Is McDowell this dim?

dmd

"The Irish Times reports that Minister for Justice Michael McDowell has said that electronic tagging of criminals may soon be introduced as an alternative to prison sentences. "I think it can be a useful means of having a non-custodial sentence for a first-time offender. We're talking about people like public order offenders," said McDowell, speaking at the annual Prison Officers' Association conference in Ennis, County Clare."

I'm just wondering if it's me, but does it appear like McDowell is a seriously dim person. I mean, I wonder if he's ever actually sat down , or went for a walk, and thought about what he says. He appears to hop from one silly thing to the next.

Now is it me, or is he a sheep, following any bad idea some moron throws at him?

Mighty_Mouse

I'd love to say "Yes" to any question regarding McDowell dimness but hasn't this been done in England for offenders who are classified as not been dangerous to the public. Ian Huntlys GF was under house arrest for one with electronic tagging.

Not 100% though

Sleipnir

I don't think he's a very good minister. Probably a good solictor but he really doesn't have a clue about crime & punishment.

The revolving door system has come back during his term of office.
A couple of weeks ago a man who got a 6 month jail term for something or other was put in prison on Thursday and was out on the streets again by Saturday.
I'm sure he's a reformed character though :rolleyes:

Imposter

What is the probelm with this electronic tagging option, exactly?

aphex™

Originally posted by Imposter
What is the probelm with this electronic tagging option, exactly?

Erm its not a big enough disencentive to comit a crime? I can hear the criminals laughing already... :dunno:

strawberry

McDowell says a lot of things but his biggest fault is probably that he doesn't do anything other than talk everyone into fits of rage.

There's no way the public would ever accept that idea if it is true.

Mighty_Mouse

I dunno. If an individual is not gonna offend again, are no danger to society etc etc .

Costs me less money to have em under house arrest

Villain

Firstly I don't think we can believe anything this man says, do you remember the promise of 2000 extra gardai before the last election, did we see them no.

This system would have to be for very small crimes, e.g in pocession of drugs for own use. Anyone that could reoffend in a manner that might harm 1 single person should be locked up and then after 2/3rds of their case is up have them accessed and then maybe released with this tagging system.

I don't want to see criminals free, but I also don't want Judges sending people home because theres no room for them in our prisons.

I think getting the 2000 extra gardai should McDowell's main aim, prevention is better than cure after all

arcadegame2004

The advantage of electronic-tagging is that the location of the convict can be pinpointed, thus helping to protect children from a convicted child-abuser who has already served his term, for example. Many such people are going to be released eventually, especially given often lax sentencing in this country. Also, I understand that any attempts by the convict to remove the electronic-tagging can be detectd by the police and that in the UK, such people are immediately re-incarcerated. Obviously society would be far more comfortable were such disturbed individuals kept behind bars indefinitely, but given that this usually doesn't happen, I feel that electronic-tagging has to be a serious option. I personally support its use. it could also be used for other categories of serious convict, including armed-robbers and murders released on parole.

Sarky

And do you then take it on trust that the tagged person won't immediately go to a dodgy surgeon to have the tag extracted?

Unless it's wired with explosives, but then that'd get the human rights folks all stroppy...

bonkey

Originally posted by Sarky
And do you then take it on trust that the tagged person won't immediately go to a dodgy surgeon to have the tag extracted?

Unless it's wired with explosives, but then that'd get the human rights folks all stroppy...

Ever hear of the concept of parole?

Now, apply a similar concept to the tagging...make the person report in regularly. If the tag shows signs of tampering...off to an 8 by 8 with you my son. Not showing up...same diff...you go down on the "wanted" list and given that this would now be a second offence, there's no way of escaping jail-time if and hen you're caught.

I see no human rights tragedy in an approach like that.

jc

strawberry

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
The advantage of electronic-tagging is that the location of the convict can be pinpointed, thus helping to protect children from a convicted child-abuser who has already served his term, for example. Many such people are going to be released eventually, especially given often lax sentencing in this country. Also, I understand that any attempts by the convict to remove the electronic-tagging can be detectd by the police and that in the UK, such people are immediately re-incarcerated. Obviously society would be far more comfortable were such disturbed individuals kept behind bars indefinitely, but given that this usually doesn't happen, I feel that electronic-tagging has to be a serious option. I personally support its use. it could also be used for other categories of serious convict, including armed-robbers and murders released on parole.

Wow, and there was I thinking that there was a thing called presumption of innocence in this country. Sure if they did it once we might as well just hang a guilty tag over them forever. :rolleyes:

Disturbed individuals belong in mental insitutions, outpatient or incarceration depending on seriousness. Putting them in jail is pointless and cruel when you know its not going to reform them because they have an underlying psychological problem. Sticking an electronic tag on them is hardly going to help alleviate the stigma either. The general idea is that we hold society together, not put all the 'crazies' in a separate place far away with arrows painted on their foreheads.

arcadegame2004

Strawberry the presumption of innocence is supposed to be before the suspect is found guilty, I didn't know it was supposed to continue afterwards.

article6

Firstly I don't think we can believe anything this man says, do you remember the promise of 2000 extra gardai before the last election, did we see them no.

You will find that was a Fianna Fáil promise. Michael McDowell is a PD.

The general idea is that we hold society together, not put all the 'crazies' in a separate place far away with arrows painted on their foreheads.

Surely an inconspicuous electronic tag is less divisive than keeping a person in prison, or under house arrest?


I don't like the man McDowell, but I think this is a good idea, if it's not too expensive.

MrPudding

God, I find myself in the strange position of actuall agreeing with arcadegame2004. I think that tagging is a great idea.

I am a firm believer that in some cases prison simply leads to further crime. For a lot of young offenders prison is like a finishing school. Picture this, some scrote gets done for some minor offence. Lets say he's pissed and makes areally bad judgement call or 2 and ends up in prison. He is now surrounded by criminal, some of them professional for want of a better word. What's he gonna learn in there? When he gets out and can't get a job because of his record. Do you think there is a chance he might re-offend?

On the other hand, take the same kid and stick a tag on him. Tell him if he move more than 30 feet from his house he goes to prison. Of course you could and should allow exceptions like school or college or even a place of work.

What we now have is someone with less exposure to a criminal element, unless of course he hets it at home, and therefore probably less likely to commit secondary crimes. He still has a chance, his life is not screwed yet.

Sooner or later people will wake up to the fact thast prison is not always the answer, in fact, it's hardly ever the answer.

MrP

Originally posted by MrPudding

I am a firm believer that in some cases prison simply leads to further crime.

It's often called a training centre for criminals.
Has anyone got any surveys on the costing of a tagging system Vs actual prison places?

strawberry

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Strawberry the presumption of innocence is supposed to be before the suspect is found guilty, I didn't know it was supposed to continue afterwards.

It was in reference to your remarks about convicted child offenders. If further allegations are made against them, the fact that they have offended in the past is taken as completely irrelevant in terms of determining their guilt on this new charge.
Tagging someone electronically is effectively presuming that they will reoffend. It's a breach of civil liberties.

mike65

Earthman it costs about 4000 a week to house a prisoner in Portlaoise!!!

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/01/11/story877427047.asp

Tagging is much cheaper of course and it keeps
valuble cell space free for those who pose a physical threat to the public.

Old figures but interesting -

This poor treatment is provided at enormous expense. In 1996 it cost £43,000 to keep one person in prison for a year in Ireland compared with £31,000 in the Netherlands, £25,000 in England and Wales, and £20,000 in Canada. These excessive costs are due in large part to a generous staff to prisoner ratio and high overtime payments.

From - http://homepage.tinet.ie/~calypso/prison/pstaff.html

Mike.

Originally posted by strawberry

Tagging someone electronically is effectively presuming that they will reoffend. It's a breach of civil liberties.

surely it wouldn't be if it is used as an alternative to prison?
The tagging and the curfew being the "time" for the crime in that case.

strawberry

No, it probably wouldn't be if it were used as an alternative to prison. But I doubt it ever will be. The ideological basis for prison at the moment seems to be retribution, its hardly reformation anyway. Electronic tagging would just negative that - there's no sense of revenge.

Plus, what sort of cases would we be talking about here, if what they did wasn't serious enough for them to be sent to jail, surely they should just do community service? I know it's a completely underused remedy at the moment, but that's probably besides the point.

pickarooney

Originally posted by mike65
Earthman it costs about 4000 a week to house a prisoner in Portlaoise!!!

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/01/11/story877427047.asp

Mike.

€61,000 a year for being a prison guard - that's insane money!

MrPudding

Originally posted by strawberry
No, it probably wouldn't be if it were used as an alternative to prison.

That is the whole point of tagging, an alternative to prison. Personally I think it is a great idea. I think you are right though Strawberry, prison is seen as revenge rather that what it is supposed to be. I think the main problem introducing electronic tagging would be the outcry from people who think it would mean criminals are getting off light.

If you ask most people they think that prison is too easy and prisoners should get flogged before and after every meal. They do not seem to realise that the punishment is simply being in prison. I know this seems a bit obvious but some people don’t get it. That is how prison is designed. You have lost your freedom, you can’t nip down the pub or round to your girlfriends when you feel like it. Simple. It does not have to be barbaric. If people could get their head around that they could see that tagging effectively does the same thing at a fraction of the cost.

MrP

seamus

Originally posted by pickarooney
€61,000 a year for being a prison guard - that's insane money!

Danger money. It's a lonely job, herding scumbags and having to put up with their bull.
I wouldn't accept any less if I was one.