Elderly brothers beaten to death during botched burglary in Castlebar

Xenji

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure: we should have the death penalty, like the USA. Then we'd have zero crime, like the USA.

I never mentioned the death penalty, but people getting either a few years in jail or a institution is a joke.

oscarBravo

Xenji wrote: »

I never mentioned the death penalty, but people getting either a few years in jail or a institution is a joke.

OK, then we should have long prison sentences like the USA, and the highest percentage of our population locked up like the USA, then we'd have the USA's low, low crime rates.

Xenji

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, then we should have long prison sentences like the USA, and the highest percentage of our population locked up like the USA, then we'd have the USA's low, low crime rates.

This person was a repeat offender, not agruing with you, but you could also say if he had got a longer sentance, than these two brothers could still be alive.

rusheen

If he was just out of prison as reported , why wasn't his mental issues identified? I mean put into an Institution and treated .
Surely someone in authority should be answerable?

Nally Case changed the law in relation to home invasions hopefully something gets changed because of this .

oscarBravo

Xenji wrote: »

This person was a repeat offender, not agruing with you, but you could also say if he had got a longer sentance, than these two brothers could still be alive.

You could also say that if we locked up everyone for life who ever committed any crime at all, we wouldn't have repeat offenders.

But - I don't know about you - that's not the society I want to live in. The "nail 'em up, I say!" attitude has broken the fabric of American society in a way that's going to take a very, very long time to fix. When the initial wave of anger over this atrocity has subsided, we need to have a long, hard look at what sort of country we want this to be. Do we want American rates of crime and recidivism, or Norwegian? I know what I want - I want to be safer, and (contrary to what some people are content to believe without any evidence for it) harsh penal regimes don't make for a safer society.

yew_tree

Ok oscar what do you want so, shorter terms? Put people into homes so they can talk about why they commited a crime?

Some Humans are vile and need to be locked away - its always been the way and always will be.

Ash.J.Williams

I take it the guy himself is ill? I personally think it's tragic on both sides.

oscarBravo

yew_tree wrote: »

Ok oscar what do you want so, shorter terms? Put people into homes so they can talk about why they commited a crime?

I want to do whatever reduces crime in the long run. I thought I'd made that clear.

Some Humans are vile and need to be locked away - its always been the way and always will be.

Not that very long ago, people were publicly hanged for stealing. If you asked people at the time, they would have said that those humans were vile and needed to be killed. We've moved on, but we have a way to go.

Addictedtogolf

Here is his previous conviction. Obviously he is not a well guy and questions must be asked as to how he was left out.

http://www.advertiser.ie/mayo/article/17996

dharn

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why?

Why not ?

oscarBravo

dharn wrote: »

Why not ?

Compellingly argued.

Bobeagleburger

Some people should never be let out of prison. Simple as.

oscarBravo

rarnes1 wrote: »

Some people should not ever be let of prison. Simple as.

Which people? Got a list?

Bobeagleburger

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which people? Got a list?

People that after evaluation cannot be rehabiltated.

What's with the attitude, I'm only making a point

oscarBravo

rarnes1 wrote: »

People that after evaluation cannot be rehabiltated.

Who makes that evaluation?

What's with the attitude, I'm only making a point

With respect, it's not a particularly helpful point.

yew_tree

COME ON STEALING IS A HELL OF A LOT DIFFERENT TO BEATING TWO ELDERLY MEN TO DEATH NO MATTER WHAT CENTURY YOU ARE TAKING ABOUT

dharn

oscarBravo wrote: »

Compellingly argued.

My arguement contained twice as many words as yours,:D

Frank Lee Midere

oscarBravo wrote: »

I want to do whatever reduces crime in the long run. I thought I'd made that clear. Not that very long ago, people were publicly hanged for stealing. If you asked people at the time, they would have said that those humans were vile and needed to be killed. We've moved on, but we have a way to go.

Actually juries at the time often tended to nullify the sentences unless the jury was upper class. One of the reasons why the sentences were eventually reduced.

So no. working people never thought that death for stealing a handkerchief was a capital offence.

As for murder. Most normal people believed that should be a capital offence and many still do.

But this is unrelated to this case - probably it's a lifetime in a psychiatric hospital.

mistermano

one things for sure


if they're not rehabilitated they shouldn't be free to commit more crime.......

Bobeagleburger

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who makes that evaluation? With respect, it's not a particularly helpful point.

It's about as helpful as yours tbf.

Surely psychologist can make evaluations of people with violent sentences and decide what the chances of the offender reoffending again may be.

I'm sure most people remember the case of Manuela Riedo in Galway. The person that killed her had already killed someone in an attck AND blinded an old man in another attack not to mention dozens of other serious crimes and yet was out of prison! Too many bleeding hearts stories in the courts, makes me sick.

You think people like that are ok to roam the streets???

Frank Lee Midere

However if this wasn't a psychriatric case then OscarBravo would be wrong about rehabilitation.

Firstly a prison sentence isn't about rehabilitation. The primary function is deterrent. The secondary function is punishment. That's why we have harsher sentences for harsher crimes. The tertiary function is rehabilitation.

In the normal case of a dual murder all we are asking for is.

1) reasonable sentences per crime.
2) non concurrent sentences for individual crimes.

This would see a double murderer in for 40-50 years. After which he may not be rehabilitated but is probably unlikely to kill again. Unless he rampages the old folks home.

When it comes to multiple murders then, rehabilitation is a side show.

MagnusDamm

yop wrote: »

Seems the 26 year old was only out of prison, quelle surprise eh!!

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/suspect-in-murder-of-brothers-just-out-of-prison-29411893.html

Jesus are you serious? Unreal

twowheelsonly

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which people? Got a list?

I could give you a list, as could most Prison Officers, but unfortunately we're not allowed to name names.

These people do exist believe it or not, contrary to the tree huggers belief that they all deserve a chance at rehabilitation. A lot of them have had 20/30/40 chances of rehabilitation and it hasn't worked. They're basically bad and have no intention of ever changing. Do you think we should still waste time and resources on them at the expense of somebody that might avail of it?

oscarBravo

rarnes1 wrote: »

Surely psychologist can make evaluations of people with violent sentences and decide what the chances of the offender reoffending again may be.

Have you asked any psychologists whether they can make those predictions with confidence?

You think people like that are ok to roam the streets???

No. I think we should be working a hell of a lot harder to make them not be people like that.

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Firstly a prison sentence isn't about rehabilitation. The primary function is deterrent. The secondary function is punishment. That's why we have harsher sentences for harsher crimes. The tertiary function is rehabilitation.

If that's what you feel that our penal system is for, then you'll have to concede that it's not working, because it isn't a deterrent.

So, make it harsher, I hear you say. Fine: let's make it as harsh as the American prison system. What's that? They have higher recidivism rates than we do?

Prison doesn't work as a deterrent. If you want people to not commit crimes, you're going to have to find something that does work. It's not as simplistic as the "bang 'em up" slogan, but that only goes to prove that simplistic answers to complex problems are almost invariably wrong.

twowheelsonly wrote: »

These people do exist believe it or not, contrary to the tree huggers belief that they all deserve a chance at rehabilitation. A lot of them have had 20/30/40 chances of rehabilitation and it hasn't worked.

Wait - are you actually labouring under the delusion that a spell in the 'Joy is designed to rehabilitate?

If you design prisons to humiliate criminals and make them suffer for their crimes (which most of our prisons are), you're telling them "we as a society consider you to be unworthy to be one of us, and we don't believe you're even capable of being any better than you are" - is it then any wonder that a first offender leaves prison as something other than a model citizen?

I know I'm casting myself as a bleeding-heart liberal here, but that's only by contrast with the rather medieval attitudes I'm attempting to counter. If wanting a penal system that makes people less likely to become career criminals rather than more likely makes me a pinko lefty, then colour me pink - but at least I'm thinking with my brain about the subject, rather than my bile duct.

signostic

A related story.......

A NEIGHBOUR of murdered brothers Jack and Tom Blaine is closing his shop after being viciously beaten just four weeks ago.
Father-of-three Hafiz Farooq has started a 'closing down' sale at his clothes store next door to the Blaine home because "it's no longer safe" in Castlebar.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/neighbour-shuts-store-claiming-town-too-unsafe-29414284.html

twowheelsonly

oscarBravo wrote: »

....

Wait - are you actually labouring under the delusion that a spell in the 'Joy is designed to rehabilitate?

If you design prisons to humiliate criminals and make them suffer for their crimes (which most of our prisons are), you're telling them "we as a society consider you to be unworthy to be one of us, and we don't believe you're even capable of being any better than you are" - is it then any wonder that a first offender leaves prison as something other than a model citizen?

I know I'm casting myself as a bleeding-heart liberal here, but that's only by contrast with the rather medieval attitudes I'm attempting to counter. If wanting a penal system that makes people less likely to become career criminals rather than more likely makes me a pinko lefty, then colour me pink - but at least I'm thinking with my brain about the subject, rather than my bile duct.

Far from it, but there are chances to rehabilitate in Prison. Unfortunately the entire system is under-resourced and to an extent mis-managed by our successive Governments.
The fact is that if you're a habitual criminal you're more likely to be getting to use the workshop facilities, go to school, getting more attention from the 'Tree Huggers' (i.e. Welfare workers, teachers, probation, etc.) or have a job in the prison than the first time or early years criminal. And you'll get it the next time, and the next time and the time after that. A lot of first timers are pretty much left to their own devices or not given enough attention in order to divert them from a life of crime hence the cycle begins. Hence my belief in a two tier system - Repeat offenders should be housed and treated separately having wasted their chances. The resources should be spent on those that need help and want to change.

Michael McDowell to his credit closed down the two most 'Successful' jails in this country - Shanganagh and Spike Island. These were both aimed at young offenders and had the lowest rates of recidivism in the country due to the educational and rehabilitation opportunities available. The workshops in St Pats were also closed during his time in office so all that St Pats became was a big corral for juvenile offenders. Previously, most Juveniles had to work or take part in some structured activity and a lot of them turned out to be fine young fellas but the above measures put an end to that. If you can't catch them early then you're wasting your time. The 35 year old is very rarely going to change - the 17 year old might.

A bit of time inside would change most peoples perception about how Jail works. Most staff are decent enough, so are a lot of prisoners. Staff are always willing to help someone that is willing to 'play the game'. It's not all bad, but neither is it all good.

Frank Lee Midere

oscarBravo wrote: »

Have you asked any psychologists whether they can make those predictions with confidence? No. I think we should be working a hell of a lot harder to make them not be people like that.

If that's what you feel that our penal system is for, then you'll have to concede that it's not working, because it isn't a deterrent.

So, make it harsher, I hear you say. Fine: let's make it as harsh as the American prison system. What's that? They have higher recidivism rates than we do?

Prison doesn't work as a deterrent. If you want people to not commit crimes, you're going to have to find something that does work. It's not as simplistic as the "bang 'em up" slogan, but that only goes to prove that simplistic answers to complex problems are almost invariably wrong.

Wait - are you actually labouring under the delusion that a spell in the 'Joy is designed to rehabilitate?

If you design prisons to humiliate criminals and make them suffer for their crimes (which most of our prisons are), you're telling them "we as a society consider you to be unworthy to be one of us, and we don't believe you're even capable of being any better than you are" - is it then any wonder that a first offender leaves prison as something other than a model citizen?

I know I'm casting myself as a bleeding-heart liberal here, but that's only by contrast with the rather medieval attitudes I'm attempting to counter. If wanting a penal system that makes people less likely to become career criminals rather than more likely makes me a pinko lefty, then colour me pink - but at least I'm thinking with my brain about the subject, rather than my bile duct.

No you aren't. Firstly you keep saying the American system doesnt work but crime has fallen for a generation. And there is huge statistical evidence that arresting people for small crimes and punishing them leads to massive reductions in overall crime. In New York serious crime has dropped by 80%.

( this happens in the midst of a drug epidemic which initially saw crime rates sky rocket).

You ignore counter arguments? How can someone who gets 2 consecutive life sentences reoffend? This is the crime we are talking about here. You are also assuming the conclusion i.e Prison made these people bad - the problem most of us have is that many violent criminals amass 50+ convictions without seeing prison. Then they kill some one.

bizmark

nuac wrote: »

imho Gardai and judges do their best, but there are some legal constraints

A few suggestions

1. Everybody should be obliged to carry an identity card and produce it on demand

2 . Everybody should be obliged to account for their movements to Gardai

3. Bail provisions to be tightened up - this may involve having High court revisit the issue

4. Finger prints should be recorded on driving licences an d on a central database - I presume a data base of these would be searchable by computer

5. Anyb ody convicted of any robbery or other offence involving violence be obliged to have a tracker device attached for at least five years

Good god i to want to live in the former USSR people makeing suggestions like this scare the **** out of me

oscarBravo

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Hence my belief in a two tier system - Repeat offenders should be housed and treated separately having wasted their chances. The resources should be spent on those that need help and want to change.

I will completely agree with this perspective when we're breaking our societal balls to attempt to rehabilitate offenders, and not before it.

At the moment, there seems to be an attitude that if someone spent a few months crapping in a bucket in Mountjoy and committed another crime when they were let out, they are clearly fundamentally evil to the core of their being and beyond all hope of rehabilitation.

Bollox to that.

When we've tried - genuinely tried hard, with the necessary resources and attitudes carefully crafted by studying and learning from international best practice - to rehabilitate an offender, and they have squandered those opportunities, then we can start thinking about claiming that they are beyond help.

oscarBravo

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Firstly you keep saying the American system doesnt work but crime has fallen for a generation.

Do you really want American incarceration rates? Ireland has 4,200-odd people in prison right now. With American incarceration rates, we would have 34,000 people locked up.

You think that's a good thing?

You ignore counter arguments? How can someone who gets 2 consecutive life sentences reoffend?

They can't, but you're measuring the success of a penal system solely by capacity to re-offend. By that metric, all we have to do is introduce the death penalty for petty crimes, and we'll have a recidivism rate of zero. Yay!

But that would be stupid, because there are many, many more variables to be considered, and one of those is that people - even those who commit multiple crimes - are human beings with human rights.

We could model our penal system on America, or Saudi Arabia, or Norway. Yet again: I want the one that makes society better for all of us. If you think America is some sort of paradisical society just because crime rates aren't quite as terrifying as they were a generation ago... well, we'll agree to differ.

You are also assuming the conclusion i.e Prison made these people bad...

No. You're assuming I'm assuming that. What I'm saying is that prison makes bad people worse. That's a problem we need to fix.

...the problem most of us have is that many violent criminals amass 50+ convictions without seeing prison. Then they kill some one.

Sure. That's a broken system. But the solution to that problem can't be one-dimensional, or it will introduce more problems.