nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

tougher jail sentences for break ins

2smiggy

i don't know if this is just because of elections in the near future, but surely this sort of thing should have been done years ago

link here

but i did hear frank buttemer on the radio saying that it is all fine as it is. He would say that , he took in the higest legal aid fees in the country last year link

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Valetta

2smiggy wrote: »

i don't know if this is just because of elections in the near future, but surely this sort of thing should have been done years ago

link here

but i did hear frank buttemer on the radio saying that it is all fine as it is. He would say that , he took in the higest legal aid fees in the country last year link

Maybe his firm did the most work.

They have to balance longer sentences with limited prison spaces.

Menas

Great idea, but is it really thought thru?
The prisons are full. So to accommodate longer sentences for some prisoners they will have to give others early release. That is not a good idea.

Boom_Bap

Part of the problem as I understand it is that they can serve their scentences at the same time.
So a burgular breaks into a house one day and gets arrested. While on bail, breaks into another house and is arrested.
When he finishes the trials for both crimes, if he gets 18 months for each, he only serves 18 months rather that 36 months.
So the crook gets carte blanche in committing the second (or third or forth....) burgulary while the first case is being dealt with.

When my car was broken into, and the guy was caught in the act by the Gardaí, I was told at the scene by the Garda that the guy is well known, has a string of offences, will be out of custody by the next day and will not show up for court as he has a history of this.
So here is a guy knowing he commit crime with the only consequence being a short stay overnight on the Garda station.

2smiggy

Valetta wrote: »

Maybe his firm did the most work.

They have to balance longer sentences with limited prison spaces.

no doubt if he did not do the most work , some other firm would have. No problem with that. Just seems the whole legal system is making nice money off short jail terms or suspended sentences. All the time people's homes are been broken into by repeat offenders. I'd imagine that the number of people/gangs carrying out these robberies is small enough.

SEPT 23 1989

we need a new prison

mailforkev

I'm not a right wing "lock them up and throw them away the key" guy but I'd rather money was used to build new prison spaces than some of the other things the govt spends it on.

Burglaries are much increased in my neck of the woods, with a couple of my neighbours being hit recently. Several friends and family also had burglaries in their roads in the surrounding area.

It's a nasty crime that can have a long term effect on the victim. Especially when the criminals walk, judges aren't really doing their part.

From talking to local Gardaí the houses around here are being burgled mainly by members of a certain community. So I'm guessing this further complicates matters.

SpaceTime

They need to stop wasting prison resources on things like non payment of fines for non violent crimes, unpaid TV licences etc etc all those things can be dealt with through attachment to earnings, community service etc etc

The priority should be custodial sentences for serious crime and people who repeatedly offend with things like burglary.

bjork

Good. This is one thing I would agree with. Lock them up and go round to their houses and remove their x-boxes, iphones and other sh1t they don't deserve

Harry Palmr

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Great idea, but is it really thought thru?
The prisons are full. So to accommodate longer sentences for some prisoners they will have to give others early release. That is not a good idea.

The prisons have a disproportionate number of "bed nights" for people who haven't paid fines and other frankly trivial offences which should be dealt with without resorting to incarceration.

SpaceTime

The cost of incarceration of people for fines is crazy too.

1. It's very expensive
2. It may cause them to lose their job and become long term unemployed at huge cost to the state.
Turning up at work to say you need a week off for prison doesn't go down well! Even if it's for unpaid parking tickets.

Menas

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The prisons have a disproportionate number of "bed nights" for people who haven't paid fines and other frankly trivial offences which should be dealt with without resorting to incarceration.

Yup, the system is a mess. No doubt about that.
And us ordinary joes continue to feel the brunt of it thru high crime rates.

bjork

SpaceTime wrote: »

The cost of incarceration of people for fines is crazy too.

1. It's very expensive
2. It may cause them to lose their job and become long term unemployed at huge cost to the state.
Turning up at work to say you need a week off for prison doesn't go down well! Even if it's for unpaid parking tickets.

1. but worth it
2. Maybe they should think of that before they go out robbing?

SpaceTime

Alan Shatter had started some reform of this but I've heard very little about it since then.

SpaceTime

bjork wrote: »

1. but worth it
2. Maybe they should think of that before they go out robbing?

Go out robbing TV licences or being unable to afford a fine that's run up maybe due to depression or serious financial hardship ?

bjork

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The prisons have a disproportionate number of "bed nights" for people who haven't paid fines and other frankly trivial offences which should be dealt with without resorting to incarceration.

What I have heard of happening:

go to prison in the morning, Get lunch and wait for a few hours to check you in and check you out again. They then pay for you bus fare home. Home by nightfall.

Are we just rounding them up to give them lunch and a bus fare. I think they also get a days prison wages €12.50 or there abouts

galljga1

Do away with concurrent sentencing. I cannot see how giving someone 8 X 6 month sentences, to run concurrently is any sort of a disincentive.

bjork

SpaceTime wrote: »

Go out robbing TV licences or being unable to afford a fine that's run up maybe due to depression or serious financial hardship ?

If they are in that financial hardship, maybe they should get rid of the TV and save on the electricity too?

Double savings

seamus

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Part of the problem as I understand it is that they can serve their scentences at the same time.
So a burgular breaks into a house one day and gets arrested. While on bail, breaks into another house and is arrested.
When he finishes the trials for both crimes, if he gets 18 months for each, he only serves 18 months rather that 36 months.
So the crook gets carte blanche in committing the second (or third or forth....) burgulary while the first case is being dealt with.

There's a logical and legal argument to this though.

That is, even though he is out on bail for the first offence, he is still in the eyes of the law, innocent. So he's not committing the second crime while being punished for the first, the two must be treated separate instances.

Thus, by making the sentence consecutive, you are in effect punishing the guy extra for the second offence, even though he was "innocent" of the first crime when the second was committed.

Not that I necessarily agree with it. In another sense one could argue that if he is found guilty of the first offence, then technically he was always guilty and therefore committed the second offence while knowingly guilty of the first.

But this is the reason why trying to reform sentencing is difficult; there are multiple routes that solicitors (and judges) can take to argue why a sentence is unfair and something less severe should be applied.

I would much rather see prison reform than sentence reform though tbh. Pretty consistently around the world it's been shown that a softer prison system tends towards less repeat offending; systems which use incarceration as a means to educate and reform criminals rather than punish them show far lower recidivism rates.

SpaceTime

bjork wrote: »

If they are in that financial hardship, maybe they should get rid of the TV and save on the electricity too?

Double savings

Maybe they should be how is it any benefit to the state to cost many, many times the value of the TV licence to collect the payment ?!

If you don't pay any other bill, it gets sent to a collections agency eventually.
You can come up with payment plans, attachments to earnings or welfare payments, seize goods or savings etc etc

All of these methods enforce a fine but save a fortune !

bjork

SpaceTime wrote: »

Maybe they should be how is it any benefit to the state to cost many, many times the value of the TV licence to collect the payment ?!

If you don't pay any other bill, it gets sent to a collections agency eventually.

If they make an example of a couple, it keeps everyone else paying without much effort.

Egginacup

People say the prisons are full......but who are they full with?

Is everyone there because they really ought to be locked up?

IS it like the US where the majority are inside because of non-violent offences?

Looking at these statistics:

http://www.iprt.ie/prison-facts-2

I'm guessing that freeing up some of these people who ought to maybe be in rehab or counselling or working off a bullshit fine would open up some space to bang up burglars and violent assholes who belong cooling behind bars for a nice stretch.

SpaceTime

bjork wrote: »

If they make an example of a couple, it keeps everyone else paying without much effort.

The evidence would say otherwise.
16% non compliance rate.

bjork

SpaceTime wrote: »

The evidence would say otherwise.

Well then, they know there maybe consequences to their actions and choose to take the risk

Tough, if they get caught.

out of those caught what is the average time they've spent in jail?

How many of them needed a week off work?

Gatling

The problem will be harder sentences at judges disgression .
Which makes the harsh sentences a complete waste of time as judges here seem incapable of giving any type of meaningful sentence

seamus

SpaceTime wrote: »

The evidence would say otherwise.
16% non compliance rate.

Actually 84% compliance is pretty good for any charge or bill, especially one where the only enforcement is a legal challenge.

Suppliers who cannot withhold service (such as TV licence, Management Companies, electricity, water, etc) would classify payment rates of 85% as good, and 90% as excellent.

Suppliers who can withhold service (like eircom, vodafone, etc) would expect 90%+ compliance, but still run non-payment rates of between 5% and 10%

Of course 84% compliance with the TV licence doesn't mean that the threat of punishment is effective, but it's about the level of compliance that should be expected.

SpaceTime

Assuming the 411 TV licence convicts blocked a prison bed for one day they cost approx €73400

You'd gave to add court time, transport, legal aid etc

So, I'm guessing probably cost at least 1/4 million to collect 411 TV licences

Great use of resources!

Meanwhile various vicious thugs are walking the streets due to lack of prison places and soft sentencing ....

conorhal

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Great idea, but is it really thought thru?
The prisons are full. So to accommodate longer sentences for some prisoners they will have to give others early release. That is not a good idea.

We've long needed a new prison, Thornton Hall is still on the shelf and as usual, government's only solution is a permanent 'temporary arrangement' that is the revolving door. I really dispair at our total inability to fix the structural issues that we all pay for down the line anyway, typically be getting burgled by some gob****e with 50 previous convictions for the same.

flutered

SpaceTime wrote: »

Go out robbing TV licences or being unable to afford a fine that's run up maybe due to depression or serious financial hardship ?

when i was growing up money was non existent for most, this did not act as an excuse for robbing pilfering etc

Uno my Uno.

2smiggy wrote: »

no doubt if he did not do the most work , some other firm would have. No problem with that. Just seems the whole legal system is making nice money off short jail terms or suspended sentences. All the time people's homes are been broken into by repeat offenders. I'd imagine that the number of people/gangs carrying out these robberies is small enough.

This is a new one, Apparently defence lawyers are trying to get shorter sentences for their clients so as they can get out, reoffend and require the defence Lawyers services again sooner rather than later. The conspiracy forum is that way >>>>>>>>

galljga1 wrote: »

Do away with concurrent sentencing. I cannot see how giving someone 8 X 6 month sentences, to run concurrently is any sort of a disincentive.

Whether 6 Months is too short a sentence for a burglary is a separate issue to that of concurrent sentencing. Have a google of Concurrent vs Consecutive sentences, consider the issues of double punishment as well as disproportionate punishment.

hfallada

Most robberys in this city is to fund drug addiction. Yet the prison system only deals with incarceration and no drug addiction. We need more rehab beds to actually get this people clean and not robbibg to feed their addiction

Anyone will tell you there is hardly any rehab beds in Dublin. Even if you want to get clean, you can't. I can't imagine the legal system being happy if people were sent to rehab than long court cases

At what stage will the government realise if someone has been on heroin for the last 15 years and in and out of prison for most of that. That prison isn't the answer and that rehab probably is.