Where's the deterrent for shіthead scumbags in society?

El_Bee · 09-04-2019 12:05pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The level of government involvement needed to make sure scumbags don't behave like scumbags would be unbearable. Imagine the surveillance and government presence in our lives. Cameras everywhere, everyone would need to carry ID by law.

People get annoyed when a guard asks "where are you going?". Imagine the power guards would need to have In order to eradicate scumbag behaviour.

I've a sneaking suspicion that posters will support all sorts of measures like surveillance and garda powers for OTHER PEOPLE, but definitely not for themselves.

I'm definitely not one of those "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear" types, and I don't think that London-style surveillance would benefit over here anyway, because again you can identify criminals and bring them in, but as long as the judges are handing out joke sentences those cameras are just going to be a waste of taxpayers money.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 12:14pm

Hal3000 wrote: »

You sound just like a judge. People make mistakes fair enough, but make a mistake 30 / 40 / 50 times then you shouldn't be out on the streets. The Guards are paid to deal with scumbags, if it means more survelance for safer streets I'm all for it. Not sure who would go for dangerous streets with less survelance. ??

Thanks. I've been accused of sounding like a lot of things but never a judge.

I've a sneaking suspicion that you would have a difficult time making the case for the kind of surveillance and police powers necessary to actually deal with scumbag behavior.

I live with someone who works with criminals. Their assessment is that perpetual criminals are a different class of people. They tend to have learning difficulties, brain injuries, and the kind of upbringings that makes crime a logical lifestyle. I know this isn't what you want to hear because it isn't "ra ra lock em up".

Making terrible consequences for petty crime will have almost no effect. If they were normally functioning people they wouldn't put themselves in a position to need to commit petty crime. The snare needed to the neocortex of the brain to impair forward planning is so minimal and subtle that it could happen to anyone. A bang on the head as a child, whether it comes from a violent attach or playing sport, can create a criminal.

The person mentioned above was recently working with a bloke who was born into a crime family - low end stuff like loan sharking, protection and drugs. He just grew up with his brothers and uncles beating people up for missed payments etc. He's in his 30s with a healthy criminal record and he's just now realising that he doesn't WANT to do that for a living. He never had a choice. It was the family business.

Crime is more complicated than "ra ra lock em up". The solution is like to be more complicated than ra ra lock em up.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 12:17pm

El_Bee wrote: »

They probably have a functional judicial system, big difference there.

Yeah but they have much less emphasise on punishment and more focus on reform and helping people get into normal society. I don't think the posters in this thread want to solve the problem as much as they want to see criminals punished. Even if punishment doesn't make society any better, I think it's usually what there threads are calling for.

Feisar · 09-04-2019 12:17pm

mickdw wrote: »

Welfare is regarded a minimum living allowance so no financial penalty for them once they are on the dole.
I believe fines/ compensation should be taken directly from welfare payments when scum misbehave.

And the only this that will fund the Dutch Gold and Johnnie Blues is further thievery. Tis a complex socio economic blah blah blah.

I believe H&K perfected a solution that has been available since the Chinese invented gunpowder.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 12:18pm

El_Bee wrote: »

They probably have a functional judicial system, big difference there.

What do you think is probably better about their justice system?

PCeeeee · 09-04-2019 12:26pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Crime is more complicated than "ra ra lock em up". The solution is like to be more complicated than ra ra lock em up.

It certainly is. Preventing it however is no more difficult than locking away the individuals committing the most of it

Feisar · 09-04-2019 12:35pm

PCeeeee wrote: »

It certainly is. Preventing it however is no more difficult than locking away the individuals committing the most of it

However we the law abiding public still have to pick up the tab. So the victims have to pay? Ultimate victim blaming there. Cost should be kept to a minimum.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 12:35pm

PCeeeee wrote: »

It certainly is. Preventing it however is no more difficult than locking away the individuals committing the most of it

Case in point. Ra ra lock em up.

PCeeeee · 09-04-2019 12:39pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Case in point. Ra ra lock em up.

Ra ra? I'm acknowledging crime is complex. I wish it prevented. I present a solution. Address it if you're able.

As for the ra ra part. Cop on

PCeeeee · 09-04-2019 12:42pm

Feisar wrote: »

However we the law abiding public still have to pick up the tab. So the victims have to pay? Ultimate victim blaming there. Cost should be kept to a minimum.

Not the victims. Us all. Society. Victims. Citizens. Criminals alike.

That's what happens in a functioning state. Crime prevention and rule enforcement is vested in a agency on our behalf.

Feisar · 09-04-2019 12:45pm

PCeeeee wrote: »

Not the victims. Us all. Society. Victims. Citizens. Criminals alike.

That's what happens in a functioning state. Crime prevention and rule enforcement is vested in a agency on our behalf.

I was being a tad tongue in cheek, however I am and you are right in that the state pays. Who provides the funding to the state? The tax payer. I'm not suggesting I am directly paying for the toe rag that stole my jacket circa 10 years ago however, indirectly I am.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 12:47pm

PCeeeee wrote: »

Ra ra? I'm acknowledging crime is complex. I wish it prevented. I present a solution. Address it if you're able.

As for the ra ra part. Cop on

Lock em up doesn't make anything better. It doesn't address the causes of crime. It just fills up prisons while someone else steps up to fill the place of the criminal on the streets.

There's also a social cost to locking people up such as breaking up families and causing further problems down the line (children being raised without the parent in prison).

The only thing your Solution is good for is the prison industry who would offer to take control of the prisons for a fee and likely with similar success to G4S in the UK and the disastrous private prison system in America.

Feisar · 09-04-2019 12:50pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lock em up doesn't make anything better. It doesn't address the causes of crime. It just fills up prisons while someone else steps up to fill the place of the criminal on the streets.

There's also a social cost to locking people up such as breaking up families and causing further problems down the line (children being raised without the parent in prison).

The only thing your Solution is good for is the prison industry who would offer to take control of the prisons for a fee and likely with similar success to G4S in the UK and the disastrous private prison system in America.

I think you're right however there will always be an element of flotsam and jetsam in even a perfectly organized society. I believe this should be removed as cheaply as is possible.

PCeeeee · 09-04-2019 12:53pm

Feisar wrote: »

I was being a tad tongue in cheek, however I am and you are right in that the state pays. Who provides the funding to the state? The tax payer. I'm not suggesting I am directly paying for the toe rag that stole my jacket circa 10 years ago however, indirectly I am.

Apologies. I missed that.

Of course we pay though. I'm not sure there's another way.

What I would like to see is incarceration as a preventative measure rather than a punishment or a deterrent. The habitual criminal and those who are a danger to society should simply locked up. First second even fifth time offenders should be treated sympathetically. Attempts should be made to rehabilitate them. Some kind of multiplier based on previous convictions should apply however. More convictions should mean more time away from the rest of us.

I would suggest that the majority of crime is committed by a tiny minority. The majority of Garda time is spent on the same minority. The legal costs etc.

Geuze · 09-04-2019 12:55pm

Eamon Lynch has nearly 500 convictions.

"Teenager Shane Patton was killed in 2012 following a fatal collision with Eamon Lynch's car.

In July 2012, Eamon Lynch fatally collided with the car of Shane Patton. Mr Lynch was under the influence of alcohol, driving at speeds that averaged 100mph and he had no insurance or driving licence.

According to the BBC, Lynch had 483 convictions before the incident - including charges of drunk driving, burglary and driving without the possession of an NCT."

Drink-driving
speeding
no driving licence
no insurance
483 convictions, including 50 for burglary

and guess what?

He then tried to sue the dead teenager's family / insurance

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/killer-driver-tried-to-sue-dead-teenager-s-insurance-firm-1.2973635

https://www.donegaldaily.com/2017/02/13/driver-who-killed-teen-shane-suing-familys-insurance-company/

Ush1 · 09-04-2019 12:57pm

https://www.thesun.ie/news/3959125/vera-donovan-death-treats-son-murder-stephen-lynch-tallaght-dublin-hit-and-run/

No fear or respect for anything including a grieving mother.

PCeeeee · 09-04-2019 12:58pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lock em up doesn't make anything better. It doesn't address the causes of crime. It just fills up prisons while someone else steps up to fill the place of the criminal on the streets.

There's also a social cost to locking people up such as breaking up families and causing further problems down the line (children being raised without the parent in prison).

The only thing your Solution is good for is the prison industry who would offer to take control of the prisons for a fee and likely with similar success to G4S in the UK and the disastrous private prison system in America.

No. You're making the assumption that a certain amount of 'free' people will always be criminals. I doubt think so.

For instance. You said yourself that there may be brain issues that cause criminal behaviour. If this cohort were removed they obviously would not just be replaced.

Again I believe the majority of crime is committed by a tiny but persistent minority. For tbe common good these need to be taken out of society

biko · 09-04-2019 1:00pm

Crock Rock wrote: »

I'm sure if he hadn't appeared or there wasn't anyone else around, then they probably would have smashed the window to retrieve the GPS because there'd be absolutely no consequences for them.

Until we get Minority Report style "future crime police" possible crimes like this will continue

PCeeeee · 09-04-2019 1:00pm

Geuze wrote: »

Eamon Lynch has nearly 500 convictions.

"Teenager Shane Patton was killed in 2012 following a fatal collision with Eamon Lynch's car.

In July 2012, Eamon Lynch fatally collided with the car of Shane Patton. Mr Lynch was under the influence of alcohol, driving at speeds that averaged 100mph and he had no insurance or driving licence.

According to the BBC, Lynch had 483 convictions before the incident - including charges of drunk driving, burglary and driving without the possession of an NCT."

Drink-driving
speeding
no driving licence
no insurance
483 convictions, including 50 for burglary

and guess what?

He then tried to sue the dead teenager's family / insurance

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/killer-driver-tried-to-sue-dead-teenager-s-insurance-firm-1.2973635

https://www.donegaldaily.com/2017/02/13/driver-who-killed-teen-shane-suing-familys-insurance-company/

A case in point

conorhal · 09-04-2019 1:14pm

Yurt! wrote: »

Interesting statbank for prisons across Europe. We have a higher prison capacity than Denmark, Finland and Norway (a good deal higher in Finland's case); all slightly larger countries than ourselves, so a good point of reference.

The Netherlands (Pop. 17m) has a prison capacity of 15'000 to our 4'300, and are in fact closing prisons and taking prisoners from other countries due to overcapacity in their system.

http://www.prisonstudies.org/country/ireland-republic

Well if they have too much capacity then that's just fine. We however lack the capacity to jail even violent offenders here, and that still needs to be addresssed.
Low prision capacity requirement tends to go hand in hand with the level of social cohesion and the degree of wealth disparity in a society.
As we dismantle social cohesion and widen the gap between rich and poor the more prison space you'll need.
I'd put it to you that compared to Denmark, Finland and Norway, Ireland has much lower social cohesion, shared values and a higher gap between rich and poor.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 1:17pm

Feisar wrote: »

I think you're right however there will always be an element of flotsam and jetsam in even a perfectly organized society. I believe this should be removed as cheaply as is possible.

Why would you expect something so important to be cheap to fix? There are solutions but the ones that work are rarely the cheap option

Feisar · 09-04-2019 1:23pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why would you expect something so important to be cheap to fix? There are solutions but the ones that work are rarely the cheap option

I would expect it to be as cheap as possible. And I'm not bothered with a fix. I want them removed from circulation.

Hal3000 · 09-04-2019 1:34pm

Our fundamental failure is locking up repeat offenders. No one is asking for locking up everyone, mistakes can happen and rehabilitation can work, but 500 offences. Christ Almighty... When will people realise that these guys are beyond help. Usually the people calling for a soft touch approach have never experienced crime or have never been a victim. You'll usually find their tone changes quite quickly if they experience it themselves.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 1:54pm

Feisar wrote: »

I would expect it to be as cheap as possible. And I'm not bothered with a fix. I want them removed from circulation.

Pay to remove them from circulation but not fox the problem for the future. That's incredibly short sighted.

You could start killing petty criminals if you like because that would be a whole lot cheaper than imprisonment or actually fixing anything. Bit drastic though

Feisar · 09-04-2019 2:02pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Pay to remove them from circulation but not fox the problem for the future. That's incredibly short sighted.

You could start killing petty criminals if you like because that would be a whole lot cheaper than imprisonment or actually fixing anything. Bit drastic though

Why does the average person have to pay for anything to do with these leeches though?

PCeeeee · 09-04-2019 2:22pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Pay to remove them from circulation but not fox the problem for the future. That's incredibly short sighted.

You could start killing petty criminals if you like because that would be a whole lot cheaper than imprisonment or actually fixing anything. Bit drastic though

You're presenting it like we can 'fix' crime. If that is what you believe then that is where we fundamentally disagree.

There will always be a habitual criminal element. These are identifiable simply by the quantum and frequency of their detected crimes. Locking these people away from the rest of us would reduce crime.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 3:13pm

Feisar wrote: »

Why does the average person have to pay for anything to do with these leeches though?

Why do we collectively pay to solve problems in our society? That's just how society works I suppose. Cost of living in a civilised, safe country. It's in our own collective Interest to reduce crime so we have a safe environment for ourselves and each other.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 3:21pm

PCeeeee wrote: »

You're presenting it like we can 'fix' crime. If that is what you believe then that is where we fundamentally disagree.

There will always be a habitual criminal element. These are identifiable simply by the quantum and frequency of their detected crimes. Locking these people away from the rest of us would reduce crime.

I already said you can't eradicate crime. It just doesn't work like that. There will always be some people who can't live by the rules of society. I accept that. And you can lock people away for years for petty crimes. Sure. If the underlying causes of crime are Increasing then you'll end up with an ample supply of people to take the place of the criminals you lock away. If you don't even want to know what causes high crime and recidivism, then you're never going to get the crime rate down reliably. It depends on what your objective is. Is your objective primarily to know people are being punished or to make the environment safer with fewer crimes?

But I'll bet you're not on for taking a consistently harsh approach to crimes that you personally might commit though.

Lock people away for years for breaking the speed limit or under reporting income?

09-04-2019 3:22pm

I find it odd that this same discussion is taking place for so long, yet not a single thing has been done to change anything to be tougher on criminals in Ireland. Literally nothing.

The emergency services were making noise a while back that there should be a mandatory minimum sentence if you attack a member of the emergency services, and even that hasn't gotten anywhere (not that it should - mandatory minimum sentences should be for an attack on anyone, not just emergency service workers, which is probably why very few people got behind it).

It's a crazy situation that the government haven't announced extending/re-opening an existing prison or building a new prison. The country is overflowing with dirtbags and there's absolutely no consequence. You can (literally!) get into the 100+ convictions without ever doing any meaningful prison stint, facing any fines, or paying a cent towards the legal representation you get.

09-04-2019 3:28pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I already said you can't eradicate crime. It just doesn't work like that. There will always be some people who can't live by the rules of society. I accept that. And you can lock people away for years for petty crimes. Sure. If the underlying causes of crime are Increasing then you'll end up with an ample supply of people to take the place of the criminals you lock away. If you don't even want to know what causes high crime and recidivism, then you're never going to get the crime rate down reliably. It depends on what your objective is. Is your objective primarily to know people are being punished or to make the environment safer with fewer crimes?

But I'll bet you're not on for taking a consistently harsh approach to crimes that you personally might commit though.

Lock people away for years for breaking the speed limit or under reporting income?

There's a massive difference in under-declaring to revenue and beating someone so much, for no reason, that they never walk or eat properly again (one will likely see you imprisoned, heavily fined and under scrutiny for years, the other will be a slap on the wrist and set free without ever seeing a prison).

This country does not come down hard on malicious crime at all. Everyone's in agreement that all crimes should be punishable, but assaults, burglaries, etc. get treated far too softly, to the extent that they may needn't bother actually trying to get the person at all. It's a farcical system.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 3:32pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I find it odd that this same discussion is taking place for so long, yet not a single thing has been done to change anything to be tougher on criminals in Ireland. Literally nothing.

The emergency services were making noise a while back that there should be a mandatory minimum sentence if you attack a member of the emergency services, and even that hasn't gotten anywhere (not that it should - mandatory minimum sentences should be for an attack on anyone, not just emergency service workers, which is probably why very few people got behind it).

It's a crazy situation that the government haven't announced extending/re-opening an existing prison or building a new prison. The country is overflowing with dirtbags and there's absolutely no consequence. You can (literally!) get into the 100+ convictions without ever doing any meaningful prison stint, facing any fines, or paying a cent towards the legal representation you get.

What makes you think getting tough is the solution? It's genuinely amazing they the conversation doesn't follow this line:
There's a problem with crime.
How to we get the crime rate down?
I don't know. Let's see what works and what doesn't work in other comparable countries.

Instead the conversation is:
There's too much crime. Why aren't we harsher on crime?
We'll, does being harsher on crime actually reduce crime?
I don't care about all that lilly liveried guff. Lock em up!

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 3:37pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There's a massive difference in under-declaring to revenue and beating someone so much, for no reason, that they never walk or eat properly again (one will likely see you imprisoned, heavily fined and under scrutiny for years, the other will be a slap on the wrist and set free without ever seeing a prison).

This country does not come down hard on malicious crime at all. Everyone's in agreement that all crimes should be punishable, but assaults, burglaries, etc. get treated far too softly, to the extent that they may needn't bother actually trying to get the person at all. It's a farcical system.

But like I said, I'll bet you're not interested in harsh punishment for crimes that you personally might commit.

I don't know the ins and puts of sentencing but I'd be shocked if you GBH someone so they can't walk again and they get a slap on the wrist as you said.

Hal3000 · 09-04-2019 3:46pm

Can you have some type of movement to repeal our sentencing or a campaign to change our overly lientent justice system ? Must be hundreds of victims that would support it. I know I would.

09-04-2019 4:02pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What makes you think getting tough is the solution? It's genuinely amazing they the conversation doesn't follow this line:
There's a problem with crime.
How to we get the crime rate down?
I don't know. Let's see what works and what doesn't work in other comparable countries.

Instead the conversation is:
There's too much crime. Why aren't we harsher on crime?
We'll, does being harsher on crime actually reduce crime?
I don't care about all that lilly liveried guff. Lock em up!

A stronger deterrent is always going to be more effective than a lackadaisical one though.

If you see me carrying a new tv into the house, and i leave it inside the door, to run upstairs and use the toilet.. you think about stealing it, currently you know you'll never be caught or face any punishment, but wouldn't you think a bit harder about if there was an actual chance of getting a hefty fine and prison stint.

(I realise my example of the crime itself is silly but you get the idea).

Money, fines, can help. money is the biggest motivator we have. Severe welfare and income cuts for those with convictions would be a start.

As for crimes i personally commit, although im struggling to think of any, i have no issue facing the punishment for them. I sometimes speed when driving, if i come upon a speed van then thats my own tough luck. I'm not gonna say id a poor upbringing to wriggle my way out of it.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 4:28pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A stronger deterrent is always going to be more effective than a lackadaisical one though.

If you see me carrying a new tv into the house, and i leave it inside the door, to run upstairs and use the toilet.. you think about stealing it, currently you know you'll never be caught or face any punishment, but wouldn't you think a bit harder about if there was an actual chance of getting a hefty fine and prison stint.

(I realise my example of the crime itself is silly but you get the idea).

Money, fines, can help. money is the biggest motivator we have. Severe welfare and income cuts for those with convictions would be a start.

As for crimes i personally commit, although im struggling to think of any, i have no issue facing the punishment for them. I sometimes speed when driving, if i come upon a speed van then thats my own tough luck. I'm not gonna say id a poor upbringing to wriggle my way out of it.

The TV theft example is actually very good. For someone like you and me the current deterrents are enough to make sure we don't steal the TV. Morals, caring about society, the chance of being caught, getting a criminal record and the knock on effect on future employment. Not to mention the holy mortifying shame my mother would feel pic her child was a thief.

But if you're someone who struggles to plan fir the future then the strength of the deterrents won't matter. If you struggle to plan for the future you're more likely to end up in a position where you need money quickly andire likely to take risks to get the money.

Criminals tend to have a different makeup which neans they're not drleterred by the consequences. Even countries with the death penalty have loads of crime.

Yurt2 · 09-04-2019 5:05pm

conorhal wrote: »

Well if they have too much capacity then that's just fine. We however lack the capacity to jail even violent offenders here, and that still needs to be addresssed.
Low prision capacity requirement tends to go hand in hand with the level of social cohesion and the degree of wealth disparity in a society.
As we dismantle social cohesion and widen the gap between rich and poor the more prison space you'll need.
I'd put it to you that compared to Denmark, Finland and Norway, Ireland has much lower social cohesion, shared values and a higher gap between rich and poor.

I'd agree with most of that. Ireland, despite what we tell ourselves, has poor social cohesion (much like all Anglo nations).

El_Bee · 09-04-2019 5:28pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Case in point. Ra ra lock em up.

We've had decades and decades of NOT locking them up, it doesn't work here, decades to implement the kind of infrastructure you're talking about on the continent, it hasn't happened. Meanwhile innocent people are the victims of people who should not be walking the streets, but get out because of nonsense excuses and stupid/greedy judges. So yeah, lets give locking people up a try.

PCeeeee · 09-04-2019 5:35pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I already said you can't eradicate crime. It just doesn't work like that. There will always be some people who can't live by the rules of society. I accept that. And you can lock people away for years for petty crimes. Sure. If the underlying causes of crime are Increasing then you'll end up with an ample supply of people to take the place of the criminals you lock away. If you don't even want to know what causes high crime and recidivism, then you're never going to get the crime rate down reliably. It depends on what your objective is. Is your objective primarily to know people are being punished or to make the environment safer with fewer crimes?

But I'll bet you're not on for taking a consistently harsh approach to crimes that you personally might commit though.

Lock people away for years for breaking the speed limit or under reporting income?

I don't really care about punishment. This would be purely preventative. And of course I take exactly the same line with 'crimes I might commit myself'. If you, for instance, underd-eclare tax 50 times then you clearly have no respect for the rule of law. Its about quantity and frequency of offense. Too many or too many in short period and you're taken out of society to protect the rest of us. Learn to live by the rules and not make **** for the rest of us or begone.

Continue by all means with all the rest of what you're saying but get rid of these people. All it costs is a few prison places.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 6:25pm

El_Bee wrote: »

We've had decades and decades of NOT locking them up, it doesn't work here, decades to implement the kind of infrastructure you're talking about on the continent, it hasn't happened. Meanwhile innocent people are the victims of people who should not be walking the streets, but get out because of nonsense excuses and stupid/greedy judges. So yeah, lets give locking people up a try.

We lock up lots of people. May e you think it's working so well that its the best option.
Without even giving an alternative a try? I wouldn't say Ireland has a great record of innovative or Intensive rehabilitation or crime prevention by finding out what causes crime and attempting to deal with that.

Maybe you think Ireland has given all the other options a try, but I wouldn't agree.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 6:26pm

PCeeeee wrote: »

I don't really care about punishment. This would be purely preventative. And of course I take exactly the same line with 'crimes I might commit myself'. If you, for instance, underd-eclare tax 50 times then you clearly have no respect for the rule of law. Its about quantity and frequency of offense. Too many or too many in short period and you're taken out of society to protect the rest of us. Learn to live by the rules and not make **** for the rest of us or begone.

Continue by all means with all the rest of what you're saying but get rid of these people. All it costs is a few prison places.

If it's all about prevention, the why haven't you even bothered to ask what has worked in other countries before concluding locking em up is the best course?

Franz Von Peppercorn · 09-04-2019 6:57pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

But like I said, I'll bet you're not interested in harsh punishment for crimes that you personally might commit.

I don't know the ins and puts of sentencing but I'd be shocked if you GBH someone so they can't walk again and they get a slap on the wrist as you said.

Surely anybody can commit serious crimes.

If there’s any class bias with regard to sentencing in this country it’s a bias towards liberalism in the upper middle classes because criminality doesn’t affect them so much.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 09-04-2019 6:59pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If it's all about prevention, the why haven't you even bothered to ask what has worked in other countries before concluding locking em up is the best course?

This isn’t the US so we don’t really lock people up to any great extent. We are mid ranking in Europe as far as I can see.

PCeeeee · 09-04-2019 7:05pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If it's all about prevention, the why haven't you even bothered to ask what has worked in other countries before concluding locking em up is the best course?

Why do you think me so disingenuous? You have already reduced my first response to ra ra which I can only assume is a comment on my intelligence. Then you implied I was a hypocrite and now your starting gambit doubts my stance on prevention. I have a different view than you, I'm not some kind of bogey man.

In answer I haven't the time or the inclination to research this subject more. There. Swing away at that. My chin is wide open.

But two qs for you:

What have you against locking up the 50 plus convictions crowd?

The gent in the thread earlier. 500 convictions. At what point should he have been locked up? Sometime before he was you'd think?

Hal3000 · 09-04-2019 7:13pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If it's all about prevention, the why haven't you even bothered to ask what has worked in other countries before concluding locking em up is the best course?

So what is the best course ? Let people with multiple serious convictions roam the streets and keep committing crimes because rehabilitation works and it's the best course of action ? If you seriously think these people care about contributing to society in any meaningful way you're mistaken. As I said before people make mistakes, but scrotes with 20 plus convictions... Forget it. Long sentence is only answer.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 09-04-2019 7:19pm

The thing is if you want to rehabilitate people with 50+ convictions then the state needs to actual try to do it. The much celebrated Norwegian justice system does rehabilitate within the prison system but you have to go to prison. Even if you wanted to rehabilitate outside prison there would have to be some mandatory work or community service, the failure to attend such should see you incarcerated.

The Irish justice system washes its hands of what it considers low level criminality and makes no attempt to either reform recidivists or to protect society from career criminals.

El_Bee · 09-04-2019 8:06pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We lock up lots of people.

We LITERALLY don't, people are walking around with triple digit convictions ffs, ask anyone outside of Ireland if that's normal and they'll think your insane, people are getting 4-5 years for rape or murder, insanity.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-04-2019 9:16pm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Surely anybody can commit serious crimes.

If there’s any class bias with regard to sentencing in this country it’s a bias towards liberalism in the upper middle classes because criminality doesn’t affect them so much.

Lol. Look at the controversy over drink driving in the morning. The only difference is that anyone could be caught for being over the limit in the morning. Not just other people.

Anyone could commit a serious crime. The kinds of people who commit the crimes they're discussing in this thread are a fault specify subset of people. Not "us" surely.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 09-04-2019 9:21pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lol. Look at the controversy over drink driving in the morning. The only difference is that anyone could be caught for being over the limit in the morning. Not just other people.

Once again let me assure you that everybody can engage in any crime.

Anyone could commit a serious crime. The kinds of people who commit the crimes they're discussing in this thread are a fault specify subset of people. Not "us" surely.

The crimes mentioned in this thread in fact make the lives of many poor people far more uncomfortable than the lives of the rich. If our judiciary were from a wider spectrum of society they might actually appreciate that. As it happens because the leafy suburbs are the safest places in Dublin and Ireland and they have no relatives, no matter how distant, in the kind of housing estates where anti social behaviour thwarts people’s lives the judiacry are happy to throw the poor to the wolves.

Skeleton Key · 09-04-2019 9:41pm

If being soft on crime worked then Ireland and Sweden would be crime free utopias.

irishproduce · 09-04-2019 9:54pm

kildare lad wrote: »

Sure prisons is no deterrent anymore. I know a bloke that got a 6 month sentence . I asked him, how'd ya get on in there. He said it was grand , he'd video games , tv , valium , weed . That doesn't sound to much like punishment. I wonder if prison was a bit more like a military boot camp , would people be less inclined to go back there.

Its not about deterring them. The issue for me is keeping them away from the law abiding population
6 months in jail means some law abiding citizen won't be robbed or killed by the perpetrators during that time.

Where's the deterrent for shіthead scumbags in society?

Comments