Are our laws too lenient?

Indricotherium

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The biggest problem we have with our judicial system is the revolving door where someone can repeatedly commit a crime without any increasing consequences. A three strikes and you're out policy is really needed; combined with progressively less attractive jail conditions.

Lol.

Even the pro prison crowd are shouting from the rooftops that they believe people reoffend when they leave prison.

Maybe you get some sort of visceral feeling of satisfaction from the thought of the person who wronged you being locked up; but it does nothing to address the situation that caused the person to act in the first place.

Prison as it is doesn't work.

It also costs a fortune.

Indricotherium

MagicSean wrote: »

Indricotherium wrote: »

The logic to the lock people up for long time side of this argument is that the only thing separating society as it is in Ireland from some sort of mad max style every man for himself is fear of jail.

I just don't think that's the case.

You don't seem to understand. I don't care about wether they rehabilitate or not, or wether they fear jail. They make their own choices. All i care about is seperating them from the rest of us who want to live our lives without fear.

More directly. I would rather a world where no crime was committed than one where all criminals were locked up away from society.

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The biggest problem we have with our judicial system is the revolving door where someone can repeatedly commit a crime without any increasing consequences. A three strikes and you're out policy is really needed; combined with progressively less attractive jail conditions.

Does the fact that the best criminal justice system in the world, arguably, has prisons that are like 4 star hotels and has the lowest recidivism rate in the developed world in comparison with the US, which has sentencing and prison conditions along the lines you outline, has 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the world's prisoners and has a higher or crime rate and substantially higher homicide rate than Ireland not make you realise that what you are suggesting wont work.

We should be looking to Norway, not the United States for our exemplar. This righteous anger and looking tough on crime is really quite pointless and utterly counterproductive.

Nermal

Deleted User wrote: »

Does the fact that the best criminal justice system in the world, arguably, has prisons that are like 4 star hotels and has the lowest recidivism rate in the developed world in comparison with the US, which has sentencing and prison conditions along the lines you outline, has 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the world's prisoners and has a higher or crime rate and substantially higher homicide rate than Ireland not make you realise that what you are suggesting wont work.

If the US and Norway were identical in every respect other than their prisons, then you might have a point.

Farcear wrote: »

But if you don't tackle the causes of crime

Indricotherium wrote: »

but it does nothing to address the situation that caused the person to act in the first place.

Handwringing. People are not forced to commit crime in Ireland due to economic necessity, so the only 'cause' of crime we need to be tackling is the perpetrator.

MagicSean

Indricotherium wrote: »

More directly. I would rather a world where no crime was committed than one where all criminals were locked up away from society.

We don't live in that world.

The causes of crime are the choices made by criminals. Their choices may be influenced by their upbringing and circumstances but they still have the ultimate decision and they choose to hurt people.

Nermal

Nermal wrote: »

If the US and Norway were identical in every respect other than their prisons, then you might have a point.

I said they were exemplars, not comparators although it certainly reads that way.

Regardless the point stands: one system works better than the other and is indicative of a general social attitude to crime and other social problems. Which should we be aspiring to?

Nermal

Deleted User wrote: »

Regardless the point stands: one system works better than the other

Norway's system cannot be divorced from circumstances peculiar to Norway, and the same applies to the US. It's not possible to make an evidence-based comparison of one aspect of this society in this way. How can you prove that applying the US system in Norway would not decrease crime still further, or that applying the Norwegian system in the US would fail?

The self-evident facts of the situation are that committing crime in the past is a good predictor of propensity to commit crime in the future, and that it's very difficult to commit crimes while incarcerated. Both point to the value of a three-strikes policy.

valleyoftheunos

ah it would be a slow week on here without one of these "lock em all up" threads appearing.

I would suggest that those people who think that 8 years is a "short" sentence or that prisons in Ireland are some sort palatial hotels or that throwing away the key solves crime and makes our society a better place to live ought to firstly appraise themselves of the facts and secondly consider some of the research that has gone into the effects a penal system actually has on those involved and on society as a whole.

Is the criminal Justice in need of reform? Yes to a certain extent. Does that mean a need to increase sentences across the board? Certainly not. Furthermore, contrary to what one poster would like to suggest "segregation" isn't an effective strategy for dealing with crime and not something a healthy and free society seeks to engage in.

Farcear

Nermal wrote: »

People are not forced to commit crime in Ireland due to economic necessity, so the only 'cause' of crime we need to be tackling is the perpetrator.

Social background is relevant.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/david_r_dow_lessons_from_death_row_inmates.html

(and TED talks are always interesting.)

Zambia

As short as I can make it criminality is a result of poverty and a lack of education.

Those are the issues you need to fix because without them criminality is limited to the truly evil.

So less resources used trying to change Criminal Johnny to good Johnny and a bit more emphases on stopping Criminal little Johnny ever appearing.

Sometimes by the time they are bad its too late.

Its like triage save the ones you can.

charlemont

Zambia wrote: »

As short as I can make it criminality is a result of poverty and a lack of education.

Those are the issues you need to fix because without them criminality is limited to the truly evil.

So less resources used trying to change Criminal Johnny to good Johnny and a bit more emphases on stopping Criminal little Johnny ever appearing.

Sometimes by the time they are bad its too late.

Its like triage save the ones you can.

Frankly its worse the country is getting for trouble. I'm only in my mid thirties and I was no stranger to trouble in my time but even I can see that the attitudes and viciousness of people today is a whole different ball game to the stupid types of things I did. That journalist getting killed in Dublin was an appalling act, how anyone to do that to a stranger is beyond me.

You points are right about the education and poverty but its the attitudes too and mental illnesses drug/alcohol/prescription pill's addiction, Years ago everyone sort of knew who to expect trouble from but nowadays it can come out of anywhere, I live in a bad area and I'm used to seeing trouble but lately its gone to hell in a handcart here.
Had new neighbours move in yesterday and the first place they asked to find was the off-license and by four in the morning they had a paddy-wagon outside after legging it from a taxi man without paying, Say's it all really. :mad:

Procrastastudy

Total segregation is all well and good but how do you suggest we pay for it? Current prison population costs us about €4 billion a year. Thats around €1,000 for ever man woman and child in Ireland. Every extra year you put people into the broken system is more money down the drain.

People rarely want criminals punished - all they want is crime not to happen to them - idealy for it not to happen at all. Investment in social systems is the only way to reduce crime. This constant alarmist non-sense about "society today" does no one any good.

MagicSean

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

ah it would be a slow week on here without one of these "lock em all up" threads appearing.

I would suggest that those people who think that 8 years is a "short" sentence or that prisons in Ireland are some sort palatial hotels or that throwing away the key solves crime and makes our society a better place to live ought to firstly appraise themselves of the facts and secondly consider some of the research that has gone into the effects a penal system actually has on those involved and on society as a whole.

Is the criminal Justice in need of reform? Yes to a certain extent. Does that mean a need to increase sentences across the board? Certainly not. Furthermore, contrary to what one poster would like to suggest "segregation" isn't an effective strategy for dealing with crime and not something a healthy and free society seeks to engage in.

I suggest you try dealing with a rape victim whose attacker has been released early because he was a good boy. You can start by explaining to her how she can feel safe because he is a changed man.

Procrastastudy

MagicSean wrote: »

I suggest you try dealing with a rape victim whose attacker has been released early because he was a good boy. You can start by explaining to her how she can feel safe because he is a changed man.

Sad thing is because we are locking up people who shouldn't be - he won't be. If we had a prison system that worked then maybe she could feel a bit safer.

valleyoftheunos

MagicSean wrote: »

I suggest you try dealing with a rape victim whose attacker has been released early because he was a good boy. You can start by explaining to her how she can feel safe because he is a changed man.

Of course you are correct, by definition all criminals are beyond redemption and should remain in prison until their victim allows them to be released. That will solve crime, protect the innocent and wont in anyway result in a divided and twisted society.

Procrastastudy

I'm gonna hijack this as they'll be another daily mail reader along at some point to start another. If we accept that prisions are neccesary for some offenders due to society not being able to "cure" them what would the ramifications of non-specific sentances be? The idea being that these people would be genuinely locked away to be rehabilitated - no matter how long that might take.

I'm thinking murderers (as opposed to manslaughter), serial rapists and paedophiles.

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The biggest problem we have with our judicial system is the revolving door where someone can repeatedly commit a crime without any increasing consequences. A three strikes and you're out policy is really needed; combined with progressively less attractive jail conditions.

In his thesis "Three Strikes and You’re Out: A Triple Differences Approach to Estimating the Deterrent Effect of California’s Three Strikes Law" Daniel Marcet concludes that:

Daniel Marcet wrote:

I estimate the deterrent effect of California’s Three Strikes Law, using data from before and after the law was passed in combination with data from states other than California to perform a difference-in-difference-in-differences analysis. Using this unique combination of data sets enables me to control for the effect of omitted factors that seem to have influenced the results of previous authors. While I find evidence suggesting that the law operates to deter all criminals in California, I do not find significant evidence to support the idea that the law’s harsher sentences provide an additional deterrent effect for criminals with one or two strikes. I can rule out a deterrent effect greater than 6.9 percentage points, or 15.5%, for criminals with one strike, and 3.3 percentage points, or 6.9%, for criminals with two strikes. In addition, I find that the law’s unorthodox penalty structure creates incentives that cause individuals with two strikes to be 9.2 percentage points more likely to commit a serious or violent felony, conditional on recidivating. On the other hand, I find that individuals with one strike reduce their likelihood of committing a serious or violent felony by 8.2 percentage points, conditional on recidivating. I determine that the law falls far short of being a cost-effective method of reducing crime through deterrence.

The paper is a look at the law from an economic standpoint but the work is actually quite comprehensive and well worth a read.

MagicSean

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Of course you are correct, by definition all criminals are beyond redemption and should remain in prison until their victim allows them to be released. That will solve crime, protect the innocent and wont in anyway result in a divided and twisted society.

I don't agree with your stance that victims should decide a criminals punishment