New punishments for crimes

pitythefool

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Can you post a link to your figures please.

i already have

pitythefool

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm suspending my self-imposed exile from politics because I think this thread is interesting. Perhaps the problem isn't the punishment but the prisons. They do nothing but make criminals better criminals. Plus they're chock full of people and provide no opportunities to rehabilitate offenders. I also do not understand this "right" to a TV. They should get recreation time and have a communal TV which they can watch for set periods.

the freudian slip was about why would we want better criminals

FreudianSlippers

pitythefool wrote: »

the freudian slip was about why would we want better criminals

...we don't. I'm failing to understand your point. You say increase the jail terms. Well jail is broken. Step 1: fix prisons, step 2: actually incarcerate criminals for a legitimate portion of their sentence and only reduce for good behaviour and participation in education. Only then can you evaluate whether punishment is too lenient.

Death and Taxes

pitythefool wrote: »

i already have

No, you posted unverified "evidence" from a conspiracy theory website that didn't even reference the source of its data, it included "data" from household surveys and hospital records in coming to its conclusions. hardly a verifiable source.
I would have thought you would have sought information from CSO,Eurostat, OECD etc.

JustinDee

WileyCoyote wrote: »

I would hardly consider countries like Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland etc to fall into that catagory.

Ineffective judiciary can entail leniency. If you'd lived in Scandinavia, Finland or Iceland you'd know what I'm referring to.
Community service and a fine, for example, following the destruction of a gravestones in a Jewish cemetery in Oslo. Would you deem that crime sufficiently punished? Where would it show in criminal statistics?

pitythefool

WileyCoyote wrote: »

No, you posted unverified "evidence" from a conspiracy theory website that didn't even reference the source of its data, it included "data" from household surveys and hospital records in coming to its conclusions. hardly a verifiable source.
I would have thought you would have sought information from CSO,Eurostat, OECD etc.

These websites are not very helpful, could you find some links that prove your point and disproves my links?

Also when looking at this we have to view it in a much broader sense

Average wage

Social Divides

Distribution of wealth

Natures of crimes committed

social infastructures

etc

Death and Taxes

pitythefool wrote: »

These websites are not very helpful, could you find some links that prove your point and disproves my links?

Also when looking at this we have to view it in a much broader sense

Average wage

Social Divides

Distribution of wealth

Natures of crimes committed

social infastructures

etc

You link disproves itself, I would say that if you actually research the information available on the sites that I gave you then you will find all you need.

pitythefool

WileyCoyote wrote: »

You link disproves itself, I would say that if you actually research the information available on the sites that I gave you then you will find all you need.

My lins say Norway has a high crime rate and a low incarceration rate

Your links are not helpful, not saying you are wrong but i cant find any info to prove you right

Kosseegan

pitythefool wrote: »

As is often stated, many punishments do not suite the crime

Jail can be a holiday or a business meeting for some and hell for others

To start off i will say what use is it send Judge Heather Perrinn to jail when they could order her to pay €500,000 in to the estate of the injured party, take away her law qualifications and her pension

Any thoughts?

Who could order her to pay? The intended victim suffered no loss and so he cannot be compensated for something he hasn't lost.

She could have been fined and there would be criticism that rich people can avoid jail by paying large fines.

sparkling sea

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Sociology is not taught in all Universities at some level, and criminology is a branch of Sociology, though it also invoves Psychology and Psyschiatry.

AGHHH Criminology is not a branch of Sociology although Criminological theory has in the past drawn on Sociological, Legal and Psychological investigation and theories.

sparkling sea

It wouldn't do any harm for people to recap on sentencing practice and how it works and specifically on how Irish sentencing practice is applied here !!

Cardinal proportionality is used world wide and requires that the magnitude of the penalty is not out proportion with the gravity of the offence; it is equal to but never more than that. Ordinal proportionality concerns the ranking of the relative seriousness of different offences. In practice much depends on the type of crime committed.

Ireland departs from the world wide view when sentencing as not only should the sentence be proportionate to the gravity of the crime but the circumstances of the accused must also be considered. The gravity of the offence is decided by the amount of harm caused and the offender’s culpability.
When deciding on the penalty aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the crime are considered. Aggravating factors include such things as the use of violence or a weapon, or the vulnerability of the victim. Mitigating factors include stress, duress and provocation.
Once a penalty is decided the judge looks at factors that will mitigate the proportionate sentence, these include such things as employment, health and family circumstances. If there are mitigating factors the judge has to reduce the sentence. There is no onus on a judge to impose a custodial sentence, however in Tiernan it was established that for serious offence, a lack of custodial sentence should only apply to exceptional cases.

There is very limited data available on sentencing principles in Ireland therefore little is known about the reality of sentencing practices; wikipedia isn't a very good source for anything but the very basic of infomation on real or dark figures of crime.
In regards to previous convictions the Law Reform Commission believes that where there are previous convictions, this increases the gravity and so increases the severity of the sentence. O’Malley argues for progressive loss of mitigation of sentence if there is a previous conviction. In reality it is the LRC’s views that are used in practice by judges when deciding sentences.

sparkling sea

JustinDee wrote: »

Ineffective judiciary can entail leniency. If you'd lived in Scandinavia, Finland or Iceland you'd know what I'm referring to.
Community service and a fine, for example, following the destruction of a gravestones in a Jewish cemetery in Oslo. Would you deem that crime sufficiently punished? Where would it show in criminal statistics?

You seem to be implying that community service and a fine are ineffective, although the Irish Penal Reform Trust research indicates that they deter more people from reoffending, when applied properly; can you clarify why you feel it was ineffective ? The destruction of any gravestone is obviously wrong - do you feel it warrants a harshier sanction? Why do you feel a harshier sanction would have proved more effective?

JustinDee

sparkling sea wrote: »

You seem to be implying that community service and a fine are ineffective, although the Irish Penal Reform Trust research indicates that they deter more people from reoffending, when applied properly; can you clarify why you feel it was ineffective ? The destruction of any gravestone is obviously wrong - do you feel it warrants a harshier sanction? Why do you feel a harshier sanction would have proved more effective?

Because the criminal in question would not have been charged and convicted with GBH following a racist attack on a Vietnamese-Norwegian man. Should have been imprisoned the first time.
I'm sure the convict and so many others like him are just misunderstood. Obviously cleaning up a public park or bringing dogs to a nursing home are going to deter this ilk from a life of crime. Maybe some subsidies? Or some encouragement even.

sparkling sea

JustinDee wrote: »

Because the criminal in question would not have been charged and convicted with GBH following a racist attack on a Vietnamese-Norwegian man. Should have been imprisoned the first time.
I'm sure the convict and so many others like him are just misunderstood. Obviously cleaning up a public park or bringing dogs to a nursing home are going to deter this ilk from a life of crime. Maybe some subsidies? Or some encouragement even.

Riddles - I never understand them sorry

There is no obvious answer just higher likelyhoods thats if you actually want too lower crime and recidivism rates; when a person is subjected to violence then imprisnment is justified. I said in an earlier post, violence against a person should incur a severe sanction.

twowheelsonly

pitythefool wrote: »

Any recommendations for both levels of crime

In the case of white colar criminals would it be fair to have smaller sentences along with a new higher taxt bracket when they enter the real world

I read recently that Larry Murphy refused treatment in prison, should it no have been forced upon him

How do you force somebody to change their mind or their mindset? You can't unless they're willing to do so themselves unfortunately.

WileyCoyote wrote: »

We most certainly have not!
Before posting i would suggest people read the report of the Whittaker Comittee, practically none of their recommendations have been acted upon.
Explain please how locking people up for 16 hours a day, often in overcrowded and draconian conditions where they are forced to eat their meals a few feet away from the bucket that serves as a toilet is "Rehabilatative"?

On the contrary, quite a few have been acted upon. Is there not ongoing refurbishment in Mountjoy and Limerick as well as a new prison planned for Cork. Right now the number of prisoners with in-cell toilets far outnumbers those using the piss-pot.

Wicklowandy wrote: »

A prison governor once said that the only money he could get was for bigger walls and more bars on windows. The prison system is a political football; we cant complain about the crime rate if we continue to support failed policies.

Google bryn melwyn farm wales, a young offender treatment centre (uk) from the 1990s. It reduced reoffence rates at less cost to taxpayers.

But when the media informed the tax payer what a 'cushy' number these young crims were on, it was closed. Look at reoffence rates from shanganagh closer to home.

If a young criminal was offered a 50% remission to engage in properly funded services while incarcerated and a 50% increase in sentence not to, i wonder what the change to reoffence rate would be?

Shades of 'Spike' there (Fort Mitchel Prison in Cork Harbour). It was the most expensive jail to run at the time, partly due to access difficulties, but had by a long shot the lowest rate of recidivism due to the excellent structure and education unit combined with being a 'tough' jail.
Shut down by McDowell though, supposedly to save money but in reality to brow beat the Warders. Short term gain but long term loss. Ironically, now that it's a visitor centre they're talking about putting a bridge/causeway across to it!!

pitythefool wrote: »

You had a freudian slip there, why would we want better criminals

As far as TV goes, a communal TV is a good idea, it could be a democracy set on what is shown with a majority rule on what to watch

That used to be the case before they got TVs' in cells about 8 or 9 years ago. Led to some great fights!!
In fairness, the number of suicides and attempted suicides has dropped dramatically since the introduction of TVs which is a good thing.

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Well can you provide a link to a modern country with high imprisonment rates, which is what Oscar was talking about, and a low crime rate?
The countries that lock up the least amount of citizens tend to have the lower rates of crime.

Also known as: The countries that have the least amount of crime tend to lock up the least amount of citizens.


People can talk all they want about rehabilitation but the fact remains that it's just not happening in Jails due to lack of facilities and opportunities. Most crims are serving sentences of less than 12 months anyway, many of them less than 6 months. How do you rehabilitate someone in that time? A huge amount of those are in and out constantly doing short sentences, so short that it's not worth while wasting scarce resources on giving them jobs or schooling.

Spike, I mentioned already but Mr McDowell also shut down Shanganagh and turned Pats into a holding compound for Junior Criminals by effectively shutting down most of the workshops and trades there. These 3 institutions were at the forefront of tackling juvenile offenders and helped many to turn their lives around due to the fantastic efforts of staff (Not necessarily teachers, welfare or any other outside agencies) Many ex-prisoners of these institutions will tell you that themselves.
When they're juveniles is when you'll catch them and change them. Once a guy has been in and out for a few years and is approaching 30 then generally speaking he's not for changing.
IMO, the time and effort should be spent on youngsters. Have a couple of versions of St Pats. The tough one - to start off on for a few weeks or to keep persistently un-cooperative offenders. Then the easier but 'educational' one to show them the difference and give them an opportunity to turn their life around. Also, with this, there has to be scope to have convictions struck off their record after a few years crime free. Loads of youngsters that enter the system are not criminals but just fools. Cure the foolishness and you'll cure the criminal. Don't cure it and in a couple of years that foolish young fella is a criminal.
All Adult Jails should be tough but with scope to 'earn' an easier life. You're an adult, you make your own decisions. Those decisions have consequences. You cooperate and work or attend school and you earn remission/rewards/privileges. You don't and as far as I'm concerned you can stare at a wall for 23 hours a day.

SeanW

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Then can you explain why the countries with the highest incarceration rates (USA,UK etc) also have the highest crime rates....would appear that prison does not in fact deter crime and does not make the streets any safer.

By the way referring to people as Filth is highly offensive in my opinion.

Filth is an appropriate term for some people, e.g. vandals, arsonists, "joy"riders, the feral knife killers that killed that German man recnetly, the two Polish men previously in the same area. etc. Society needs to be protected from people like that.

I think that crimes should (generally) be divided into 3 categories:

1. Crimes that should be removed from the statute book: e.g. some drugs offences, e.g. cannibis possession, home growing for personal use, a regulated system of sales similar to that of alcohol and tobacco.
2. Crimes that can (in some cases) be dealt with either monetarily or through a combination of reform efforts. That could include some white collar crime and some blue collar crime not marked by excessive malice (e.g. stealing because you need money desperately) or by stupidity rather than any desire to cause harm. For example, the idiot that buried himself under the railway line in Portarlington (Pikey Mikey) some years go would fall under this category. His act, while extremely dangerous was clearly aimed only at showing what a "mad bastard" he was and had no malice towards anyone. A firm reminder from the legal system (community service) or some rehabilitative effort may be enough in some of these cases.
3. Crimes that indicate that society needs to be protected from the criminal. Such crimes would include vandalism, 'joy'riding, arson, rape, murder or attempted murder, kidnapping, hostage taking, egregious abuse of animals (like that person that threw a homeless mans rabbit into the Liffey), assault, GBH. These should result in severe jail terms. Crimes of this kind could be subject to an "X strikes" rule: commit a number of serious crimes you go to jail forever: because the individual has clearly demonstrated that they are not fit to live in a civilised society.

There are also cases where the offender may not pose a threat to society again, but where pure feral vengance is required. Things like serious white collar crime (e.g. fraud) or serious blue collar crime (murder (isolated incident)) where it needs to be clear that the person who committed the crime has to pay, regardless of whether there is danger of repeat offense.

oscarBravo

SeanW wrote: »

There are also cases where the offender may not pose a threat to society again, but where pure feral vengance is required.

If you think vengeance is ever "required", you have a different definition of "require" from mine.

Things like serious white collar crime (e.g. fraud) or serious blue collar crime (murder (isolated incident)) where it needs to be clear that the person who committed the crime has to pay, regardless of whether there is danger of repeat offense.

"Has to pay" - why?

SeanW

RDM_83 again wrote: »

... or in at least broken so they understand that their actions have consequences or in the very worst case (due to expense) removed from society completely

There are some "people" out there (and I use that term lightly) that spend their lives looking for ways to make the lives of others miserable. I fear that if you try to "break" them, they will simply be incentivised to be more clever, to do things that can't come back to haunt them, e.g. go to a forest and start a forest fire, wear a ski mask when burning cars, focus on poisoning/torturing defenseless animals, such as outdoor cats etc.

I think it has become clear that there is a certain breed of barbarian that the only thing to be done with them is to protect society from them.

SeanW

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you think vengeance is ever "required", you have a different definition of "require" from mine. "Has to pay" - why?

If a lawyer commits a serious fraud against his/her clients and leaves them bankrupt, for example, and has hidden/spent all the stolen money so it can never be repaid, that person needs to be punished.

Otherwise we give the impression that we tolerate serious fraud.

What would you have done with Bernie Madoff?

If someone commits a murder under circumstances that are clearly once-off, that shouldn't affect the need to punish that person.

twowheelsonly

BTW, The current systems of fines is totally inadequate.

Criminals don't pay the fines. Only ordinary Joe Soap that has a fear of going to jail and is fined for seatbelt, mobile phone, drunk & disorderly etc pays it.
Regular criminals just go to jail for the couple of hours that it takes to process them and are home for tea in most cases.
Deduction at source is the only way to deal with this IMO.

Death and Taxes

twowheelsonly wrote: »

BTW, The current systems of fines is totally inadequate.

Criminals don't pay the fines. Only ordinary Joe Soap that has a fear of going to jail and is fined for seatbelt, mobile phone, drunk & disorderly etc pays it.
Regular criminals just go to jail for the couple of hours that it takes to process them and are home for tea in most cases.
Deduction at source is the only way to deal with this IMO.

All of Joe Soaps offences are criminal in that they are breaches of the law.
I love that middle class attitude that considers their own criminal behaviour as acceptable, and everybody elses as despicable.

JustinDee

sparkling sea wrote: »

Riddles - I never understand them sorry

There is no obvious answer just higher likelyhoods thats if you actually want too lower crime and recidivism rates; when a person is subjected to violence then imprisnment is justified. I said in an earlier post, violence against a person should incur a severe sanction.

No riddles involved.

I never said there was an obvious answer, by the way. Just gave an example of one such poor misunderstood unfortunate guilty of an antisemitic bigotted act.

twowheelsonly

WileyCoyote wrote: »

All of Joe Soaps offences are criminal in that they are breaches of the law.
I love that middle class attitude that considers their own criminal behaviour as acceptable, and everybody elses as despicable.

You of all people should know exactly what I mean there.

Are you seriously comparing the guy that is in and out every three/six months and doesn't give a toss about the law and won't pay any fines to Joe Soap that gets caught not wearing a seatbelt and pays the fine out of fear of going to jail?
Do you categorise both of those as the same level of criminals?

Death and Taxes

twowheelsonly wrote: »

You of all people should know exactly what I mean there.

Are you seriously comparing the guy that is in and out every three/six months and doesn't give a toss about the law and won't pay any fines to Joe Soap that gets caught not wearing a seatbelt and pays the fine out of fear of going to jail?
Do you categorise both of those as the same level of criminals?

Not sure what that comment was meant to mean.

pitythefool

Kosseegan wrote: »

Who could order her to pay? The intended victim suffered no loss and so he cannot be compensated for something he hasn't lost.

She could have been fined and there would be criticism that rich people can avoid jail by paying large fines.

True, but his estate suffered a loss, some jail time coule also be served?

pitythefool

sparkling sea wrote: »

You seem to be implying that community service and a fine are ineffective, although the Irish Penal Reform Trust research indicates that they deter more people from reoffending, when applied properly; can you clarify why you feel it was ineffective ? The destruction of any gravestone is obviously wrong - do you feel it warrants a harshier sanction? Why do you feel a harshier sanction would have proved more effective?

Harsher in the sense that it was most likely a hate crime, if curcumstances prove that it was the a harsher sentence would have been necessary imo

pitythefool

twowheelsonly wrote: »

How do you force somebody to change their mind or their mindset? You can't unless they're willing to do so themselves unfortunately.




On the contrary, quite a few have been acted upon. Is there not ongoing refurbishment in Mountjoy and Limerick as well as a new prison planned for Cork. Right now the number of prisoners with in-cell toilets far outnumbers those using the piss-pot.



Shades of 'Spike' there (Fort Mitchel Prison in Cork Harbour). It was the most expensive jail to run at the time, partly due to access difficulties, but had by a long shot the lowest rate of recidivism due to the excellent structure and education unit combined with being a 'tough' jail.
Shut down by McDowell though, supposedly to save money but in reality to brow beat the Warders. Short term gain but long term loss. Ironically, now that it's a visitor centre they're talking about putting a bridge/causeway across to it!!




That used to be the case before they got TVs' in cells about 8 or 9 years ago. Led to some great fights!!
In fairness, the number of suicides and attempted suicides has dropped dramatically since the introduction of TVs which is a good thing.



Also known as: The countries that have the least amount of crime tend to lock up the least amount of citizens.


People can talk all they want about rehabilitation but the fact remains that it's just not happening in Jails due to lack of facilities and opportunities. Most crims are serving sentences of less than 12 months anyway, many of them less than 6 months. How do you rehabilitate someone in that time? A huge amount of those are in and out constantly doing short sentences, so short that it's not worth while wasting scarce resources on giving them jobs or schooling.

Spike, I mentioned already but Mr McDowell also shut down Shanganagh and turned Pats into a holding compound for Junior Criminals by effectively shutting down most of the workshops and trades there. These 3 institutions were at the forefront of tackling juvenile offenders and helped many to turn their lives around due to the fantastic efforts of staff (Not necessarily teachers, welfare or any other outside agencies) Many ex-prisoners of these institutions will tell you that themselves.
When they're juveniles is when you'll catch them and change them. Once a guy has been in and out for a few years and is approaching 30 then generally speaking he's not for changing.
IMO, the time and effort should be spent on youngsters. Have a couple of versions of St Pats. The tough one - to start off on for a few weeks or to keep persistently un-cooperative offenders. Then the easier but 'educational' one to show them the difference and give them an opportunity to turn their life around. Also, with this, there has to be scope to have convictions struck off their record after a few years crime free. Loads of youngsters that enter the system are not criminals but just fools. Cure the foolishness and you'll cure the criminal. Don't cure it and in a couple of years that foolish young fella is a criminal.
All Adult Jails should be tough but with scope to 'earn' an easier life. You're an adult, you make your own decisions. Those decisions have consequences. You cooperate and work or attend school and you earn remission/rewards/privileges. You don't and as far as I'm concerned you can stare at a wall for 23 hours a day.

There is alot to agree with here, also i feel a certain level of Democracy could be added to prisons

The prisoners could have a say in what privelages,courses, rec time, treatment they recieve, obviously this would have to be closely monitored and a set budget added to each category???????

pitythefool

SeanW wrote: »

If a lawyer commits a serious fraud against his/her clients and leaves them bankrupt, for example, and has hidden/spent all the stolen money so it can never be repaid, that person needs to be punished.

Otherwise we give the impression that we tolerate serious fraud.

What would you have done with Bernie Madoff?

If someone commits a murder under circumstances that are clearly once-off, that shouldn't affect the need to punish that person.

We have our own version of Bernie Madoff in the country, what did we do about him?

pitythefool

WileyCoyote wrote: »

All of Joe Soaps offences are criminal in that they are breaches of the law.
I love that middle class attitude that considers their own criminal behaviour as acceptable, and everybody elses as despicable.

It was clearly stated that these fines for fear of jail, shows more respect for the law which grants a higher place in society imo

pitythefool

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Not sure what that comment was meant to mean.

I got it

Death and Taxes

pitythefool wrote: »

It was clearly stated that these fines for fear of jail, shows more respect for the law which grants a higher place in society imo

Doesn't show any fear of breaking the law,shows they didn't respect the law since they chose to break it.

pitythefool

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Doesn't show any fear of breaking the law,shows they didn't respect the law since they chose to break it.

Further breaks of the law then!

sparkling sea

JustinDee wrote: »

No riddles involved.

I never said there was an obvious answer, by the way. Just gave an example of one such poor misunderstood unfortunate guilty of an antisemitic bigotted act.

It was a riddle to me.

Were you were implying that the punishment didn't match the crime - if that was the case, I was wondering why you felt this way or more to the point, why you felt a period of imprisonment would have been a better option, given the highly likelyhood of recidivism following a term of imprisonment?

Imprisonment is meant to be a sanction of last resort; it is very costly to the tax payer; it is costly to society; it turns people in the main into non productive individuals who can never really pay back society for the damage they have done; a person with a prison record is highly unlikely to become employed; a person with a prison record won't really have an incentive to educate themselves; a person with a prison record cannot purge their crime in Ireland and therefore will never be able to emigrate which is extremely stupid in our current economic crisis. A person with a prison record is less likely to take responsibility for their life in the long term; children of parents who were imprisoned are more likely to commit crimes, the list goes on and on. Prison doesn't work unless someone is an actual danger to society - a dangerous person shouldn't be let out of prison until they are no longer a danger.

Recidivism rates are running at about 80% here, the age group most likely to reoffend being the 16 to 25 year group. Recidivism rates drop dramatically for people over 25 and their are many reason for this - however - because these people were imprisoned rather then forced to pay back the victim and societ, for the damage they caused, their life prospects and because of this the finanical cost to the average person will be life long . Sending a person to prison and labelling them a criminal is more likely to make a person a burden on society for their whole lives; its more likely to produce people who are seen as deviants and who see themselves as deviants.

The only reason a person should be sent to prison is if they commit a violent crime against another person and then the punishment should be extremely severe.

If someone refuses to pay a fine, the money should be directly deducted at source - the pain should be immediate short and sharp.

The old law of Ireland, Brehon law had some ingenious ways of dealing with a breach of law; imprisonment was never an option. Back in 7th cenury Ireland, divorce and equal rights between the genders was recognised and Brehon law also showed concern for the environment, but it didn't see imprisonment as serving any purpose. I think imprisonment should be kept for those who need to be incarcerated because of the danger they present to others.

JustinDee

sparkling sea wrote: »

It was a riddle to me.

Were you were implying that the punishment didn't match the crime - if that was the case, I was wondering why you felt this way or more to the point, why you felt a period of imprisonment would have been a better option, given the highly likelyhood of recidivism following a term of imprisonment?

A criminal charge is a criminal charge. You're lessening the offence's gravity by the slap-on-wrist approach and so was the Norwegian judge in case I mentioned. What followed was equal contempt for the laws of the land and for other Norwegian citizens. I don't agree with your view, which I find far too lax for a serious offence such as racist desecration at a cemetery.

sparkling sea wrote: »

Imprisonment is meant to be a sanction of last resort; it is very costly to the tax payer; it is costly to society; it turns people in the main into non productive individuals who can never really pay back society for the damage they have done; a person with a prison record is highly unlikely to become employed

A tad generalistic I would say but fair point.

sparkling sea wrote: »

a person with a prison record won't really have an incentive to educate themselves

Also generalistic but unlike last point, I disagree. If punishment for crime is lax, are they going to be motivated to change?

sparkling sea wrote: »

a person with a prison record cannot purge their crime in Ireland and therefore will never be able to emigrate which is extremely stupid in our current economic crisis

This is rubbish. Of course, they can emigrate and often do.

sparkling sea wrote: »

A person with a prison record is less likely to take responsibility for their life in the long term; children of parents who were imprisoned are more likely to commit crimes, the list goes on and on

sparkling sea wrote: »

Prison doesn't work unless someone is an actual danger to society - a dangerous person shouldn't be let out of prison until they are no longer a danger

Are you guessing here? I think you are.

sparkling sea wrote: »

Recidivism rates are running at about 80% here, the age group most likely to reoffend being the 16 to 25 year group. Recidivism rates drop dramatically for people over 25 and their are many reason for this - however - because these people were imprisoned rather then forced to pay back the victim and societ, for the damage they caused, their life prospects and because of this the finanical cost to the average person will be life long

This is like an excuse for behaviour. Each and every one of us is responsible for our actions, regardless of circumstance. Of course it starts with parenting but still ultimately our own at the end of the day.

sparkling sea wrote: »

Sending a person to prison and labelling them a criminal is more likely to make a person a burden on society for their whole lives; its more likely to produce people who are seen as deviants and who see themselves as deviants

The only reason a person should be sent to prison is if they commit a violent crime against another person and then the punishment should be extremely severe.

If someone refuses to pay a fine, the money should be directly deducted at source - the pain should be immediate short and sharp.

The old law of Ireland, Brehon law had some ingenious ways of dealing with a breach of law; imprisonment was never an option. Back in 7th cenury Ireland, divorce and equal rights between the genders was recognised and Brehon law also showed concern for the environment, but it didn't see imprisonment as serving any purpose. I think imprisonment should be kept for those who need to be incarcerated because of the danger they present to others.

I see your point of view. I just disagree with it, that's all. If you bunk up enough driving points and show contempt for the judicial system that is supposed to preside over you, then you risk prison. If not, a fine does bugger all.

sparkling sea

JustinDee wrote: »

A criminal charge is a criminal charge. You're lessening the offence's gravity by the slap-on-wrist approach and so was the Norwegian judge in case I mentioned. What followed was equal contempt for the laws of the land and for other Norwegian citizens. I don't agree with your view, which I find far too lax for a serious offence such as racist desecration at a cemetery.


A tad generalistic I would say but fair point.


Also generalistic but unlike last point, I disagree. If punishment for crime is lax, are they going to be motivated to change?


This is rubbish. Of course, they can emigrate and often do.





Are you guessing here? I think you are.


This is like an excuse for behaviour. Each and every one of us is responsible for our actions, regardless of circumstance. Of course it starts with parenting but still ultimately our own at the end of the day.


I see your point of view. I just disagree with it, that's all. If you bunk up enough driving points and show contempt for the judicial system that is supposed to preside over you, then you risk prison. If not, a fine does bugger all.

There are many schemes that work within the Baltic countries; the public are happier with them and they have had a major effect on repeat offending.

Anti social behaviour will result in the damage caused being paid for by the offender; in a case like the one you mentioned, compulsory civic classes for up to 5 years usually twice a week. Offenders having to go to work and stay in residential units - paying their wage to fund their own imprisonment. Offenders having to pay special damages to their victims.

The good things about these schemes is that they tend to last for at least a year; there is always an element of restorative justice with victims reporting this to be a very positive experience and helpful to them.

Prison doesn't work, it doesn't stop repeat offending; prisons have not been labelled universities of crimes for no reason and recidivism rates bear out this fact. This isn't based on my opinion - IPRT findings, LRC findings, Penal Reform International, there has been and is a shed load of investigation and research in this area. The media unfortunately does not report findings and seems to be intent scaring people and pushing the culture of fear.

The crime you refer to wouldn't fall under the definition of a serious crime and if the case was held in Ireland, the secondary factor of culpability of the offender would have to be considered by the judge;

I not guessing or generalising but of course there will always be exceptions to the rule; these people are exceptions and are rare.

Its to easy to say lock them up but when all the evidence indicates that this doesn't work then we need to start investigating the alternatives. There are many and they are varied.

FreudianSlippers

pitythefool wrote: »

We have our own version of Bernie Madoff in the country, what did we do about him?

Ah, in fairness, we didn't have anyone near what Madoff did.

pitythefool

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ah, in fairness, we didn't have anyone near what Madoff did.

Did Madoff Break A COUNTRY, do you think we have no one at that level here?

FreudianSlippers

pitythefool wrote: »

Did Madoff Break A COUNTRY, do you think we have no one at that level here?

That's hyperbole. There is no one person that broke Ireland or the US. They system was the issue

pitythefool

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's hyperbole. There is no one person that broke Ireland or the US. They system was the issue

Do you honestly think that NIB was anything but a ponzi scheme

Also what i meant to say was we have worse than Bernie Madoff here

Death and Taxes

pitythefool wrote: »

Do you honestly think that NIB was anything but a ponzi scheme

Also what i meant to say was we have worse than Bernie Madoff here

Can,t agree, example of one who was worse than Madoff?

pitythefool

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Can,t agree, example of one who was worse than Madoff?

Sean Fitzpatrick anglo

Praeglacialis

I'd be inclined to either implement fines/community service/naming and shaming in the community for petty crime. For things like murder or rape, imprisonment/treatment until they are no longer a danger to society. The fines from the former would well pay for the latter. There's no point packing jails full of people who are of no physical danger to society.

pitythefool

Praeglacialis wrote: »

I'd be inclined to either implement fines/community service/naming and shaming in the community for petty crime. For things like murder or rape, imprisonment/treatment until they are no longer a danger to society. The fines from the former would well pay for the latter. There's no point packing jails full of people who are of no physical danger to society.

Patty crimes can lead to further dangers though

What level of petty did you have in mind

Death and Taxes

pitythefool wrote: »

Do you honestly think that NIB was anything but a ponzi scheme

Also what i meant to say was we have worse than Bernie Madoff here

What the hell did NIB have to do with anything? Being that it was a subsidiary of Danske Bank it wasn't even covered by the banking guarentee and didn't place any loans in NAMA.
I know it had issues with corporate governance and selling offshore investments but that was years ago and had been dealt with before the economic collapse.
Very serious allegations to be making against NIB, I presume you have evidence to back them up?

pitythefool

WileyCoyote wrote: »

What the hell did NIB have to do with anything? Being that it was a subsidiary of Danske Bank it wasn't even covered by the banking guarentee and didn't place any loans in NAMA.
I know it had issues with corporate governance and selling offshore investments but that was years ago and had been dealt with before the economic collapse.
Very serious allegations to be making against NIB, I presume you have evidence to back them up?

That should have been Anglo sorry,

And to be fair you just highlighted a few issues there yourself

kippy

oscarBravo wrote: »

Speaking for myself: if I had a choice between a system that reduced the level of crime in society, and one that made those bad, naughty, wicked people suffer for their crimes, I'd opt for a safer society.

You seem to think that the current system doesn't achieve both?

pitythefool

kippy wrote: »

You seem to think that the current system doesn't achieve both?

I would have to say that it doesnt do both

kippy

pitythefool wrote: »

I would have to say that it doesnt do both

Can you prove that?

pitythefool

kippy wrote: »

Can you prove that?

Thats what this discussion is about?

If you look back i previously posted some figures relating to countries with high crime rates and high incarceration rates

Whicle these figure's are not reference they are the best i can do

Other suggestions have been made on where to find figures but those sites were not very helpful

Have you any suggestions yourself?

Also how many reports have you seen in the paper relating to John Doe of insert area with 16 previous convictions has been charged with crime simila to previous convictions

kippy

pitythefool wrote: »

Thats what this discussion is about?

If you look back i previously posted some figures relating to countries with high crime rates and high incarceration rates

Whicle these figure's are not reference they are the best i can do

Other suggestions have been made on where to find figures but those sites were not very helpful

Have you any suggestions yourself?

Also how many reports have you seen in the paper relating to John Doe of insert area with 16 previous convictions has been charged with crime simila to previous convictions

The poster I was replying to, I believe, thinks that we have too much of an attitude of lock them up and not enough of "rehabilitate them".

My opinion:
This is an extremely complex issue made more complex by a number of factors.

To properly "punish" someone in committing crime and indeed attempt to stop them doing the same in future and/or put in place enough of a deterrent to prevent said person from committing a crime in the first place one needs to know what type of person they are dealing with.

A lot of poster here think (possibly rightly so) that we don't have any level of rehabilitation at work in our prisons at the moment. That's probably a fair point. But there are certain criminals who commit certain crimes that rehabilitation cannot work for. How to you rehabilitate the white collar criminal? Indeed how to you make white collar crime a "non" option for those that might think of partaking in it? (This is an area where we need a lot of work)


Then you have the "petty" or indeed more "serious" criminal who has spent years in and out of prison. They obviously care little about incarceration, so how can the be rehabilitated? To do this you need to know why they commit the crime in the first place, not every criminal has the same reasons.


And then you have the situation whereby those on the "edge" of criminality, who may or may not commit a crime and are making those decisions based on a "what is the potential payoff of commiting this crime versus the potential "payoff" of getting caught"

I don't really know where I stand being honest, but I do know that to property implement a criminal justice system one has to tailor the punishment and indeed rehabilitation works not just towards the crime but to the person committing it as well. And I dont think they are feasible.