72 Previous Convictions!!!

hooradiation

prinz wrote: »

Such as?

juvenile detention centres are not prisons, and aside from the fact you're not even comparing like with like, citing one outburst from a kid as your proof that "ahh shure aren't they all lovely places" means it carries fuck all weight.

Doubly so seeing as his next quote is "I want to say one last thing, f*** the lot of you".
Teen bravado anyone?

prinz

hooradiation wrote: »

juvenile detention centres are not prisons...

*Clap clap* Did I say they were? They do serve essentially the same purpose however, all part of the justice system.

hooradiation wrote: »

and aside from the fact you're not even comparing like with like, citing one outburst from a kid as your proof that "ahh shure aren't they all lovely places" means it carries fuck all weight.

About as much weight as you claiming that it's a myth that our prisons/prisoners are far too well catered for.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

prinz wrote: »

What if it's ten strikes? Is it still unfair?

10 is a lot greater than 3. 3 strike rule is a joke, your crimes may not be that serious, yet you can server a harsher prison sentence than somebody who commited rape or murder.

walshb wrote: »

I don't know the exact details about this rule, but if you know that committing an offence or offences three times will result in you being taken out of society for good, then you go on and commit the offence/offences, well, that says a lot about the person.

That says that the person is a complete thick, yet the severity of the sentencing for the petty crimes that people commit is a joke.

SV wrote: »

lmao, are you for real?

:rolleyes:

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

Whats unjust about it? Your given three chances. It's up to you then to decide if you want to risk it or not. If you do and get caught you can't really complain that it's unfair or unjust.

It's a fcuking lazy rule. It doesn't deal with each case. You think it's fair that somebody gets 25 years to life for felony petty theft? What about possesion of a controlled substance, a joint. 25 years seem fair to you? Rediculous.

prinz

Kiana Wailing Beige wrote: »

10 is a lot greater than 3. 3 strike rule is a joke, your crimes may not be that serious, yet you can server a harsher prison sentence than somebody who commited rape or murder..

The mandatory sentence reflects the seriousness of the crime.

amacachi

I'm guessing the fact that the three-strikes thing has been shown not to be a detterent and is widely abused with people serving 10 years for non-violent petty theft and all the appeals that go with it and massive cost is irrelevant.
Yeah, let's just kill them instead.

SubrbanOblivion

amacachi wrote: »

I'm guessing the fact that the three-strikes thing has been shown not to be a detterent and is widely abused with people serving 10 years for non-violent petty theft and all the appeals that go with it and massive cost is irrelevant.
Yeah, let's just kill them instead.

Care to give an example or two?

What I see is a lot of people making a lot of assumptions about a rule they obviously haven't done much reading on.

SV

Kiana Wailing Beige wrote: »

:rolleyes:

.

Yeah, rolleyes isn't an answer.

Are you for real or was that post intentionally stupid?

dan719

Bonito wrote: »

On top of that no decent people I know or socialise with recreationally do any class A drugs. The odd time weed or hash yes but NEVER has anyone I am friends with tried a class A drug.

I call bullsh*t on this. None of your friends have ever done coke or ectasy? Really?

MaybeLogic

dan719v2.0 wrote: »

I call bullsh*t on this. None of your friends have ever done coke or ectasy? Really?

No, but they've done some nice schedule ones and smoked a lovely bit of schedule two on the come-down.
Or something like that.

ART6

Three strikes rule or not, surely the fact that someone has 72 convictions, some or many of which are for violence, suggests that the guy is a psychopath and needs to be locked away until he is too old to injure anyone. If the penal system was able to rehabilitate him it would have done so long ago.

There are of course the options that we could consider: His human rights and allow him to continue to deny others their human rights, or we could simply execute him like a mad dog as many would advocate, or we could lock him away for life as the US three strikes law (in California at least) requires. Whatever is decided, a Waterford lad would be alive today if it wasn't for him, and he should not escape responsibilty for that. If his actions are the result of insanity then he should be in a secure mental institution. If they are the result of sheer badness he should now be in jail for life with no hope of early release.

It seems to me that there are some people among us who are so evil that all of the cosy human rights for them demanded by the activists are purile. If they threaten innocent people then place them in a situation where they can no longer operate. Personally, I really don't care whether that place is in Hades or prison or a mental institution. Just get them out of society!!

SubrbanOblivion

ART6 wrote: »

There are of course the options that we could consider: His human rights and allow him to continue to deny others their human rights, or we could simply execute him like a mad dog as many would advocate, or we could lock him away for life as the US three strikes law (in California at least) requires.

*Facepalm*

It. doesn't.


I give up.

PostHack

72 convictions.... You can be sure there was a load of other stuff he got away with on a technicality or whatever. And he'll be out in a few years. Our justice system is a load of cock...

hooradiation

prinz wrote: »

*Clap clap* Did I say they were? They do serve essentially the same purpose however, all part of the justice system.

Firstly, we treat people below the age of 18 differently in the justice system, because they're still children so i would expect a juvenile facility to be less horrible than, say, mountjoy. So even if i took this one quote from a teenager to be gospel, my response is still "so fucking what?".

Secondly, i am enjoying your little act, the guy is 33 years old, so you link me to a single quote about a juvenile detention facility, from someone who's going out of the way to try and prove he's a toughman.
As you might say - *Clap clap*

prinz wrote: »

About as much weight as you claiming that it's a myth that our prisons/prisoners are far too well catered for.

I linked to a story on an report on how fucking awful mountjoy is. You linked to the sum total of fuck all.

Who's peddling myths again?

CrazyRabbit

So much focus on punishment instead of focusing on prevention. So sad.

Some countries have severe penalties for relatively small crimes, yet crime still exists there. Criminals never think they are going to get caught, so the severity of the punishment is fairly irrelevant to them. If they thought they were going to get caught, they wouldn't commit the crime.

What is needed is a more long term solution. Teach parents how to be proper parents. Teach self discipline to the children in every aspect of their lives.

It's shocking that any scumbag can get knocked up, give birth & raise another scumbag without any guidance, training & testing.
People don't like being told how to raise their kids, but the truth is that many many parents really haven't got a clue and do such a terrible job. The result is troubled and socially dysfunctional children who grow up to become criminal scum.

It's odd that you need to prove that you can drive a car properly, yet there are no tests to see if you can raise a child properly.

Kur4mA

Jesus people. RTFM* would be my advice here. You're all taking someones initial post regarding the 3 strikes rule and running with it even though it's clearly bull****. Stop being keyboard warriors!

Hmm I think I'll read the first 4 posts in a thread and then post the same ****e I saw there without reading the rest of the thread. YARRR!


*READ THE ****ING MANUAL

DamoDLK

Why is no one here, who is advocating against the 3 strike unwilling or perhaps unable to comprehend 'common sense' Why does it seem so obvious that:

1. If 'A' steals a slice of pizza or

2. If 'B' downloads illicit material from the internet

Then this ought not count to a Strike it is a misdemeanor. Moreover:

3. If 'A' rapes 'x' or

4. If 'B' is found guilty of manslaughter or

5. If 'C' is found with illegal drugs with intent to supply.

Then these ought to count as a strike, as in a felony.

The person in the OP's post had 72 convictions, 72 just think about that... ranging i'm sure from petty theft (i.e number 1 and or 2) to who knows maybe drug dealing.(i.e. 3 to 5) I think after the first few convictions that it was plainly obvious that this person would continue to burden society with his behavior. And clearly ought to be dealt with in a severe way. Sometimes there are no answers for people like this.


(*) I am very much aware of the fact that felonies and misdemeanors are a US concept.

the dark phantom

He got released Thursday, Including his time on remand he served 7 and a half years.
He is no fool when it comes to the system, He exposed loopholes on the activation of suspended sentences, http://thecircuitbrief.blogspot.ie/2011/11/legal-update-criminal-law-sentencing.html

This one makes great reading.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/D1958E286EA6BD1680257935004D113A

dreamers75

minidazzler wrote: »

Also, the 3 strike rule means if I have enough weed for say 5 people and I am caught 3 times, I get life in prison. Does that seem fair?

Well yeah.....i mean you know the rules and after the 1st 2 you should really know them.

FortySeven

I have more convictions than that. Probably 100+

All before 2001. Should I be locked up? I've been a model citizen since.

FortySeven

FortySeven wrote: »

I have more convictions than that. Probably 100+

All before 2001. Should I be locked up? I've been a model citizen since.

Really?

klose

Saw him today and all, unreal he's back on the streets. What a farce.

FortySeven

Deleted User wrote: »

Really?

Yes. Been in jail a few times. Spent a few years there. I hate crime now. I was a gob****e. Jail didn't work, community service didn't work, probation finally sent me to addiction treatment and after getting clean it was discovered I was bipolar. Treatment worked.

FortySeven

FortySeven wrote: »

Yes. Been in jail a few times. Spent a few years there. I hate crime now. I was a gob****e. Jail didn't work, community service didn't work, probation finally sent me to addiction treatment and after getting clean it was discovered I was bipolar. Treatment worked.

Good for you man

But on the question should you asked should you be locked up?
My answer would be no unless it was murder you were in jail for or rape. Like someone can have 100 convictions and they can all be relatively minor crimes like drugs or shoplifting. I do think people should get harsher penalties for convictions but i wouldn't lock anyone up for life who didn't do something serious. This guy should be in jail and left to rot imo, someone is dead because of him and 6 years isn't enough.

Guy:Incognito

FortySeven wrote: »

Jail didn't work, .

I beg to differ. How many proper citizens lives were badly affected by your crimes committed while you were in jail?

hatrickpatrick

minidazzler wrote: »

Depends where he is in the US actually, not all states have a 3 strike rule.

Also, the 3 strike rule means if I have enough weed for say 5 people and I am caught 3 times, I get life in prison. Does that seem fair?

What we really need is the death penalty TBH.

The three strike rule should be limited to violent or gangland related offences. There's no reason it has to be indiscriminate to what category of crime is involved, the issue there is that the US has a batsh!t insane attitude towards drugs in which the sale thereof is somehow seen as comparable to the sale of fissile nuclear material.

mynamejeff

minidazzler wrote: »

I never said selling!

what are you the weed santa ?

say at a conservative estimate very conservative. weed for 5 people at least a ounce . so about 300 euro

caught 3 times 900 euro

and even if its as a present to your friends the statues (section 15 MDA) says sale OR supply.


then again it was more likely much more in weight and value right

FortySeven

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I beg to differ. How many proper citizens lives were badly affected by your crimes committed while you were in jail?

It's a fair point. I clocked up most of those before they sent me to jail though.

Let me be clear. If you want someone to be a criminal, send them to prison. I'm an oddball. Prison is not what I needed. Lithium is what I needed. I learned so much in my years in prison it is unbelievable. If I was to take up crime now I would be a master criminal.

I don't disagree with you, there are people in prison who belong there. About 10%. The rest are mentally ****ed, can see no other way, addicted or just dumb as a rock.

mynamejeff

FortySeven wrote: »

It's a fair point. I clocked up most of those before they sent me to jail though.

Let me be clear. If you want someone to be a criminal, send them to prison. I'm an oddball. Prison is not what I needed. Lithium is what I needed. I learned so much in my years in prison it is unbelievable. If I was to take up crime now I would be a master criminal.

I don't disagree with you, there are people in prison who belong there. About 10%. The rest are mentally ****ed, can see no other way, addicted or just dumb as a rock.

are many of your convictions for assault or theft offences? , if so then yes might be you should be locked up.

I have a lot more sympathy for the victims of crimes than for the offenders

FortySeven

mynamejeff wrote: »

are many of your convictions for assault or theft offences? , if so then yes might be you should be locked up.

I have a lot more sympathy for the victims of crimes than for the offenders

And so you should. Victims of crime are innocents.

To answer your question. Violence. No. There were a few occasions when I was so out of it I resisted arrest. Could be classed as violence but I was so out of it I was ineffective and came off much worse.

Theft. Yes. Shop theft, commercial burglary, car theft, theft from car, theft from sheds etc.

Drugs, possession, supplying. Producing.

I was locked up. I did my time. I'm as decent as the next man these days.

Do you think I should be serving life?

Sometimes, (and I admit it is the minority) the system works and rehabilitates offenders. Should we lock everyone up on the off chance that we are protecting society at the cost of the few?

Remember, I am part of that society.

FortySeven

FortySeven wrote: »

And so you should. Victims of crime are innocents.

To answer your question. Violence. No. There were a few occasions when I was so out of it I resisted arrest. Could be classed as violence but I was so out of it I was ineffective and came off much worse.

Theft. Yes. Shop theft, commercial burglary, car theft, theft from car, theft from sheds etc.

Drugs, possession, supplying. Producing.

I was locked up. I did my time. I'm as decent as the next man these days.

Do you think I should be serving life?

Sometimes, (and I admit it is the minority) the system works and rehabilitates offenders. Should we lock everyone up on the off chance that we are protecting society at the cost of the few?

Remember, I am part of that society.

For repeat violent offenders we should lock them up for sure, but non violent drug addicts we shouldn't. I would be in favour of lovking up people who have attacked people many times and on many occassions after a certain amount of convictions just dont leave the back into society again! How many people can they affect before they are out of chances?

FortySeven

Deleted User wrote: »

For repeat violent offenders we should lock them up for sure, but non violent drug addicts we shouldn't. I would be in favour of lovking up people who have attacked people many times and on many occassions after a certain amount of convictions just dont leave the back into society again! How many people can they affect before they are out of chances?

Violence is the one reason I would advocate harsher sentencing. I learned violence in prison. You don't have a choice. It is one way to make any crime more successful. I would still advocate addiction treatment first for most criminals. In my experience most criminals have an addiction problem. Violence is only a manifestation of that addiction.

True violent criminals need to be locked up. Addicts who use violence through learned behavior (largely through prison sentencing for drugs offenses) need to defeat the drug addictions. This can be done within the prison system. No need for them to be on the street but the prison system is about removal from society, not about inclusion.

mynamejeff

FortySeven wrote: »

And so you should. Victims of crime are innocents.

To answer your question. Violence. No. There were a few occasions when I was so out of it I resisted arrest. Could be classed as violence but I was so out of it I was ineffective and came off much worse.

Theft. Yes. Shop theft, commercial burglary, car theft, theft from car, theft from sheds etc.

Drugs, possession, supplying. Producing.

I was locked up. I did my time. I'm as decent as the next man these days.

Do you think I should be serving life?

Sometimes, (and I admit it is the minority) the system works and rehabilitates offenders. Should we lock everyone up on the off chance that we are protecting society at the cost of the few?

Remember, I am part of that society.

of all the crimes you committed how many were you held accountable for ?

If you were convicted of everything you did how many convictions would you have ?

Do you feel you got treated harshly or leniently by the system ?
then i ll answer if you should be still locked up

mynamejeff

FortySeven wrote: »

Violence is the one reason I would advocate harsher sentencing. I learned violence in prison. You don't have a choice. It is one way to make any crime more successful. I would still advocate addiction treatment first for most criminals. In my experience most criminals have an addiction problem. Violence is only a manifestation of that addiction.

True violent criminals need to be locked up. Addicts who use violence through learned behavior (largely through prison sentencing for drugs offenses) need to defeat the drug addictions. This can be done within the prison system. No need for them to be on the street but the prison system is about removal from society, not about inclusion.

violence is a valid reason to lock someone up but the fear and or threat of violence is no less real. the idea that violence is created by placing some one in jail is a very soft option ,

an individuals personal responsibility dictates their actions .
Yes the prison system is about removal from society , Its about protection the population from criminals by locking them up If they choose to rehabilitate then fantastic but the priority should be to protect innocents from criminals. there for criminals who refuse to live by the laws of the land should be removed from the population.

by all means i think 3 strikes is extreme but what about 10 strikes of 20 ? for arrest able offences. Thefts criminal damage drug dealing and up

FortySeven

mynamejeff wrote: »

of all the crimes you committed how many were you held accountable for ?

If you were convicted of everything you did how many convictions would you have ?

Do you feel you got treated harshly or leniently by the system ?
then i ll answer if you should be still locked up

Most of them. I held my hands up to everything. A lot of my convictions would not be convictions had I fought them. I had lots of 'taken into consideration' which is admitting to other crimes when caught for 1. I admitted everything. I was not a good criminal.

There are probably 3 or 4 things I got away with, after I made prison I realised I was not doing myself any favours being so honest.

I feel I was treated fairly by the system. I received fair sentencing for my crimes.

Was I treated fairly by society? After what I've been through in life I would say no. Most crimes came from my family situation and my medical issue. I was homeless at 15 and left to my own devices. Did society offer me a safety net? I suppose they did. Was it sufficient? No.

FortySeven

mynamejeff wrote: »

violence is a valid reason to lock someone up but the fear and or threat of violence is no less real. the idea that violence is created by placing some one in jail is a very soft option ,

an individuals personal responsibility dictates their actions .
Yes the prison system is about removal from society , Its about protection the population from criminals by locking them up If they choose to rehabilitate then fantastic but the priority should be to protect innocents from criminals. there for criminals who refuse to live by the laws of the land should be removed from the population.

by all means i think 3 strikes is extreme but what about 10 strikes of 20 ? for arrest able offences. Thefts criminal damage drug dealing and up

I've seen the most placid, decent, normal kids come into prison with addiction problems. I've watched them leave hardened, violent, nasty feckers because jail is violent. They will eat you if you don't fight back.

You have to appreciate that in jail the slightest disagreement is solved by pool balls in a sock, a half pint of sugar and boiling water thrown in your face or a pair of razor blades welded into a toothbrush across your cheek.

These kids have no chance of rehabilitation.

mynamejeff

FortySeven wrote: »

Most of them. I held my hands up to everything. A lot of my convictions would not be convictions had I fought them. I had lots of 'taken into consideration' which is admitting to other crimes when caught for 1. I admitted everything. I was not a good criminal.

There are probably 3 or 4 things I got away with, after I made prison I realised I was not doing myself any favours being so honest.

I feel I was treated fairly by the system. I received fair sentencing for my crimes.

Was I treated fairly by society? After what I've been through in life I would say no. Most crimes came from my family situation and my medical issue. I was homeless at 15 and left to my own devices. Did society offer me a safety net? I suppose they did. Was it sufficient? No.

Taken into consideration is not for owning up to crimes , TIC is about lazy judges not using consecutive sentencing. ten charges before a court usually results in one sentence for the most serious incident and the rest TIC to get them out of the courts list

Glad youve improved your life tbh but gladder for your potential victims im sure you know the majority of people who were in your position never make it out

mynamejeff

FortySeven wrote: »

I've seen the most placid, decent, normal kids come into prison with addiction problems. I've watched them leave hardened, violent, nasty feckers because jail is violent. They will eat you if you don't fight back.

You have to appreciate that in jail the slightest disagreement is solved by pool balls in a sock, a half pint of sugar and boiling water thrown in your face or a pair of razor blades welded into a toothbrush across your cheek.

These kids have no chance of rehabilitation.

Again i d say rehabilitation is a luxury item in the justice system,

The first and real purpose of jail should be to remove individuals from the public in order to limit the damage they can do to innocents.

tomofson

biko wrote: »

Let's say he was first convicted when he was 13, then that's almost 4 convictions per year since. If he started at 18 it rises to 5 convictions per year.
This guy is not going to stop. For every conviction there is X number of crimes and attempted crimes we'll never hear about.

You do realize someone can get multiple charges from one arrest and each of these charges the person pleads or is found guilty of is a separate conviction?

tomofson

ART6 wrote: »

Three strikes rule or not, surely the fact that someone has 72 convictions, some or many of which are for violence, suggests that the guy is a psychopath and needs to be locked away until he is too old to injure anyone. If the penal system was able to rehabilitate him it would have done so long ago.

Psychopaths have very low violent crime rates, believe it or not someone working as a doctor is more likely to have psychopathic tendencies than a violent criminal with multiple previous convictions... Violent criminals are usually exploding with emotional problems a psychopath would never have these problems as all they care about is themselves and nobody else...
The only violent criminals with high rates of psychopathy would be serial killers. They are much more organized and professional about what they do.

FortySeven

mynamejeff wrote: »

Again i d say rehabilitation is a luxury item in the justice system,

The first and real purpose of jail should be to remove individuals from the public in order to limit the damage they can do to innocents.

All you are doing with this approach is making these people with health issues into hardened criminals. It is short sighted. Rehabilitation is cheaper and much more effective at cutting crime.

FortySeven

mynamejeff wrote: »

Taken into consideration is not for owning up to crimes , TIC is about lazy judges not using consecutive sentencing. ten charges before a court usually results in one sentence for the most serious incident and the rest TIC to get them out of the courts list

Glad youve improved your life tbh but gladder for your potential victims im sure you know the majority of people who were in your position never make it out

Tic is not about lazy judiciary. It's about saving police time and resources by admitting offences they would otherwise have to investigate.

Lady is a tramp

72 convictions, I can beat that, a good friend of mine has 93 convictions!!!

I once asked him, of all the crimes he's ever committed, how many was he actually caught for. He reckoned around 3-5% of them.

People change over time. He's 40 now, when I first met him and started getting to know him, he'd been clean and decent for a good long while. And he still is.

I know his childhood traumas inside out and he'd the worst kind of upbringing. A mentally ill mother, no father (his mum doesn't even know who the dad is), spent most of his first ten years in care, was first put into juvenile detention at 12 years old, got addicted to heroin in there and was a full-blown addict by 15, and an alcoholic not so long afterwards. And has spent a lot of time in jail (as you can imagine!) over the years.

I know of the nature of the crimes he was convicted for, he never physically or sexually hurt anyone. And he's the most fantastic father to his kids and grandchild.

And you know what? Most of the above doesn't really matter. He is now who he is now. Funny. Motivated. Hard worker. Humble. Sociable. Loving. Offensive (in a hilarious way.) Happy. Loved by many. And his thoughts go so much deeper than you'd think with his (fairly brash) first impressions, but he's a very caring compassionate person.

People can change. It happens all the time.

mynamejeff

FortySeven wrote: »

All you are doing with this approach is making these people with health issues into hardened criminals. It is short sighted. Rehabilitation is cheaper and much more effective at cutting crime.

Victims of criminals with multiple convictions will have a much different view of that that you .

Do you think the fear or prospect of being locked up for a very long time would stop some one from committing a crime. Make it not worth the risk ? and for those that just dont care well the rest of us are a lot safer with people who think like that locked up no?

Chorcai

what we need is a 3 strike Free Legal aid.

mynamejeff

FortySeven wrote: »

Tic is not about lazy judiciary. It's about saving police time and resources by admitting offences they would otherwise have to investigate.

I would have though with your extensive experience of the criminal justice system you would know that TIC is only a matter for the judge and nothing to do with police.

the police have to fully investigate every crime or alleged crime reported. Its a shorter and easier investigation if the criminal admits responsibility when first contacted by the police thats true.

By the time a judge gets to hear about any incident all the police time or effort that was going to go into some thing has already been done .

Its common that a person is before the courts on 10 or more charges and a judge will select the most serious and TIC the rest so he doesn't have to spend 20 min assigning punishments to each incident. Lazy judges

FortySeven

mynamejeff wrote: »

Victims of criminals with multiple convictions will have a much different view of that that you .

Do you think the fear or prospect of being locked up for a very long time would stop some one from committing a crime. Make it not worth the risk ? and for those that just dont care well the rest of us are a lot safer with people who think like that locked up no?

I have probably been the victim of more crimes than those I have committed. Comes with the territory.

Long sentences do not deter crime. Look to USA for proof.

pablo128

tomofson wrote: »

You do realize someone can get multiple charges from one arrest and each of these charges the person pleads or is found guilty of is a separate conviction?

I literally posted to make the same point. I got pulled by a dickhead garda one day and my car wasn't taxed. Lo and behold, 14 summonses arrived in the door. Including one for each of the 4 bald tyres (the tyres were perfect).
So anyway all I got done for was the tax, but had the judge convicted me on all the summonses I would have 12 more convictions.

FortySeven

mynamejeff wrote: »

I would have though with your extensive experience of the criminal justice system you would know that TIC is only a matter for the judge and nothing to do with police.

the police have to fully investigate every crime or alleged crime reported. Its a shorter and easier investigation if the criminal admits responsibility when first contacted by the police thats true.

By the time a judge gets to hear about any incident all the police time or effort that was going to go into some thing has already been done .

Its common that a person is before the courts on 10 or more charges and a judge will select the most serious and TIC the rest so he doesn't have to spend 20 min assigning punishments to each incident. Lazy judges

In my own experience I used the tic to ensure I was not going to end up with anything outstanding. I told the police, they asked the prosecutor to tic. Perhaps it is different here. My crimes were in Scotland.

hatrickpatrick

Lady is a tramp wrote: »

I know of the nature of the crimes he was convicted for, he never physically or sexually hurt anyone.

Then his case isn't relevant to this debate. This is about people with violent tendencies who are allowed to return to the community which they have terrorised. That's the part that isn't right.

To give you a prime example: The Kinahan gang and every single person who has played literally any part in their recent killing sprees, from the actual assassins to the lookouts and informers, should in my view spent the rest of their lives in jail. The Irish public deserves better than to have to put up with the presence of such scumbags in our cities and towns.

darkpagandeath

Only 73 ?