Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
How best to deal with Criminal gangs?
-
10-11-2008 5:53pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
johnnyskeleton wrote: »No, and I disagree with your analysis.
Yes. What's the alternative - vigilante justice?
You seem to have a naive view of the outside world on these matters
I tell you what, i grew up in a deprived area, these gangs have membership of around 100 odd members across all ages in a particular area with a structure of command that would rival any paramilitary group.
They are powerful with their own sourced weaponry that rival any paramilitary group which would put them in my eyes to be the No1 threat to democracy.
Secondly, that huge membership of these gangs makes any prosecution depending on witnesses impossible due to large scale intimation of witnesses hence the resultant lack of prosecution in about 130 murders in the last 10years.
Even the Garda commissioner agrees with this with his constant pleas from the community for assistance.
Time for for the Special Criminal Court to deal with these numerous gangs like what they did with paramilitary groups as the present system is not working with at least 10years of evidence of that evident.0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 13692
You seem to have a naive view of the outside world on these matters
Play the ball not the man. I could say it is you who has a naive view on this subject. But what annoys me is that you assume that I am naive and you have absolutely nothing to support this with. Go **** yourself gurramok, and your wannabe ghetto attitude.I tell you what, i grew up in a deprived area, these gangs have membership of around 100 odd members across all ages in a particular area with a structure of command that would rival any paramilitary group.
They are powerful with their own sourced weaponry that rival any paramilitary group which would put them in my eyes to be the No1 threat to democracy.
Look at other countries such as the USA, Brazil etc where criminal gangs are exponentially more organised, armed and dangerous, but yet they are not a threat to democracy in those countries.
I disagreed with Amazo's point of view for two reasons: 1) Paramilitary groups are a threat to democracy because they seek to overthrow the government by force. Criminal gangs do no such thing (if anything they thrive under democracy and would lose out a lot under a more totalitarian government) and 2) criminal gangs are not a greater threat to the courts because they do not seek to intimidate judges and jurors to anywhere near the extent that the provisional IRA did.
But of course you don't want to hear this, you want to assume that you know more about crime than everybody else (even those who work in the area). Read the herald much?Secondly, that huge membership of these gangs makes any prosecution depending on witnesses impossible due to large scale intimation of witnesses hence the resultant lack of prosecution in about 130 murders in the last 10years.
The fact that a significant portion of the McCarthy-Dundon gang has been convicted and sentenced in the last few years suggests that it's not impossible. You're also forgetting that a lot of the witnesses are actually part of the gangs, and very often accomplices.Even the Garda commissioner agrees with this with his constant pleas from the community for assistance.
That's a big leap there. The gardai regularly seek assistance when there is an unsolved crime, be it a gangland shooting or a road traffic hit and run. That does not mean that the garda commissioner agrees with your view that the low number of prosecutions is due to witness intimidation.Time for for the Special Criminal Court to deal with these numerous gangs like what they did with paramilitary groups as the present system is not working with at least 10years of evidence of that evident.
It's only not working on your say so. The only people who really know why these cases are not going ahead are those who work them i.e. the gardai and the employees of the DPP. Tell me this, why is it that the Herald will ask for all of these unusual measures and breaches of human/constitutional rights but the DPP and gardai are silent on the matter. To give just one example, the CJA 2007 was brought in with much media fanfare and a part of it allows inferences to be drawn from a person's silence when interviewed by the gardai. But the gardai rarely use these measures (the first case was there last week). I don't think the gardai and DPP want any more changes to the law or to the courts system - they want more resources. People who genuinely wish to see an end to gangland crime should support more resources for the gardai. People who want to sound like they want to see an end to gangland crime can talk all they like about locking em up and throwing away the key.
The SCC was set up to deal with paramilitary crimes without a jury because of the problem of jury intimidation. Also, the DPP can send certain gangland cases forward to the SCC as it is. But there is a very low level of jury intimidation in gangland crime, so having gangland cases tried in the SCC is not going to solve the problem you suggest.
What I think you're referring to is having people convicted solely on the belief evidence of a garda. This means that to secure a conviction, all a garda needs to say is that he believes you're a member of a gang. If you can't see the problem with this, then I doubt very much you grew up in a very deprived area.0 -
-
Read again, i did not attack you, i attacked your view in the post which i called naive.johnnyskeleton wrote: »Play the ball not the man. I could say it is you who has a naive view on this subject. But what annoys me is that you assume that I am naive and you have absolutely nothing to support this with. Go **** yourself gurramok, and your wannabe ghetto attitude.johnnyskeleton wrote: »Look at other countries such as the USA, Brazil etc where criminal gangs are exponentially more organised, armed and dangerous, but yet they are not a threat to democracy in those countries.
Yes they are. They intimidate and murder in their own communities and have also attacked the police and elected officials in Brazil(remember Sao Paolo?) and in the US, the police themselves are often murdered by the low lifes.johnnyskeleton wrote: »I disagreed with Amazo's point of view for two reasons: 1) Paramilitary groups are a threat to democracy because they seek to overthrow the government by force. Criminal gangs do no such thing (if anything they thrive under democracy and would lose out a lot under a more totalitarian government) and 2) criminal gangs are not a greater threat to the courts because they do not seek to intimidate judges and jurors to anywhere near the extent that the provisional IRA did.
Again, you miss the point. A criminal gang has not got a hope of overthrowing the state. What they have is the planting of turncoat elected officials in the public service through either bribery or intimidation to make them untouchable by the law hence growing their powerbase. (Mafia comes to mind here)
Whats your sources that they are not a threat to the justice system?johnnyskeleton wrote: »But of course you don't want to hear this, you want to assume that you know more about crime than everybody else (even those who work in the area). Read the herald much?
I read all papers and all sources of info. whats your sources?
I'll answer the ghetto rant at the end of this post.
See the gory list here as i posted in another thread.127 murdered with just 14 convictions, a 9% detection rate up until Aug31st....Gruesome list and the reasons for your assignment. (think there has been at least another 3 killings since in Dublin)
http://www.tribune.ie/article/2008/a...y-with-murder/johnnyskeleton wrote: »The fact that a significant portion of the McCarthy-Dundon gang has been convicted and sentenced in the last few years suggests that it's not impossible. You're also forgetting that a lot of the witnesses are actually part of the gangs, and very often accomplices.
Limerick is the only success by the state because Limerick ain't a big city and again the gangs reside in small enclaves. The bigger city Dublin has many areas covering a much higher population hence the need for more resources.
Yes i agree with your second statement, witnesses are gang members also but it is a hell of alot easier to get the public to be witnesses and i can tell you, I myself would not go to the witness stand if i witnessed a gangland crime out of legitimate fear.johnnyskeleton wrote: »That's a big leap there. The gardai regularly seek assistance when there is an unsolved crime, be it a gangland shooting or a road traffic hit and run. That does not mean that the garda commissioner agrees with your view that the low number of prosecutions is due to witness intimidation.
Yes he does. Do you not read the news much?
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1113/crime.htmlThe commissioner said the difficulty in solving gang crime was getting people to come forward with information in the face of fear and intimidation and getting the evidence to prosecute and convict.johnnyskeleton wrote: »It's only not working on your say so. The only people who really know why these cases are not going ahead are those who work them i.e. the gardai and the employees of the DPP. Tell me this, why is it that the Herald will ask for all of these unusual measures and breaches of human/constitutional rights but the DPP and gardai are silent on the matter. To give just one example, the CJA 2007 was brought in with much media fanfare and a part of it allows inferences to be drawn from a person's silence when interviewed by the gardai. But the gardai rarely use these measures (the first case was there last week). I don't think the gardai and DPP want any more changes to the law or to the courts system - they want more resources. People who genuinely wish to see an end to gangland crime should support more resources for the gardai. People who want to sound like they want to see an end to gangland crime can talk all they like about locking em up and throwing away the key.
Then why do the Garda top brass not proclaim what you're saying about lack of resources?
I've seen multiple occasions on TV where the commissioner has stated it is not a resource based problem. The only resource based problem is with normal low level policing, that i agree with.
I do not know why you keep bringing up the Herald, you sound like an avid reader
johnnyskeleton wrote: »The SCC was set up to deal with paramilitary crimes without a jury because of the problem of jury intimidation. Also, the DPP can send certain gangland cases forward to the SCC as it is. But there is a very low level of jury intimidation in gangland crime, so having gangland cases tried in the SCC is not going to solve the problem you suggest.
What I think you're referring to is having people convicted solely on the belief evidence of a garda. This means that to secure a conviction, all a garda needs to say is that he believes you're a member of a gang. If you can't see the problem with this, then I doubt very much you grew up in a very deprived area.
So let me see what you're saying. You are saying that the reason why there has been a lack of convictions is a lack of resources and not witness/jury intimidation so you declare the Garda Commissioner is a liar?
And lastly to answer your allegation of me having a 'wannabe ghetto attitude', i have indeed being brought up in a deprived area, it was mostly in Finglas. My mother still lives in that area and she like her neighbours steer clear of dodgy folk no matter what they see.
I'm not gonna say which district in Finglas it is on a public forum but i can tell you roughly where in a PM if you wish and give you details of specific members of a gang that the public do not know and only the Gardai do. People who know me on boards can confirm that.
What do you have to give you a realistic view or did you grow up in a middle class turning a blind eye area?
Please tell.0 -
-
johnnyskeleton wrote: »What specifically is naive, and explain why it is. Because in the absence of same you are really just saying "I think your views are naive in a general way"
What you had said to Amazo about they being not a threat to the state.
If you read again, i stated your view on that subject is naive. I did NOT say your other 10,000 views on different topics are naive or you yourself are naive.
I'd like you to apologise for your personal attackGo **** yourself gurramokjohnnyskeleton wrote: »I would say it is you who misses the point in that your idea of a threat to democracy is a threat to citizens. I'm not saying that people being intimidated by criminals is not an important issue, but it is clearly not a threat to the state in the same way that terrorists are.
Let me spell it out for you. Criminals have shot 2 gardai in the last year or so, have threatened detectives with their lives without care in the world and have not been caught.
The Gardai are guardians of the state who uphold the law. What we are saying is that when they can attack upholders of the law, they can attack any organ of the state, ie, the judiciary and even the Dail deputies themselves. Its just a matter of time. Its happened in alot of countries where gangland have got so powerful.
Italy, Bulgaria, Brazil, Colombia as examples come to mind
Hence they are huge threat to democracy. The present policies have failed and a new hardline approach is needed.It's a bit rich asking for sources when your views are based on "well I'm from Finglas", but the IRA tried to kill several judges (and killed at least one - Judge Gibson in NI) and intimidate juries, whereas you can't say the same for criminal gangs. This may change, but for the present they can and are tried in the regular courts with jurys.
Err, hello, pot kettle??
For your information, i grew up in a deprived area and have seen stuff no child should have seen at that age. I know what its like, been there, done that and have the T-shirt.
I know what the general feeling is in that type of community and hence am well qualified to give my view.
Unlike you who has not proclaimed your background. Unless you are a serving Garda or a social worker in a deprived area OR a solicitor representing clients from deprived areas, you have ZERO qualification to know what it is like on the ground regarding serious crime.
You quote the IRA in NI, another jurisdiction where there was a conflict. We are discussing the ROI here. I remember them killing gardai and soldiers in the early 80s for example. Remind me, what did they do to our judiciary in ROI?They've done well in Sligo and Cork too, although these are not exactly headline grabbing places. I'm glad you agree that more resources are needed, and I wouldn't be surprised to see prosecutions of the big Dublin players over the next few years.
Please detail what they did in Cork & Sligo. Its been what is it now, 15+ years since gangland took a hold in this country, how many big players have been caught and jailed?
Answers about John Gilligan and Christy Griffin do not suffice. One was sent down only out of reaction to Ms Guerins killing and the other sent down for child abuse charges.
Still, they were not sent down for the murders and mayhem they caused. Answers about ones sent down in reaction to daily mayhem instead of killing headline middle class types would sufficeAll the more reason to beef up the witness protection programme. Such things, however, cost a lot of money.
Agreed.Apart from the fact that I was criticising your random leaps of logic, that is just one factor he mentioned, the other being getting the evidence to prosecute and convict.
And yes, ask yourself why they cannot get evidence to prosecute and convict?
It's intimidation. Recently a Ballymun hotshot had his trial for severely injuring a man constantly delayed because witnesses suddenly forgot what happened n 2001/02. If you want details, i'll google it.
Another famous one was the Limerick case of the Keanes. More memory problems there on behalf of witnesses.
Maybe its a run of Alzheimer's in the population instead of intimidation?If the commissioner does not recognise the need for improvements in the gardai then we're in trouble. One example being that serious crimes are still investigated for the most part by the local garda station rather than the NBCI, who seem to play more of an assistant role. There have been massive technological advances over the last few years which could be used to combat crime but are not. There are not enough patrol gardai on the streets (and this affects gang crime as much as low level offences). More could be spent on the witness protection programme. More could be spent on public area CCTV. We are only recently rolling out armed gardai and engaging with international police agencies. But of course it's politically difficult to ask for more resources when those resources are not there. Why not have dedicated gangland investigators working full time on trying to make inroads into these gangs? If the gardai know who they are they can put them under constant surveylance.
Again. The Commissioner says your wrong. Good ideas, but he says all is ok at his end
They will need to stop the revolving door system of the prisons for a start.
They need to hand out 10yr sentences for serious drug offences constantly. You say the media only pick up the worst mishaps of the system, i disagree. It has been publicly known that most criminals who have been charged with drugs worth over 10k have not had the 10yr sentence imposed on them.So now witness intimidation and jury intimidation are one and the same? I believe that more resources bringing the Gardai in line with international police standards is what is required, but the Gardai are an innefficient and outdated system, and more resources often means more beat gardai to the Commissioner. The gardai don't even have a special detective recruitment policy. This article states that the US has a 90% conviction rate for gang murders in some parts of the country:
US policing with it's higher resources and standards shows that it's not simply the case that people won't testify, it shows that if you want them to testify you need to bankroll witness protection.
So you say a witness protection program is needed now, why oh why do we need that if there is no intimidation????!!:rolleyes:Relying on the Garda Commissioner's view on Crime is kinda like relying on Brian Lenihan's view on the Economy.
Agree, he does not want the reputation of Gardai in a bad light.
The garda commissioner is like a PR man, he can say no bad about the Gardai. If any of us had a chat privately with him off the record, i bet he will spill what really goes on.
Before you answer my reply with a F you Gurramok next time, i will report it to the mod...Do you not see that asserting where you grew up is not an argument? If it was, the garda commissioner would know nothing about crime and policing?
Yes, my growing up is an argument. People like me who have lived and presently live in communities know how these gangs operate to their horrific levels on people. I know people who lived in my neighbourhood who have witnessed certain levels of crime and say nothing to the Gardai solely out of fear.
And that is widespread witness intimidation. Witness intimidation overlaps onto jury intimidation, it bloody makes sense. A climate of fear does grip the population in these cases. You say it does not go on, how can you support that argument?
Mine is based on..
1-My background
2-Garda Commissioner agreeing with me along with local gardai who say the same. (we'll leave the media out of this in case you think i'll quote the Herald:D)
3-The stats of 120 odd unsolved gangland murders in the last 10 years
What is your background on these matters?
Did you grow up in a deprived area and witness the same criminal stuff as me?
You have still not answered that question to give qualification to your views.
Supply some evidence.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13692
I'd like you to apologise for your personal attack
I'd like you to apoloise for yours.Let me spell it out for you. Criminals have shot 2 gardai in the last year or so, have threatened detectives with their lives without care in the world and have not been caught.
There have been a number of successful prosecutions for threating gardai. Good old s.5. And unfortunate as it is, a number of gardai get injured by criminals during the course of their duties. Not all of the criminals have been gangland criminals.You quote the IRA in NI, another jurisdiction where there was a conflict. We are discussing the ROI here. I remember them killing gardai and soldiers in the early 80s for example. Remind me, what did they do to our judiciary in ROI?
Several judges were threatened with their lives, to such an extent that they had garda protection. This hasn't happened with gangland crime. Maybe it will, but for the moment it hasn't.Answers about John Gilligan and Christy Griffin do not suffice. One was sent down only out of reaction to Ms Guerins killing and the other sent down for child abuse charges.
They got Al capone for mail fraud.Still, they were not sent down for the murders and mayhem they caused. Answers about ones sent down in reaction to daily mayhem instead of killing headline middle class types would suffice
Dessie Dundon, David Stanners, James McCarthy, Christopher Costelloe and Anthony McCarthy to give one example. But of course they don't count because....More memory problems there on behalf of witnesses.
One of the few good things McDowell did while MJELR was section 16 of the CJA 2006, which allows a sworn witness statement to be profferred as evidence where the witness is unwilling to testify. It's very much open to abuse though.Again. The Commissioner says your wrong. Good ideas, but he says all is ok at his end
Well surely an appointed office holder in Ireland wouldn't pass the buck, would they?They will need to stop the revolving door system of the prisons for a start.
That's an executive rather than judicial call. Judges (contrary to public opinion) put criminals away, only for the MJELR to let them out again on parole/temporary release. In fairness, this is because our prisions are overcrowded and minor criminals will be released to make room for the big fellas, but by the looks of things we'll never have the new thornhill prison.They need to hand out 10yr sentences for serious drug offences constantly. You say the media only pick up the worst mishaps of the system, i disagree. It has been publicly known that most criminals who have been charged with drugs worth over 10k have not had the 10yr sentence imposed on them.
I disagree with this. The majority of people charged with section 15A (btw, it's closer to €13k) are not big time drug dealers. Most are drug addicts who carry the drugs to pay off debts, buy drugs or because they are threatened. The drug lords don't touch the stuff, sure why would they get their hands dirty? So pushing the s.15A, while it is a media savvy move by the politicians, is not going to make much of a difference to the crime rate or gang related activities. All it does is over zealously punish drug addicts. Even when they do not apply the 10 years, they usually apply a hefty sentence e.g. 5-8 years.
Notwithstanding that, for the minority of cases where the person caught is not a drug addict (usually a small or mid level dealer, or a fool who tought he'd get a bit of extra christmas money) the courts will almost always give 10 years or more. Judge Ryan in Dublin rarely deviates from the 10 years, and I think the lowest she has ever given was 6 years (though I'm open to correction). If you want to see an example of this, go down to the fourcourts. Alternatively, here's a good example of a s.15A where the accused were not drug addicts (yes, I realise the irony of using the indo as a source after I slated the herald). Not a bad sentence, eh?So you say a witness protection program is needed now, why oh why do we need that if there is no intimidation????!!:rolleyes:
I didn't say there was no intimidation. (I also didn't say we needed a witness protection programme, I said we needed more funding for the witness protection programme. We have one already you see).Agree, he does not want the reputation of Gardai in a bad light.
The garda commissioner is like a PR man, he can say no bad about the Gardai. If any of us had a chat privately with him off the record, i bet he will spill what really goes on.
You're agreeing with me? That's no fun. If you want to get answers out of a garda, you need to put a lot of drinks into them.You say it does not go on, how can you support that argument?
I don't say it doesn't go on. That's what you want me to be saying so that you can vent your spleen. What I said was that jury intimidation doesn't go on nearly as much for gangland cases as it did (and arguably still would, given the chance) for paramilitaries. One good example of this were the Veronica Guerin trials. The DPP felt that there was a high risk of jury intimidation in those cases, so they were forwarded to the Special Criminal Court. But most gangland crimes are tried in front of a jury, for example, Christy Griffin.What is your background on these matters?
I don't give out personal information on an internet forum. This is true whether the thread is about gangland crime, or the availability of work in the legal professions. I have two reasons for this:
1) I value my privacy
2) I like the way the internet allows people to debate where only the most convincing argument will win. People all too often try to use their qualifications etc to bully other posters, and I don't like that.
As I say, I could be a sheepfarmer from a small village in Offaly (probably the least criminally inclined county in Ireland - road traffic offences and punch ups over girls are about the height of serious crime there) or I could be from Sean MacDermott street. Whichever I say I am, it doesn't make my argument any more, or less, than what it is. I think an argument should stand or fall on its own merits, and that is why merely stating where you are from is not an argument to my mind.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Advertisement