What does a suspended sentence actually mean?

kult · 24-01-2014 09:16PM

infosys wrote: »

They could have applied for legal aid, which normally would not be given for such cases, but if 3 months given then they would have got it. They could have sought assistance from FLAC or citizens information, and finally any solicitor would in such a flagrant breach of constitutional law have taken a JR on a pro bono basis. If this happened these people need to get legal advice, as they would have a claim for damages. But I don't believe it happened as no judge and Inspector would allow such a breach, its basics for a solicitor, judge and Inspector to know what the punishment is. Also I can not believe that at least one lawyer did not inform the judge of the error. All solicitors as officers of the court would in my opinion have an obligation to make sure an incorrect sentence is not passed.

if anyone trusts courts, judges and solicitors.... unfortunately they did not have the vast knowledge you have or met anyone who tried to help legally for free. **** happens to good and poor people, it's typical.

No Pants · 24-01-2014 09:21PM

kult wrote: »

you know some people have old type 15y old tv, cos they cannot afford anything, also have pre paid meter , so they use esb only when really needed...not for tv, but yes they had a tv...some people are just v.poor sick etc...

Why didn't they just get rid of the TV then?

SNAKEDOC · 24-01-2014 09:32PM

ScumLord wrote: »

You don't have to sign in with the guards. It seems these days all the courts want is money and the fine is based on how much they think they can get out of you rather than a punishment.

A lot of the time actually fines go to the poor box and then donated to a charity. Fines dont always go to the state.

To answer the question a suspended sentence means the person is released with no jail time of maybe 5 years. And or a fine. Then if in a two yesr time or something similar they reoffend and are convicted the five year term is reactivated and inforced allong with the sentence for the new offence. It is a system used to fight a few problems. 1 underage ofenders going to prison where they have a much higher chance of reoffending upon release, and 2 over crowding in our prisons. I believe its a bit flawed where judges fail to punish offenders who are in court every other week. It does work as a deterant for a lot of youths though.

kult · 24-01-2014 09:39PM

No Pants wrote: »

Why didn't they just get rid of the TV then?

tried to sell it for food, did not make it, did not want to throw it away, as they did not have many belongings.. why day you might understand, what being poor really means...

Pro Hoc Vice · 24-01-2014 09:40PM

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

A lot of the time actually fines go to the poor box and then donated to a charity. Fines dont always go to the state.

To answer the question a suspended sentence means the person is released with no jail time of maybe 5 years. And or a fine. Then if in a two yesr time or something similar they reoffend and are convicted the five year term is reactivated and inforced allong with the sentence for the new offence. It is a system used to fight a few problems. 1 underage ofenders going to prison where they have a much higher chance of reoffending upon release, and 2 over crowding in our prisons. I believe its a bit flawed where judges fail to punish offenders who are in court every other week. It does work as a deterant for a lot of youths though.

A fine must go to the state in 2012 14 million in fines collected by Courts Service, a donation to the poor box is just that a donation in 2012 1.9 million collected for charity by the Courts.

The suspended sentence may be activated that is decided by the court that suspended the sentence it does not have to be activated.

No Pants · 24-01-2014 09:52PM

kult wrote: »

tried to sell it for food, did not make it, did not want to throw it away, as they did not have many belongings.. why day you might understand, what being poor really means...

We'll that was a poor decision, as it cost them €160 and several months in jail supposedly. All over a TV that they couldn't use.

Hold on, who am I kidding. I call horse**** on this story.

oldyouth · 24-01-2014 10:27PM

SamAK wrote: »

Ah, you must be one of those fvckwits that type before they think:mad:[/QUOTE

Right, so tell me in detail how the current arrangement works well for society or how a few tweeks will sort it.

Unless everyone dreads the thought of prison, we will continue to have ****wits beat the shlte out of innocent people

No Pants · 25-01-2014 12:34AM

oldyouth wrote: »

Right, so tell me in detail how the current arrangement works well for society or how a few tweeks will sort it.

Unless everyone dreads the thought of prison, we will continue to have ****wits beat the shlte out of innocent people

I don't think much is needed. Just stop all this suspended sentence lark and come down hard on people who commit offences when out on bail. No more bail for them. Ever. If the first spell in prison isn't a sufficient deterrent, try it again, but for longer.

If we don't have enough prisons for this, build more. Last I heard, we've a load of unemployed builders.

HIB · 25-01-2014 02:06AM

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

A lot of the time actually fines go to the poor box and then donated to a charity. Fines dont always go to the state.

To answer the question a suspended sentence means the person is released with no jail time of maybe 5 years. And or a fine. Then if in a two yesr time or something similar they reoffend and are convicted the five year term is reactivated and inforced allong with the sentence for the new offence. It is a system used to fight a few problems. 1 underage ofenders going to prison where they have a much higher chance of reoffending upon release, and 2 over crowding in our prisons. I believe its a bit flawed where judges fail to punish offenders who are in court every other week. It does work as a deterant for a lot of youths though.

Someone posted on here earlier that it is 'supposedly' the case, that the term is reactivated if they reoffend. So, is this really enforced? i.e. if they reoffend, is the first sentence always imposed consecutively to the sentence for the second crime. Or is it applied concurrently? In other words, is there any real consequence for the first offence.... ever?

weldoninhio · 25-01-2014 05:35AM

oldyouth wrote: »

SamAK wrote: »

Ah, you must be one of those fvckwits that type before they think:mad:[/QUOTE

Right, so tell me in detail how the current arrangement works well for society or how a few tweeks will sort it.

Unless everyone dreads the thought of prison, we will continue to have ****wits beat the shlte out of innocent people

Ah shure didn't they have it terrible, they're poor mother could only get them a PS3 this Xmas, when the craturs wanted a PS4. Shure wasn't it the taxi-mans fault for rubbing his job in their faces, driving around picking up customers wantin' to get paid for it!! Shure they're only young fellas, you'll always get a bit of rough and tumble with young fellas, especially with a drink taken, whys the taximan making such a fuss for??

What a horrible attitude to have, a more inclusive society?? If i saw some yonng lads beating up a taximan, or anyone doing their job, i'd include my boot up their arses!!

oldyouth · 25-01-2014 09:29AM

No Pants wrote: »

I don't think much is needed. Just stop all this suspended sentence lark and come down hard on people who commit offences when out on bail. No more bail for them. Ever. If the first spell in prison isn't a sufficient deterrent, try it again, but for longer.

If we don't have enough prisons for this, build more. Last I heard, we've a load of unemployed builders.

It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation. There is not enough space in prisons, I'll grant you but some of the reason is that the actual punishment of internment in an Irish prison is not a sufficient hardship to make a career criminal change his ways to try and stay out

No Pants · 25-01-2014 09:44AM

oldyouth wrote: »

It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation. There is not enough space in prisons, I'll grant you but some of the reason is that the actual punishment of internment in an Irish prison is not a sufficient hardship to make a career criminal change his ways to try and stay out

Then we're not locking them up for long enough.

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-01-2014 10:09AM

No Pants wrote: »

Then we're not locking them up for long enough.

Locking them up longer also uses space. The prison service has just over 4100 spaces, mostly doubled up in small cells. The current costs of running the service is over €300,000,000, of which the vast majority is wages. If I remember correctly the cost per prison year is around €60,000 it was about €80,000 but savings have been made. Prison Officers would more than likely say the savings are brought about with risks and there is a point where the prison could become unsafe. So if people want to say double all sentences then an extra €300 million a year needs to be found, if we want to also jail 4000 extra people who currently not getting time we can add another €300 million, that is an extra over €600 million a year, over the next 10 years it would cost in total about €10 billion a year. If people want it fine but be aware of the costs.

We always hear of the low sentences, never the long ones, we always hear of the repeat multi conviction offenders, we never hear of the many who have get into trouble and the probation service get on track. The biggest problem with prison is it's a university for thugs, also the chances of going in with no drug issues but coming out with serious drug problems are high.

No Pants · 25-01-2014 10:56AM

I never said or even thought that it would be free, but I don't understand why we don't have more prison places. It's one of the obvious things missing from the criminal justice system and a driver for a lot of the problems associated with bail and sentencing issues.

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-01-2014 10:59AM

No Pants wrote: »

I never said or even thought that it would be free, but I don't understand why we don't have more prison places. It's one of the obvious things missing from the criminal justice system and a driver for a lot of the problems associated with bail and sentencing issues.

Yes you can't jail more than the available spaces, the prisons are full, as long as people accept there will be extra costs then build away.

kult · 25-01-2014 11:35AM

No Pants wrote: »

We'll that was a poor decision, as it cost them €160 and several months in jail supposedly. All over a TV that they couldn't use.

Hold on, who am I kidding. I call horse**** on this story.

Instead of protecting those poor people you are blaming them for not getting rid of the old tv. I believe you must be young, inexperienced life person. Maybe one day if you are in tough situation ( not that you can't afford going out or something ) you will understand.

No Pants · 25-01-2014 11:46AM

kult wrote: »

I believe you must be young, inexperienced life person. Maybe one day if you are in tough situation ( not that you can't afford going out or something ) you will understand.

What age do you think I am?

kult wrote: »

Instead of protecting those poor people you are blaming them for not getting rid of the old tv.

Assuming that your story isn't nonsense from beginning to end, they have not enough money to eat. However they keep a TV. A TV that they cannot afford the electricity for, nor anything to actually watch on (since the TV is fifteen years old, it doesn't have anything built in to pick up the free-to-air stations since the digital switchover). They then received at least six letters regarding the necessity of a TV licence and the potential penalties and ignored them. They didn't sell the TV, give it away to charity, throw it away or even just move to another house where it would be covered by another licence. Then when court came up, they somehow managed to turn this into a prison sentence of several months. All over a worthless, unusable apparatus that they have formed some kind of emotional bond over.

So...who else do you suggest would be at fault?

As for protecting them, if this story is true, then they need protecting from themselves.

kult · 25-01-2014 11:53AM

No Pants wrote: »

What age do you think I am?

Assuming that your story isn't nonsense from beginning to end, they have not enough money to eat. However they keep a TV. A TV that they cannot afford the electricity for, nor anything to actually watch on (since the TV is fifteen years old, it doesn't have anything built in to pick up the free-to-air stations since the digital switchover). They then received at least six letters regarding the necessity of a TV licence and the potential penalties and ignored them. They didn't sell the TV, give it away to charity, throw it away or even just move to another house where it would be covered by another licence. Then when court came up, they somehow managed to turn this into a prison sentence of several months. All over a worthless, unusable apparatus that they have formed some kind of emotional bond over.

So...who else do you suggest would be at fault?

As for protecting them, if this story is true, then they need protecting from themselves.

Yet again, by writing what you have wrote now I proved my point about you. In few years when you get some life experience and you open your eyes a bit wider you might get it, however some people "die blind" ( read ignorant). At this stage, there is no way of explaining anything to you, because you will not get it, till you understand starvation, sentimental attachment to things, depression and more. The best way to deal with you now is ignore you. Btw you can go on about logic here etc. Go ahead. Thanks

No Pants · 25-01-2014 12:02PM

kult wrote: »

Yet again, by writing what you have wrote now I proved my point about you. In few years when you get some life experience and you open your eyes a bit wider you might get it, however some people "die blind" ( read ignorant).

I'm nearly 39 years of age and I've lived and worked in three countries. I did suffer from depression twice and I've also been unemployed for three separate periods between 2002 and 2011 in two countries. None of these preventing me from paying my bills or getting rid of valuable or costly items when needed.

kult wrote: »

starvation, sentimental attachment to things, depression and more.

:pac:

None of these should be part of the discussion. The TV licence is required based on a binary condition:

Do you have a TV? Yes/No

If yes, get a licence. If no, don't bother. There's nothing about being hungry, or depressed, or in love with your TV or it being a full moon or having an aunt Fidelma.

Since these people are your friends, why didn't you help them avoid this pitfall.

Tigger · 25-01-2014 12:36PM

kult wrote: »

To avoid a tv license payment: an inspector asks you if you have TV license, you just say I DO NOT NEED A TV LICENSE, if he asks again say the same...you do not say yes or no, based on information you give: I do not need a tv license - the inspector cannot take any action against you. I haven't paid a tv license in 11 years now. Once the inspector came in with Gardai, I asked them if I am being arrested, did I commit a crime, or what? If not then they can go home and stop wasting tax payers money. Also you are not obligated to talk to the inspector. All my friends are doing it now and none of them pays anything to those hyenas...

but two of them went to jail?

No Pants · 25-01-2014 02:04PM

Tigger wrote: »

but two of them went to jail?

Indeed. Either they weren't told about this or it didn't work.

endacl · 25-01-2014 02:06PM

oldyouth wrote: »

No, we need to make prison unbearable, even if you only are in there for a month. Double up the cells and put a 'Bubba' in there with every new inmate.

Civil rights my hole

And how do you plan to torture Bubba? Presumably Bubba isn't in prison for no reason?

9/10 on the inane comment scale. Try harder.

Pumpkinseeds · 25-01-2014 02:20PM

murpho999 wrote: »

Yes, of course, sure when prisons were unbearable they were empty weren' they? Totally prevented crime.

Whole justice system needs to change.

As does as our education and social system, long term goals to eliminate the skanger classes that constantly get into trouble.

We need a more just, socially inclusive society to prevent this happening, not just locking people up as it does not solve anything but make criminals harder.

Sorry, but you're talking crap. If I hear anymore bleeding heart liberal bullsh*t about how it's societies fault for not being more 'socially inclusive' I might just puke.

ScumLord · 25-01-2014 03:58PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

And I think maiming worked pretty well, if you cut somebody's arm off it makes a lot of crimes pretty tricky.

It only guaranteed the criminal had no choice but to stay on the wrong side of the law. It would be virtually impossible to reintegrate with normal society with such an obvious marker. That means their only option was a life of petty crime.

I'm pretty sure killing people also stopped them from committing crimes.

Yes but it does nothing to stop the other criminals that didn't get caught and that join the ranks every day. In fact it hardens them and makes them fight to the death and kill rather than risk the possibility of state punishment. It doesn't stop the crime at all.

All a harsh police force does is act like a pack of wolves, picking off the weak criminals to incentivise the evolution of a stronger more vicious criminal.

No Pants · 25-01-2014 08:40PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

[/B]
Sorry, but you're talking crap. If I hear anymore bleeding heart liberal bullsh*t about how it's societies fault for not being more 'socially inclusive' I might just puke.

But they're among our most vulnerable. :pac:

Like everyone else.

Nino Brown · 25-01-2014 09:16PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Yes but it does nothing to stop the other criminals that didn't get caught and that join the ranks every day. In fact it hardens them and makes them fight to the death and kill rather than risk the possibility of state punishment. It doesn't stop the crime at all.

No, your right it doesn't stop other murders, but it means there's once less murderer to worry about.

Likewise for locking criminals up for years, rehabilitation doesn't work, and I don't see why we should even try, but locking people up at least means that criminal isn't walking the street, so society is better off.

And punishment does stop some crimes, if the benefits don't outweigh the risks, some criminals will reconsider their crime, they're rational people just like everybody else.
[/QUOTE]

DonQuay1 · 26-01-2014 11:16AM

It really means that there's not enough rope for the full ..........................

BattleCorp · 26-01-2014 12:56PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

You're in favour of putting people who are spending a month in prison (obviously something minor) in a position where they're likely to be raped or beaten?

I'm not in favour of somebody getting put in prison to be raped or beaten but I'm not in favour of letting people off scott free when they kicked the head off a taxi driver either.

There has to be some sort of happy medium. People should be jailed for this kind of assault.

J_E · 26-01-2014 01:49PM

Galway K9 wrote: »

we need the three strike rule as in US, three convictions and your banged up for 25 years.
Labour for each person to pay off the prison costs.

And end up with the prison system they have? You're grand, no thanks.
Got to laugh when people hold up the US as any sort of good example in that regard.

Put down your pitchforks, internet warriors, and maybe have some sense before you start typing the whole 'hope he gets x y and z' nonsense

What does a suspended sentence actually mean?

Comments