Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The bleeding hearts on Prime Time.

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    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?


  • Options
    #93
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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


  • Options
    #94
    The_Captain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,376 ✭✭✭The_Captain


    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


  • Options
    #95
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,499 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    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.


  • Options
    #96
    Berserker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,046 ✭✭✭Berserker


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    king_of_inismac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,365 ✭✭✭king_of_inismac


    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.


  • Options
    #98
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    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"


  • Options
    #99
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    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.


  • Options
    #100
    king_of_inismac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,365 ✭✭✭king_of_inismac


    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.


  • Options
    #101
    Summer wind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,285 ✭✭✭Summer wind


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    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.

    Hiya! I'm here to mow your lawn! Remember me?! I murdered your husband! :pac:


  • Options
    #103
    titchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 114 ✭✭titchy


    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.

    Yes I do think they should have to face what they have done in every way possible, and not be allowed to use the 'I didn't mean it/didn't know what might happen' defence.
    Im sure it's be hard to spout such bulls€&it when faced with the devestation they have caused.

    Edited to change my answer because as someone said above me, would they really care? ...but if it's what the victim/victims family want then yes they should be some kind of meeting.


  • Options
    #104
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,376 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Summer wind wrote: »
    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.

    Have you ever looked at the research on this, people are great when there is distance between them and their actions it a different story when they have to fact their victims, its not suitable for all crimes.

    Guilt is a great motivator for changing behaviour.


  • Options
    #105
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    mariaalice wrote: »
    Guilt is a great motivator for changing behaviour.

    Is this not the nub of the "bleeding heart"

    Who cares about changing behaviour, if the cost is complete lack of punishment and revenge, which are the most necessary ingredients of justice?

    I'd also add that trying to change behaviour through the application of guilt is an abhorrent attempt at "clockwork-orange" style social-engineering.


  • Options
    #106
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,842 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Sigh I really wish the people proposing this draconian American cop procedural inspired punishments and sentencing actually footed the bill for that crap. Prisons are incredibly expensive! Violent punishments don't seem to deter crime either. All this lust for revenge and justice. Even if the culprit does die in horrific circumstances e.g a horrible form of cancer, you still don't get justice.
    Any policies we enact should be targeted primarily at prevention over punishment and support for victims and theirs families. Create a culture where crime isn't a desirable factor not one where it's rampant and a ridiculously high proportion of society are either committing violent crimes or in prison. When it comes to how penal systems and sentencing should operate the United State is the outlier. Not Ireland.

    Ok I read the first page or two and then jumped to the last page. A few points, but this was the first response that I came across that I deemed a typical one. What is the cost to society of the scumbags purputrating the crimes, the legal aid cost and no doubt the welfare they get when not locked up, not even taking morality into account?

    Now when you say that harsh sentencing doesnt seem to deter, that may be true to an extent, but they are off the streets for longer...

    I agree with the preventative measures, but what should be done in the mean time? Let them roam the streets, make peoples lives a misery? Build the prisons and at the same time enact and implement policy / deterrents that will hopefully change things in the medium to long run...

    Why is it acceptable for countless billions to be squandered on banking bailouts, government waste, wasters etc, but not putting actual scum behind bars?


  • Options
    #107
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,376 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    This is from the wiki on restorative justice.

    Restorative justice is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of the victims and the offenders, as well as the involved community, instead of satisfying abstract legal principles or punishing the offender. Victims take an active role in the process, while offenders are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions, "to repair the harm they've done—by apologizing, returning stolen money, or community service".[1] Restorative justice involves both victim and offender and focuses on their personal needs. In addition, it provides help for the offender in order to avoid future offences. It is based on a theory of justice that considers crime and wrongdoing to be an offence against an individual or community, rather than the state.[2] Restorative justice that fosters dialogue between victim and offender shows the highest rates of victim satisfaction and offender accountability.[3]


  • Options
    #108
    bur
    Registered Users Posts: 1,689 ✭✭✭bur


    Lapin wrote: »

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

    They make obscene amounts of money off them.


  • Options
    #109
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,312 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Let's not have our legal system emulate the rules of baseball

    It seems to emulate the Lottery at the moment, 40 strikes and get a light sentence.


  • Options
    #110
    Zonda999
    Registered Users Posts: 5,531 ✭✭✭Zonda999


    The views expressed on free legal aid in this thread are very interesting indeed. It is extremely expensive obviously and helps out utter scumbags on one hand but its the cost of a civilised society others say.

    I'd be quite frankly amazed if any sort of restriction on free legal aid were to be introduced by any government to be honest. The legal industry is far too cosily integrated into Irish political life for this to ever happen. The cost of free legal aid is roughly €50 million annually.


  • Options
    #111
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 16,998 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Berserker wrote: »
    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?

    Family law or criminal law? A repeat offender getting caught and given free legal aid is represented by a barrister in family law?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Sh1tbag OToole
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,973 ✭✭✭Sh1tbag OToole


    rusty cole wrote: »
    I dunno mate, sit in court and listen to a victim impact statement from a family who've lost someone. good example. lovely young Dublin woman jogging and crossing the road (at the lights) gets knocked out of her shoes by a speeding car which broke same lights. Driver doing over 100K has no insurance, no tax, it's not her car and she's a raving junkie out of her face on gear at the time.... gets a very short time in prison.... family get a wreath..
    made me sick to my stomach.

    young woman get a knock on the door, opens it, door gets pushed in and the young man grabs her, sexually assaults her and chokes her while beating her face in. all the while, he tells her he's sorry cos he cannot control himself. he get scared at the sound of a car and runs out!!
    she gets to see him walk out of court, ZERO time because he said he was sorry at the time, meaning he had remorse... ZERO time, look it up!!
    she goes home every night and will never be the same..

    People who say this type of thing is American and draconian have never been effected by serious stuff!! I don't care if I'm banned for saying so and posters can say all they want but when a man can buy his way out of an attempted rape charge and serve one month, walking by the victim, what do we expect!! it's a joke.

    Id say if you read all the case files they'd make you sick.

    I just hate tags. I'm sure the government are dieing to roll them out to everyone if they are cheap enough. First the scum that everyone hates, then the unruly youthes, people who committed motoring offences, and so on until everyone has one. Never underestimate a government's desire to implement big brother measures

    Why don't these lads get proper jail sentences and why are they left back out after 40 convictions? I suppose jails are full and cost too much to run but it's all a big money racket - they spend about 15k a year for each prisoner when really they should only be spending the cost of a bowl of gruel


  • Options
    #113
    Summer wind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,285 ✭✭✭Summer wind


    mariaalice wrote: »
    Have you ever looked at the research on this, people are great when there is distance between them and their actions it a different story when they have to fact their victims, its not suitable for all crimes.

    Guilt is a great motivator for changing behaviour.

    Do you really believe a career criminal feels guilt.


  • Options
    #114
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    Ok I read the first page or two and then jumped to the last page. A few points, but this was the first response that I came across that I deemed a typical one. What is the cost to society of the scumbags purputrating the crimes, the legal aid cost and no doubt the welfare they get when not locked up, not even taking morality into account?

    Now when you say that harsh sentencing doesnt seem to deter, that may be true to an extent, but they are off the streets for longer...

    I agree with the preventative measures, but what should be done in the mean time? Let them roam the streets, make peoples lives a misery? Build the prisons and at the same time enact and implement policy / deterrents that will hopefully change things in the medium to long run...

    Why is it acceptable for countless billions to be squandered on banking bailouts, government waste, wasters etc, but not putting actual scum behind bars?
    You see, this is what a lot of progressive right-on people don't recognise. Longer sentences may not be a deterrent to someone with 20/60/90 convictions but at least if he is put away for 15 years, he's not accumulating conviction number 91 and the general public are safe from this individual. When a man has been convicted dozens of times, his right to liberty DOES NOT trump the right of the community at large to live in peace. I know that prison is expensive but if it means a person like the one in the OP is no longer able to cause misery and suffering to the general population then that is money well spent. The state's most basic and primary function is to protect its citizens. When the state allows a man with 90 convictions to roam the streets without even some electronic tag surveillance monitoring his movements, it is failing in its most profound duty. This is not justice.


  • Options
    #115
    Richard Hillman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,033 ✭✭✭✭Richard Hillman


    Jogathon wrote: »
    Crime in this country would be very low if we could lock away 5-6 people in every Garda area. The repeat offenders are guilty of the vast majority of crimes. So that's why I think a three strikes system would work well. If they've been caught three times, how many crimes have they got away with? And now think about all these fellas that we see with 60 and upwards convictions! How many crimes are they really responsible for?

    Agrred. If you google my housing estate you would think that it was some sort of hellhole. A couple of stabbings, IRA membership and a guy that committed a serious assault. In reality it is a very quite estate with a lot of elderly people. It is just 2 houses out of 200+ that have caused the trouble and the perpetrators are currently in prison or dont live here anymore. Yet if somebody looked at my estate to buy a house they would probably look elsewhere. These 2 houses probably knock about 20-30k off all of our house prices.


  • Options
    #116
    black purr girl
    Registered Users Posts: 14 ✭black purr girl


    Benicetomonty wrote: »
    The guy who ran over that boy had 40 previous convictions, most of which involved him entering a shop armed with a syringe and threatening to infect employees with HIV before making off with stolen moneys.

    When he was sentenced, the judge said that his early guilty plea and his "remorse" had to be taken into account, despite the fact that he fled the scene and that he went on a crime spree the week after the accident.

    Those two talking about rehabilitation were hard to listen to. There comes a point where some people aren't worth the effort. If 39 slaps on the wrist and (presumably) several cracks at rehab didn't do it, nothing will. That boy would still be alive if there was a reasonable minimum sentence for continuous abuse of parole and contempt for the law.

    An extra 18 months on to an 8 year sentence is a joke. The man is a danger to society, as are far too many others like him who receive pathetic sentences in the face of an incredible number of previous convictions.

    What guy who ran over what boy?

    Agree with you mostly.


  • Options
    #117
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    I have to laugh at the objections to tagging criminals, when Apple and Google know where we all are anyway.


  • Options
    #118
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


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

    Because some people will risk it regardless. However the primary objective of a punishment is to act as a deterrent first and foremost. When that fails one has look at bigger punishments.


  • Options
    #119
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    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.

    The primary reason was the perception rightly or wrongly that these people were engaged in criminality and were not dealt with by the appropriate law enforcement agencies.


  • Options
    #120
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    I'd say we have a relatively decent justice system save for two factors.

    1. Drugs/drug use. Prohibition is a farce. Making criminals out of addicts is profoundly vindictive/stupid/costly.

    2. Sex offenders don't get harsh enough sentences. Any sex offender who receives a second subsequent conviction should be permanently removed from society.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    FloatingVoter
    Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭FloatingVoter


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    I'd say we have a relatively decent justice system save for two factors.

    1. Drugs/drug use. Prohibition is a farce. Making criminals out of addicts is profoundly vindictive/stupid/costly.

    2. Sex offenders don't get harsh enough sentences. Any sex offender who receives a second subsequent conviction should be permanently removed from society.

    Compulsory drugs to the sex offenders. Coke makes your dick wither away and weed makes you apathetic. Legalise all drugs - tourism through the roof and the tax take would fund a health and education system that would be the envy of the world. That's a two-in-one solution.
    In 200 years this post won't look daft, just prophetic.


Advertisement