Another light sentence handed down by the courts

Guy:Incognito · 28-07-2015 12:49PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

That is a nonsense comparison.

The quantum of costs involved in the justice system is a real issue and in jurisdictions where heavy rates of incarceration have been employed it is having a profound impact on state budgets. Education bugets have been cut to fund some state's carceral regimes. If we are talking about a better way to deal with criminals then we have to look at the costs. At a macro level at the very least.

It's not a nonsense comparison. The cost of crime is very real. Just because it doesnt suit the simple arguement that it costs 70k a year to house a criminal so we should'nt just lock people up that it might be costing the country 50k (figure plucked from the air, it could be wildly more or less) keeping him out meaning the 70k isnt the real cost.

Plus, are we , as taxpaying , law abiding citizens, not entitled to some sort of protection against criminality? Or have we to continue paying our way and just shut up about being the victims of crime?

Barely There · 28-07-2015 12:56PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Or have we to continue paying our way and just shut up about being the victims of crime?

When were you last the victim of a crime?

jobbridge4life · 28-07-2015 12:59PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It's not a nonsense comparison. The cost of crime is very real. Just because it doesnt suit the simple arguement that it costs 70k a year to house a criminal so we should'nt just lock people up that it might be costing the country 50k (figure plucked from the air, it could be wildly more or less) keeping him out meaning the 70k isnt the real cost.

It is a nonsense comprison because a. its a useless hypothetical b. it can't ever be defeated (even if I gave you answer you could simply say well what would be the cost if he robbed x more houses and blew up a building and poisoned our water supply. I may as well ask you whats the point of spending 70k a year incarcerating him versus the cost of allowing him to rehabilitate in the community, becoming a tax paying citizen. That would suit an anti-incarceration argument but it is as useless as the false equation you introduced.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Plus, are we , as taxpaying , law abiding citizens, not entitled to some sort of protection against criminality? Or have we to continue paying our way and just shut up about being the victims of crime?

There is very little point engaging with you if you refuse to confine yourself to what I have actually said.

K.Flyer · 28-07-2015 01:08PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Okay that is a policy decision for government and by extension the public at large. So lets think about what it would mean. In this case it would mean holding this 22 year old in prison for the remainder of his natural life. The costs involved in this are astronomical, circa 70euro a year. OR would we execute him? Assuming a relatively efficient system it would be far cheaper in the long rule and perhaps less cruel.

Do you mind me asking how you work out that he would be in prison for the remainder of his life.
You come across as someone you believes that prison does not work. Period. And you try to back your opinion with cost factors. With no consideration given to the cost to the victims and their families.
So what is your solution or proposal? Given that you feel that its too costly to lock them up and there is no money to try to educate or rehabilitate them.

handlemaster · 28-07-2015 01:11PM

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/garda-trace-vicious-thief-sentenced-to-fourandahalf-years-using-find-my-phone-app-31409601.html

Heres another nice young man. Two crimes rolled into on sentence four years. Again people were Shouting "kill him kill him" similar to the case highted yesterday. Whats wrong with these people.

Guy:Incognito · 28-07-2015 01:14PM

Barely There wrote: »

When were you last the victim of a crime?

I scared off a group of lads breaking in to my mothers house a couple years back. I suppose I could have hid in the wardrobe and let the break in happen to make sure I was a victim of crime. Other houses on the road have been broken in to though. The misses house was broken in to and ransacked years ago too.

Outside of that, I suppose I'm big and scary enough looking not to be targetted for muggings and the like.

I'm sure you knew though that it was a collective "we".

Guy:Incognito · 28-07-2015 01:18PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

It is a nonsense comprison because a. its a useless hypothetical b. it can't ever be defeated (even if I gave you answer you could simply say well what would be the cost if he robbed x more houses and blew up a building and poisoned our water supply. I may as well ask you whats the point of spending 70k a year incarcerating him versus the cost of allowing him to rehabilitate in the community, becoming a tax paying citizen. That would suit an anti-incarceration argument but it is as useless as the false equation you introduced..

A)How is it hypothetical? The crimes he actually commited have cost the state and private citizens money. Thats fact.

How can it not be defeated? If he was locked up after 25 convictions,he wouldnt have commited the other 30.

jobbridge4life · 28-07-2015 01:20PM

K.Flyer wrote: »

Do you mind me asking how you work out that he would be in prison for the remainder of his life.

It was the logical progression of your point, which I quoted, saying no one with that many convictions should be out free after an assault like that. If he is not to be free he must be incarcerated. There have also been a few other 'lock em up and throw away the key type comments from plenty of others.

K.Flyer wrote: »

You come across as someone you believes that prison does not work. Period.

If I have given that impression it wasn't my intention. It is more complex than that. It really depends on what we mean by 'work' and what it is we want them to achieve.

K.Flyer wrote: »

And you try to back your opinion with cost factors.

The cost factors don't really have an impact on whether they 'work' its just an important factor to consider especially in the face of those clamouring for longer sentences and more jailing.

K.Flyer wrote: »

With no consideration given to the cost to the victims and their families.

I reject that, and it is an example of why it is so difficult to have these conversations. You try and discuss it rationally and you get accused of not caring about victims.

K.Flyer wrote: »

So what is your solution or proposal? Given that you feel that its too costly to lock them up and there is no money to try to educate or rehabilitate them.

I am not sure thats why I asked the question. Also there is more in the arsenal of justice than lock em up or let them roam free.

BattleCorp · 28-07-2015 01:27PM

K.Flyer wrote: »

try to educate or rehabilitate them.

What are the chances of rehabilitating scrotes like the guy who hit the cop with a rock or the guy who kicked the head off a guy on the ground?

If they can't be rehabilitated, what's the solution?

Barely There · 28-07-2015 01:32PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I scared off a group of lads breaking in to my mothers house a couple years back.

Jaysus - they way you're wailing on about our criminal justice system, you'd swear you're living in a warzone or something, not having to go back a couple of years to pull out a fairly benign example of your personal experience with crime.

You're living in one of the safest places on Earth - you're just having your chain yanked by the tabloid media.

Muahahaha · 28-07-2015 01:43PM

Barely There wrote: »

You're living in one of the safest places on Earth - you're just having your chain yanked by the tabloid media.

I doubt he felt he was living in a safe place when there was a gang of criminals burgling his mothers house

Johngoose · 28-07-2015 01:45PM

These random attacks are becoming more and more prevalent.It seems like the perpetrators of crimes have more rights than the victims. Do the judges ever get tired of hearing the same sh1t about the accused.They were on drink/drugs/had an unhappy childhood,it seems to be the default defense when some scumbag is caught rotten.Sorry for kicking you as hard as I could in the head,when my friend was trying to rob your headphones...I really hope you will accept my appology, even though your vision could be permanently affected by my kick.

Guy:Incognito · 28-07-2015 01:47PM

Barely There wrote: »

Jaysus - they way you're wailing on about our criminal justice system, you'd swear you're living in a warzone or something, not having to go back a couple of years to pull out a fairly benign example of your personal experience with crime.

You're living in one of the safest places on Earth - you're just having your chain yanked by the tabloid media.

Just because I personally have had an easy ride of it doesnt mean I cant have a concern for the other people in my community or society as a whole. If we all lived in personal little bulletproof bubbles and only looked out for oursleves then a lot of us would be fine. Fortunately , some people in society move beyond a purely Me Fein attitude though.

Barely There · 28-07-2015 02:02PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

I doubt he felt he was living in a safe place when there was a gang of criminals burgling his mothers house

Your 'feelings' about something and the reality of it may in some cases be very different.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Just because I personally have had an easy ride of it doesnt mean I cant have a concern for the other people in my community or society as a whole. If we all lived in personal little bulletproof bubbles and only looked out for oursleves then a lot of us would be fine. Fortunately , some people in society move beyond a purely Me Fein attitude though.

I care about society too - which is why I'd never want to see your knee-jerk reactions to individual cases ever form the basis of our criminal justice system.

Guy:Incognito · 28-07-2015 02:11PM

Barely There wrote: »

I care about society too - which is why I'd never want to see your knee-jerk reactions to individual cases ever form the basis of our criminal justice system.

What bad could come to society from imposing a custodial sentence on a guy with 50 odd previous convictions that ran up to an already injured person lying on the ground and kicked them in the head?

The next person to be a victim of the guys inevitable next crime that leads to a conviction may feel society would have actually benefited from him being locked up.

Barely There · 28-07-2015 02:18PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What bad could come to society from imposing a custodial sentence on a guy with 50 odd previous convictions that ran up to an already injured person lying on the ground and kicked them in the head?

What bad could come to society from imposing a custodial sentence on a guy with an ounce of hash in his pocket?

K.Flyer · 28-07-2015 02:27PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

What are the chances of rehabilitating scrotes like the guy who hit the cop with a rock or the guy who kicked the head off a guy on the ground?

If they can't be rehabilitated, what's the solution?

I don't believe you can rehabiltate someone if they don't want it.
They have to want the help and be willing to change. The problem is that these people do know the difference between whats right and whats wrong, but don't care who they hurt or how.

Guy:Incognito · 28-07-2015 02:36PM

Barely There wrote: »

What bad could come to society from imposing a custodial sentence on a guy with an ounce of hash in his pocket?

Who said anything about that? Or locking everyone up for every crime?

Any chance of an actual answer to the post?

foggy_lad · 28-07-2015 02:42PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

There are plenty of people going around with 100+ convictions. Jail obviously isn't rehabilitating or deterring them.

If I was a criminal, what would I have to fear. There are little or no repercussions for illegal behaviour.

Alternatively though, if I lived in Saudi Arabia and the punishment for crime was getting your hand cut off, I think I would be less likely to want to reoffend.

The problem is they are not seeing the inside of the prison until they seriously injure or maim some innocent bystander or affect one of the more privileged in our society.

Muahahaha wrote: »

That 4 years for hitting a garda in the face with a rock is an awful sentence, wtf was the judge thinking? The guy already has some 30 convictions and now after leaving a garda partially blind he gets an easy four years? And out in three? Unbelievable stuff, you couldn't make it up

Judges are total innocents so they are, the poor auld eejits don't have a clue as they sit in their plush leather chair stinking of cigars and the most expensive Brandy.

BattleCorp wrote: »

What are the chances of rehabilitating scrotes like the guy who hit the cop with a rock or the guy who kicked the head off a guy on the ground?

If they can't be rehabilitated, what's the solution?

Some people are just never going to be anything but a complete drain on the resources of the state and an absolute danger to it's citizens.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/brave-garda-hit-in-face-with-a-rock-thought-he-would-die-in-attack-31408382.html

Members of the Quilligan family sobbed in court as three people received prison sentences.

What a pack of absolute bastards!

They didn't shed a tear for the Garda who will most likely never work again because their bastard family has blinded him.

Both gardai answered a 999 call in east Cork to be confronted by six members of the Quilligan family. They were attacked with a variety of weapons, including rocks, rakes, sticks, knives and even a ladder.

One member of the family repeatedly attempted to ram a Garda patrol car before a second patrol car was later rammed at speed and written off.

The incident, on December 14, 2014, which extended over three different Cork locations, only ended several hours later when two armed Regional Support Units surrounded the Quilligan family home at Ballymartin, Dungourney, Midleton, Co Cork. They forced their way in and used pepper spray, Taser guns and bean-bag rounds to restore calm.

Sergeant Haughney will never be able to resume his Garda duties such was the damage suffered to his left eye when he was hit in the face by a large rock thrown by Luke Quilligan.

darkpagandeath · 28-07-2015 02:44PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Who said anything about that? Or locking everyone up for every crime?

Any chance of an actual answer to the post?

They get confused and just think its about everyone and not actual scumbags with loads of previous and previous for violence and still walking around. All I have called for is jail time for serious offences like this assault. But apparently that's throw away the key rage or something.

Snickers Man · 28-07-2015 03:48PM

“If you lift your foot or your fist to anyone you’ll do three-and-a-half-years and any sentence on top of that,” the judge said.

So here's a question: if somebody identified this scrote and gave him a good kick in the arse, would the scrote go to prison for three and a half years if he retaliated?

Or would he be likely to avoid jail again?

jobbridge4life · 28-07-2015 03:52PM

Snickers Man wrote: »

So here's a question: if somebody identified this scrote and gave him a good kick in the arse, would the scrote go to prison for three and a half years if he retaliated?

Or would he be likely to avoid jail again?

If he is convicted of another offence the suspended sentence will activate and he will have to serve it.

Yellowblackbird · 28-07-2015 04:01PM

I love the idea that a suspended sentence hanging over someone will scare them from carrying on with their lifestyle and chosen career. There's already supposed to be heavy jail sentences hanging over everyone who chooses to commit felony crime. Could these defendants not demonstrate it any clearer that they are not scared or deterred by the risk or prospect of jail time to begin with? If they were then they wouldn't be going around fucking peoples **** up to begin with.

It's like driving disqualifications that judges give out.
They are making a new rule for the criminal. The rule is you're not allowed to drive. Does it not occur to anyone that the criminal doesn't follow the rules. Yeah make some more rules for him to break.

Little CuChulainn · 28-07-2015 04:40PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

If he is convicted of another offence the suspended sentence will activate and he will have to serve it.

The suspended sentence may be activated.

Yellowblackbird · 28-07-2015 04:52PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The suspended sentence may be activated.

True and in practice it's just rolled in with an over all sentence that a judge thinks is a nice round number. Our ten for the price of one concurrent jail sentences mean suspended will just run concurrent to a heap of other sentences for the multiple convictions a career criminal gets on a sentencing hearing.

jobbridge4life · 28-07-2015 05:03PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The suspended sentence may be activated.

No as far as I am aware the law is so long as one the conditions is breached the sentence activates. If you have information that contradicts that I'll be happy(though sad) to be corrected.

El Weirdo · 28-07-2015 05:06PM

Yellowblackbird wrote: »

True and in practice it's just rolled in with an over all sentence that a judge thinks is a nice round number. Our ten for the price of one concurrent jail sentences mean suspended will just run concurrent to a heap of other sentences for the multiple convictions a career criminal gets on a sentencing hearing.

I'm not sure this is correct. I think suspended sentences run consecutive to any sentence for a crime that that broke the conditions of the suspension. Similar to sentences for crimes committed whilst on bail.

foggy_lad · 28-07-2015 05:09PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

No as far as I am aware the law is so long as one the conditions is breached the sentence activates. If you have information that contradicts that I'll be happy(though sad) to be corrected.

Afaik Gardai must get a committal warrant to return a person to prison for breaching conditions of suspended sentences or bail conditions. To get this they must prepare a case and put it before a judge and we all know they are not in the habit of jailing these criminal bastards.

Little CuChulainn · 28-07-2015 05:09PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

No as far as I am aware the law is so long as one the conditions is breached the sentence activates. If you have information that contradicts that I'll be happy(though sad) to be corrected.

I've seen it in court a number of times. Judge simply decides not to activate the sentence.

jobbridge4life · 28-07-2015 05:25PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I've seen it in court a number of times. Judge simply decides not to activate the sentence.

I found it, Crimainal Justice Act 2006. In fairness the bar is set very high for the Judge to ignore (not that always stops them); 'shall revoke the order under subsection (1) unless it considers that the revocation of that order would be unjust in all the circumstances of the case'.

Interestingly it appears from the same Act, that suspended sentences may not run concurrently with subsequent offences.

Another light sentence handed down by the courts

Comments