72 Previous Convictions!!!

SubrbanOblivion · 01-02-2010 7:37pm

ART6 wrote: »

There are of course the options that we could consider: His human rights and allow him to continue to deny others their human rights, or we could simply execute him like a mad dog as many would advocate, or we could lock him away for life as the US three strikes law (in California at least) requires.

*Facepalm*

It. doesn't.

I give up.

PostHack · 01-02-2010 7:46pm

72 convictions.... You can be sure there was a load of other stuff he got away with on a technicality or whatever. And he'll be out in a few years. Our justice system is a load of cock...

hooradiation · 01-02-2010 9:26pm

prinz wrote: »

*Clap clap* Did I say they were? They do serve essentially the same purpose however, all part of the justice system.

Firstly, we treat people below the age of 18 differently in the justice system, because they're still children so i would expect a juvenile facility to be less horrible than, say, mountjoy. So even if i took this one quote from a teenager to be gospel, my response is still "so fucking what?".

Secondly, i am enjoying your little act, the guy is 33 years old, so you link me to a single quote about a juvenile detention facility, from someone who's going out of the way to try and prove he's a toughman.
As you might say - *Clap clap*

prinz wrote: »

About as much weight as you claiming that it's a myth that our prisons/prisoners are far too well catered for.

I linked to a story on an report on how fucking awful mountjoy is. You linked to the sum total of fuck all.

Who's peddling myths again?

CrazyRabbit · 02-02-2010 1:00am

So much focus on punishment instead of focusing on prevention. So sad.

Some countries have severe penalties for relatively small crimes, yet crime still exists there. Criminals never think they are going to get caught, so the severity of the punishment is fairly irrelevant to them. If they thought they were going to get caught, they wouldn't commit the crime.

What is needed is a more long term solution. Teach parents how to be proper parents. Teach self discipline to the children in every aspect of their lives.

It's shocking that any scumbag can get knocked up, give birth & raise another scumbag without any guidance, training & testing.
People don't like being told how to raise their kids, but the truth is that many many parents really haven't got a clue and do such a terrible job. The result is troubled and socially dysfunctional children who grow up to become criminal scum.

It's odd that you need to prove that you can drive a car properly, yet there are no tests to see if you can raise a child properly.

Kur4mA · 02-02-2010 1:15am

Jesus people. RTFM* would be my advice here. You're all taking someones initial post regarding the 3 strikes rule and running with it even though it's clearly bull****. Stop being keyboard warriors!

Hmm I think I'll read the first 4 posts in a thread and then post the same ****e I saw there without reading the rest of the thread. YARRR!

*READ THE ****ING MANUAL

DamoDLK · 02-02-2010 3:22am

Why is no one here, who is advocating against the 3 strike unwilling or perhaps unable to comprehend 'common sense' Why does it seem so obvious that:

1. If 'A' steals a slice of pizza or

2. If 'B' downloads illicit material from the internet

Then this ought not count to a Strike it is a misdemeanor. Moreover:

3. If 'A' rapes 'x' or

4. If 'B' is found guilty of manslaughter or

5. If 'C' is found with illegal drugs with intent to supply.

Then these ought to count as a strike, as in a felony.

The person in the OP's post had 72 convictions, 72 just think about that... ranging i'm sure from petty theft (i.e number 1 and or 2) to who knows maybe drug dealing.(i.e. 3 to 5) I think after the first few convictions that it was plainly obvious that this person would continue to burden society with his behavior. And clearly ought to be dealt with in a severe way. Sometimes there are no answers for people like this.

(*) I am very much aware of the fact that felonies and misdemeanors are a US concept.

the dark phantom · 16-07-2016 12:23am

He got released Thursday, Including his time on remand he served 7 and a half years.
He is no fool when it comes to the system, He exposed loopholes on the activation of suspended sentences, http://thecircuitbrief.blogspot.ie/2011/11/legal-update-criminal-law-sentencing.html

This one makes great reading.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/D1958E286EA6BD1680257935004D113A

dreamers75 · 16-07-2016 12:43am

minidazzler wrote: »

Also, the 3 strike rule means if I have enough weed for say 5 people and I am caught 3 times, I get life in prison. Does that seem fair?

Well yeah.....i mean you know the rules and after the 1st 2 you should really know them.

FortySeven · 16-07-2016 12:48am

I have more convictions than that. Probably 100+

All before 2001. Should I be locked up? I've been a model citizen since.

16-07-2016 12:55am

FortySeven wrote: »

I have more convictions than that. Probably 100+

All before 2001. Should I be locked up? I've been a model citizen since.

Really?

klose · 16-07-2016 1:01am

Saw him today and all, unreal he's back on the streets. What a farce.

FortySeven · 16-07-2016 1:04am

Deleted User wrote: »

Really?

Yes. Been in jail a few times. Spent a few years there. I hate crime now. I was a gob****e. Jail didn't work, community service didn't work, probation finally sent me to addiction treatment and after getting clean it was discovered I was bipolar. Treatment worked.

16-07-2016 1:08am

FortySeven wrote: »

Yes. Been in jail a few times. Spent a few years there. I hate crime now. I was a gob****e. Jail didn't work, community service didn't work, probation finally sent me to addiction treatment and after getting clean it was discovered I was bipolar. Treatment worked.

Good for you man

But on the question should you asked should you be locked up?
My answer would be no unless it was murder you were in jail for or rape. Like someone can have 100 convictions and they can all be relatively minor crimes like drugs or shoplifting. I do think people should get harsher penalties for convictions but i wouldn't lock anyone up for life who didn't do something serious. This guy should be in jail and left to rot imo, someone is dead because of him and 6 years isn't enough.

Guy:Incognito · 16-07-2016 1:09am

FortySeven wrote: »

Jail didn't work, .

I beg to differ. How many proper citizens lives were badly affected by your crimes committed while you were in jail?

hatrickpatrick · 16-07-2016 1:11am

minidazzler wrote: »

Depends where he is in the US actually, not all states have a 3 strike rule.

Also, the 3 strike rule means if I have enough weed for say 5 people and I am caught 3 times, I get life in prison. Does that seem fair?

What we really need is the death penalty TBH.

The three strike rule should be limited to violent or gangland related offences. There's no reason it has to be indiscriminate to what category of crime is involved, the issue there is that the US has a batsh!t insane attitude towards drugs in which the sale thereof is somehow seen as comparable to the sale of fissile nuclear material.

mynamejeff · 16-07-2016 1:21am

minidazzler wrote: »

I never said selling!

what are you the weed santa ?

say at a conservative estimate very conservative. weed for 5 people at least a ounce . so about 300 euro

caught 3 times 900 euro

and even if its as a present to your friends the statues (section 15 MDA) says sale OR supply.

then again it was more likely much more in weight and value right

FortySeven · 16-07-2016 1:22am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I beg to differ. How many proper citizens lives were badly affected by your crimes committed while you were in jail?

It's a fair point. I clocked up most of those before they sent me to jail though.

Let me be clear. If you want someone to be a criminal, send them to prison. I'm an oddball. Prison is not what I needed. Lithium is what I needed. I learned so much in my years in prison it is unbelievable. If I was to take up crime now I would be a master criminal.

I don't disagree with you, there are people in prison who belong there. About 10%. The rest are mentally ****ed, can see no other way, addicted or just dumb as a rock.

mynamejeff · 16-07-2016 1:33am

FortySeven wrote: »

It's a fair point. I clocked up most of those before they sent me to jail though.

Let me be clear. If you want someone to be a criminal, send them to prison. I'm an oddball. Prison is not what I needed. Lithium is what I needed. I learned so much in my years in prison it is unbelievable. If I was to take up crime now I would be a master criminal.

I don't disagree with you, there are people in prison who belong there. About 10%. The rest are mentally ****ed, can see no other way, addicted or just dumb as a rock.

are many of your convictions for assault or theft offences? , if so then yes might be you should be locked up.

I have a lot more sympathy for the victims of crimes than for the offenders

FortySeven · 16-07-2016 1:46am

mynamejeff wrote: »

are many of your convictions for assault or theft offences? , if so then yes might be you should be locked up.

I have a lot more sympathy for the victims of crimes than for the offenders

And so you should. Victims of crime are innocents.

To answer your question. Violence. No. There were a few occasions when I was so out of it I resisted arrest. Could be classed as violence but I was so out of it I was ineffective and came off much worse.

Theft. Yes. Shop theft, commercial burglary, car theft, theft from car, theft from sheds etc.

Drugs, possession, supplying. Producing.

I was locked up. I did my time. I'm as decent as the next man these days.

Do you think I should be serving life?

Sometimes, (and I admit it is the minority) the system works and rehabilitates offenders. Should we lock everyone up on the off chance that we are protecting society at the cost of the few?

Remember, I am part of that society.

16-07-2016 1:53am

FortySeven wrote: »

And so you should. Victims of crime are innocents.

To answer your question. Violence. No. There were a few occasions when I was so out of it I resisted arrest. Could be classed as violence but I was so out of it I was ineffective and came off much worse.

Theft. Yes. Shop theft, commercial burglary, car theft, theft from car, theft from sheds etc.

Drugs, possession, supplying. Producing.

I was locked up. I did my time. I'm as decent as the next man these days.

Do you think I should be serving life?

Sometimes, (and I admit it is the minority) the system works and rehabilitates offenders. Should we lock everyone up on the off chance that we are protecting society at the cost of the few?

Remember, I am part of that society.

For repeat violent offenders we should lock them up for sure, but non violent drug addicts we shouldn't. I would be in favour of lovking up people who have attacked people many times and on many occassions after a certain amount of convictions just dont leave the back into society again! How many people can they affect before they are out of chances?

FortySeven · 16-07-2016 2:07am

Deleted User wrote: »

For repeat violent offenders we should lock them up for sure, but non violent drug addicts we shouldn't. I would be in favour of lovking up people who have attacked people many times and on many occassions after a certain amount of convictions just dont leave the back into society again! How many people can they affect before they are out of chances?

Violence is the one reason I would advocate harsher sentencing. I learned violence in prison. You don't have a choice. It is one way to make any crime more successful. I would still advocate addiction treatment first for most criminals. In my experience most criminals have an addiction problem. Violence is only a manifestation of that addiction.

True violent criminals need to be locked up. Addicts who use violence through learned behavior (largely through prison sentencing for drugs offenses) need to defeat the drug addictions. This can be done within the prison system. No need for them to be on the street but the prison system is about removal from society, not about inclusion.

mynamejeff · 16-07-2016 2:29am

FortySeven wrote: »

And so you should. Victims of crime are innocents.

To answer your question. Violence. No. There were a few occasions when I was so out of it I resisted arrest. Could be classed as violence but I was so out of it I was ineffective and came off much worse.

Theft. Yes. Shop theft, commercial burglary, car theft, theft from car, theft from sheds etc.

Drugs, possession, supplying. Producing.

I was locked up. I did my time. I'm as decent as the next man these days.

Do you think I should be serving life?

Sometimes, (and I admit it is the minority) the system works and rehabilitates offenders. Should we lock everyone up on the off chance that we are protecting society at the cost of the few?

Remember, I am part of that society.

of all the crimes you committed how many were you held accountable for ?

If you were convicted of everything you did how many convictions would you have ?

Do you feel you got treated harshly or leniently by the system ?
then i ll answer if you should be still locked up

mynamejeff · 16-07-2016 2:40am

FortySeven wrote: »

Violence is the one reason I would advocate harsher sentencing. I learned violence in prison. You don't have a choice. It is one way to make any crime more successful. I would still advocate addiction treatment first for most criminals. In my experience most criminals have an addiction problem. Violence is only a manifestation of that addiction.

True violent criminals need to be locked up. Addicts who use violence through learned behavior (largely through prison sentencing for drugs offenses) need to defeat the drug addictions. This can be done within the prison system. No need for them to be on the street but the prison system is about removal from society, not about inclusion.

violence is a valid reason to lock someone up but the fear and or threat of violence is no less real. the idea that violence is created by placing some one in jail is a very soft option ,

an individuals personal responsibility dictates their actions .
Yes the prison system is about removal from society , Its about protection the population from criminals by locking them up If they choose to rehabilitate then fantastic but the priority should be to protect innocents from criminals. there for criminals who refuse to live by the laws of the land should be removed from the population.

by all means i think 3 strikes is extreme but what about 10 strikes of 20 ? for arrest able offences. Thefts criminal damage drug dealing and up

FortySeven · 16-07-2016 2:56am

mynamejeff wrote: »

of all the crimes you committed how many were you held accountable for ?

If you were convicted of everything you did how many convictions would you have ?

Do you feel you got treated harshly or leniently by the system ?
then i ll answer if you should be still locked up

Most of them. I held my hands up to everything. A lot of my convictions would not be convictions had I fought them. I had lots of 'taken into consideration' which is admitting to other crimes when caught for 1. I admitted everything. I was not a good criminal.

There are probably 3 or 4 things I got away with, after I made prison I realised I was not doing myself any favours being so honest.

I feel I was treated fairly by the system. I received fair sentencing for my crimes.

Was I treated fairly by society? After what I've been through in life I would say no. Most crimes came from my family situation and my medical issue. I was homeless at 15 and left to my own devices. Did society offer me a safety net? I suppose they did. Was it sufficient? No.

FortySeven · 16-07-2016 3:01am

mynamejeff wrote: »

violence is a valid reason to lock someone up but the fear and or threat of violence is no less real. the idea that violence is created by placing some one in jail is a very soft option ,

an individuals personal responsibility dictates their actions .
Yes the prison system is about removal from society , Its about protection the population from criminals by locking them up If they choose to rehabilitate then fantastic but the priority should be to protect innocents from criminals. there for criminals who refuse to live by the laws of the land should be removed from the population.

by all means i think 3 strikes is extreme but what about 10 strikes of 20 ? for arrest able offences. Thefts criminal damage drug dealing and up

I've seen the most placid, decent, normal kids come into prison with addiction problems. I've watched them leave hardened, violent, nasty feckers because jail is violent. They will eat you if you don't fight back.

You have to appreciate that in jail the slightest disagreement is solved by pool balls in a sock, a half pint of sugar and boiling water thrown in your face or a pair of razor blades welded into a toothbrush across your cheek.

These kids have no chance of rehabilitation.

mynamejeff · 16-07-2016 12:12pm

FortySeven wrote: »

Most of them. I held my hands up to everything. A lot of my convictions would not be convictions had I fought them. I had lots of 'taken into consideration' which is admitting to other crimes when caught for 1. I admitted everything. I was not a good criminal.

There are probably 3 or 4 things I got away with, after I made prison I realised I was not doing myself any favours being so honest.

I feel I was treated fairly by the system. I received fair sentencing for my crimes.

Was I treated fairly by society? After what I've been through in life I would say no. Most crimes came from my family situation and my medical issue. I was homeless at 15 and left to my own devices. Did society offer me a safety net? I suppose they did. Was it sufficient? No.

Taken into consideration is not for owning up to crimes , TIC is about lazy judges not using consecutive sentencing. ten charges before a court usually results in one sentence for the most serious incident and the rest TIC to get them out of the courts list

Glad youve improved your life tbh but gladder for your potential victims im sure you know the majority of people who were in your position never make it out

mynamejeff · 16-07-2016 12:30pm

FortySeven wrote: »

I've seen the most placid, decent, normal kids come into prison with addiction problems. I've watched them leave hardened, violent, nasty feckers because jail is violent. They will eat you if you don't fight back.

You have to appreciate that in jail the slightest disagreement is solved by pool balls in a sock, a half pint of sugar and boiling water thrown in your face or a pair of razor blades welded into a toothbrush across your cheek.

These kids have no chance of rehabilitation.

Again i d say rehabilitation is a luxury item in the justice system,

The first and real purpose of jail should be to remove individuals from the public in order to limit the damage they can do to innocents.

tomofson · 16-07-2016 12:35pm

biko wrote: »

Let's say he was first convicted when he was 13, then that's almost 4 convictions per year since. If he started at 18 it rises to 5 convictions per year.
This guy is not going to stop. For every conviction there is X number of crimes and attempted crimes we'll never hear about.

You do realize someone can get multiple charges from one arrest and each of these charges the person pleads or is found guilty of is a separate conviction?

tomofson · 16-07-2016 12:41pm

ART6 wrote: »

Three strikes rule or not, surely the fact that someone has 72 convictions, some or many of which are for violence, suggests that the guy is a psychopath and needs to be locked away until he is too old to injure anyone. If the penal system was able to rehabilitate him it would have done so long ago.

Psychopaths have very low violent crime rates, believe it or not someone working as a doctor is more likely to have psychopathic tendencies than a violent criminal with multiple previous convictions... Violent criminals are usually exploding with emotional problems a psychopath would never have these problems as all they care about is themselves and nobody else...
The only violent criminals with high rates of psychopathy would be serial killers. They are much more organized and professional about what they do.

FortySeven · 16-07-2016 1:09pm

mynamejeff wrote: »

Again i d say rehabilitation is a luxury item in the justice system,

The first and real purpose of jail should be to remove individuals from the public in order to limit the damage they can do to innocents.

All you are doing with this approach is making these people with health issues into hardened criminals. It is short sighted. Rehabilitation is cheaper and much more effective at cutting crime.

72 Previous Convictions!!!

Comments