to abolish and never re introduce the death penalty in Ireland???
catallus wrote: » I've posted 13 times, excluding this post, tonight. I have shifted no goalposts. It is just strange to me that you so willingly swallow the idea that one particular group of offenders (for a particular set of offences, in this case sexual offences) are more closely, in reality, focussed upon by the state, than those who commit armed robbery, or burglary or whateveryou'rehaving yourself. The sad reality is that once they are released they are as free as me and you, notwithstanding some pesky paperwork, and just as free in the world as any thief or killer.
Billy86 wrote: » And they are more closely monitored, including having to notify the authorities any time they change address, or if they go on holidays abroad for more than a week. There is a sex offenders act which deals specifically with them in full - http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0018/ - and yet you continually choose to ignore this. The fact is they are more closely monitored than other criminals, and you have not shown anything to prove otherwise.
