Well, that's a kick in my careers teeth!

Tom Young

Morbo, I've been reading your postings for the past few days with interest.

I congratulate you on your motivation, and comment that you need to remain focussed as the hurdles are high and plenty regardless of which route you opt to take.

I am not going to get into my backgrounnd here but I'd love to know whether or not you've scalled the work and time commitments with regard to a D.Phil and PhD? I've looked at both and from my reviews the minimum time commitment is circa 3 years (DPhil), notwithstanding a thesis/dissertation period. Both generally are full time and would require a period of work or commitment to tutilage in some institution with relatively low pay, but high contact with academic staff. If you do chose this direction you'd be well served to check the schools of law professed and also your own view.

I make that point as, you could end up in Chicago doing a LLM and dispise the Law and Economics movement, or end-up somewhere else and dispise the Critical Legal Studies Movement etc. Elect this option with extreme care.

With regard to the US, many people work in firms and hold JDs or Joint Degrees in law and (say) business. So effectively they have the bolt on ability that seems not available in our general region of the world. Having worked at US firms, I'd not weigh the levels of academic regiour the same way as I would Irish/UK/central EU legal qualifications. Much weight in practice is given to the apprentice work undertaken post qualification, like it is in Ireland.

Anyway, I wish you well.

morbo

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Is this not common knowledge though? Of all the people in your year who want to be solicitors, do they all know aobut this as a back door to getting into the solicitor's profession? Are there any of them who, knowing they can go this route, still want to go to Blackhall place?

Out of the 200 or so people in my group of class mates (taking into account that I share classes with people doing business, law and accounting, law and European studies, etc.) that all take the same law modules with me, only 6 people knew it was a possibility. Two of them are determined to do the NYSB. One wants to work in London, and would prefer to do the NYSB and intern for 2 years there, rather than pay the £12,000 for the England and Wales Law Society exams. Basically, they have the same backdoor system that we do; you can do the QLTT for pittance in comparison. Two aren’t bothered either way. They’ll go the NY route if it works out, but aren’t refusing the apprenticeship either.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Is there any vetting process (e.g. do the law society refuse to let you do it if you have only done the NY bar so you can skip the fe1s, PPC1, PPC2 and apprentiship)?

What is even more disconcerting is that you could probably do the NY bar for less effort, less money and in a shorter space of time than the FE1s. And you are then more qualified than people who do the solicitor's course.

This seems too good to be true, and I honestly don't think I would do the blackhall place course if I could do this instead. I'm sure the law society wouldn't be too happy about it either, if you were calling yourself a new york lawyer purely because you were there for a week and sat some exams.

There is no vetting process. You can simply be accredited over there, and then sit the QLTT here and go into practice. However, as it has been mentioned earlier in the thread, no employer in Ireland will touch you without experience. You will probably have to work in the US or somewhere else to get your experience. But look at it this way, you could be an Attorney~at~Law, and be doing an apprenticeship here. It’s just another qualification under your belt that will be a selling point when you go for a better job, or are trying to attract more clients. You may be more qualified on paper, but you could be the world’s worst lawyer.

The Law Society of Ireland is basically a rip off. Nobody is going to argue against that. What are their profit margins, do you think? Probably costs them a fraction of the fee they charge to give you the accreditation. Oh, but god forbid it should be February and they’re still driving around in last years Bentley! What would the neighbours say? I'm sure that would be a major scandal! The cost of becoming a solicitor goes back to the old class divide. Only the upper-middle class could afford it.

morbo

Tom, I only really mentioned the D.Phil. as a joke, saying the only place I’d ever do a doctorate program was in Oxford, just to have a D.Phil. rather than a Ph.D. But I would like to do a doctorate in the distant future. I don’t think I’d like lecturing right now. Academia is appealing, but for me, not as much as the profession.

All the LL.M. programs I am considering are nearly all in international trade, commercial, contract, company, etc. That’s the area I like, and want to learn more about. But, I may not bother doing an LL.M. at all. I’ve already done 5 years in college, and I have 1 more to go. The prospect of doing an LL.M. on top of what is increasingly looking like an apprenticeship here is not appealing. I’m sick of being a poor student, I want to get out there and work.

I do have a B.Sc. degree in Computer Science. I will have a B.Sc. and LL.B. when I go looking for a job, whether it is here or in America. I could probably target the software/I.T. companies, as I can communicate with computer geeks on a better level than your average legally minded person, who thinks in a whole different dimension.

Thank you for your advice and insight.

maidhc

morbo wrote:

The Law Society of Ireland is basically a rip off. Nobody is going to argue against that. What are their profit margins, do you think?

A lot of solicitors pay your fees. Even if they don't you can deduct it from your taxable income.

There is a lot of work in an LLM! I did a research one in UCC. The thought of doing a PhD would scare me.

There aren't that many openings for making a quick buck in law.

johnnyskeleton

morbo wrote:

The Law Society of Ireland is basically a rip off. Nobody is going to argue against that. What are their profit margins, do you think? Probably costs them a fraction of the fee they charge to give you the accreditation.

This is could be said for all higher education, and it is not entirely true. I don't think they make a profit as such, the funds are used to sustain the law society and to pay for the running of the courses.

You get a lot of materials and high quality tutors (as far as I know), and have access to a first rate library and (I assume) computer services etc. All these things cost money.

But while the €7k for the first year there might seem expensive, it costs about €4.5k for someone who doesn't qualify for free fees to do a basic undergrad or masters (such as a two year LLB). Or worse, it can cost €3-4k to do a thesis masters. The latter costs the university very little, all you get is a lecturer for a few hours and the use of the library.

Furthermore, you mentioned yourself that college in america costs $35k. Here it says that it will cost $42k(€31.5k) for a year's undergrad in harvard (without grants).

What exactly do they do in Harvard that costs so much? Do you get a butler?

maidhc

johnnyskeleton wrote:

You get a lot of materials and high quality tutors (as far as I know), and have access to a first rate library and (I assume) computer services etc. All these things cost money.

You do. For the most part the tutors are solicitors of some experience. There are a few barristers too, but I suppose that can't be helped. It keeps them off the streets if nothing else.

johnnyskeleton

maidhc wrote:

You do. For the most part the tutors are solicitors of some experience. There are a few barristers too, but I suppose that can't be helped. It keeps them off the streets if nothing else.

And in order to attract high quality, experienced solicitors (and yes, some lazy barristers too:rolleyes: ) you need to pay them quite well. They are not going to give up a day's work worth €1000 to do a few classes for €200.

morbo

The LL.M. course in Harvard costs $35,000. There undergrad programs are more expensive. You are paying for the namesake. And to be honest, they do have the best professors in the world teaching you. Education in America is not subsidised by the Government, that’s why it’s so expensive. I am paying €5,000 a year to do the LL.B. course I’m in, but the college is probably getting a further €10,000 from the Government to have me here.

What we seem to be forgetting about the US legal practice is that they do all the apprenticeship work we do during college. They study legal writing as a full course, not part of an intro to the Irish legal system as a whole. They have about 4 Moots a year, and they study courtroom procedure, etc. and they are expected to intern every summer they are in college. They are much more prepared for working in the real world than Irish grads are when we get our degree.

What Ireland needs is a second law society, and a second bar association that can accredit legal professionals. The quality of the courses offered would go up dramatically, and the cost would come down.

Why the hell is everyone insulting barristers? The vast majority of barristers are forced out of practice within 5 years. Yes you have some barristers getting paid €2,500 a day or even more, but you have to remember, they might have a massive staff of junior councils and paralegals working under them. And let’s face it, there are solicitors out there making the same amount of money, but you’re not questioning their drive.

Which also leads me to ask a simple question, when I started this thread, everyone was advising me to go do the BL in Kings Inn? Judas! Ye are all kinsmen of Judas! But seriously, I’m still undecided on what I want to do; solicitor, or barrister?

Tom Young

morbo wrote:

Why the hell is everyone insulting barristers? The vast majority of barristers are forced out of practice within 5 years. Yes you have some barristers getting paid €2,500 a day or even more, but you have to remember, they might have a massive staff of junior councils and paralegals working under them. And let’s face it, there are solicitors out there making the same amount of money, but you’re not questioning their drive.

Which also leads me to ask a simple question, when I started this thread, everyone was advising me to go do the BL in Kings Inn? Judas! Ye are all kinsmen of Judas! But seriously, I’m still undecided on what I want to do; solicitor, or barrister?

Merbo,

The most rewarding profession in my view is that of the Barrister-At-Law. In deciding which route you will take I'd thoroughly review the vocational aspects of the two institutions educational offerings.

The BL degree has moots, negotiation, advocacy, drafting, opinion writing etc. The Kings Inns is far more focussed on the advocate and superior court practitioner that that of the Law Society, though both have rights of audience, the proximity of the two professions differs greatly. The Barrister practice is tough, but I believe the rewards are far greater and I don't refer to cash.

I just don't accept that further institutions are needed to regulate both professions further, I firmly believe its a matter of reach.

Just my opinion and I know a stacks of both solicitors and barristers, personally and professionally.

From the beginning of this thread you have outlined your ancilary qualifications i.e., Computer Science. Either profession in the law will compliment such but do you want to front to the public or advocate?

Anyway, again my view.

Tom

PS: How's your spoken and written Irish?

morbo

I am terrible at Irish. I wish I was better, and wanted to take Irish as an elective this year, but I couldn’t possibly find the time. I have 6 law modules and a project to do every semester (keep in mind, it’s a 3 year degree compressed into 2 very short years). I know I will have to pass an Irish exam either route I take, but is there allot of emphasis placed on written and spoken Irish as a barrister in practice?

As far as written and spoken English goes, I am pretty good. My friends refer to me as a ‘Grammar Nazi’ to be honest. I am tending to lean towards being a barrister. I like the idea of being part of justice being served, and all that, rather than doing the prep work and conveying land and regular solicitor work (which I’m not knocking. I’m sure it’s rewarding, but not as much as being a barrister sounds to be in my view). There is a shift in the right to audience, though. Solicitors will be heading to the Supreme Court soon enough, and solicitors can even sit on the bench.

What worries me is being able to get started. As I said, I have no contacts in the industry at all. I do have all my friends in college that I could beg for cases, as they want to be solicitors. Being a solicitor seems to be a somewhat safer route than that of being a barrister. But the more I think about it, I’m thinking barrister.

By the way, if I ever make it to the bench, I will impose the longest terms I can on criminals. 6 years for rape, JOKE! And that guy that raped the Japanese woman in the hotel toilet in Dublin, it was his second conviction for the same crime. The judge referred to him as ‘a continuing and ongoing threat to all women” and then gave him just 6 years. I will brutalise criminals!

hullaballoo

Em, if you want to be part of justice being served, the last thing you want to do is become a barrister. Certainly in this country anyway. For the most part, you'd be working for the bad guys, and doing everything you can to slow the justice process.

morbo

I was thinking more along the lines of getting a job with the DPP, or something like that. Well, I suppose that could be considered working for the bad guys, too! One of my classmates knows a barrister in Limerick who handles the cases against the ‘Families of Limerick’ and the like. His house has been fire bombed 3 times in the last year!

maidhc

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Em, if you want to be part of justice being served, the last thing you want to do is become a barrister. Certainly in this country anyway. For the most part, you'd be working for the bad guys, and doing everything you can to slow the justice process.

Thats an unfair comment. Justice IS served by forcing the state to prove its case.

morbo wrote:

By the way, if I ever make it to the bench, I will impose the longest terms I can on criminals. 6 years for rape, JOKE! And that guy that raped the Japanese woman in the hotel toilet in Dublin, it was his second conviction for the same crime. The judge referred to him as ‘a continuing and ongoing threat to all women” and then gave him just 6 years. I will brutalise criminals!

There is generally two side to every story. Maybe when you see the social backgrounds some of these criminals come from you might see that imposing harsh sentences will solve nothing.

You will have some incorrigible criminals alright, but I think many would rather not be where they are at. e.g. the heroin addicts steal and attack people from necessity, not from choice.

johnnyskeleton

morbo wrote:

By the way, if I ever make it to the bench, I will impose the longest terms I can on criminals. 6 years for rape, JOKE! And that guy that raped the Japanese woman in the hotel toilet in Dublin, it was his second conviction for the same crime. The judge referred to him as ‘a continuing and ongoing threat to all women” and then gave him just 6 years. I will brutalise criminals!

If it is the same case that I'm thinking of, then it was a sexual assault.

In any case, I don't think people fully appreciate what a 6 year sentece actually entails. 6 years is quite harsh for a sexual assault.

It is easy to say lock him up and throw away the key, but that kind of thinking (and I don't mean any disrespect by this) is not realistic given the ridiculous overcrowding in prisons, the poor conditions (especially in mountjoy), the need to rehabilitate offenders and any factors in mitigation of the offence. Plus 6 years is a long time; if you did a 4 year undergrad degree and a 2 year postgrad, could you imagine that part of your life being removed and a replaced by a nightmare. They *quite literally* love sex offenders in prison.

I think the problem in that regard is not the leniency of the sentence, but the way the public don't understand the actual severity and the other factors surrounding it. Also, if you take the oft cited view that "he gets 6 years, but she has to live it with for the rest of her life" remember that not even the death sentence will undo the crime. No will it deter other offenders.

morbo

Maidhc,

First off, of course I’m not going to be locking up innocent people, and second, I’m from a poor single parent family, and live in an absolutely crap part of Cork North Central. There is crime all around me, quite literally! Knocknaheeny and Farranree are up the hill, Blackpool is down the road, etc., and I would never break the law. Anyone that uses the excuse that they are poor as a reason for breaking the law is a lying piece of crap! Go get a job, go get an education, stop breaking into my house and stealing my car! Education is free, and employers are crying out for work.

Criminals are criminals because they think they can get away with it, and generally they can. The Gardaí are useless. I’m basing this on personal experience. I once spent 45 minutes on the phone to a Garda, waiting for another Garda to show up after a drunk tried to bottle me and other customers at work on a wet Tuesday night. I had him pinned to the ground the whole time. Well … I’m still waiting, and it was a year and a half ago. The guy I was talking to on the phone actually said’ “ah well, sure you know, the lads could be quite busy, like!”

Socioeconomic background my hole!

To Johnny,

Rape or sexual assault (I’m pretty sure it was rape)? Either way, it was his second conviction for the same offence. The Japanese woman was badly beaten. He obviously didn’t find 6 years a harsh enough penalty. He should have got 12 years, minimum! End of story!

Jails too full, build more! It’s quite simple really. “I’m sorry Mrs Murphy, I know he killed your son, raped your daughter, and ate your favourite dog, but jails are just so packed we are going to have to let him go!”

Jails not working? Maybe they should bring back hard labour? Perhaps force them to take class to educate themselves? How about anything else that stops giving them nothing but time to lift weights and trade skills with other criminals!?

Prisons are meant to be harsh. They’re not holiday camps. Most of the guys going in there can’t seem to wait to get back in. (Probably the only way they’re going to get 3 square meals a day!)

It’s just like the prisoner voting rights crap. You broke the law, and now you want to be able to vote? “No problem! Would you like a phone in your cell, too? You know, just in case you’re feeling lonely and want to ring home. I’m sure the Government/Tax Payers won’t mind paying the bill! Oh! And the guy will be around tomorrow to fix your Sky Digital. Sorry for the inconvenience of having to go to the common room to watch the match.” If you break the law, you loose your rights. It’s the basic premise of the criminal justice system.

maidhc

morbo wrote:

First off, of course I’m not going to be locking up innocent people, and second, I’m from a poor single parent family, and live in an absolutely crap part of Cork North Central. There is crime all around me, quite literally! Knocknaheeny and Farranree are up the hill, Blackpool is down the road, etc., and I would never break the law. Anyone that uses the excuse that they are poor as a reason for breaking the law is a lying piece of crap! Go get a job, go get an education, stop breaking into my house and stealing my car! Education is free, and employers are crying out for work.

But giving people longer sentances isn't going to really solve anything. Extra gardaí and so forth is a completely different matter entirely.

It is grand to say education is free, but the 13year olds who see the value in it without having parents and a support network pushing them are few and far between. I know when I was 13 I prefered messing with engines than going to school!

You can of course get rid of one "problem case" by locking him of at a cost of 50k p/a for 10 years. But... as Emimem so wisely notes:

...there's a million of us just like me
Who cuss like me; who just don't give a f**k like me
Who dress like me; walk, talk and act like me

johnnyskeleton

morbo wrote:

Criminals are criminals because they think they can get away with it, and generally they can.

A lot of crimes are committed recklessly, and often the criminal doesn't even think about the consequences. Especially in crimes of passion.

morbo wrote:

Perhaps force them to take class to educate themselves? How about anything else that stops giving them nothing but time to lift weights and trade skills with other criminals!?

I'd agree with that.

However, longer sentences, in my opinion, are not an effective deterrent. I think that rehabilitation should be the most important aspect of sentencing. Retribution, especially for the public, seems to be the motivation for the recent calls for harsher sentences. However, if people realised that even a one year sentence is quite long, and ten years is extremely long, they would be more satisfied with the current range of sentences. So, I don't think that sentences are too short at present, but rather that the media, and some politicians, can easily portray a 5, 10 or even 20 year sentence as too lenient and a lot of people will believe this to be true.

morbo

Well then, what would either of ye suggest? My mother never gave a damn about my education. I was allowed to stay home from school if I felt like it! But I didn’t. How about make the bad parents liable for not having their kids in schools?

Anything is better than the crap we’ve got right now. We are only a few short years away from ghettoes and excessively high crime rates. Ireland is a paradise compared with some other ‘civilised’ countries, but not for very long.

The Gardaí are even reluctant to move on groups of travellers from privately owned land, for fear of retribution. The Guards are a joke. We don’t need more Guards, we need to get the fat, lazy bunch we have into the gym, and make them accountable for not doing their job properly.

A guy broke into my house before and stole loads of stuff. I rang the guards when he was in my house. He walked around for about another 5 minutes down stairs, then tried getting out the front door. When he couldn’t open it, he came upstairs, opened a window, and fell out, landing on a car roof outside. He was dazed and pretty much unable to walk for a good while. Eventually he got up and walked off. I watched him go up the Commons Road and turn up Farrenree.

The Guards didn’t arrive until about 5 minutes after he went up the hill. Keep in mind, the Garda station is about ½ a mile from my house. It’s a straight road between it and my house. The Guards even said instantly, “This was definitely ‘Horse’, no question about it!” But did they go after him? No, they didn’t. They knew where he lived, and couldn’t be bothered following him up the hill, or going to his house to catch him in possession of the goods. They just let him go!

All this took place at 4.30 in the morning. Nobody was ever arrested for the crime, despite having found Horse’s finger prints on the upstairs window he climbed out, and there was blood on the car he landed on that they never bothered testing. Who the hell can we as a society expect to have criminals to live in fear of the law, when there is no enforcement?

Criminals don’t live in fear of the Guards; the Guards live in fear of them!

Stirling

Sorry - don't usually get involved in these debates but feel compelled to this time. I really don't buy the "retributive public" argument which is raised time and again. To my mind the criminal is too often treated as the victim and thus the focus is put on the need to rehabilitate them more than it is on the impact that the crime has on the victims.

A swing in the wrong direction is how I see that. The argument that is always put forward is that as prison doesn't seem to work as there is no focuson rehabilitation and so it should be abolished. I say make prison as f**king hard as it is physically possible to do so that it serves as a disincentive to reoffend and make the cost of detention cheaper aswell and spend the money in disadvantaged communities so that people do not offend rather than trying to fix the problem after it has been created through inaction on the part of the State.

As for the Civil Liberties arguments I say that most people who are strong proponents of the ICCL and the ACLU are those that have lived a very sheltered existence where neither they nor their families have been exposed to Crime in a real way either as victims or as members of the Gardai.

Never forgot that in terms of protecting the rights of an accused this is the role of the lawyer and that once the right to Legal Aid in Criminal Trials remains protected under the Constitution I see no difficulty in tipping the "Rights Balance" in favour of the victim rather than the criminal.

maidhc

Stirling wrote:

I say make prison as f**king hard as it is physically possible to do so that it serves as a disincentive to reoffend and make the cost of detention cheaper aswell and spend the money in disadvantaged communities so that people do not offend rather than trying to fix the problem after it has been created through inaction on the part of the State.

By all means. But at present giving someone a massive long sentence is just putting them out of sight. I don't think prison is quite the junket some people in the media make it out to be though. I don't see how prison can be made cheaper.. unless we just bring back hanging.

Add to this the fact that your standard scumbag tends to grow out of crime by the time he reaches 35 (a fact I learned form one of the leading criminal solicitors in the country!), and really I don't think there is any justification in some of the more shrill proposals being bandied around at the moment.

And to cap it all off we DONT have a particularly high level of Ireland in comparison to most international standards. We have a huge fear of crime, and mostly it is unjustified. We also have pretty damn tough criminal laws, some of which have been found to infringe the European Convention on Human Rights (Heaney v. Ireland)...

(And yes, I have my my car broken into... and stuff was robbed from our house. I still feel safe walking up barrack st. at 2 in the morning though.)

I just don't buy this modern notion that the victim is entitled to some sort of moral victory and "justice". The criminal action is one between the state, and the accused. The verdict should hinge upon implications for society, both from a public order and economic point of view, not someone sobbing at the back of the courtroom, as upset and all as s/he may be.

Morbo wrote:

Well then, what would either of ye suggest? My mother never gave a damn about my education. I was allowed to stay home from school if I felt like it! But I didn’t. How about make the bad parents liable for not having their kids in schools?

It is nice to be that driven and dedicated. Most are not. No one can be blamed for that.

johnnyskeleton

In relation to your point Morbo, I would agree that the gardai are not as effective as they could be. Garda complaints is a fairly new and improving area. I think that it is a separate issue to tough sentences. However I recognise that a lot of the public calls for blood are based on a feeling that there is too much crime and that the criminal justice system is failing overall. I do not think that tougher sentences will make any significant difference to crime rates in general.

stirling wrote:

To my mind the criminal is too often treated as the victim and thus the focus is put on the need to rehabilitate them more than it is on the impact that the crime has on the victims.

No, the paramount concern in sentencing is to prevent reoffending on the part of the offender, and to turn them away from a life of crime. This is what rehabilitation is; it has nothing to do with sympathy for the offender or treating them as a victim of their circumstances.

stirling wrote:

As for the Civil Liberties arguments I say that most people who are strong proponents of the ICCL and the ACLU are those that have lived a very sheltered existence where neither they nor their families have been exposed to Crime in a real way either as victims or as members of the Gardai.

I don't know anybody in the ICCL or the ACLU, so I can't say whether they lead sheltered lives or not. But I would imagine that people who support civil liberties generally don't lead sheltered lives, but work in the criminal justice sphere.

What is the benefit of depriving them of their civil liberties? Especially if they were falsely convicted (e.g. henri charriere) or if they are in prison for political reasons (e.g. bobby sands, Joe Higgins ).

With respect, I don't think anyone could be so sheltered that they have no experience of crime. It seems to me that you are suggesting that being the victim of crime puts you in a better position to decide how the criminal justice system should be run than a person who works in the area.

In any case, as maidhc points out, the criminal justice system is concerned with society as a whole, and not with revenge for the victim. The purpose is to reduce the amount of crime in society as a whole. But if people really want a system of retribution, why don't we bring tar-capping back in? Or public stoning? Maybe every victim should be entitled to a pound of flesh...

morbo

maidhc wrote:

By all means. But at present giving someone a massive long sentence is just putting them out of sight. I don't think prison is quite the junket some people in the media make it out to be though. I don't see how prison can be made cheaper.. unless we just bring back hanging.

Prison can be made much cheaper quite easily. Stop enacting laws that give prisoners more civil and political freedoms. For example, the prisoner voting rights issue. 800 prisoners have registered to vote so far. Think about how much money was wasted in drafting the bill, enacting it, and putting the infrastructure in place to allow them to vote! That was money that could have gone towards education, welfare, or even building public amenities in disadvantaged areas. But no, a bunch of people that though they were above the law wanted to be able to vote.

maidhc wrote:

I just don't buy this modern notion that the victim is entitled to some sort of moral victory and "justice". The criminal action is one between the state, and the accused. The verdict should hinge upon implications for society, both from a public order and economic point of view, not someone sobbing at the back of the courtroom, as upset and all as s/he may be.

It’s not a modern notion. What is modern is the notion that the person has offended against society as a whole. I’m pretty sure if a member of your family was murdered and the person was convicted, you’d see it as a victory for your family against the murderer; that you are a morally better person than the murderer, because you would never do such a thing. You seem to have a very twisted view of the law.

maidhc

morbo wrote:

Prison can be made much cheaper quite easily. Stop enacting laws that give prisoners more civil and political freedoms. For example, the prisoner voting rights issue. 800 prisoners have registered to vote so far. Think about how much money was wasted in drafting the bill, enacting it, and putting the infrastructure in place to allow them to vote! That was money that could have gone towards education, welfare, or even building public amenities in disadvantaged areas. But no, a bunch of people that though they were above the law wanted to be able to vote.

I think you will notice most of the money is spent on things like security, light and heat, food, and the general maintanance of x hundred/thousand people. No real savings to be made there.

morbo wrote:

You seem to have a very twisted view of the law.

Id have thought after some legal education you would have a better understanding of how the criminal justice system works. It isn't about moral victories, and it never should be.

morbo

maidhc wrote:

I think you will notice most of the money is spent on things like security, light and heat, food, and the general maintanance of x hundred/thousand people. No real savings to be made there.

So in your view setting up polling stations in a prison, arranging for transport and security of those ballets, the need for extra security of the prison on polling day, the risk/cost of prisoners using it as an excuse for rioting, the cost to the tax payer to have the legislation drafted, the cost of implementing it, the cost of training the staff in new procedures, the cost of counting those extra ballots, the cost of having to bear the brunt of more cases going to court for criminals that want more freedoms, etc. is negligible? In your view, that couple of million is better spent on letting prisoners vote, than say, building a community centre, or children’s playground in a disadvantaged area? Just one simple piece of legislation costs millions to the tax payers of this country.

maidhc wrote:

Id have thought after some legal education you would have a better understanding of how the criminal justice system works. It isn't about moral victories, and it never should be.

Well, in that case, why not get rid of solicitors and barristers altogether? If the State is clearly the one that is offended by all criminal acts, why allow legal professionals to make money from the individuals that are in no position to claim? Surely that would be an offence to the State, too? And the criminal justice system is based heavily on what is morally acceptable today. Murder, incest, theft, etc. all are illegal, because they are immoral. When someone is convicted of one of these crimes, the victims/society wins a moral victory. As society moves on, our morals change. Homosexuality is no longer a crime, but it once was. Why? It is morally acceptable. It was immoral to be gay, now it is morally/socially acceptable. The face of justice being served is not that of a government minister with a smile giving the thumbs up, it is the face of the victim when the person that offends against them gets their just-deserts. Perhaps you missed the opening few weeks of your criminal law lectures where it’s almost entirely based on morality and the law. The Hart/Devlin debate? J.S. Mills? Stevens? Hobbs? Bentham? Any of this sounding familiar?

maidhc

morbo wrote:

Just one simple piece of legislation costs millions to the tax payers of this country.

I know, tell Michael McDowell that. He drafts new legislation faster than most can read it. But giving prisoners the right to vote (which personally I don't think they should have) doesn't make up the entire prison service budget. There are 30-40 Acts drafted every year... that is the cost of running a country!

morbo wrote:

Perhaps you missed the opening few weeks of your criminal law lectures where it’s almost entirely based on morality and the law. The Hart/Devlin debate? J.S. Mills? Stevens? Hobbs? Bentham? Any of this sounding familiar?

I'm not saying the criminal code isn't based on moral principles, just that the criminal trial isn't about the victim winning a moral victory over the accused.

morbo

I totally agree with you on both points. I guess it’ll just take a few years as an apprentice for me to become battle-hardened, emotionally detached, and bitter!

Also, as we are both from Cork, I took the liberty of basically taking as many sarcastic digs at you as possible. No offence intended!

I say bring back precedent. To hell with your filthy legislature, McDowell! Precedent doesn’t have any downsides. Well, OK, a few. Maybe allot. God help us if he makes it to the bench!

morbo

Actually, that raises a good question. Can former TD's or Ministers of State become judges? I know Judges can't go back to being barristers, and such. But where do politicians stand?

johnnyskeleton

morbo wrote:

So in your view setting up polling stations in a prison, arranging for transport and security of those ballets, the need for extra security of the prison on polling day, the risk/cost of prisoners using it as an excuse for rioting, the cost to the tax payer to have the legislation drafted, the cost of implementing it, the cost of training the staff in new procedures, the cost of counting those extra ballots, the cost of having to bear the brunt of more cases going to court for criminals that want more freedoms, etc. is negligible? In your view, that couple of million is better spent on letting prisoners vote, than say, building a community centre, or children’s playground in a disadvantaged area? Just one simple piece of legislation costs millions to the tax payers of this country.

Well then, in your view what ungodly expense is it to set up polling stations in every constituency, millions spent on advertising, the cost of counting and recounting all the ballots the fact that TD's don't seem to do much real work in the months coming up to the election (but still get paid), the cost to the tax payer of having a legislature in the first place, the cost of hiring independent invigilators on ballot day, etc only to have (in many situations) less than half the electorate (never mind the disenfranchised) not turn up? And why have referenda about something that people don’t understand until you subtly, but firmly, tell them to vote yes or we get turfed out of the EU? All this money could be used to run a highly efficient, highly satisfactory state. There would, however, be a tyrant running the show.

While you could make a valid point that no one really cares that much about prisoners voting, the economic path is the wrong way to criticise it. I'm sure they made the same arguments not to let women, Catholics and the landless vote back in the times of the British Empire.

morbo

A feature of governments all over the world is that they are completely inept at everything but wasting taxpayers money. But the point is, we are willing to take the expense of holding free and open elections to live in a democracy. But why the hell should prisoners get to vote?

Dictatorships do have their advantage. Better roads, and public transport systems, etc. and as Eamon Dunphy likes to point out, dictatorships bread great football teams. A good dictator and who knows, we may win the world cup!

johnnyskeleton

The theoretical reason why they should vote is that if any segment of citizens can be disenfranchised, then further groups can be too, leading to an elite holding all the power. If half the country was put in prison (or otherwise disenfranchised) by a government whose only policy is to keep that half in prison (or in the kitchen), then it flies in the face of democracy.

The human rights argument is that no one should be deprived of their civil and political rights, and that we should be all the more cautious of erosions of same bearing in mind the actions of the American armed forces.

The utilitarian and reformist argument is that allowing prisoners to vote is showing them dignity and offering to bring them back into society (on the grounds that anomie or social fragmentation is believed to be a cause of crime).

The lawyer's argument is that they are prima facie entitled to vote under the Constitution, and successive governments have excluded them on tenuous grounds. While there is provision in Art.16 for the exclusion by law of certain persons, the Oireachtas have heretofore failed in their duty with regard to the other provisions, and the spirit, of the Constitution. If the people, when promulgating the Irish Constitution, did not want prisoners to have a vote, they would have expressly stated that. But in any case, we don't have to prove that our clients should be entitled to vote, it is for the prosecution to prove that they should not.

The politician's argument is that they have a god-given, undeniable and sacred right to vote which no man may deprive them of (and plus, they might vote for me ).

The practical argument is that it might not really cost that much given the ludicrous wasting of money in other departments on invisible stadia, unfinished computer games, and the refusal to simply re-route a road when it runs through one of our nations most important historical sites.

As for me, I stand by the old chestnut that the only thing that should completely deprive a citizen of one of their constitutional rights, is a competing right.