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

No free health care for criminals

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,349 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Can I ask why this concerns you so much? Is it due to a personal experience? Or do you believe this is the reason the health service is in a mess?

    If I may, through the last few weeks I've discovered SLUSK is a self-claimed Anarchist. Taxation = Robbery, Voting = Validation, Policing = Fascism; etc.

    Thats about right isnt it SLUSK?


  • Options
    #33
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    S-Murph wrote: »
    Wouldnt such a "justice" be more like a fluke or an accident?

    If criminal A robs a house and gets caught unscathed, and criminal B robs a house and gets caught, but gets a life thretening injury during the robbery - how is it justice that one person dies from their injuries while the other, who committed the same crime, gets off with a light prison sentence?

    Thats not justice, thats an injustice.

    Common sense.

    To me, justice implies being able to control an outcome even handedly rather than relying on treatable injuries which occur during an accident determining the "justice".
    If someone gets shot and killed while commiting a robbery they get what they deserve. I personally feel happy when a scumbag like that dies.


  • Options
    #34
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    Overheal wrote: »
    If I may, through the last few weeks I've discovered SLUSK is a self-claimed Anarchist. Taxation = Robbery, Voting = Validation, Policing = Fascism; etc.

    Thats about right isnt it SLUSK?
    Taxation is a socially accepted form of protection racket.
    Voting on political parties is like choosing if you want to get "protection" from outlaw gang 1 our outlaw gang 2.

    Police seem to be more interested in harrasing homeless people instead of arresting dangerous criminals, they police officers might actually get hurt if they do this.


  • Options
    #35
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,030 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Taxes are not a protection racket, it's one of the voter's side of the social contract.

    This has been done to the death here


  • Options
    #36
    Slugs
    Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭Slugs


    SLUSK wrote: »
    Taxation is a socially accepted form of protection racket.
    Voting on political parties is like choosing if you want to get "protection" from outlaw gang 1 our outlaw gang 2.

    Police seem to be more interested in harrasing homeless people instead of arresting dangerous criminals, they police officers might actually get hurt if they do this.
    LAWL! ****ING LAWL! You're ****ing on about taxation and at the end of the day, it's your taxes paying for these "criminals" to be in jail. I've heard about sitting on the fence but this nonsense is applaudable. You just can't seem to make up your mind. You're in favour of denying "criminals" their UNIVERSAL RIGHT to healthcare, yet you've an issue with paying the taxes that keep them in jail.


    They're in jail because they broke Society's rules. And if they are to be punished by society, they have a right to be protected during their punishment, and that extends to healthcare. If you want to deny someone their freedom, you had best provide some of the necessities they can't provide themselves because you're preventing them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    I think jail sentences could probably be replaced with other punishments such as whippings, they whip people in Singapore and you would not consider them to be uncivilized savages would you?

    Also I think our society is morally bankrupt which rewards crime. This is what you do when you give someone free healthcare after they assaulted and robbed people.

    If people go to jail they should also have to pay for it themselves.


  • Options
    #38
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,030 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    SLUSK wrote: »
    I think jail sentences could probably be replaced with other punishments such as whippings, they whip people in Singapore and you would not consider them to be uncivilized savages would you?
    As regards to whipping, I would view that as inhuman treatment, so yes, I would regard Singapore as uncivilized in relation to punishment. I know a man who had been subjected to flogging before, and by God, I wouldn not wish that on anythong.
    SLUSK wrote: »
    Also I think our society is morally bankrupt which rewards crime. This is what you do when you give someone free healthcare after they assaulted and robbed people.
    Heh, providing medical treatment isn't "rewarding" crime. It's the State having to ensure a minimum level of care for anyone under it's care.
    SLUSK wrote: »
    If people go to jail they should also have to pay for it themselves.
    That's what taxes are for.


  • Options
    #39
    Slugs
    Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭Slugs


    SLUSK wrote: »
    I think jail sentences could probably be replaced with other punishments such as whippings, they whip people in Singapore and you would not consider them to be uncivilized savages would you?

    Also I think our society is morally bankrupt which rewards crime. This is what you do when you give someone free healthcare after they assaulted and robbed people.

    If people go to jail they should also have to pay for it themselves.
    With what money? After all, are not the MAJORITY of crimes committed with financial motivations behind them. Yes, some people can afford to pay for their own healthcare, however if someone has been in prison for over 9 years, do you honestly think they could afford to pay that accumulated fee? O.o


  • Options
    #40
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SLUSK wrote: »
    Police seem to be more interested in harrasing homeless people instead of arresting dangerous criminals, they police officers might actually get hurt if they do this.
    Reality check: police officers do actually get hurt doing this.

    When you replace your impressions with actual observations, it might become worthwhile debating this sort of thing with you.


  • Options
    #41
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,349 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    SLUSK wrote: »
    If people go to jail they should also have to pay for it themselves.
    So as a Private Citizen should I have to pay the Cops out of pocket to arrest someone that broke into my home?

    Should I have to pay a Traffic Light Fee based on what roads I drive on?


    ... Are you the Flying Spaghetti Monster of Fallible Logic?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    SLUSK society pays for prisons because they are a necessity, they are where we put our 'problems' and they are supposed to be where these problems are solved through rehabilitation. Rather than denying criminals basic human rights you should be advocating better propects for rehabilitation or questioning how exactly it costs €100,000 a year to hold a prisoner and then at the end of it all when they are released the problem remains. You are seeking to enforce some degree of personal responsibility for one's own predicament but you are seeking to enforce it (imo) in the wrong area. Instead of denying healthcare, which can be seen as uncivilised, deny freedom for those prisoners who refuse to take an active role in their rehabilitation while incarcerated. Prison is not simply a sin bin.


  • Options
    #43
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    SLUSK wrote: »
    It is good to know that you all are very concerned about the well being of violent criminals. That is typical of various sorts of leftists.

    I prefer the term civilised- leftist implies some sort of economic angle which doesn't apply to everyone who thinks that you can't arbitrarily take away rights.
    they whip people in Singapore and you would not consider them to be uncivilized savages would you?

    I consider the act of whipping to be uncivilised savagery.


  • Options
    #44
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,349 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Actually the term Cruel and Unusual springs to mind before savagery. But yes, Savagery.


  • Options
    #45
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    Overheal wrote: »
    Actually the term Cruel and Unusual springs to mind before savagery. But yes, Savagery.
    If you get whipped for burglary and assault you would probably think twice before you did it again.


  • Options
    #46
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SLUSK wrote: »
    If you get whipped for burglary and assault you would probably think twice before you did it again.
    If you were put up against a wall and shot for it, you definitely wouldn't do it again.


  • Options
    #47
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    If you get whipped for burglary and assault you would probably think twice before you did it again.

    A quick trawl through any single day`s court reports or a conversation with folk who work in or around the Courts themselves will rapidly reveal this HUGE problem of recidivism.

    The numbers of accused persons with 20,30,40,50 and more, prior CONVICTIONS is mind-boggling.

    This thread is becoming bogged down in semantics about defining savagery or cruel and unusual treatment,however it needs to be recognized that the system currently failing the Law Abiding population first......only after those failings have been addressed should we begin to worry about the proclaimed rights of the convicted persons.

    The past 12 months has seen FAR too many serious cases up to Murder,whereby the convicted persons were found to have lenghty records all the way back to childhood and yet were abroad unfettered in their communities awaiting their moment to strike......and strike they did.

    The upcoming release of Wicklow rapist Larry Murphy back into the community is probably the most serious example of this system once again going into disregard-the-obvious mode but who cares......:mad:


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Options
    #48
    S-Murph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭S-Murph


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    only after those failings have been addressed should we begin to worry about the proclaimed rights of the convicted persons.

    And then you go on with highly selective cases:
    The past 12 months has seen FAR too many serious cases up to Murder.
    The upcoming release of Wicklow rapist Larry Murphy back into the community

    Your position is not realistic. You cant 'address' the problem until you 'get real' about who we are taling about.

    Most prisoners/criminals are not murderers, and most criminals are not rapists.

    If people want to solve or reduce the crime problem, then tackle the real issues. Poverty, deprivation, social alienation, exclusion, inequality, lack of education and opportunity etc. These are the conditions which breed crime, and to solve the problem they must be addressed.

    Emphasis on punishing the criminal is emphasis on the product of deprived social conditions, rather than the social conditions themselves.

    It costs somewhere in the region of €80,000 per year to facilitate a prisoner, 70% of which in mounjoy have previous convictions. It would be far more productive to rehabilitate prisoners if the problems of crime are to be addressed.


  • Options
    #49
    Red_Marauder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,175 ✭✭✭Red_Marauder


    SLUSK wrote: »
    If you get whipped for burglary and assault you would probably think twice before you did it again.
    I think it would see a decrease in reoffending for petty crime in the short term, and change the nature of criminal activity.

    But have we not come further, as a civilised society, than to resort to reactionary public gnarlings and physically injuring a person as a form of justice?

    What kind of relationship does the humiliation of beating an indiviual in defenseless circumstances serve between a criminal (and his family) and the system of justice? Would it not be completely alienating for communities leaving in areas of social deprivation?

    And is it not the case that progressive steps like tackling the root causes of crime, establishing constructive garda links with the community and promoting human dignity, respect for the community and civil behaviour from an early age could be a better step to fixing our society? And couln't it all end up better for society as a whole?

    I believe the carrot and stick approach works. You give people an incentive to change, and you also make them face the consequences of their failings.
    Incentives like community development, integrating communities, early and aggressive participation in educational and personal development and the expansion of family welfare services have never been properly enforced.
    Neither has the current 'stick' model. Meaningful sentencing, personal development in the prison system, and, a prison reform bill that turns our prisons from schools of crime to schools of virtue, these have also never been attempted.
    I suggest we switch to these methods before we simply start whipping people - which has, in fact, already been tested.


  • Options
    #50
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    As I said before, I do not think it is wrong of a homeowner to shot a burglar in the head. That is justice.


  • Options
    #51
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SLUSK wrote: »
    As I said before, I do not think it is wrong of a homeowner to shot a burglar in the head. That is justice.
    Ah. I have to re-think my impression of your approach to jurisprudence. I thought you wanted to replace "innocent until proven guilty" with "guilty until proven innocent". Now I see you just want to replace it with "guilty". (Or, better yet, "dead".)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    I prefer a system that stands up for decent people instead of taking alot of money from normal decent people and giving it to criminals. You want to reward violent criminals with free health care and free accommodation.


  • Options
    #53
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SLUSK wrote: »
    I prefer a system that stands up for decent people instead of taking alot of money from normal decent people and giving it to criminals. You want to reward violent criminals with free health care and free accommodation.
    If you think prison is a reward, you've quite obviously never been there.


  • Options
    #54
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If you think prison is a reward, you've quite obviously never been there.
    Prison is as far as I know free accommodation.


  • Options
    #55
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SLUSK wrote: »
    Prison is as far as I know free accommodation.
    I didn't debate that. I note you carefully sidestepped the question of whether or not it's a reward.


  • Options
    #56
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,349 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    SLUSK wrote: »
    Prison is as far as I know free accommodation.
    Free Accommodation....

    I suggest you investigate the meaning of the word.


  • Options
    #57
    S-Murph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭S-Murph


    SLUSK wrote: »
    I prefer a system that stands up for decent people instead of taking alot of money from normal decent people and giving it to criminals. You want to reward violent criminals with free health care and free accommodation.

    But is it not the case that most criminals come from deprived areas and family backgrounds - ie, low income and unemployed?

    Would it not be necessary to direct money from "normal decent people" (http://www.foodcourtdruids.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/family-insurance.jpg) towards areas of deprivation and disadvantage/non-decent people(http://media.skateboard.com.au/forum/images/chavs3.jpg) in order to aleviate and solve the emergence of crime?

    Maybe these non-decent people are non-decent people because decent people have too great a share of economic and social resources?


  • Options
    #58
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    S-Murph wrote: »
    But is it not the case that most criminals come from deprived areas and family backgrounds - ie, low income and unemployed?

    Would it not be necessary to direct money from "normal decent people" (http://www.foodcourtdruids.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/family-insurance.jpg) towards areas of deprivation and disadvantage/non-decent people(http://media.skateboard.com.au/forum/images/chavs3.jpg) in order to aleviate and solve the emergence of crime?

    Maybe these non-decent people are non-decent people because decent people have too great a share of economic and social resources?
    In Ireland Education is free and getting a job has been easy up until now, I still get job offers from Ireland, however I never want to live there again.

    As a non white Swedish person with English as a second language I had no problems getting a job in Ireland. Why can't the scumbags get their act together? Diverting funds to these people is a waste of money.


  • Options
    #59
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SLUSK wrote: »
    Why can't the scumbags get their act together? Diverting funds to these people is a waste of money.
    We could always just shoot them.


  • Options
    #60
    S-Murph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭S-Murph


    SLUSK wrote: »
    Why can't the scumbags get their act together?

    Why dont you go and ask them rather than making empty assumptions?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,349 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I still can't get over how you don't seem to place a Value on your Freedoms, SLUSK. Couping the monetary value of holding prisoners and providing healthcare for prisoners is not the True Cost to these prisoners of their Incarceration. They can't eat sleep or **** unless someone tells them to.
    Why can't the scumbags get their act together?
    Why can't we rehabilitate them?


Advertisement