Woman rakes up 648 convictions

givyjoe · 16-07-2019 9:56pm

Odhinn wrote: »

Which would probably cost more than her rehabilitation.

Rehab?! Do you have any where you can point to showing the rehab of a 600 time plus re-offender?! This woman should quite clearly not be walking the streets, the fact that she is free to pilfer further from people trying to earn a living, is sickening.

Little to no consequences for committing crimes. = Little to no deterrent. Do you honestly believe that stupidly lenient sentences for repeat offenders (or any offender) doesnt result in greater levels of criminality? I.e. thief's like this one have little or nothing to fear if caught.

Hal3000 · 16-07-2019 10:35pm

givyjoe wrote: »

Rehab?! Do you have any where you can point to showing the rehab of a 600 time plus re-offender?! This woman should quite clearly not be walking the streets, the fact that she is free to pilfer further from people trying to earn a living, is sickening.

Little to no consequences for committing crimes. = Little to no deterrent. Do you honestly believe that stupidly lenient sentences for repeat offenders (or any offender) doesnt result in greater levels of criminality? I.e. thief's like this one have little or nothing to fear if caught.

You're wasting your time. These posters keep claming that locking repeat offenders up doesn't work. I have established that they're either trolls or judges.

16-07-2019 10:46pm

givyjoe wrote: »

Rehab?! Do you have any where you can point to showing the rehab of a 600 time plus re-offender?! This woman should quite clearly not be walking the streets, the fact that she is free to pilfer further from people trying to earn a living, is sickening.

Little to no consequences for committing crimes. = Little to no deterrent. Do you honestly believe that stupidly lenient sentences for repeat offenders (or any offender) doesnt result in greater levels of criminality? I.e. thief's like this one have little or nothing to fear if caught.

But she has seen consequences. She's been imprisoned for stretches that any normal person would find intolerable. People like her will never be deterred by the criminal justice system as it stands. It is not working.

The idea that its cheaper to spend 100k per annum for the rest of her life (what's the life expectancy for a sober woman who's reached the age of 45... About 80?) is simply ridiculous.

You're talking about pouring millions of euro of public money down the drain instead of pursuing evidence-based solutions, which save money. Surely everyone except the most hard-headed idealogues can see the obvious here.

Ronaldinho · 16-07-2019 10:50pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

instead of pursuing evidence-based solutions

Colour me sceptical, but if you can link some stuff on these evidence-based solutions I'd be interested to read them.

givyjoe · 16-07-2019 10:57pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But she has seen consequences. She's been imprisoned for stretches that any normal person would find intolerable. People like her will never be deterred by the criminal justice system as it stands. It is not working.

The idea that its cheaper to spend 100k per annum for the rest of her life (what's the life expectancy for a sober woman who's reached the age of 45... About 80?) is simply ridiculous.

You're talking about pouring millions of euro of public money down the drain instead of pursuing evidence-based solutions, which save money. Surely everyone except the most hard-headed idealogues can see the obvious here.

Save money?! What programmes are you talking about that are magically going to cure this women of her ills. Even if you cure her addictions, zero guarantee she's going to stop stealing. Plenty of thieves with absolutely no substance abuse problems. The woman pleaded for one final chance, clearly having her liberty taken away IS a deterrent.

I'm talking about putting someone in prison for the crime they committed, not putting someone in prison because its "too expensive" only to walk the streets with no credible means of stopping her re-offending, is utter lunacy.

Until there's some magic potion or programme to "cure" such people, they should be imprisoned. As for cost, what about the cost to the business she's stolen from? What is the cost to the economy due to low life's like this? How much has she cost the state in endless legal aid. 600+ convictions. What would the cost of legal aid have been in each case, 1k, 500 euros? Hardly chump change.

dudara · 16-07-2019 11:20pm

@sonny noggs - red carded for suggesting a person should be killed.

dudara

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 16-07-2019 11:30pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You can give her the benefit of the doubt if you like but I'm working from the fact that the Irish criminal justice system doesn't focus on rehabilitation.

What does that mean? Can we bang her up until she is rehabilitated? If so fine.

DellyBelly · 16-07-2019 11:33pm

You just wonder how this person gets up everyday and gets on with life...even if it is totally disfunctional. I don't think I'd be able to live like that...I suppose the will to live is strong...

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 16-07-2019 11:34pm

Odhinn wrote: »

So you think that allowing a maladjusted individual to continually commit crime is a more sensible approach than medical intervention?

You know we spend millions, maybe tens to hundreds of millions on rehabilitation. I have a friend (friend of a friend really) who gets a juicy 6 figure income as a medical consultant treating these lads, and from the stories I hear he’s welcome to it.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 16-07-2019 11:36pm

Thread:

Woman with 648 convictions not jailed for latest crime.

Response:

Maybe we should stop locking people up?

Eric Cartman · 17-07-2019 12:24am

There is absolutely no excuse under the sun, no amount of ‘undiagnosed mental health issues’ , no ‘area bad enough’ to grow up in , no parents abusive enough, no ‘ethnic minority boss’ deprived enough to justify 25 let alone 50, 100, 200 or this insane amount of convictions.

The only solution to this is a mandatory life on 10 strikes.

Graces7 · 17-07-2019 6:48am

Eric Cartman wrote: »

There is absolutely no excuse under the sun, no amount of ‘undiagnosed mental health issues’ , no ‘area bad enough’ to grow up in , no parents abusive enough, no ‘ethnic minority boss’ deprived enough to justify 25 let alone 50, 100, 200 or this insane amount of convictions.

The only solution to this is a mandatory life on 10 strikes.

for small thefts? so what do you intend for murder then?

You have also clearly led a very protected sheltered life .

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2019 8:01am

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Thread:

Woman with 648 convictions not jailed for latest crime.

Response:

Maybe we should stop locking people up?

God almighty that would be a terrible response. Would you be so kind as to quote the poster who said that? Or alternatively acknowledge that you're misrepresenting them? Cheers.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2019 8:10am

Sonny noggs wrote: »

No, it wouldn’t, if you factored in the total cost to her victims, court appearances, free legal aid it would be the bargain of the century.

I think the fewer facts and figures you post, the more certain you can be. Being completely free of either, your absolute certainty is to be expected even if it's not merited.

At a relativey conservative 1,500 per week in prison for 40 years, it comes out at over 3m. It's absolutely incredible that you would be willing to spaff 3.m of taxpayer's money without even consider a way to rehabilitate the person to the betterment of society.

Some people are just married to the idea of punishment.

Hal3000 · 17-07-2019 9:19am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think the fewer facts and figures you post, the more certain you can be. Being completely free of either, your absolute certainty is to be expected even if it's not merited.

At a relativey conservative 1,500 per week in prison for 40 years, it comes out at over 3m. It's absolutely incredible that you would be willing to spaff 3.m of taxpayer's money without even consider a way to rehabilitate the person to the betterment of society.

Some people are just married to the idea of punishment.

How much will these rehabilitation programs you speak of cost? Who will run them and who will monitor them? When do you decide that it's not working? 50th, 60th or perhaps even 70th offence? Seems like a lot of experimentation is needed with these fine programs you propose. I just hope you're not a victim during the period of all of these peoples rehabilitation programs. We would soon see your attitude change if you were.

splinter65 · 17-07-2019 9:26am

The poor woman needs to be removed permanently to a long term care facility even if it’s against her will. Her life is a total nightmare of alcoholism and stealing and being up in front of the judge.
At 44 she can’t cope with life and never will be able. Her problems have caused herself and the rest of her fellow humans including her family so much trouble and expense that it’s time to say enough now.
She could have supervised visits out in maybe 5 or 6 years time but right now she needs permanent long term institutionalized care. No human being needs to live as she is living and the rest of society doesn’t deserve the consequences.

Nermal · 17-07-2019 9:32am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

At a relativey conservative 1,500 per week in prison for 40 years, it comes out at over 3m.

A box and 1500 calories a day shouldn't cost that much, but even if it did, that is a bargain. She has already cost society far more than that. Less than €5,000 per conviction!

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2019 10:04am

Hal3000 wrote: »

How much will these rehabilitation programs you speak of cost? Who will run them and who will monitor them? When do you decide that it's not working? 50th, 60th or perhaps even 70th offence? Seems like a lot of experimentation is needed with these fine programs you propose. I just hope you're not a victim during the period of all of these peoples rehabilitation programs. We would soon see your attitude change if you were.

Funny that you were never the slightest bit curious about the cost of imprisonment but now you're PWC.

I've no doubt it would be expensive. I've repeatedly referred to it as an investment. Prison is expensive and it's not an investment in anything. It's just warehousing criminals in an environment full of drugs and criminals.

Oh yes it would require "experimentation" as you call it. I call it research led practice. That means we actually evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of programmes. Improve or replace the ones that are delivering poor results. Evaluate the interventions against each other to find what works best and for which criminal groups and individuals.

Then there would be the return to the community procedures for those who are deemed ready. Monitoring and support for those returning to civilian life. Support to get a job, apply for appropriate benefits, apply for education and training.

Would this guarantee that the person will never commit a crime again? No.
Recidivism rates would need to be measured against rates for those who haven't been through the rehabilitation.

That's brief overview of the kind of performance audits I would support but I'm obviously a lay man.

So, I took your question seriously and gave a considered response. How would you audit the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of the approach you propose?

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2019 10:06am

Nermal wrote: »

A box and 1500 calories a day shouldn't cost that much, but even if it did, that is a bargain. She has already cost society far more than that. Less than €5,000 per conviction!

Chortle Chortle Chortle.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2019 10:13am

splinter65 wrote: »

The poor woman needs to be removed permanently to a long term care facility even if it’s against her will. Her life is a total nightmare of alcoholism and stealing and being up in front of the judge.
At 44 she can’t cope with life and never will be able. Her problems have caused herself and the rest of her fellow humans including her family so much trouble and expense that it’s time to say enough now.
She could have supervised visits out in maybe 5 or 6 years time but right now she needs permanent long term institutionalized care. No human being needs to live as she is living and the rest of society doesn’t deserve the consequences.

That's not a million miles away from my approach. If she can learn to live a relatively normal life then she could be released to the community. If not then she should stay in the forensic hospital.

Hal3000 · 17-07-2019 10:15am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Funny that you were never the slightest bit curious about the cost of imprisonment but now you're PWC.

I've no doubt it would be expensive. I've repeatedly referred to it as an investment. Prison is expensive and it's not an investment in anything. It's just warehousing criminals in an environment full of drugs and criminals.

Oh yes it would require "experimentation" as you call it. I call it research led practice. That means we actually evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of programmes. Improve or replace the ones that are delivering poor results. Evaluate the interventions against each other to find what works best and for which criminal groups and individuals.

Then there would be the return to the community procedures for those who are deemed ready. Monitoring and support for those returning to civilian life. Support to get a job, apply for appropriate benefits, apply for education and training.

Would this guarantee that the person will never commit a crime again? No.
Recidivism rates would need to be measured against rates for those who haven't been through the rehabilitation.

That's brief overview of the kind of performance audits I would support but I'm obviously a lay man.

So, I took your question seriously and gave a considered response. How would you audit the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of the approach you propose?

Yes I propose that people with 648 convictions are jailed indefinitely. The very thread you're debating in. I also propose a 3 strike system for serious crime. I don't belive anymore who commits 3 serious violent offences can be rehabilited or gently introduced back into society. I also don't think our citizens or community's should be offered as lab rats and staging areas to prove rehabilitation is possible. Sorry, but serious crimes must have serious consequences or we will have no deterrents for crime. We could try your programs on moderate offenders with a line drawn in the sand when it's approaching 650 offences. Would that staisfy you? Or should violent repeat offenders also be offered this assistance too?

splinter65 · 17-07-2019 10:35am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's not a million miles away from my approach. If she can learn to live a relatively normal life then she could be released to the community. If not then she should stay in the forensic hospital.

No. Living in the “community” for 44 years has not had any positive affect on this unfortunate lady and she has caused only heartache and pain to the “community” despite I suspect many many attempts to help her to cope with life.
In order for “rehabilitation” to be successful, the addict must first of all acknowledge that she has an addiction and that it’s bad, and secondly want to actually deal with the addiction.
Over at least 25 years this lady has shown no interest in these things. Lots of alcoholics don’t. It’s a common theme in alcoholics that they blame everyone and everything else for their unhappiness. It’s part of the disease.
For her own sake and the sake of the community her freedom to live her life as she chooses needs to be taken away from her now as she’s never displayed any signs of making any other decisions except for bad ones. Long term care facility with a structured day involving work to try and cover the costs and the opportunity for education and some leisure activities. But no more ever again wandering around the city tormenting herself and everyone else.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2019 10:48am

Hal3000 wrote: »

Yes I propose that people with 648 convictions are jailed indefinitely. The very thread you're debating in. I also propose a 3 strike system for serious crime. I don't belive anymore who commits 3 serious violent offences can be rehabilited or gently introduced back into society. I also don't think our citizens or community's should be offered as lab rats and staging areas to prove rehabilitation is possible. Sorry, but serious crimes must have serious consequences or we will have no deterrents for crime. We could try your programs on moderate offenders with a line drawn in the sand when it's approaching 650 offences. Would that staisfy you? Or should violent repeat offenders also be offered this assistance too?

OK, just to clarify, you wouldn't do any evaluation because it's skin,to using people as lab rats? Do you'll never have any clue how effective your proposed approach would be. I sometimes wish I could get behind that kind of approach. Is it liberating to not care about the impact of your proposals? It must be.

I don't see how someone could possibly get to 650 offences under my proposal. If they demonstrate they can't live a relatively normal, crime free life, then their release would be delayed Until they show the necessary progress.

The prison approach is arbitrary. "6 months, that'll learn them", 2/5/7/10 years then release them back without support to readjust. It's a recipe for recidivism.

Prison is a deterrent for people who are unlikely to commit crimes. I spoke with a bloke who was a bit add l middle class guy with a good family and professional parents and who was arrested under suspicion of dealing weed while he was in school. He said the worst thing was his mother seeing him in handcuffs. He avoided prison and never did it again because of the Shame he inflicted on his mother.

Most repeat offenders aren't particularly smart as nd the cast majority of the prison population has mental illness, approximately 70-80% in the UK. Prison isn't a deterrent to those people because a deterrent requires forward planning and those people aren't in a good position to plan the future.

I don't expect you to address all the point that don't suit your narrative, but do try to address some of them.

JustAThought · 17-07-2019 10:49am

Protect the community and retail industry and workers..

Lock her up and throw away the key.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2019 10:58am

splinter65 wrote: »

No. Living in the “community” for 44 years has not had any positive affect on this unfortunate lady and she has caused only heartache and pain to the “community” despite I suspect many many attempts to help her to cope with life.

That doesn't disprove the point I'm.nsling because I'm pretty sure she hasn't had the interventions I'm proposing -I say that because they aren't practiced in Ireland in the large scale way I'm proposing.

splinter65 wrote: »

Over at least 25 years this lady has shown no interest in these things.

Now, you'll excuse me while I call shenanigans on this. Neither of us know this person and neither of us know what she has or hasnt shown interest in in her life. All you know is what's reported in one article. Please try to keep the guff to a minimum

splinter65 · 17-07-2019 11:09am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That doesn't disprove the point I'm.nsling because I'm pretty sure she hasn't had the interventions I'm proposing -I say that because they aren't practiced in Ireland in the large scale way I'm proposing.

Now, you'll excuse me while I call shenanigans on this. Neither of us know this person and neither of us know what she has or hasnt shown interest in in her life. All you know is what's reported in one article. Please try to keep the guff to a minimum

There are many programs in Ireland to help people who want to address the addiction issues they acknowledge they suffer from.
The mistake you and lots of others make is assuming that she either acknowledges or wants to deal with her problems.
This is patronizing and somewhat condescending.
I’m quite sure that if she wanted to get sober she could.
She doesn’t.
This is where the “community’s” rights kick in and also a concerted effort to prevent her life from ending prematurely.
Long term residential care.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-07-2019 11:14am

splinter65 wrote: »

There are many programs in Ireland to help people who want to address the addiction issues they acknowledge they suffer from.
The mistake you and lots of others make is assuming that she either acknowledges or wants to deal with her problems.
This is patronizing and somewhat condescending.
I’m quite sure that if she wanted to get sober she could.
She doesn’t.
This is where the “community’s” rights kick in and also a concerted effort to prevent her life from ending prematurely.
Long term residential care.

I didn't say I think she wants to deal with her problems. I'll thank you for reading what I say and if you're unsure about something, feel free to ask.

I'll ask you how on year you know what she wants? I know some people very well and don't claim certainty of what they do or don't want. So how can you claim to know what a complete stranger wants? I don't know what she wants -and neither do you, whether you're honest enough to admit it or not. Behaviours are complex unfortunately.

Forgive me for not paying along and pretending you're a mind reader. I get that it ruins your approach but it's just not realistic.

Greyfox · 17-07-2019 11:57am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I've no doubt it would be expensive. I've repeatedly referred to it as an investment

In that case it would be a disgrace to waste money on a criminal when there's loads of non criminals we should be spending the money on instead. In any case some people are not able to be rehabilitated so it could be money for nothing anyway.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 17-07-2019 11:58am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That doesn't disprove the point I'm.nsling because I'm pretty sure she hasn't had the interventions I'm proposing -I say that because they aren't practiced in Ireland in the large scale way I'm proposing.

Now, you'll excuse me while I call shenanigans on this. Neither of us know this person and neither of us know what she has or hasnt shown interest in in her life. All you know is what's reported in one article. Please try to keep the guff to a minimum

There’s a drug clinic Pearse street with 100 or more employees. Lots of money is spent on this, to no great effect.

Eric Cartman · 17-07-2019 12:03pm

Graces7 wrote: »

for small thefts? so what do you intend for murder then?

You have also clearly led a very protected sheltered life .

Well id advocate the death penalty but that will cause a whole other liberal meltdown

What excuse could you possibly gove somevody being caught and prosecuted 10 times for a crime

Woman rakes up 648 convictions

Comments