Sort out the Criminal Justice System

mayotom

Wicknight wrote:

Thats like saying that smokers don't mind dying of lung cancer

It doesn't work like that. Just like a smoker isn't going "Umm, lung cancer isn't actually that bad, I'll have another smoke", the criminal isn't thinking "umm, prision isn't that bad, I think I'll rob this bank". Both the smoker and the criminal are thinking "it will not happen to me".

Yes, I am so jealous of those prisioners ...

I was writing about specific people who I have met, and have actually said that " they were disappointed that they didn't get a custodial sentence" because they prefer life on the inside.

This is not the way all criminals think

mayotom

Flex wrote:

That guy, Joe Arpaio, has the right idea. Prison shouldnt be a 'hotel'. It should be a punishment, an unpleasant time, a prospect they absolutely dread and a hard part of the criminals life rather than 'helping' them 'realise' its not ok to sell drugs to children/ rape people/ murder people/ mug people/ abuse children/ rob shops/ etc. from now on, because its "very very bold" to do that, as if they didnt know already. I found this also about Arpaio on Google

Isn't that the guy who was on the last word a few weeks ago.

that's what we need here

Zombrex

mayotom wrote:

I was writing about specific people who I have met, and have actually said that " they were disappointed that they didn't get a custodial sentence" because they prefer life on the inside.

This is not the way all criminals think

Yes, I understand there are people out there like that, but at the same time you cannot infer from their responses that prision life is actually not that bad.

The people you know who say this are either idiots, mentally ill, have nothing at all in life, or putting a macho front up instead of admitting they don't want to go to prision.

At secondary school I knew a group of lads who went on and on about how they were not scared of the Gardi. It was all for show, they thought it made them look tough.

Freelancer

mayotom wrote:

I have heard of people commiting crimes because they want to go back to prison, for an easier life where they have free accomodation and are given good meals.

The rest of us have to work hard just to achive these basics.

Thats infantile reasoning, and also, "my mate down the pub" is not a credible source for facts about our prison system.

civdef

Thats infantile reasoning

Indeed? Would it help if I told you I have personally seen people do exactly that?

Zombrex

civdef wrote:

Indeed? Would it help if I told you I have personally seen people do exactly that?

I've personally seen a person cut open their leg with a blunt razor to "see what happens".

That doesn't mean cutting open your leg with a blunt razor is a good idea, or a particularly enjoyable experience.

My issue with this point isn't that people do it, I am never surprised by what people will do.

But it is the assumption that mayoto is drawing that because some people do this it must mean the current prision system is actually a glorifed free hotel that I take issue at. Just because someone does something doesn't mean it isn't a really stupid decision. When I was watching my drunk idiot friend being rushed to A&E with a bleeding leg I wasn't sat there thinking "God, they really need to make a stronger warning on the razor packet, because people seem to think that slashing open your leg is fun". I was thinking "God, what an idiot". Which is exactly the same thing I think when I hear a skanger go on about how they like living in prision.

mayotom

Wicknight wrote:

The people you know who say this are either idiots, mentally ill, have nothing at all in life, or putting a macho front up instead of admitting they don't want to go to prision.

.

point taken. but civdef has a good point.

civdef wrote:

The deterrant value of long sentences as a means of reducing crime levels is a debatable issue, however another aspect of them isn't - if a person is locked up in jail they are not committing crimes.

A huge proportion of crime statistics is down to prolific repeat offenders. Lock them up for long sentences once their recidivist tendencies are established, and I'll wager crime rates decrease significantly.

.

If the this guy was behind bars (there was a bench warrent out for his arrest) then the weekend murder(assuming he is the culprit, which seems to be the case in the press) just wouldn't have happened, and he would have died and nobody would care(except of course the people close to him)

same with the Padraig Nally case a few months ago. the Victim had 4 bench warrents out for his arrest. he should have been locked up and that debate wouldn't have come up.

Freelancer

mayotom wrote:

point taken. but civdef has a good point.




If the this guy was behind bars (there was a bench warrent out for his arrest) then the weekend murder(assuming he is the culprit, which seems to be the case in the press) just wouldn't have happened, and he would have died and nobody would care(except of course the people close to him)

So your solution is more police to persue warrants or do we forbid bail and due process?

same with the Padraig Nally case a few months ago. the Victim had 4 bench warrents out for his arrest. he should have been locked up and that debate wouldn't have come up.

Is your solution that everyone who commits a crime or is charged with a crime, should be locked up?

mayotom

Freelancer wrote:

So your solution is more police to persue warrants or do we forbid bail and due process?

yes the Guardai need a lot more resourses. and they need to be backed up by the Judicial system

Freelancer wrote:

Is your solution that everyone who commits a crime or is charged with a crime, should be locked up?

If you do the crime you shoud do the time....

It is the repeat offenders which are the problem.
ther should be a clearly defined system of sentencing.
e.g.
Murder=Life(throw away the key)
stealing a chocolate bar= 10 hours community service

people will start to get the message, that crime doesn't pay

The problem now is that it does pay for some, and pays well

Zombrex

mayotom wrote:

If the this guy was behind bars (there was a bench warrent out for his arrest) then the weekend murder(assuming he is the culprit, which seems to be the case in the press) just wouldn't have happened, and he would have died and nobody would care(except of course the people close to him)

Yes but again you are suggesting totally unworkable "solutions". We can't just lock everyone up forever so they cannot physically ever commit a crime ever again. You would have a massive massive prision population with astronomical running costs.

civdef

Is your solution that everyone who commits a crime or is charged with a crime, should be locked up?

In the case of outstanding warrants, where the courts have ordered that a person be returned to custody fortwith, that should be carried out as son as possible. At the moment, that just isn't the case here. In the UK, the police have units specifically tasked to arresting people who are wanted on warrant.

In the case of prolific offenders, a person's past criminal record should decide whether they get bail before trial, and what their sentence is afterwards if found guilty.

Zombrex

civdef wrote:

In the case of outstanding warrants, where the courts have ordered that a person be returned to custody fortwith, that should be carried out as son as possible. At the moment, that just isn't the case here. In the UK, the police have units specifically tasked to arresting people who are wanted on warrant.

No problem with that, but then that wasn't what was suggested.

civdef wrote:

In the case of prolific offenders, a person's past criminal record should decide whether they get bail before trial, and what their sentence is afterwards if found guilty.

Why don't we just assume that he/she is guilty and save on the expense of a trial all together ... who needs a fair legal and justice system when we are facing an epidemic of violent crime .. oh wait, we aren't

civdef

Yes but again you are suggesting totally unworkable "solutions". We can't just lock everyone up forever so they cannot physically ever commit a crime ever again. You would have a massive massive prision population with astronomical running costs.

You might be surprised. My proposal is to give long sentences to those who are proven repeat offenders, who therefore are very unlikely to be rehabilitated, and pose a serious risk to society.

Take theft for instance, the maximum sentence for which is five years imprisonment. I see no reason why someone convicted of numerous counts of theft should not serve every day of a five year sentence.

You say that the costs of locking all offenders up for long sentences would be prohibitive, but you forget two things.

One is that the same people are in and out of jail the whole time anyway, so why not just keep them in.

The other is the high cost of the crimes committed, both socially and materially in insurance costs etc, if the crime rate went down, the savings there could justify increased jail spending.

mayotom

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but again you are suggesting totally unworkable "solutions". We can't just lock everyone up forever so they cannot physically ever commit a crime ever again. You would have a massive massive prision population with astronomical running costs.

make them work to pay for the prison system.
it currently costs over €100,000 per year per prisoner. with no contribution from the prisoners. some of these criminals have vast fortunes, I know the CAB are working on this, but its a slow process. better legislation is needed

civdef

Why don't we just assume that he/she is guilty and save on the expense of a trial all together ... who needs a fair legal and justice system when we are facing an epidemic of violent crime .. oh wait, we aren't

See now you're just making up an opposing argument that doesn't tally at all with what I argued.

I am talking about sentencing after a guilty verdict, which has no impact whatsoever on how the person receives a fair trial. How do you think awarding higher sentences to those convicted of an offence who have a huge string of prior convictions affects their chance of a fair trial?

Zombrex

civdef wrote:

who therefore are very unlikely to be rehabilitated, and pose a serious risk to society.

We don't try to really try to rehabiliate prisions so how do we know they can't be rehabilitated?

civdef wrote:

You say that the costs of locking all offenders up for long sentences would be prohibitive, but you forget two things.

No, I'm saying the only way that idea could work is if you locked everyone up forever

civdef wrote:

The other is the high cost of the crimes committed, both socially and materially in insurance costs etc, if the crime rate went down, the savings there could justify increased jail spending.

The crime rate would not go down, thats the point. Unless you locked everyone up forever, which is not practical, and breaks about a dozen human rights laws.

mayotom

Wicknight wrote:

Why don't we just assume that he/she is guilty and save on the expense of a trial all together ... who needs a fair legal and justice system when we are facing an epidemic of violent crime .. oh wait, we aren't

nobody is sugesting that we abandon the Judiciary, just thoughen up on crime

we are seeing an increase in violent crime in Ireland.

civdef

The crime rate would not go down, thats the point. Unless you locked everyone up forever, which is not practical, and breaks about a dozen human rights laws.

Maybe I should use a nice simple example to help illustrate this.

Johnny Scally is a burglar. He breaks into houses to fund a heroin addiction, requiring 50 eur per day. He usually breaks into a house every two days or so. Johnny is arrested, charged and convicted of burglary and receives a five year sentence in Mountjoy. Johnny has 13 prior convictions for theft, so it is possibly safe to assume he is not going to find God in jail and walk the path of righteousness once released.

If he receives a 15 month sentence, he'll probably be on the streets thieving again inside ten months (less time served on remand). If he gets the maximum sentence of five years and isn't released for five years, I can positively guarantee you that Johnny won't be robbing any houses for that period. A simple calculation would show that that results in 800 or so less thefts thanks to a strict sentencing policy.

And you reckon that wouldn't reduce crime figures?

Zombrex

civdef wrote:

See now you're just making up an opposing argument that doesn't tally at all with what I argued.

No, I'm pointing out that you are completely missing the reasons behind the legal safe guards such as not biasing a trial based on previous offenses.

Say someone is up on trial for armed robbery. You think they should not get bail because they have a previous conviction for assault.

Does that previous conviction mean they probably did this crime and therefore they are guilty and therefore they should not get bail?

Where does that leave the system of a fair trial?

civdef wrote:

I am talking about sentencing after a guilty verdict, which has no impact whatsoever on how the person receives a fair trial.

Actually you were talking about bail and sentencing.

The point on sentencing would be that the punishment should fit the crime, not fit the history of the person. But previous convictions are taken into consideration when sentencing takes place, so I'm not sure what more you want done?

civdef wrote:

How do you think awarding higher sentences to those convicted of an offence who have a huge string of prior convictions affects their chance of a fair trial?

It doesn't. Granting bail based on their prior convictions affects their chance of a fair trail. Or at least thats what the Bail Act 1997 says .... And the bail act still allows for limited information on previous convictions to be heard in private.

So again, both these systems are in place. What more do you want. Or were you just assuming they weren't in place?

mayotom

civdef wrote:

Maybe I should use a nice simple example to help illustrate this.

Johnny Scally is a burglar. He breaks into houses to fund a heroin addiction, requiring 50 eur per day. He usually breaks into a house every two days or so. Johnny is arrested, charged and convicted of burglary and receives a five year sentence in Mountjoy. Johnny has 13 prior convictions for theft, so it is possibly safe to assume he is not going to find God in jail and walk the path of righteousness once released.

If he receives a 15 month sentence, he'll probably be on the streets thieving again inside ten months (less time served on remand). If he gets the maximum sentence of five years and isn't released for five years, I can positively guarantee you that Johnny won't be robbing any houses for that period. A simple calculation would show that that results in 800 or so less thefts thanks to a strict sentencing policy.

And you reckon that wouldn't reduce crime figures?

well Wicknight surely you can't argue with that

Zombrex

mayotom wrote:

nobody is sugesting that we abandon the Judiciary, just thoughen up on crime

we are seeing an increase in violent crime in Ireland.

Why are you assuming we are not tough on crime?

Maybe being "tough" on crime doesn't work the way you think it would.

They had public hangings in the 18th century, and they still had a very high crime rate.

Freelancer

civdef wrote:

Maybe I should use a nice simple example to help illustrate this.

Johnny Scally is a burglar. He breaks into houses to fund a heroin addiction, requiring 50 eur per day. He usually breaks into a house every two days or so. Johnny is arrested, charged and convicted of burglary and receives a five year sentence in Mountjoy. Johnny has 13 prior convictions for theft, so it is possibly safe to assume he is not going to find God in jail and walk the path of righteousness once released.

If he receives a 15 month sentence, he'll probably be on the streets thieving again inside ten months (less time served on remand). If he gets the maximum sentence of five years and isn't released for five years, I can positively guarantee you that Johnny won't be robbing any houses for that period. A simple calculation would show that that results in 800 or so less thefts thanks to a strict sentencing policy.

And you reckon that wouldn't reduce crime figures?

Alternatively put johnny in a methadone program with the overall goal being complete detox and parole him, tie his parole release terms into regular drugs tests, so if she starts using smack he gets locked up again.

We need more imaginative solutions that longer sentences.

mayotom

Wicknight wrote:

Why are you assuming we are not tough on crime?

Maybe being "tough" on crime doesn't work the way you think it would.

They had public hangings in the 18th century, and they still had a very high crime rate.

well that was one way of getting rid of criminals

are you suggesting we bring back hanging??

Freelancer

mayotom wrote:

well that was one way of getting rid of criminals

are you suggesting we bring back hanging??

Sarcasm meet mayotom, I don't believe you've met before.

Zombrex

civdef wrote:

If he receives a 15 month sentence, he'll probably be on the streets thieving again inside ten months (less time served on remand). If he gets the maximum sentence of five years and isn't released for five years, I can positively guarantee you that Johnny won't be robbing any houses for that period.

And if he recieves no rehibiliation or help in jail I can positively guarrentee you he will be robbing houses 5 years from now. So what is the difference between him robbing a house in 15 months and robbing a house in 5 years? As I said, your idea only works if you never release him.

civdef wrote:

And you reckon that wouldn't reduce crime figures?

It would reduce tomorrows crime figures, which as I said in an earlier post would probably make some people (the government for one) happy because it is give a false impression that something is actually being done. But all it is really doing is prosponing the problem, not solving it.

And it will be worse down the line because you are going to get far more f**ked up individuals coming out of prision.

Zombrex

mayotom wrote:

well that was one way of getting rid of criminals

Thats the point, it doesn't get rid of crime or deter crime.

civdef

It doesn't. Granting bail based on their prior convictions affects their chance of a fair trail. Or at least thats what the Bail Act 1997 says .... And the bail act still allows for limited information on previous convictions to be heard in private.

So again, both these systems are in place. What more do you want. Or were you just assuming they weren't in place?

Here's the thing, there are still people out there day in day out committing crimes whilst on bail. Therefore it would seem to a simple-minded person like myself that perhaps the current system isn't doing a great job of protecting the public from repeat offenders. The Bail Act provides a framework, but it's implementations still leaves a lot to be desired.

Say someone is up on trial for armed robbery. You think they should not get bail because they have a previous conviction for assault.

Does that previous conviction mean they probably did this crime and therefore they are guilty and therefore they should not get bail?

Where does that leave the system of a fair trial?

If they have a single conviction for assault, then that should not impact on their chances of getting bail. Of they have 10 convictions for assault and 14 others for robbery, then it should. Have you ever had a look at the previous convictions records of the sort of individual typically arrested for theft and the like?

civdef

And if he recieves no rehibiliation or help in jail I can positively guarrentee you he will be robbing houses 5 years from now. So what is the difference between him robbing a house in 15 months and robbing a house in 5 years? As I said, your idea only works if you never release him.

I have nothing whatsoever at all against the concept of trying to rehabilitate criminals. It's the thing to do from both humane and economic perspectives. However, the thing is that there are people out there that you just won't rehabilitate.

In my view, anyone who has been convicted of similar offences more than three times is beyond rehabilitation.

I object to taxpayers money being wasted on the notion of rehabiliting hardened criminals with records as long as your arm. They are predators who society needs protecting from.

I also strongly object to people of that sort being given short sentences.

civdef

So what is the difference between him robbing a house in 15 months and robbing a house in 5 years?

In the example above - about 800 less victims.

The_Minister

Wicknite is missing the point with you deterrant arguement. Yes there is a "it will never happen to me affect", but once they have been in jail it has happened to them and they know it is possible. The effect is gone once they know that it does happen.