The bleeding hearts on Prime Time.

Gbear · 05-11-2014 10:01am

king_of_inismac wrote: »

Crime is a societal problem. When we are imagining tags, (if we're being honest) we're imagining someone in a tracksuit with a drug problem who grew up in a deprived estate.

The key idea is in the last 6 words of the previous sentence. Unless you provide a better social environment where crime isnt seen as the norm, you'll always have criminals. No amount of tags will fix that.

My OH works in law and deals with people who grew up in socially deprived households. To be perfectly honest, if I grew up there I'd probably be a criminal myself. Be very thankful if your childhood was anyway normal.

Tackling crime begins there, by saving the next generation. That's where the money should be spent.

Your solution requires almost utopian advancement of society.

Slapping a tag on someone's ankle is a lot more practical.

I think people would be reasonably happy if, to create the room to put these sorts of scumbags away, inflicting prison on people was only seen for serial offenders and violent criminals.

Really, if you nick someone's car once or commit fraud or something, you're probably not going to do all that much harm outside prison. You'd need an eye kept on you and maybe need to do some community service and all that, but giving someone a year in prison for that but only maybe 10-15 years for murder seems wildly inconsistent given the massive gulf in severity.

Streetwalker · 05-11-2014 10:15am

Always said it i'll be taking the law into my own hands if anyone ever hurts my family or attempts to rob my property. The Irish justice system just can't be trusted to deal with the criminals. People will say "but that's the road to anarchy" etc.. but that's not my problem. Fix the justice system and then i'll change my way of thinking.

kstand · 05-11-2014 10:18am

Streetwalker wrote: »

Always said it i'll be taking the law into my own hands if anyone ever hurts my family or attempts to rob my property. The Irish justice system just can't be trusted to deal with the criminals. People will say "but that's the road to anarchy" etc.. but that's not my problem. Fix the justice system and then i'll change my way of thinking.

And that is the way things are going to go unless a common sense prevails here and the idiots championing the rights of these criminals and how they should be treated are put firmly in their box. I can actually see the problem getting much worse and vigilantism becoming almost a social norm otherwise.

Streetwalker · 05-11-2014 10:30am

king_of_inismac wrote: »

Crime is a societal problem. When we are imagining tags, (if we're being honest) we're imagining someone in a tracksuit with a drug problem who grew up in a deprived estate.

The key idea is in the last 6 words of the previous sentence. Unless you provide a better social environment where crime isnt seen as the norm, you'll always have criminals. No amount of tags will fix that.

My OH works in law and deals with people who grew up in socially deprived households. To be perfectly honest, if I grew up there I'd probably be a criminal myself. Be very thankful if your childhood was anyway normal.

Tackling crime begins there, by saving the next generation. That's where the money should be spent.

Complete cop out. I grew up in social housing as did many of my friends and I never caused any trouble. I don't buy the "they have no facilities" argument at all. Been to Ballymun recently? The council knocked down a load of flats and gave people new houses only for the same anti social problems to persist. The problem is we as a society are not hard enough on the criminals. Going to Mountjoy is nothing for these assholes.

mikemac1 · 05-11-2014 10:39am

king_of_inismac wrote: »

Crime is a societal problem. When we are imagining tags, (if we're being honest) we're imagining someone in a tracksuit with a drug problem who grew up in a deprived estate.

The key idea is in the last 6 words of the previous sentence. Unless you provide a better social environment where crime isnt seen as the norm, you'll always have criminals. No amount of tags will fix that.

My OH works in law and deals with people who grew up in socially deprived households. To be perfectly honest, if I grew up there I'd probably be a criminal myself. Be very thankful if your childhood was anyway normal.

Tackling crime begins there, by saving the next generation. That's where the money should be spent.

So called deprived areas have more facilities then most

Ballyfermot has two GAA clubs, boxing club, council leisure centre with pool, the fantastic library is reopened, AstroTurf pitches, council run pitch n'putt, multiple training centres for computers & job seeking, large FAS centre, health clinic, will I keep going?

Doesn't stop cars being stolen and burned out in Cherry Orchard every single week.

05-11-2014 10:44am

Streetwalker wrote: »

Complete cop out. I grew up in social housing as did many of my friends and I never caused any trouble. I don't buy the "they have no facilities" argument at all. Been to Ballymun recently? The council knocked down a load of flats and gave people new houses only for the same anti social problems to persist. The problem is we as a society are not hard enough on the criminals. Going to Mountjoy is nothing for these assholes.

I agree, Im the same, from a very rough area and didn't once get involved in that crap. some people are just scumbags born and bred!!
And going to mount joy for 3 hots and a cot with a crashcourse in play station and snooker is like butlins!!!

Like I said, let all these bleeding heart liberals see howthey feel when they’re family member is set upon by 10 scumbags for his mobilephone, battered
With bottles and bricks and only lucky not to have beenstabbed with a screwdriver for fun!!!! See what they think then!!
Yes that happened to a family member of mine coming homefrom town one night while on his own!!!

Let’s see how you feel then.....

topper75 · 05-11-2014 11:47am

king_of_inismac wrote: »

My OH works in law and deals with people who grew up in socially deprived households. To be perfectly honest, if I grew up there I'd probably be a criminal myself.

What a dumb attitude - this is a spit in the face of all the people who grew up in less-well-off estates in our towns and cities and somehow managed to behave themselves. What are they ... human miracles in your view?

Exiledrover · 05-11-2014 12:13pm

king_of_inismac wrote: »

Crime is a societal problem. When we are imagining tags, (if we're being honest) we're imagining someone in a tracksuit with a drug problem who grew up in a deprived estate.

The key idea is in the last 6 words of the previous sentence. Unless you provide a better social environment where crime isnt seen as the norm, you'll always have criminals. No amount of tags will fix that.

My OH works in law and deals with people who grew up in socially deprived households. To be perfectly honest, if I grew up there I'd probably be a criminal myself. Be very thankful if your childhood was anyway normal.

Tackling crime begins there, by saving the next generation. That's where the money should be spent.

But the removal of the current scumbags may give the next generation a chance

nokia69 · 05-11-2014 12:16pm

Exiledrover wrote: »

But the removal of the current scumbags may give the next generation a chance

exactly

its depressing to see junkies/scumbags in Dublin with small children, they have no chance, generation after generation following the same path

Jawgap · 05-11-2014 12:23pm

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Any reasonable statistics to suggest this is the case? And by reasonable statistics, I don't mean a collection of your favourite Irish Daily Mail articles. Some international comparisons would be good.

Why is the relevant comparator other countries?

Why can't the relevant comparator be a bunch of crime victims who've suffered similar crimes deciding if the punishment is too hard or too soft?

I fully agree with trial by jury and the idea of an impartial judiciary but I'm always left wondering why in the discussion about sentencing the collective voice of the victims of crime gets drowned out.

Berserker · 05-11-2014 12:52pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Cracking down on crime isnt even a divisive thing amongst voters. You dont lose votes by saying we are going to crack down on the soft justice system. Yet it is not even remotely on the political agenda of anybody.

Crime won't win you votes. The is a reflection on the parish pump nature of politics. People are interested in #1, i.e. medical cards, tax cuts, bonuses and increases in SW payments. I'd say crime is rarely mentioned at the door during canvassing. If a candidate ran for election here focusing on crime and another ran on a water charges or anti-austerity card, you and I both know that the later would win, easily.

I quizzed Labour, SF and ULA about crime last time and not one of them had a clue what to say. SF sent tried to change the conversation back to how bad FF were. The others tried to spin some party lines.

Geuze · 05-11-2014 1:38pm

Streetwalker wrote: »

Complete cop out. I grew up in social housing as did many of my friends and I never caused any trouble. I don't buy the "they have no facilities" argument at all. Been to Ballymun recently? The council knocked down a load of flats and gave people new houses only for the same anti social problems to persist. The problem is we as a society are not hard enough on the criminals. Going to Mountjoy is nothing for these assholes.

Correct.

My mother had no elec, father dead, studied by candlelight, became a nurse.

No facilities, no inside toilet, but she did not turn to crime.

Lack of "facilities" is never an excuse.

Markcheese · 05-11-2014 1:47pm

Geuze wrote: »

Correct.

My mother had no elec, father dead, studied by candlelight, became a nurse.

No facilities, no inside toilet, but she did not turn to crime.

Lack of "facilities" is never an excuse.

It's not an excuse ! But it doesn't help .. You put loads of young people together, with little to do (and they already feel they've no stake in society) you're gonna have problems..
Personally I'm for carrot and stick ... Big council estates of the 60's and 70's caused problems .. Work on sorting them, community pride, acceptance of other peoples right to peace and quiet..
But where do you start...

mariaalice · 05-11-2014 2:05pm

I am in two minds about this, I believe restorative justices is the way to go make the offender face their victims.

Society was far more lawless in the past it was just a different kind of lawlessness, have a look at the recodes of the petty sessions some of it is laughable but some of it was very vicious in a way you don't see today, for example damaging you neighbour livestock or stealing and fighting from your neighbours, it was everywhere not just some other 'scumbag' section of society. Today we don't have that.

My other point is how come when we had hanging and floggings we had crime why did they not act as a deterrent.

05-11-2014 2:22pm

mariaalice wrote: »

I am in two minds about this, I believe restorative justices is the way to go make the offender face their victims.

Society was far more lawless in the past it was just a different kind of lawlessness, have a look at the recodes of the petty sessions some of it is laughable but some of it was very vicious in a way you don't see today, for example damaging you neighbour livestock or stealing and fighting from your neighbours, it was everywhere not just some other 'scumbag' section of society. Today we don't have that.

My other point is how come when we had hanging and floggings we had crime why did they not act as a deterrent.

You don't commit crime thinking you're going to get caught in the first place in a lot of cases. Either you think you'll get away with it, or it's in the heat of the moment. I think that's the reasoning behind why the death penalty doesn't work on crime rates

mariaalice · 05-11-2014 2:29pm

bluewolf wrote: »

You don't commit crime thinking you're going to get caught in the first place in a lot of cases. Either you think you'll get away with it, or it's in the heat of the moment. I think that's the reasoning behind why the death penalty doesn't work on crime rates

Yes but a lot of people here are advocating a harsher regime in the belief it acts as a deterrent.

Slot Machine · 05-11-2014 2:30pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Why is the relevant comparator other countries?

Why can't the relevant comparator be a bunch of crime victims who've suffered similar crimes deciding if the punishment is too hard or too soft?

I fully agree with trial by jury and the idea of an impartial judiciary but I'm always left wondering why in the discussion about sentencing the collective voice of the victims of crime gets drowned out.

You agree that the judiciary should be impartial but express confusion about why the victims are not allowed take part? Really? Do you think the bit about impartiality might have something to do with it?

If victims want to seek restitution that's what civil law is there for.

Little CuChulainn · 05-11-2014 2:34pm

mariaalice wrote: »

Yes but a lot of people here are advocating a harsher regime in the belief it acts as a deterrent.

Are they? I think people are advocating it because it would put the convicted criminal out of society for longer rather than convince others not to follow his path.

Little CuChulainn · 05-11-2014 2:34pm

Slot Machine wrote: »

You agree that the judiciary should be impartial but express confusion about why the victims are not allowed take part? Really? Do you think the bit about impartiality might have something to do with it?

If victims want to seek restitution that's what civil law is there for.

Yeah because civil law can really help when the criminal lives entirely on welfare.

mariaalice · 05-11-2014 2:39pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Are they? I think people are advocating it because it would put the convicted criminal out of society for longer rather than convince others not to follow his path.

That is the crucial point what is the function of the criminal system.

Little CuChulainn · 05-11-2014 2:42pm

mariaalice wrote: »

That is the crucial point what is the function of the criminal system.

For me, the primary function of prison is to remove dangerous and unscrupulous people from society and, if possible, reform them for their reintroduction to society. Punishment and deterrant should be considered side effects as opposed to goals.

jank · 05-11-2014 2:49pm

When prison is not seen as a disincentive to commit crime, then other things need to be brought into the equation. Hard labour, corporal punishment etc.. Remember, the primary reasons why people were ganging up on Roma people in Waterford last weak was the perception real or not that they were untouchable by the law and that the law was much too slow and ineffective in dealing with them. If the system is seen to be failing then there will be other consequences to deal with.

everlast75 · 05-11-2014 2:50pm

kstand wrote: »

I had a conversation a year ago at a wedding with a well up detective based in Dublin. We were discussing gangs that were using the motorways to travel down the country in high powered cars and rob rural businesses and farms etc. I asked him if he felt the problem was worsening in Ireland and he said he was - and then asked him if there was a solution and he immediately said "stop their free legal aid".

Its a basic human right in most if not all modern democracies that all people shall have the right to representation before the Court.

Is it expensive - yes

Is it annoying - yes

Is it necessary - absolutely, the cost we pay for being a civilized society

king_of_inismac wrote: »

Crime is a societal problem. When we are imagining tags, (if we're being honest) we're imagining someone in a tracksuit with a drug problem who grew up in a deprived estate.

The key idea is in the last 6 words of the previous sentence. Unless you provide a better social environment where crime isnt seen as the norm, you'll always have criminals. No amount of tags will fix that.

My OH works in law and deals with people who grew up in socially deprived households. To be perfectly honest, if I grew up there I'd probably be a criminal myself. Be very thankful if your childhood was anyway normal.

Tackling crime begins there, by saving the next generation. That's where the money should be spent.

Anyone disagreeing with this is ignoring the fact that crime is inherently a lower class problem. Again, the vast majority do not have employment and disposable income. There are sections that buck the trend but it is true as a general rule.

Approximately 80% of crime is drugs related. Its time this Country had a reasoned and frankly grown up discussion in relation to legalizing drugs. If I had a 500e a day habit, I'd be stealing from all and sundry to stop the horrific cold turkey.

And before anyone says otherwise, I and my family have been the victims of crime in the past and frankly, my gut instinct it to beat the **** out of the blokes involved, but the issues are more complex and nuanced that a hiding. Granted, I'll feel a lot better about it. Police violence, as someone suggested here, will only cause further resentment and a vengeance mentality towards law enforcers.

I do agree however with more consistent sentences, and indeed, hard labour but the root causes have to be tackled head on. I regret to say I don't think any politicians have the balls to do it though

mariaalice · 05-11-2014 2:56pm

jank wrote: »

When prison is not seen as a disincentive to commit crime, then other things need to be brought into the equation. Hard labour, corporal punishment etc.. Remember, the primary reasons why people were ganging up on Roma people in Waterford last weak was the perception real or not that they were untouchable by the law and that the law was much too slow and ineffective in dealing with them. If the system is seen to be failing then there will be other consequences to deal with.

As I said how come when there was hanging and flogging, society still had crime if as you believe they act as a deterrent.

Little CuChulainn · 05-11-2014 3:07pm

everlast75 wrote: »

Approximately 80% of crime is drugs related. Its time this Country had a reasoned and frankly grown up discussion in relation to legalizing drugs. If I had a 500e a day habit, I'd be stealing from all and sundry to stop the horrific cold turkey.

Where did you get the 80% figure from? It's ridiculous.

Summer wind · 05-11-2014 3:11pm

I grew up on an estate that's in the news a lot for all the wrong reasons. People that lived there that committed crime saw going to jail as a badge of honour. When you were released you were seen as a hard man that had been inside. Going to jail is a joke.

everlast75 · 05-11-2014 3:16pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Where did you get the 80% figure from? It's ridiculous.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/drugs-link-to-70-of-crimes-on-probation-206026.html

Little CuChulainn · 05-11-2014 3:22pm

everlast75 wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/drugs-link-to-70-of-crimes-on-probation-206026.html

You left a lot out of that in order to promote your view that drugs should be legalised. If you want to promote a reasoned and frank discussion of the issue you should start by being honest and upfront.

Jawgap · 05-11-2014 3:26pm

Slot Machine wrote: »

You agree that the judiciary should be impartial but express confusion about why the victims are not allowed take part? Really? Do you think the bit about impartiality might have something to do with it?

If victims want to seek restitution that's what civil law is there for.

No , if you read what I wrote you'll see I was talking about the opinions / views of victims of crime being given appropriate weight in the discussion about the severity or otherwise of sentences imposed.

There are plenty to speak out about the criminals and their 'rights' (not so much their responsibilities as citizens in our communities) - in stark contrast to victims.

I wasn't suggesting that victims determine sentences or even sentencing policy.

.......and I'm not advocating a system that is harsh on first time offenders or even fifth time offenders (three-strikes-and-you're-out is, to my mind overly harsh) - but if you've reached say 10 offences and not learned your lesson then it's time for something harsher and more severe. The person has had their chance at rehabilitation, the emphasis should shift from that to punishment and societal retribution.

everlast75 · 05-11-2014 3:29pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You left a lot out of that in order to promote your view that drugs should be legalised. If you want to promote a reasoned and frank discussion of the issue you should start by being honest and upfront.

We all were talking about re-offenders and that statistic refers to re-offenders.

70% is very close to 80% and I was recalling from memory.

You asked for a source and I gave one and unfortunately from your perspective it doesn't back up your point.

I have not left out a lot therefore and your statement that the stat is "ridiculous" is ironically, ridiculous.

My point was and still is drugs is a scourge, a HUGE contributor to crime and should be tackled head on.

Little CuChulainn · 05-11-2014 3:35pm

everlast75 wrote: »

We all were talking about re-offenders and that statistic refers to re-offenders.

70% is very close to 80% and I was recalling from memory.

You asked for a source and I gave one and unfortunately from your perspective it doesn't back up your point.

I have not left out a lot therefore and your statement that the stat is "ridiculous" is ironically, ridiculous.

My point was and still is drugs is a scourge, a HUGE contributor to crime and should be tackled head on.

You said 80% were drugs related. The source you link says 70% were linked to drug or alcohol misuse. If you look further down the page it goes into the stats on drug use with cannabis being misused by 22% of offenders, opiates by 9% and uppers by 6%. And this doesn't actually mean the crimes themselves are drug related.

I agree with your final point, i don't agree with your method.

lazybones32 · 05-11-2014 3:39pm

Lapin wrote: »

.

Why are the judges in this country so soft on criminals?..

If there are less criminals, judges 'work' less and mightn't get paid as much. I'm sure they have an expense account that gets worked hard.

Son Of A Vidic · 05-11-2014 3:42pm

Lapin wrote: »

The bleeding hearts on Prime Time.

Misleading thread title. I thought this thread was about Warfarin and its contraindications.

RoboRat · 05-11-2014 4:03pm

I don't think that tagging is the answer, it would only lead to circumstantial evidence and considering people are getting off when there is cold hard evidence, I can see it being quite useless and exploited by the barristers defending the criminals.

I think the 3 strikes approach is the best approach but again, prisons are costly so I would like to see the prisons being run as a business and being self financing.

Prisoners can work and save up some money which might give them a start when they get out which might also negate the need to reoffend. Also, doing a days work has some degree of satisfaction not to mention the skills that can be learned. They can then exit prison with skills, go to a state run company akin to a halfway house where they can continue with their work, albeit on a better salary.

I think the key is rehabilitation and a proper program in place with structure and not just prisoners sitting around all day. It has to have an end goal, this has to be compulsory and part of the rehabilitation process. I think the goal should be to ensure a prisoner is in some way better than when they arrived.

Some people are in prison due to circumstance and if they were given a chance to make a life, they might just do that. Others are just pure scum but I do believe in second chances and this is from somebody who has been robbed a few times.

Boskowski · 05-11-2014 4:30pm

jank wrote: »

When prison is not seen as a disincentive to commit crime, then other things need to be brought into the equation. Hard labour, corporal punishment etc.. Remember, the primary reasons why people were ganging up on Roma people in Waterford last weak was the perception real or not that they were untouchable by the law and that the law was much too slow and ineffective in dealing with them. If the system is seen to be failing then there will be other consequences to deal with.

The primary reason for people ganging up on them is they were a cowardly mob. Strange how they never gang up on a site full of travellers.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 05-11-2014 5:23pm

Highflyer13 wrote: »

A soft legal system suits solicitors as they get plenty of business from repeat offenders.

Nobody makes their fortune representing these people, legal aid is rarely granted in minor cases and the average client is hardly flush, oftentimes solicitors get done.

Even with free legal aid the State finds it difficult to fill a panel of solicitors because nobody wants to do it.

titchy · 05-11-2014 5:40pm

When I hear of 'soft' sentencing after charges like 'death by drunk driving' etc all I hear is 'the child that that person murdered ..their life...is not worth s&@t'

If I get into my car drunk, if I enter a shop with a knife..if I beat someone over the head/play football with their face...I know damn well what the possible outcome could be, so this crap of 'I didn't mean to kill someone's son by jumping on their head' doesn't wash with me.

Draconian!
Yes how dare someone want something as 'draconian' as a suitable punishment to fit the crime, imagine putting all the effort into raising a child giving them everything they need,

sleepless nights, working hard to provide a future for them. Going to football matches, everything, your whole life revolving around theirs, every decision you make, everything you do... In their best interest.
Taken one day ....because ...

Someone decided to get into their car off their face ( and despite what they'd have you believe it was a decision, one which they knew damn well would/could have consequences)

Someone decided to jump on their face for the laugh (and despite what they'd have you believe it was a decision one which they knew damn well would/could have consequences)

IDE like to ask the posters who don't wish for harsher sentences have they or any of theirs ever been victim to serious crime?

If not ...then can they really imagine waking up in the morning without their child, mother, brother...and still feel the same way they do now about the sentencing ?

Would you be be happy with 18 months for your child's whole life?

Berserker · 05-11-2014 5:42pm

Highflyer13 wrote: »

A soft legal system suits solicitors as they get plenty of business from repeat offenders.

Not true when it comes to repeat offenders from poorer backgrounds. A friend of mine is a barrister in family law and she deals with these repeat offenders quite frequently. You make very little, if anything, from these cases.

05-11-2014 5:50pm

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

Simply put, a little boy's right to life far outweighs a scumbag's right to liberty. Obviously the judges didn't see it this way.

This actually makes me sick.

That is a massive oversimplification

mariaalice · 05-11-2014 5:53pm

titchy wrote: »

When I hear of 'soft' sentencing after charges like 'death by drunk driving' etc all I hear is 'the child that that person murdered ..their life...is not worth s&@t'

If I get into my car drunk, if I enter a shop with a knife..if I beat someone over the head/play football with their face...I know damn well what the possible outcome could be, so this crap of 'I didn't mean to kill someone's son by jumping on their head' doesn't wash with me.

Draconian!
Yes how dare someone want something as 'draconian' as a suitable punishment to fit the crime, imagine putting all the effort into raising a child giving them everything they need,

sleepless nights, working hard to provide a future for them. Going to football matches, everything, your whole life revolving around theirs, every decision you make, everything you do... In their best interest.
Taken one day ....because ...

Someone decided to get into their car off their face ( and despite what they'd have you believe it was a decision, one which they knew damn well would/could have consequences)

Someone decided to jump on their face for the laugh (and despite what they'd have you believe it was a decision one which they knew damn well would/could have consequences)

IDE like to ask the posters who don't wish for harsher sentences have they or any of theirs ever been victim to serious crime?

If not ...then can they really imagine waking up in the morning without their child, mother, brother...and still feel the same way they do now about the sentencing ?

Would you be be happy with 18 months for your child's whole life?

I am not against harsher sentencing, however do you not think as well as a prison sentence they should have to fact the victim or in the case of drinking driving the victims parents or children or partner and explain why they choose to drink and drive, The same with random violence they would have to face their victim and see the consequence of what thy did.

Jawgap · 05-11-2014 5:54pm

Deleted User wrote: »

That is a massive oversimplification

How is it?

A repeat offender ('scumbag' if you will) kills someone (be it a child, adolescent or adult) through a deliberate act or an act of wanton recklessness - in those circumstances how is his long term participation in society not forfeit?

05-11-2014 6:03pm

irishgeo wrote: »

3 strikes and your out rule. very simple none of this 47 previous convictions crap then.

Let's not have our legal system emulate the rules of baseball

The_Captain · 05-11-2014 6:05pm

Boskowski wrote: »

The primary reason for people ganging up on them is they were a cowardly mob. Strange how they never gang up on a site full of travellers.

Let's form a mob and terrorise those Roma women and children for their heinous crime of begging. Let's do nothing to the guys who petrol bombed a one year old because they might actually do something to us

Kermit.de.frog · 05-11-2014 6:08pm

The solicitors have just as much to do with our farce of a "justice" system than the judges. They talk all moral about the offenders because it is in their financial interest to have a revolving door.

Berserker · 05-11-2014 6:11pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The solicitors have just as much to do with our farce of a "justice" system than the judges. They talk all moral about the offenders because it is in their financial interest to have a revolving door.

Once again, that is not true. Solicitors make far more money out of day to day tasks outside this realm. A friend of mine is a barrister in family law and she deals with these repeat offenders quite frequently. You make very little, if anything, from such cases. How much time have you spent in the courts here?

king_of_inismac · 05-11-2014 6:14pm

rusty cole wrote: »

I agree, Im the same, from a very rough area and didn't once get involved in that crap. some people are just scumbags born and bred!!
And going to mount joy for 3 hots and a cot with a crashcourse in play station and snooker is like butlins!!!

Like I said, let all these bleeding heart liberals see howthey feel when they’re family member is set upon by 10 scumbags for his mobilephone, battered
With bottles and bricks and only lucky not to have beenstabbed with a screwdriver for fun!!!! See what they think then!!
Yes that happened to a family member of mine coming homefrom town one night while on his own!!!

Let’s see how you feel then.....

I admire anyone who grew up in a disadvantaged environment and now contributes positively to society (I grew up in a low income family).

The thing to remember is your positive outcome isn't representative of the average/norm. Spend time at the courts and see that the vast majority of criminals are from low income backgrounds. I don't believe for one minute that there are more "scumbags" born in Finglas than Foxrock. I believe the environment shapes everyone.

I would love if the answer to crime was long jail sentences and electronic tags. America has been running a trial on that approach for the last 50 years and it hasnt work out that great.

Hard lines make good headlines but not safer streets.

If you want safer streets build playgrounds/community centre, not prisons.

BlaasForRafa · 05-11-2014 6:15pm

The_Captain wrote: »

Let's form a mob and terrorise those Roma women and children for their heinous crime of begging. Let's do nothing to the guys who petrol bombed a one year old because they might actually do something to us

The protests weren't over begging and well you know it. The protests were over the wave of muggings and vicious beatings meted out by the family in question turning that area of the city centre into a no-go area. There's always someone comes on to justify the criminality of so-called "oppressed minorities"

Jawgap · 05-11-2014 6:23pm

king_of_inismac wrote: »

I admire anyone who grew up in a disadvantaged environment and now contributes positively to society (I grew up in a low income family).

The thing to remember is your positive outcome isn't representative of the average/norm. Spend time at the courts and see that the vast majority of criminals are from low income backgrounds. I don't believe for one minute that there are more "scumbags" born in Finglas than Foxrock. I believe the environment shapes everyone.

I would love if the answer to crime was long jail sentences and electronic tags. America has been running a trial on that approach for the last 50 years and it hasnt work out that great.

Hard lines make good headlines but not safer streets.

If you want safer streets build playgrounds/community centre, not prisons.

So, if you are from a 'low income background' are you more or less likely to not know the difference between right and wrong - that theft is wrong?

I don't believe that is the case. I think some people get a rough start and rather than take the easy option and parasite off everyone else they decide to work at changing their environment.

Some, try the easy route - get caught, get a shock and become mature enough to realise it's not for them.

A minority (and I believe it's a small minority) with sociopathic tendencies know what they do is wrong and either don't care or don't think the rules should apply to them - they're the ones who need the harsh treatment, assuming they have already foregone opportunities for rehabilitation.

I'm all for helping people out who want to be helped or who respond to it, and forgiving and forgetting the mistakes people make when they're young and dumb - but tolerance can't be boundless.

king_of_inismac · 05-11-2014 6:38pm

Jawgap wrote: »

So, if you are from a 'low income background' are you more or less likely to not know the difference between right and wrong - that theft is wrong?

I don't believe that is the case. I think some people get a rough start and rather than take the easy option and parasite off everyone else they decide to work at changing their environment.

Some, try the easy route - get caught, get a shock and become mature enough to realise it's not for them.

A minority (and I believe it's a small minority) with sociopathic tendencies know what they do is wrong and either don't care or don't think the rules should apply to them - they're the ones who need the harsh treatment, assuming they have already foregone opportunities for rehabilitation.

I'm all for helping people out who want to be helped or who respond to it, and forgiving and forgetting the mistakes people make when they're young and dumb - but tolerance can't be boundless.

Do you agree that (on average) you are more likely to be involved in crime if you are from a low income background?

Do you agree that most criminals aren't sociopaths?

If you agree with those two statements, then the community/society is somewhat responsible for crime.

Criminals have responsibility too, but they weren't formed in a vacuum. If they were, you'd equally be likely to be robbed in Foxrock as you would be in Finglas.

I'd love if life was as simple as "good guys" and "bad guys", but life isn't a John Wayne film.

Summer wind · 05-11-2014 6:52pm

mariaalice wrote: »

I am not against harsher sentencing, however do you not think as well as a prison sentence they should have to fact the victim or in the case of drinking driving the victims parents or children or partner and explain why they choose to drink and drive, The same with random violence they would have to face their victim and see the consequence of what thy did.

The thing is that most of these people just don't care. They don't care about how their actions have destroyed your life. They will do it again as soon as they can.

The bleeding hearts on Prime Time.

Comments