Sort out the Criminal Justice System

murphaph

I haven't read the thread so apologies if it's been said already but I am firmly in favour of "three strikes and you're out" style justice. If you commit three (or even say five to be 100% fair) separate crimes you are a menace to society and not just someone who screwed up (as could happen to any of us in fairness). A 15 year stretch should await anyone jailed under this scheme. It's not as harsh as the Californian modl but I still believe it'd be a deterrent on your 4th bit of shoplifting-would you risk it again? Sure, many are drug addicts and in the heat of the moment don't care but surely society as a whole has to look after itself and this involves protecting the rest of us and our property from somebody else's drug habit.

Zombrex

civdef wrote:

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.

Do you have any statistics for the number of crimes committed in 2005 by people on bail for another charge?

civdef wrote:

The Bail Act provides a framework, but it's implementations still leaves a lot to be desired.

If you have a better suggestion that doesn't reverse 800 years of legal progress ...

civdef wrote:

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.

Whats the difference? Is the second person more guilty of the current charge he is on trial for than the first?

Zombrex

civdef wrote:

In the example above - about 800 less victims.

As I said, whats the difference between him robbing 800 people in 15 months and robbing 800 people in 5 years. Or you are think that simply by the fact that in both scenerios he will probably die in the same year, the second example will mean 800 less robberies in total (out of a possible 10,000 or something)

If you are going to start making up nonsense statistics then there is not much point discussing this .. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Firespinner wrote:

The effect is gone once they know that it does happen.

And they still don't think it will happen to them again. Especailly not twice, because they are so much smarter now, they know how it all works.

Look Firespinner you are trying to apply rational logic to irrational and illogical minds and motivations.

If all you had to do to convince everyone that they break the law they go to jail was show a bunch of kids the inside of Mountjoy and say "you break the law you will end up here", the crime issues of this country would be solved in a fortnight.

No one commiting a crime, be it a punk kid stealling a CD from HMV, or an armed robber with a string of convictions longer than the prision tatoos on his arms about to blow up half an AIB branch, thinks they are going to get caught when pulling a job. If they did they wouldn't do it.

The very fact that there are criminals in the first place shows the holes in your argument.

civdef

then there is not much point discussing this ..

You know what, I tend to agree with you.

DubTony

It's always interesting to see a poster consistently use the same point in a discussion yet bring up no alternative solution, but stick to the same rigid philosophy. Unfortunately, that seems to be the problem with our government. The fact is, in Ireland today, we have a very serious crime problem which needs to be addressed and addressed quickly.

I don't post on this forum, but lurk regularly. The reason I don't post is simple. The arguements repeat themselves again and again and posts are usually filled with emotion rather than logic.

A reasonable person will agree that something needs to be done about crime and it needs to be done soon. If particular solutions seem somewhat medi-evil, then so be it. But the worst thing we can do is exactly what is being done i.e. nothing.

Some of the posters here have stated that longer prison sentences are a good deterrent while others say that rehabilitaion is what's needed. One poster suggested introducing an Irish version of the three strikes law. Instead of three strikes (felony convictions) and a life sentence, you'd need to commit five and get 10 years. While the idea is indeed imaginative, (with all due respect to the poster) this is the type of thinking that has the country in the state it's in. Why not introduce a three strikes type punishment? Why not make it 2? The simple reason that it hasn't been done is that successive Irish governments have proved that they don't have the backbone to tackle the problem.

Tackling crime can be done in primarily 2 ways. The first is on a community level where potential offenders are identified and "pre-rehabilitated" before they become criminals. The second is to punish crime in such a way that the potential sentence makes someone think long and hard about what he intends doing. The idea that criminals don't actually think they'll be caught / think they won't be caught / don't think about it at all is a nonsense. Prison time is the price that criminals pay for the freedom to do nothing all day. By not having a job they can plan to wreak havoc when they want, destroy lives when they want etc. The time spent inside is regarded as work by many of them. While many of us non-criminals work regular jobs in what are generally boring lives, criminals tend to live the way they want to. Their time is their own. They don't report to anyone or answer to anyone. The prison time is their "working life". It's simply a cost of doing business. And that cost is too cheap.

By their very actions criminals adversely affect the lives of others in a negative way. The cost to society cannot be measured adequately in monetary terms, but if it could it would be in the billions of euro every year. Even those who are not directly affected by crime pay for it. Shoplifting leads to higher costs in stores and lead higher retail prices. If you're unfortunate enough to live in an area where burgulary is a problem your home insurance will be higher than in another area. Those are just two examples.

The cost of keeping prisoners in this country is ridiculously high. This is primarily because the ratio of prison officers to prisoners is too high. The solution to that doesn't require anyone to climb too far out the box in their thinking.

Unfortunately as little or nothing will be done about it, the situation will remain unchanged. We won't see Ireland become one of the safest countries in the world in a New York style turnaround because there's no willingness to try. And we'll all still be talking about it in a few more years as another scumbag with 150 previous convictions gets a miserable 7 year slap on the wrist.

sceptre

DubTony wrote:

A reasonable person will agree that something needs to be done about crime and it needs to be done soon. If particular solutions seem somewhat medi-evil, then so be it. But the worst thing we can do is exactly what is being done i.e. nothing.

To me, what's been suggested in this thread from the start smacks more than a little of "we must do something" "this is something" "fine, let's do that".

OK, people have mentioned that if someone is in the slammer they're not going to be committing crime while they're there. Even ignoring that this isn't strictly true, it's something of an obvious argument and obviously completely ignores the cost factor as well.

I'm not after going all pseudo-liberal airyfairy pinko on anyone but there are quite a few people telling us for a fact that getting people to break rocks and only watch nice happy shows on the telly that never show the baddie with the black tie getting away with the dough will result in a better society with lower crime. Fine. Do me a favour folks and back it up with something tangiable and significant. You may well have a point or you could be talking bollocks but at the moment there's nothing much to indicate one over the other (unless there's a post osmewhere explaining it that I've missed, apologies if I have). The idea that Johnny Criminal won't be robbing market stalls if we put him in prison for forty years for robbing market stalls is fine and dandy, heck it even makes technical sense but no-one's actually demonstrated to my reasonable satisfaction as something of a reasonable person that this amounts to "sorting out the criminal justice system" where this thread apparently began.

Zombrex

DubTony wrote:

Unfortunately, that seems to be the problem with our government. The fact is, in Ireland today, we have a very serious crime problem which needs to be addressed and addressed quickly.

Actually, no we don't. Crime rate has been on a downward trend since the 90s, only dipping up when the Gardi introduced a new reporting system in 2001. Since then the rate of crime has continued to fall. Crime is over 25% lower than it was in the 80s and we also have one of the lowest crime rates in Europe.

Serious violent crime has also been on a downward trend.

DubTony wrote:

A reasonable person will agree that something needs to be done about crime and it needs to be done soon.

A "reasonable" person will agree that constant investment, improvement, funding, and commitment is always needed to maintain and improve our falling rate of crime. What is not needed is hysteria and panic reactions over a "problem" invented to sell newspapers ...

DubTony wrote:

The first is on a community level where potential offenders are identified and "pre-rehabilitated" before they become criminals.

Identified by whom, and under what criteria? And how do you rehabilitate someone how hasn't actually done anything?

DubTony wrote:

The second is to punish crime in such a way that the potential sentence makes someone think long and hard about what he intends doing.

Again, as I have repeatable said, the threat of punishment is irrelevent if the crimal does not believe they are going to get caught.

DubTony wrote:

The idea that criminals don't actually think they'll be caught / think they won't be caught / don't think about it at all is a nonsense.

If that were the case no one would ever commit a crime... the only reason they commit the crime in the first place is because they believe they won't get caught for it. Otherwise what is the pay off?

DubTony wrote:

The prison time is their "working life". It's simply a cost of doing business. And that cost is too cheap.

What are you talking about? You make it sound like the mafia where you have to earn your time in side while your money from the last heist rests in an off shore bank account waiting for you to get out. If an armed robber robs a bank and gets caught they get nothing. The police don't give them the money they robbed when they get out of prision :rolleyes:

mayotom

Wicknight wrote:

Actually, no we don't. Crime rate has been on a downward trend since the 90s, only dipping up when the Gardi introduced a new reporting system in 2001. Since then the rate of crime has continued to fall. Crime is over 25% lower than it was in the 80s and we also have one of the lowest crime rates in Europe.

Serious violent crime has also been on a downward trend.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't I hear a news report that reported crime in 2005 was 2% higher than 2004.

Dub Tony wrote:

We won't see Ireland become one of the safest countries in the world in a New York style turnaround because there's no willingness to try

I read a book last year called Freakonomics, the author puts a different perspective on the dramatic drop in crime in New York, saying that there was a connection between the drop in crime in the 90s and the legalisation of abortion in the 70s i.e. the criminals weren't even born.
this in my opinion did account for a small percentage of the drop in crime. but the zero tolerance system is probably the biggest factor..

Prevention is better than cure.
Education is the key, we need to stop people going down the road of crime... kids need to know that crime doesn't pay. there are many social issues in this country which need to be sorted out, this will start to address the crime issue.
As for the repeat offenders we discussed yesterday, Lock em up they haven't learned in the past, so how can anybody say they will learn in the future. This should be a strong deterent to people contemplating taking the path of crime in their life

Zombrex

mayotom wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't I hear a news report that reported crime in 2005 was 2% higher than 2004.

Possibly, the statistics for violent crime fluctuate wildly over such short periods of time, due to there simply not being a lot of it.

For example in April 2005 figures showed a 11% drop in serious crime
http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0411/crime.html

In Sept 2005 figures showed a 17% increase in serious crime
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2005/10/13/story225335.asp

Did a sudden outbreak of the rage virus from "28 Days Later" grip dublin in the few months between April 2004 and Sept 2004? Doubtful. A more reasonable explaination would be that the sample period is not long enough to get a proper reflection of trends in serious crime.

For example if you get 2 murders in April 2004 and 4 in April 2005 that is a 100% rise. You get 3 murders the next month that is a 25% fall. This is presented in precentages you would think are throwing bodies into the street, when in reality we are talking about a handful of people. It isn't helped by media using words such as "soaring" when describing these "trends"

This is exactly why people have to be very careful when discussing something as important as reform in the legal system based on the consistent fluctuation of crime statistics, and the way it is presented in the media.

We do not want to end up like a country such as America, where the general perception is that crime is consistently getting worse and worse leading to a much more conservative anti-civil liberities political outlook, when if fact crime is in the USA is consistently falling. We don't want to end up where the precception of crime, rather than the reality, leads to fear and hysteria, which in turn leads to a reversion of the progress made in the last century with reguard to the legal system.

Over all violent crime, and crime in general, has been falling consistently since the 80s.

http://www.justice.ie/80256E01003A02CF/vWeb/pcJUSQ68YDS9-en

mayotom

Good to see stats like that...
lets hope it continues, afterall that is what all sides of the above arguements want....

Zombrex

mayotom wrote:

afterall that is what all sides of the above arguements want....

Agreed, and I agree that a lot more can and should be done. I just disagree with what that should actually be.

mayotom

Wicknight wrote:

Agreed, and I agree that a lot more can and should be done. I just disagree with what that should actually be.

then we'll agree to disagree

The_Minister

Remember the Ludivico effect from a Clockwork Orange? Is a more humane version of that possible? I saw the play 1984 yesterday and it got me thinking.

mayotom

Firespinner wrote:

Remember the Ludivico effect from a Clockwork Orange? Is a more humane version of that possible? I saw the play 1984 yesterday and it got me thinking.

could be linked to education, but maybe a bit of an extream meathod of prevention

but sure lets give it a lash anyway:rolleyes:

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

Remember the Ludivico effect from a Clockwork Orange? Is a more humane version of that possible? I saw the play 1984 yesterday and it got me thinking.

Why yes, brainwashing a nations youth, that's the thing for a democracy to do.

Mayotom, I'm impressed, you actually seemed to listen to the other side of the debate, and adapt and reconsider your position and point of view, based on what they said.

New to the politics forum?

mayotom

Freelancer wrote:

New to the politics forum?

Yes I'm new in here.

Freelancer wrote:

Why yes, brainwashing a nations youth, that's the thing for a democracy to do.

Mayotom, I'm impressed, you actually seemed to listen to the other side of the debate, and adapt and reconsider your position and point of view, based on what they said.

Isn't that what debate is about, listening to others opinions, not letting it in one ear and out the other, which is the problem with politics the world over.

going back to my original post, I still think life should mean life and a 7 year sentence should mean 7 years not 3 or 4.
We've all heard people say e.g. "he got 5 years, but sure he'll be out in 2"
whats the point in having the 5 year sentence, why not just sentence them to 2.

DubTony

RE: Criminals thinking they won't get caught.

Wicknight wrote:

If that were the case no one would ever commit a crime... the only reason they commit the crime in the first place is because they believe they won't get caught for it. Otherwise what is the pay off?

That's like saying that the only reason a pilot flies a plane is because he thinks he won't crash. Or the only reason a rugby player steps out for his team is because he thinks he won't break his leg. The payoff for the airline pilot is wages or salary. The payoff for the rugby player is salary (sometimes) and the pleasure of playing and possibly winning. The payoff for the criminal is not having to work for a boss, and having the freedom to do whatever he wants whenever he wants. The pilot realises the risk every time he flies. The rugby player knows there a chance he might break something. Every career criminal knows there's an inherent risk in what he does. But generally they weigh up the risk and reward. If the risk / reward ratio is good they'll do the job.

What are you talking about? You make it sound like the mafia where you have to earn your time in side while your money from the last heist rests in an off shore bank account waiting for you to get out. If an armed robber robs a bank and gets caught they get nothing. The police don't give them the money they robbed when they get out of prision :rolleyes:

Let's not get silly about this. The time they spend inside is easier for them than having to do a job 250 or so days a year. It comes back to risk/reward ratio mentioned above. Criminals look at the time spent inside as the price of doing business. Most of us get up each day and go to a place of work. The fact is that most people would rather spend that time doing something else. e.g. leisure activities, time with family. But in order to survive we must earn, and in order to earn we must work. Criminals have made a decision not to work, just as most of us have made a decision not to be criminals. Criminals know that if they don't work they don't earn and so don't survive. The work they choose to do is illegal. They know and understand that by taking this route they risk spending time in prison. How much time they are willing to spend inside is up to them, and so they measure the risk and "do a job" that will offer the highest reward for that risk.

I've been in retail for 22 years and owned a shop in a - let's say a not very desirable area. I got to know the local criminals and have had many conversations with them. One day I caught one of them stealing a magazine. The conversation went something like this.

"John, give me the magazine back"
"What magazine"
"The one in your jacket"
He handed it over.

"Why on earth would you try to steal this?"
"Cos I want it and I've no money"
"And you'd risk your reputation for a magazine?"
"If you call the Gards, they'll bring me down the station and make me sit there for an hour and then they'll send me home and I'll never hear anything about it again"

He left and it got me thinking so the next time he was in the shop I took him aside and asked him about his "career"

He told me that he wasn't afraid of going inside, that he'd already spent a quarter of his adult life in prison and that it wan't that bad (his words). This fellahs m.o. was to rob business people as they went to the bank with cash. He never used a gun or a knife, just an iron bar, becasue if he was caught, he'd only be done for the crime and not have a weapons record. It didn't matter how much the victim had, as the crime was the same every time and so the punishment was the same. So he'd started to target pubs and big shops that didn't have cash collections. "You'd be amazed how many gobsh!tes stick 20 grand in a paper bag and carry it to a bank" He'd done one of these jobs on average every 3 months and had been caught once. He did 6 months in Mountjoy. The 6 month term was the the only time he'd spent inside since he started these "snatches" 3 years previously.

So work it out. He spent 180 days in prison from a period of about 1000 days. Discount the time spent sleeping, and that is an effective 120 waking days. In a 3 year period the average person works 750 days. At one third of a day working thats 250 full days. While your average criminal doesnt work things out quite so logically, he understands only too well that the can live the life he wants with little risk and when it does come to spending time in prison he just does his time and gets on with it.

As for the Gardai not giving back the money that was stolen, thats true. Simply because it is usually not recovered.

"Where's the money John?"
"I spent it on booze and a new telly"
"OK"

CAB isn't too interested in confiscating DVD players. By the way, when John gets out, his money will be waiting for him just where he left it.

Freelancer

mayotom wrote:

Yes I'm new in here.



Isn't that what debate is about, listening to others opinions, not letting it in one ear and out the other, which is the problem with politics the world over.

Just refreshing is all.....

going back to my original post, I still think life should mean life and a 7 year sentence should mean 7 years not 3 or 4.
We've all heard people say e.g. "he got 5 years, but sure he'll be out in 2"
whats the point in having the 5 year sentence, why not just sentence them to 2.

No see again you're watching too much cop dramas, the option is to sentence him to five years, if he rehabilates, shows reform, they can be released on parole, of course, if they commit a crime while on parole, they have to spend the say, 3 years, they got off their previous sentence, in a addition to what time they have to serve for their new crime. But I expect you're an intelligent bloke and knew that already.

Yes our jails are overcrowd, and yes occasionally someone who deserved to spend the maximum sentence will get released, to make space. But I don't think the answer is building more prisons. Outside of China the US has the largest prison population in the world, and a shocking crime rate, so something in that system just isn't working.

As for life meaning life, I refer you to Erwin James
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1903809983/qid=1141907281/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_3_1/203-1173134-3167946
Sentenced to life imprisonment in the UK, he became the Guardian's, well, prison columnist. Writing a weekly column for a number of years, in the last years of his sentence he was sent to an open prison, recieved an education, he could even leave the prison during the week, were he had a job with a charity. He entered prison a violent man with bleak prospects, he left with a job, self esteem, and determination to go straight.

Which would you prefer, a row of blank brutalised faces costing us thousands a year rotting in cells? Or, if they're willing and capable and able, men leaving prison after serving substantial sentences, but with an education, training and prospects, and maybe even productive members of society?

civdef

Sentenced to life imprisonment in the UK,

So he murdered someone, and now he's out, with a job, and a fair bit of money. His victim in still dead. Where's the justice in that?

Murdering someone should mean you never see the light of day as a free man again.

mayotom

Freelancer wrote:

Just refreshing is all.....



No see again you're watching too much cop dramas, the option is to sentence him to five years, if he rehabilates, shows reform, they can be released on parole, of course, if they commit a crime while on parole, they have to spend the say, 3 years, they got off their previous sentence, in a addition to what time they have to serve for their new crime. But I expect you're an intelligent bloke and knew that already.

It is the repeat offenders I'm talking about here. The ones who get out early then All to often the judges serve concurrent sentences for their new crime and the sentence they have to serve for breaking parole. so realistically they are getting away with one or more of their crimes.

I agree that Rehabilitation is important, but it doesn't always work. just like alcohol rehab, many alcoholics go back drinking. rehab can only sort out so much of the problem.

What do we do with the people who just can't be rehabilitated???

Freelancer

civdef wrote:

So he murdered someone, and now he's out, with a job, and a fair bit of money. His victim in still dead. Where's the justice in that?

Murdering someone should mean you never see the light of day as a free man again.

Well it's never stated what crime he did, you don't get sent down for a twenty year stretch, for robbing thats for sure (unless we have the three strikes system some people are suggesting)

I would suggest that the man who commited the crime, is dead, and Irwin James is a new man (yes yes very shawshank I know).

We (you and I) appear to approach this from a different philosophy, you're very much an "eye for an eye", while I just want to see some, any, kind of good come out of this.

I suppose you could argue that "what if he had done this to someone you care about", and its a fair question, and I don't know is the honest answer. But again theres a reason we dont let victim's families decide the punishment, because it would be vengance and retribution, not punishment that we would see dished out. No, society decides what the punishment is, and society decides what is best for the criminal and more importantly best for society. In this case it was seen as a better benefit to society, for Irwin James to return to it, and start a productive life.

mayotom wrote:

What do we do with the people who just can't be rehabilitated???

Well theres the rub, the thing is we're not giving enough rehabilitation options and opportunties, so before we start building more prisons and handing out longer sentences, why don't we give that a try?

Zombrex

DubTony wrote:

That's like saying that the only reason a pilot flies a plane is because he thinks he won't crash.

Exactly.

And the argument that very harsh sentences will act as more of a deterrent against crime is like saying that a pilot will fly a plane if he thinks he might only lose his arms and be in hospital for 6 months but won't fly a plane if he thinks he will lose his spinal cord and never walk again.

In reality a pilot won't fly a plane at all ever if he thinks there is a good chance he will crash, even if it is a completely safe crash that he can walk away from with a tiny scratch. Pilots are not in the business of crashing planes. Criminals are not in the businesses of getting caught. Doing a stretch in prision is no more part of a criminals normal business than crashing a jumbo jet is normal business for an airline pilot.

A criminal will not do a job if he thinks he will get caught. He isn't more or less likely to get caught if the sentence is 5 years or 15 years. And he doesn't want to do a 5 year prision stretch any more than a 15 year prision stretch, any more than a pilot wants to has a mild crash killing half his passangers over a full on death fire ball crash.

Criminals only go through long drawn out "the score is worth the risk" decisions in hollywood movies like Heat.

fly_agaric

Freelancer wrote:

Which would you prefer, a row of blank brutalised faces costing us thousands a year rotting in cells?

Yes, that is what many people seem to want. That or just execute and save the money. They also want to have their cake and eat it. Ideas like "3 strikes" are a way to really let the justice system go to town on the criminals while everyone can feel nice and self-righteous about it becuase they had their chance.

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

Yes, that is what many people seem to want. That or just execute and save the money. They also want to have their cake and eat it. Ideas like "3 strikes" are a way to really let the justice system go to town on the criminals while everyone can feel nice and self-righteous about it becuase they had their chance.

The only problem (ignoring the ethical side) is it doesn't work ....

civdef

Well it's never stated what crime he did, you don't get sent down for a twenty year stretch, for robbing thats for sure (unless we have the three strikes system some people are suggesting)

He was serving a mandatory life sentence, that means he was found guilty of the offence of murder whilst over the age of 21.

We (you and I) appear to approach this from a different philosophy, you're very much an "eye for an eye", while I just want to see some, any, kind of good come out of this.

There's an element of truth to this. I've had the opportunity to see criminals and what they do in person, and you'll be waiting a long time for much sympathy out of me for most of them.

No, society decides what the punishment is, and society decides what is best for the criminal and more importantly best for society. In this case it was seen as a better benefit to society, for Irwin James to return to it, and start a productive life.

I would tend to disagree. I'd substitute "the authorities in charge of the sentencing system" made the decisions in that case, rather than "society" at large.

Well theres the rub, the thing is we're not giving enough rehabilitation options and opportunties, so before we start building more prisons and handing out longer sentences, why don't we give that a try?

This is where I fundamentally disagree. I'm adamant that you can't rehabilitate every criminal. Even as it is, prisoners are released (early) at the end of sentences having done the courses and the counselling (these may be in short supply, but they are available) - and they still go out and offend. Some people are just bad/evil/incorrigible/whatever, and society needs to be protected from them. In my book, that means locking them up for as long as possible, whenever they're caught.


I'm not sure what experiences people here have had, but I've formed my opinions based on first hand experiences - and those experiences served to harden my opinions from what they previously may have been. The same seems to apply to most people who get to see what crime is all about.

Freelancer

civdef wrote:

He was serving a mandatory life sentence, that means he was found guilty of the offence of murder whilst over the age of 21.

I'm not disagreeing with you that thats the likely charge.

There's an element of truth to this. I've had the opportunity to see criminals and what they do in person, and you'll be waiting a long time for much sympathy out of me for most of them.

Please don't play the "sonny if you've been around the block as often as I have routine" It's patronising, you don't know my life story nor I yours, don't talk down to me about supposed life experience that you have over me.

I would tend to disagree. I'd substitute "the authorities in charge of the sentencing system" made the decisions in that case, rather than "society" at large.

Society created the created the justice system, in part to remove victims from the decision making process about sentences and justice. It's one of the reasons we don't allow lynch mobs....

I'm being glib, but essentially the authorities in charge of the sentencing decision are making the decisions, "society" empowered them with.

This is where I fundamentally disagree. I'm adamant that you can't rehabilitate every criminal. Even as it is, prisoners are released (early) at the end of sentences having done the courses and the counselling (these may be in short supply, but they are available) - and they still go out and offend. Some people are just bad/evil/incorrigible/whatever, and society needs to be protected from them. In my book, that means locking them up for as long as possible, whenever they're caught.

Theres not enough. And too much time and money is spent pandering to the "prison must be tough" school of thought. Suggesting that the small amount of courses and counselling on offer aren't having an impact is like, trying to bail out a boat with a leaky bucket, and announcing theres no way to get the water out.

Look I'm not going to try and say everyone has some good inside them waiting to get out, there are amoral sociopaths in Irish society, mostly likely utterly unredeemable (we call them the 'RA.... :rolleyes:) )Seriously you're right, but allowing someone like Irwin James to reability, would you rather spend an extra 10 grand a year per prisoner on 5 lifers, on rehabilition programs and for 1 of them to change? If nothing else, once released they stop being a burden on the taxpayer and start paying into the exchequer?

I'm not sure what experiences people here have had, but I've formed my opinions based on first hand experiences - and those experiences served to harden my opinions from what they previously may have been. The same seems to apply to most people who get to see what crime is all about.

Whats that line? A liberal is a conservative who just hasn't been mugged yet.

Yeah when your house gets broken into, or some guy attacks you on the street because he's some fúcked up scumbag, or some skanger on a moped tries to steal your girlfriends phone, on Harcourt st at 4 in the bloody afternoon, I get mad as hell. But theres little point writing off whole chunks of society.

Zombrex

civdef wrote:

I'm not sure what experiences people here have had, but I've formed my opinions based on first hand experiences - and those experiences served to harden my opinions from what they previously may have been. The same seems to apply to most people who get to see what crime is all about.

And the problem is your personal experiences are clouding your judgement as to what will actually work.

Most people who have had been a victim of crime, myself included, are more angry than rational in how they want criminals to be treated. So the "hanging isn't good enough for them" line comes up a lot. We want to punish into submission anyone who we precieve as a threat to us. We want to beat them down until we feel satisfaction and safety.

Its human nature, our instincts tell us the way to solve the problem of an aggressor is through force. Except instead of the lion roaring down another male entering the pride, we want the full extent of our legal system to be unleased on the scumbags who threaten us. We want burgerler recieving life sentences. We want rapests being executed. And we tell ourself that no one will threaten us because if they do the response will be so harsh that no one would even consider doing it.

The problem is this line of action doesn't work. Harsher sentences alone don't deter crime. Torturing criminals in jail doesn't deter repeat offenders. Capital punishment doesn't deter crime.

I am not saying this in a "we must be nice to criminals because they are people too" way. I am fully aware most of the repeat criminals in this country are scum. This isn't about wishy washy liberal hand holding. This is about what works. And increasing sentences does not work to deter crime. In fact it seems to cause higher levels of repeat offensives.

MrPudding

I have read the thread and want to comment on a number of things. I am picking Dubtony’s thread for convenience as he mentions most of the subjects I want to comment on.

DubTony wrote:

Tackling crime can be done in primarily 2 ways. The first is on a community level where potential offenders are identified and "pre-rehabilitated" before they become criminals.

I have heard talk of this before. I find myself agreeing quite a lot with Wicknight on a number of issues but unlike him I actually like the idea of this.

I appreciate that it can sound a bit “minority report” but when explained more fully you may see the value. Potential offenders aren’t identified and then taken away for “re-education.”

My understanding of how it would work is potential offenders are identified early, really early. We are talking preschool here. How do they identify them? Kids that have parents with drug problems, kids with one or both parents in jail or in and out of jail, kids in families with a history of abuse or possibly kids that are already beginning to show anti-social behaviour. Once identified, these kids can receive help to try to prevent them from following the wrong path.

I think it would be very difficult to implement but might be worth some consideration.

DubTony wrote:

The second is to punish crime in such a way that the potential sentence makes someone think long and hard about what he intends doing. The idea that criminals don't actually think they'll be caught / think they won't be caught / don't think about it at all is a nonsense. Prison time is the price that criminals pay for the freedom to do nothing all day. By not having a job they can plan to wreak havoc when they want, destroy lives when they want etc. The time spent inside is regarded as work by many of them. While many of us non-criminals work regular jobs in what are generally boring lives, criminals tend to live the way they want to. Their time is their own. They don't report to anyone or answer to anyone. The prison time is their "working life". It's simply a cost of doing business. And that cost is too cheap.

I have also heard of this “cost of doing business” theory. I actually quite like it. If you look at it from the position that career criminals don’t think like “normal” people I think it looks even better.

I have one issue with it though. I don’t think they see the cost as being too cheap. I think they see the price but feel that they aren’t going to have to pay it. This is a different proposition and one that harsher sentencing may not address.

I think the key is more like to be detection. It needs to move from “this is my cost for doing business but I am unlikely to have to pay it so I will risk it” to “this is my cost of business and I probably will have to pay it.” Harsh sentencing will change nothing if the criminals do not think they will get caught.

This will mean increasing resources for the gardai to increase rates of detection. Of course this is for people who are already career criminals.

DubTony wrote:

The cost of keeping prisoners in this country is ridiculously high. This is primarily because the ratio of prison officers to prisoners is too high. The solution to that doesn't require anyone to climb too far out the box in their thinking.

Cool we agree on something. Send less people to prison of course. I know that is what you are thinking.

We should not be sending petty criminals to prison. In cases where no one was hurt physically and it is a first time offence or where there are obvious and strong mitigating circumstances we should not be sending people to prison. And there are good reasons for this.

Take the concept of primary and secondary crime. You have a young lad and he falls in with the “wrong crowd.” Does some stupid things and ends up in court. The judge is having a bad day and imposes a custodial sentence. Now, this kid might not be a bad person. Maybe a bit stupid for following the gang but not bad. He has committed a primary crime, something not that bad.

Now he finds himself in prison. He is now surrounded by “bad people” many of whom have made a career of crime. There is a fairly good chance he will be influenced by the people he meets here. He has already shown he is susceptible to peer pressure. Over time the whole crime thing might begin to look a but more attractive. Sure you might have to do some time once in a while but hey, the moneys great and you are your own boss.

Best case he gets out and forgets it all and tries to get on with his life. One small problem, he has been to prison. That is going to make it tough to get a job. Not having a job is going to make it tough to get the things he wants. Now the stuff he heard in prison is looking better by the minute. He turns to crime to get what he wants. Now we have him committing secondary crime based on what he has learned in prison.

Don’t send petty criminals to the university of crime. Give them community service or electronic tagging or anything that will give them a chance to see the error of their way and change before they are blacklisted for life.

DubTony wrote:

Unfortunately as little or nothing will be done about it, the situation will remain unchanged. We won't see Ireland become one of the safest countries in the world in a New York style turnaround because there's no willingness to try. And we'll all still be talking about it in a few more years as another scumbag with 150 previous convictions gets a miserable 7 year slap on the wrist.

I thought we were already one of the safest countries in the world?

Tougher sentences? I presume the toughest sentence you can levy against someone is the removal of their life. That is pretty harsh.

If tougher sentencing works then surly the toughest sentence you can have must work really well. I would expect if tougher sentencing was A GOOD THING™ then places that had it for certain crimes would not suffer from those crimes.

The world is full of places that have capital punishment or harsher sentences than us. They still suffer from crime. Harsher sentences for *some* people may work *some* of the time but it is not a magic bullet and it is not going to fix things overnight.

MrP

mayotom

MrPudding wrote:

Don’t send petty criminals to the university of crime. Give them community service or electronic tagging or anything that will give them a chance to see the error of their way and change before they are blacklisted for life

I agree Community service and electronic tagging are good. As long as they are seen as punishment be the petty criminals, this would make them think twice about doing it again. in an ideal world this would eventually end crime.

I don't agree with people been let off with small fines for antisocial behavior and the like. Community service should be handed out more and fines should be of a value which will hurt the purpetrator. e.g. a €200 euro fine is nothing to somebody who wouldn't miss it too much. where as €200 for somebody else may leave them without food for their family. Which one is more likely to re-ofend??

People who continuosly reofend should go to jail. and yes they should go on a Rehabilitation program, but if this is not working there's only one thing for them... Longer sentences.