The gobsh@te

Joey the lips

Having heard the news tonight and no doubt there is loads of jokers on the forum I hope to see some serious answers.

Is anybody as shocked as me to hear Dermot Ahern - fianna fail said that he is considering taken the word of senior gardi in criminal convictions. ie The person will be convicted without proof on the word of a senior guarda

Its funny this one becuase I thought thats exactly what was not in the case of the mcbreatrys in donegal and look at what happened there.

Am i the only one that can see massive law suits and cicil actions in the years ahead cause of misacarriages of justice.

Really really daft,

mikemac

Joey the lips wrote: »

Having heard the news tonight and no doubt there is loads of jokers on the forum I hope to see some serious answers.

Is anybody as shocked as me to hear Dermot Ahern - fianna fail said that he is considering taken the word of senior gardi in criminal convictions. ie The person will be convicted without proof on the word of a senior guarda

It's not new, we have it under the Offences against the State act which was introduced in 1939 afaik

I'm sure it's been used before.
And realy when you are maybe convicting terrorists who are naturally secretive, then taking evidence from a senior garda who has access to intelligence files is acceptable.
Before the special criminal court anyway.

So why not for criminal gangs who also are secretive and who you'd struggle to get witnesses to give evidence against them?

Joey the lips

Thats always the arguement would you not agree but it always gets used on the innocent.

Its no better than the DNA or finger print line ie you have nothing to worry about so why you worry!

The offences against the state act only allows a conviction for membership of an organisation something on its own a court will not convict on. It was kinda used as an add on in IRA convictions. "Yes you beat this man up cause he is a drug dealer. 5 years and yes you a members of an illegal organisation -2 years)

Unless you have more this was my understanding.

JonathanAnon

I think they are tackling it from the wrong direction..
If they increased the sentences, and took away parole/good behaviour etc etc... that would be much more of a deterrent.

Personally I believe in Capital punishment, or at least have proper life sentences (meaning every second of their life) for those that are afraid of killing innocent people. There are bad people in the world who cannot be reformed and should be dealt with in the apt manner.

O'Coonassa

mikemac wrote: »

And realy when you are maybe convicting terrorists who are naturally secretive, then taking evidence from a senior garda who has access to intelligence files is acceptable.

But if the proof is in the files then surely that evidence ought to be used to secure a conviction? Whatever convinced the senior garda must also convince a jury of peers surely? It seems very wrong having the people who are charged with securing evidence for criminal convictions to themselves 'become' the evidence.

Driseog

I think it should be dealt with on two fronts,
1. As previous poster said, harsh sentences for criminals because lets face they can't be reformed at this stage.
2. And tackling the root of the problem...social deprivation. You can hand out all the 100 year sentences ya like but it won't make any difference unless the standard of living is changed in those areas.

And on the OP, it is scary for the Gardaí to wield what is nessessary power. I'd have no problem with it only for the fact that some of the people I know that have joined the ranks aren't capable policemen and I don't think I could ever have faith in the force.

Nodin

Unfortunately the precedent is already there.....

Joey the lips

Nodin wrote: »

Unfortunately the precedent is already there.....

I am not to sure what this means but if your talking about offences against the state act you can see that the offence of a garda's word cannot be used alone.

Nodin

Joey the lips wrote: »

I am not to sure what this means but if your talking about offences against the state act you can see that the offence of a garda's word cannot be used alone.

I was under the impression that it could, for some reason.

Joey the lips

Nodin wrote: »

I was under the impression that it could, for some reason.

nahh it can only be used for membership which as far as i know carrys a 5 yr max sentence but its hard to convict on so what the garda generally do is add it on.

Thats where they had a field day with the convicted lads that were INLA members, it was a licence to jail them longer even though they were not "active" as such

i dont have inside infor though its just what i read, i follow this stuff a lot. have no real faith in the guarda since I was a child.

Scofflaw

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I think they are tackling it from the wrong direction..
If they increased the sentences, and took away parole/good behaviour etc etc... that would be much more of a deterrent.

Personally I believe in Capital punishment, or at least have proper life sentences (meaning every second of their life) for those that are afraid of killing innocent people. There are bad people in the world who cannot be reformed and should be dealt with in the apt manner.

A theory of justice that worked so well in the Middle Ages...there are plenty of studies that show that past a point, severity of sentencing does not act as a deterrent, and that that point is determined by the probability of arrest and conviction, which are, in turn, the main deterrents of crime.

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

Scofflaw wrote: »

A theory of justice that worked so well in the Middle Ages...there are plenty of studies that show that past a point, severity of sentencing does not act as a deterrent, and that that point is determined by the probability of arrest and conviction, which are, in turn, the main deterrents of crime.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw has it spot on here. These people are not afraid of the Gardai because the Gardai themselves have a hard time getting the evidence they need to arrest and the legal system (and the courts) find it very hard to successfully convict one of these scumbags even if they are caught.

I think (from memory) that what Aherne was talking about was extending the particular bit of the Offences Against the State act that deals with terrorists to organised crime, but that there will still need to be some physical evidence also supporting the senior Garda's word for it. I'm more than happy with this as the Gardai generally know who commits these crimes but can't get what they need to ensure a conviction. Imagine just how frustrating that is for the Gardai and the people that have to suffer these thugs. It doesn't apply outside of organised gang related crimes though.

AARRRGH

If they introduced a three strikes rule it would take care of most of the Limerick scum.

old boy

yeah but a thread on another forum seems to suggest that a goverment minister can give a personal gaurentte and the person in question gets 3 years off his sentance