Enough

bmaxi

djpbarry wrote: »

Pensioners are well looked after in Ireland, so I’ve no idea why this was brought into the discussion. Whether people like it or not, running a prison is an expensive gig and if people want tougher sentencing, it’s going to cost them.

I really don't know where you get this impression and it was brought into the discussion by way of comparison.

Prisons are expensive to run because they're run on the lines of an establishment for paying guests rather than a place of punishment for criminals.
All this rubbish about rehabilitation is just that, rubbish, psychologists and psychiatrists justifying their own existence to the PC and bleeding heart brigade. The very least that should be expected is that criminals should be made to pay in some material way for their crimes, rather than to spend their time in comparative ease while their victims can be scarred for life both mentally and physically, deprivation of liberty is not sufficient in the case of habitual criminals.

MilanPan!c

bmaxi wrote: »

As the past few weeks have demonstrated, funding tends not to be an issue where certain projects are concerned. Millions and billions are readily available as civil servants devise ever more spurious reasons to extract more taxes from Seán Citizen.
Latest figures suggest it costs c.€100,000 p.a. to keep a prisoner in prison, yet an OAP is expected to feed, clothe and heat themselves for one tenth of that, and that's before rent, medicines and other necessities are considered. Now it is proposed to tax them again for the water they need to survive.
Why are criminals pampered, why do their cells have to be heated night and day, indeed why do the need to be heated at all, why do they need to have a choice of menu at each meal? I would have no qualms in sending the likes of Gilligan, Meehan and Co. and all habitual criminals out, in whatever weather to build flood defences, dig ditches, shovel ****, whatever, so long as they were making a contribution to society. Instead they are left to sit all day long in their cells, no doubt organising their criminal empires for the next job. Anybody who has spent all day mixing concrete by hand on a building site will tell you, it's a good way to focus mind and body. Slash the budget for the prisons and use the money to recruit more Gardaí, leave these scum to stew in their own juice.
I watched a documentary recently where a volunteer was recreating the daily life of a prisoner in nineteenth century England. His daily existence comprised moving a pile of earth from one place to another, without benefit of a wheelbarrow, he was given twelve hours to do it and was not given an evening meal of bread and soup, if he did not complete it, the next day he moved it back. This would continue for the duration of his sentence. As the actor said, " by the end of the day, I wasn't likely to be a problem to
anybody"
Before the bleeding hearts jump in with, Dickensian or rabbit on about rehabilitation, ask yourself, how much rehabilitation will it take to restore quality of life to Veronica Gueirin or Jerry Mc Cabe, or even that family in Tipperary who I mentioned in an earlier post.

If we only had a way to change which politicians represented us......

spank_inferno

bmaxi wrote: »

I really don't know where you get this impression and it was brought into the discussion by way of comparison.

Prisons are expensive to run because they're run on the lines of an establishment for paying guests rather than a place of punishment for criminals.
All this rubbish about rehabilitation is just that, rubbish, psychologists and psychiatrists justifying their own existence to the PC and bleeding heart brigade. The very least that should be expected is that criminals should be made to pay in some material way for their crimes, rather than to spend their time in comparative ease while their victims can be scarred for life both mentally and physically, deprivation of liberty is not sufficient in the case of habitual criminals.

What is your solution then Maxi (seeing as incarceration is not enough).

djpbarry

bmaxi wrote: »

Prisons are expensive to run because they're run on the lines of an establishment for paying guests rather than a place of punishment for criminals.

Well, that’ll be why the Irish prison system was heavily criticised in a recent Council of Europe report.

http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/irl/2011-03-inf-eng.htm

bmaxi wrote: »

All this rubbish about rehabilitation is just that, rubbish, psychologists and psychiatrists justifying their own existence to the PC and bleeding heart brigade.

So rehabilitation is impossible, is it? There are absolutely no examples of reformed criminals?

bmaxi wrote: »

...criminals should be made to pay in some material way for their crimes...

How about by reforming them? That way they rejoin society and pay taxes.

oscarBravo

bmaxi wrote: »

On the other hand it could be an argument for a tougher prison regime.

It could also be an argument for burning them at the stake. Before you say that there's an argument for something, you need to determine whether or not it's a good argument for it, and whether there are better arguments for the alternatives.

bmaxi wrote: »

All this rubbish about rehabilitation is just that, rubbish, psychologists and psychiatrists justifying their own existence to the PC and bleeding heart brigade. The very least that should be expected is that criminals should be made to pay in some material way for their crimes, rather than to spend their time in comparative ease while their victims can be scarred for life both mentally and physically, deprivation of liberty is not sufficient in the case of habitual criminals.

If what you want is to derive satisfaction from the suffering of others, fair enough; but if you want to reduce the likelihood of a prisoner re-offending, then you need to get over your ill-founded disdain for the people who actually study these issues, and realise that rehabilitation works much, much better than punishment.

I grant you, rehabilitation doesn't satisfy the visceral desire some people have to see others suffer, but I'm not convinced that's a good argument against it.

ART6

djpbarry wrote: »

Just to be clear – you’re attempting to link a robbery in a small Irish town with the bailout?
So you want a Garda presence, country-wide, 24 hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week, 365-days-a-year? How many more Gards would be required for such a colossal surveillance operation and how much would it all cost?
You know this how?

I am not sure whether you are asking your first question as a moderator or simply as a commentator. Of course I don't link the bailout directly to the robbery of my local shop since in spite of what you imply I am not a complete idiot. However, the bailout landed the people with an unsustainable debt that was not theirs in the first place, and the government of the day and its predecessors saw it fit to obey the instructions of an unelected bureaucrat (Trichet) and apply a level of austerity that required massive cuts in public services, including public protection. This when the Irish times has now published an article quoting the Bundesbank as saying that they were in favour of the Irish bank bond holders bearing at least some of the cost of their gambling. The Bundesbank that is being blamed for our problems? Irrespective of this the current government has toed the ECB line slavishly to the extent that "savings must be made" as long as they are not in the incomes of the great and the good. So yes. There is a tenuous connection between the raid on my local village shop and the bail out.

Again, because I don't consider myself to be a complete idiot, I don't expect there to be three or more Gardai for every community of 100 people, and to suggest that was my demand is fatuous. What I cannot accept is that it is possible for a gang of two to raid three shops in an area with impunity, to traumatise a small lady behind the counter to the extent that she will possibly never work in a shop again. A small lady that is my friend. What I cannot accept is that if the miscreants are eventually caught (unlikely) they will be given probation, suspended sentences, time off for good behavior, bail, and even allowed time off to be with their families over Christmas because they had a deprived upbringing (mother never gave me a teddy bear). God give me strength!

I repeat. This has got to stop Mr. Shatter. It is your hands, not those of your predecessors in government however much you might like to blame them and however much they are blameworthy. I, and I suspect many others, want an end to the soundbites and would prefer to see some action that gives our property, our elderly, our families and our shopkeepers the protection that they are entitled to expect and which you have denied them.

bmaxi

djpbarry wrote: »

No, it isn't. You are proposing a Victorian prison system, on the grounds that the worst criminals don't deserve to have basic needs met.

There are very good reasons why civilized societies don't treat convicted criminals the same way the were treated one hundred years ago. I mean, it's not like violent crime wasn't an issue for the Victorians.

I'm not proposing they shouldn't have their basic needs met, I never said that. I'm saying that in comparison to Victorian times they are pampered and I don't accept that criminals should be pampered. To whose benefit is this? Are criminals less likely to re-offend because they spent one quarter of an already, IMO, inadequate sentence, in a space equivalent to the space allocated to a patient in a public ward and probably with better facilities? As I've said before, prison is a place you shouldn't ever want to return to and not just because the steak was a bit tough.

djpbarry

ART6 wrote: »

I am not sure whether you are asking your first question as a moderator or simply as a commentator.

I don’t moderate this forum.

ART6 wrote: »

There is a tenuous connection between the raid on my local village shop and the bail out.

It’s an incredibly tenuous connection, given that the only way to prevent crime completely would be to blanket the country with law enforcers, which is obviously completely impractical. There will always be areas with a lower Garda presence than others.

There is a police station less than one kilometre from where I live, but it didn’t stop my flat being broken into around this time last year. A neighbour witnessed someone trying to gain access and called the police – I’m told they were on the scene in less than five minutes. But, the perpetrators were still not caught and made away with plenty of my stuff.

ART6 wrote: »

Again, because I don't consider myself to be a complete idiot, I don't expect there to be three or more Gardai for every community of 100 people, and to suggest that was my demand is fatuous. What I cannot accept is that it is possible for a gang of two to raid three shops in an area with impunity...

Likewise, I don’t like the fact that the guys who raided my flat likely raided others before mine and have likely raided others since. However, I’m not entirely sure what you suggest be done about it? Catching a burglar once they’ve left a scene is an incredibly difficult task, but, I'm fairly confident they'll be caught for something eventually.

ART6 wrote: »

What I cannot accept is that if the miscreants are eventually caught (unlikely) they will be given probation, suspended sentences, time off for good behavior, bail, and even allowed time off to be with their families over Christmas because they had a deprived upbringing (mother never gave me a teddy bear).

Now you’re just making assumptions.

ART6 wrote: »

I repeat. This has got to stop Mr. Shatter. It is your hands, not those of your predecessors in government however much you might like to blame them and however much they are blameworthy. I, and I suspect many others, want an end to the soundbites and would prefer to see some action that gives our property, our elderly, our families and our shopkeepers the protection that they are entitled to expect and which you have denied them.

You make it sound like the minister is doing his utmost to flood the country with hardened criminals. You really think he wouldn’t build several new prisons and deploy thousands of extra Gardaí if he could?

djpbarry

bmaxi wrote: »

I'm saying that in comparison to Victorian times they are pampered and I don't accept that criminals should be pampered.

I don't accept that they are pampered. Ever been inside a typical prison cell in Ireland - it ain't pleasant.

bmaxi wrote: »

To whose benefit is this? Are criminals less likely to re-offend because they spent one quarter of an already, IMO, inadequate sentence, in a space equivalent to the space allocated to a patient in a public ward and probably with better facilities?

It’s obvious you are completely unaware of the conditions in Irish prisons and I don’t really see the point in continuing the discussion until you at least try and inform yourself of the facts. For example, many Irish prisons have serious drug problems, so guys who committed relatively minor crimes go in to serve their short sentence and they emerge as junkies – to whose benefit is that?

hmmm

Prisons aren't expensive because of "pampering". They are expensive because they are run by the public service, with exorbitant salaries and all the other associated bonuses and pensions that go with this.

As for the original point, we can't afford a guard on every street. What we can do is make sure that proper sentences are handed out, and that criminals with multiple convictions are put away for a long time. So, raise it with politicians the next time you see them, and don't go off on some vague rant about bondholders.

ART6

oscarBravo wrote: »

It could also be an argument for burning them at the stake. Before you say that there's an argument for something, you need to determine whether or not it's a good argument for it, and whether there are better arguments for the alternatives.

If what you want is to derive satisfaction from the suffering of others, fair enough; but if you want to reduce the likelihood of a prisoner re-offending, then you need to get over your ill-founded disdain for the people who actually study these issues, and realise that rehabilitation works much, much better than punishment.

I grant you, rehabilitation doesn't satisfy the visceral desire some people have to see others suffer, but I'm not convinced that's a good argument against it.

Much though I would not wish to contest the opinions of a Boards administrator (yes, I would!), I at least don't demand burning anyone at the stake however attractive that seems for the moment. What I do require is that the people whom I elect to represent me apply the basic tenants of civilisation and government -- the protection and peace of the people. I expect them to put before me a reasoned and concise policy to deal with the issues that face us as a community without political and meaningless soundbites. As an individual I don't have the answers to all of these issues, which is why I rely upon the consensus of the views of the majority in general elections and hope for the (rare) occurrences when the views of the majority will be listened to.

"Rehabilitation" in our prison system has of course clearly worked, as has our criminal justice system. What is the rehabilitation of a couple of years (suspended) in a holiday camp for someone who has decided that it is more remunerative to prey on the sheep than to actually work for his money? What is the "rehabilitation" of someone who has beaten a pensioner to the ground to steal his pension only to be given a community service order that he will ignore? What is the "rehabilitation" of a Garda who has stuck his neck on the line to apprehend a violent criminal, and been injured in the process, only to see that criminal be released with a slap on the wrist to go with his other fifty or so convictions?

Okay so. I am just Joe Public and am uninformed but opinionated. I have a disdain for the people who actually study the issues? Fine, so when are all of these studies of the experts going to deal with the problem?

bmaxi

oscarBravo wrote: »

It could also be an argument for burning them at the stake. Before you say that there's an argument for something, you need to determine whether or not it's a good argument for it, and whether there are better arguments for the alternatives.

If what you want is to derive satisfaction from the suffering of others, fair enough; but if you want to reduce the likelihood of a prisoner re-offending, then you need to get over your ill-founded disdain for the people who actually study these issues, and realise that rehabilitation works much, much better than punishment.

I grant you, rehabilitation doesn't satisfy the visceral desire some people have to see others suffer, but I'm not convinced that's a good argument against it.

Visceral desire, eh. So you equate any desire to see justice done with some sort of primeval blood lust?
I would put the success rate of rehabilitation among habitual criminals on the same level as a dentist treating hens for tooth decay. As regards looking on psychologists with disdain, you have to look at their spectacular failures, John Gallagher and Ernest Saunders are two that spring to mind, people who have hoodwinked these supposed experts to escape the full rigours of the law. Quacks.

bmaxi

djpbarry wrote: »

I don't accept that they are pampered. Ever been inside a typical prison cell in Ireland - it ain't pleasant.
It’s obvious you are completely unaware of the conditions in Irish prisons and I don’t really see the point in continuing the discussion until you at least try and inform yourself of the facts. For example, many Irish prisons have serious drug problems, so guys who committed relatively minor crimes go in to serve their short sentence and they emerge as junkies – to whose benefit is that?

Well, as you seem to be well informed perhaps you can enlighten me, that is if you can bring yourself down to my level to discuss it of course.
How are these drugs and the means to administer them getting into supposedly secure institutions? Why are they not picked up in the "systematic searches" that are "routinely" carried out in these same institutions. Why are sniffer dogs not finding them?

ART6

djpbarry wrote: »

I don't accept that they are pampered. Ever been inside a typical prison cell in Ireland - it ain't pleasant.
It’s obvious you are completely unaware of the conditions in Irish prisons and I don’t really see the point in continuing the discussion until you at least try and inform yourself of the facts. For example, many Irish prisons have serious drug problems, so guys who committed relatively minor crimes go in to serve their short sentence and they emerge as junkies – to whose benefit is that?

They come out as junkies? Did someone force feed them cocaine? If I am imprisoned for not paying my TV license do I come out as a druggie? Prison cells are not supposed to be pleasant.

jmayo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Correct. Hence the argument for rehabilitation.

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, that’ll be why the Irish prison system was heavily criticised in a recent Council of Europe report.

http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/irl/2011-03-inf-eng.htm
So rehabilitation is impossible, is it? There are absolutely no examples of reformed criminals?
How about by reforming them? That way they rejoin society and pay taxes.

Ok rather than reply to all the ones rabitting on about rehabilitation let me ask you to answer a few questions.

Hands up anyone who thinks that gerard barry (the guy that kicked a guy to death in Eyre Square, committed multipe rapes and raped and murdered Mauella Reido) should be allowed out ever again ?
Let me ask those of the save them brigade "would you want him living on your road?"

Hands up who thinks that larry murphy should have been allowed out after 10/12 odd years after he had been found to steal a car, kidnap, multiple rape and attempt the murder of his victim and then refuse any therapy ?
Why did he get remission ??
Oh wait is was his first offense.
Does the seriousness of the offense not matter, because trust me it damm well matters to the victim.
Who the christ came up with the idea that you automatically get remission ?

There are countless other major reoffenders.
Every other day we hear about the assassination of someone known to the Gardaí who it turns out has a list of convictions as long as your arm.
Are we meant to continously waste resources trying to rehabilitate them ?
Why are multiple offenders excused, allowed out on bail and get remissions on sentences.

I have often quoted the cases of two other multiple killers who have served time, done some rehabilitation and yet killed again once they are allowed out.

Why the fook can't some people get into their heads that rehabilitation is a waste for some and that those of us who want tougher sentences, no bail, etc don't mean that some guy who committed his first minor offense should be shackled in a dungoen for life ?

To show the rediculousness of it, you get TV license evaders getting jailtime and the likes of the six in the Tipperary incident getting bail.
It is a joke.
Some prisoners/offenders may be rehabilitated, but why waste time and money on those who have carried out very serious crime and/or reoffended ?
And why go light on those who have reoffended.
Remember many of their victims never got a second chance.

bmaxi

hmmm wrote: »

Prisons aren't expensive because of "pampering". They are expensive because they are run by the public service, with exorbitant salaries and all the other associated bonuses and pensions that go with this.

As for the original point, we can't afford a guard on every street. What we can do is make sure that proper sentences are handed out, and that criminals with multiple convictions are put away for a long time. So, raise it with politicians the next time you see them, and don't go off on some vague rant about bondholders.

Perhaps we should follow the example of the UK and privatise them. Group Four made such a good job of that that the government felt compelled to re-nationalise them. It's easy to run prisons on a shoestring when you can't manage to keep anybody in them. :):)

oscarBravo

ART6 wrote: »

Okay so. I am just Joe Public and am uninformed but opinionated.

Realising it is a good start.

I have a disdain for the people who actually study the issues?

I didn't accuse you of disdain for anyone.

bmaxi wrote: »

Visceral desire, eh. So you equate any desire to see justice done with some sort of primeval blood lust?

You're confusing justice with revenge. You've given no indication that you think we should punish people in order to make society safer; you've only indicated that we should punish people because you feel they deserve to be punished.

If you can produce some evidence that making people do harder time will reduce recidivism rates more effectively than making a genuine effort to rehabilitate them, please do so.

As regards looking on psychologists with disdain, you have to look at their spectacular failures, John Gallagher and Ernest Saunders are two that spring to mind, people who have hoodwinked these supposed experts to escape the full rigours of the law. Quacks.

Andrew Wakefield is a fraud and a liar. Does that mean that we should ignore everything that doctors have to say?

jmayo wrote: »

Why the fook can't some people get into their heads that rehabilitation is a waste for some and that those of us who want tougher sentences, no bail, etc don't mean that some guy who committed his first minor offense should be shackled in a dungoen for life ?

Rehabilitation may be wasted on some, but that is a piss-poor argument for replacing any attempt at rehabilitation with tougher punishment for all offenders. If the only lesson people learn in prison is that society doesn't consider them worthy of being treated like a decent human being, why are people surprised when people leave prison and don't act like decent human beings?

Icepick

bmaxi wrote: »

Firstly, I thing the OP is being naive in assuming that living in a small isolated community

There is no such a thing as an isolated community in (mainland) Ireland. It's not the 18th century any more.

MilanPan!c

Icepick wrote: »

There is no such a thing as an isolated community in (mainland) Ireland. It's not the 18th century any more.

Meh. It's relative.

bmaxi

[QUOTE

oscarBravo wrote: »

Realising it is a good start. I didn't accuse you of disdain for anyone.

You don't lend any weight to your argument by being condescending.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're confusing justice with revenge. You've given no indication that you think we should punish people in order to make society safer; you've only indicated that we should punish people because you feel they deserve to be punished.

I didn't decide they deserved to be punished, the courts decided that, that's why they're in prison. My argument is that in a lot of cases the punishment doesn't fit the crime

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you can produce some evidence that making people do harder time will reduce recidivism rates more effectively than making a genuine effort to rehabilitate them, please do so. Andrew Wakefield is a fraud and a liar. Does that mean that we should ignore everything that doctors have to say?

How do you suggest I do that when that sort of regime doesn't exist in Ireland. I'm sure if I produced it from another country, you'd deem it irrelevant.



[QUOTE=oscarBravo;88643779

Andrew Wakefield is a fraud and a liar. Does that mean that we should ignore everything that doctors have to say?

[/QUOTE]

Comparing doctors and Psychologists is not apples and apples. Medical misdiagnoses will, in time, manifest themselves physically, the same cannot be said of psychiatric misdiagnoses.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Rehabilitation may be wasted on some, but that is a piss-poor argument for replacing any attempt at rehabilitation with tougher punishment for all offenders. If the only lesson people learn in prison is that society doesn't consider them worthy of being treated like a decent human being, why are people surprised when people leave prison and don't act like decent human beings?

We tend not to lock up decent human beings for serious crime

oscarBravo

bmaxi wrote: »

I didn't decide they deserved to be punished, the courts decided that, that's why they're in prison. My argument is that in a lot of cases the punishment doesn't fit the crime

You're still talking about punishment. You're expressing no interest whatsoever in the question of how best to protect society. All you are talking about is retribution. If vengeance makes society less safe, well, that's just the price of a pound of flesh.

How do you suggest I do that when that sort of regime doesn't exist in Ireland. I'm sure if I produced it from another country, you'd deem it irrelevant.

You could start by comparing recidivism rates in the US - a country where prison is pretty much about nothing whatsoever but the sort of punishment you advocate - with those in Norway, which almost certainly fits your idea of bleeding heart PC liberalism.

If, that is, you're interested in making society safer.

Comparing doctors and Psychologists is not apples and apples. Medical misdiagnoses will, in time, manifest themselves physically, the same cannot be said of psychiatric misdiagnoses.

So society would be better off without psychiatrists and psychologists? We should go back to the good old days when we locked people with mental illness away for life?

We tend not to lock up decent human beings for serious crime

It's probably fair to say that we release a lot fewer decent human beings from prison than we lock up in the first place.

But hey: as long as they're being punished, it's all good.

Black Swan

ART6 wrote: »

I am not sure whether you are asking your first question as a moderator...

ART6 wrote: »

Much though I would not wish to contest the opinions of a Boards administrator (yes, I would!)...

MOD REMINDER: The positions of these members on boards had nothing to do with the content of their posts or the topic of this discussion. In the future please refrain from making such references: Focus on the post content, and not the person.

ART6

Black Swan wrote: »

MOD REMINDER: The positions of these members on boards had nothing to do with the content of their posts or the topic of this discussion. In the future please refrain from making such references: Focus on the post content, and not the person.

My apologies. It was not my intention to offend either poster. PM sent.

Anyway, latest news on this item is that the three men responsible have been arrested. Well done AGS!

Zubeneschamali

ART6 wrote: »

Anyway, latest news on this item is that the three men responsible have been arrested.

So, arrested in short order, as I suggested.

Not roaming the countryside with impunity, as you suggested.

Are you going to admit you were wrong?

Vote Fine Gael?

K-9

ART6 wrote: »

My apologies. It was not my intention to offend either poster. PM sent.

Anyway, latest news on this item is that the three men responsible have been arrested. Well done AGS!

In fairness some posters do get confused about moderators and admins.

Just a general note, you'll see the category they mod under the tag moderator on the left.

Mods can post as normal users and participate in a discussion, mod requests and actions are usually posted in bold so that users can differentiate from normal posting.

ART6

oscarBravo wrote: »

Realising it is a good start. I didn't accuse you of disdain for anyone.

You're confusing justice with revenge. You've given no indication that you think we should punish people in order to make society safer; you've only indicated that we should punish people because you feel they deserve to be punished.

If you can produce some evidence that making people do harder time will reduce recidivism rates more effectively than making a genuine effort to rehabilitate them, please do so. Andrew Wakefield is a fraud and a liar. Does that mean that we should ignore everything that doctors have to say?

Rehabilitation may be wasted on some, but that is a piss-poor argument for replacing any attempt at rehabilitation with tougher punishment for all offenders. If the only lesson people learn in prison is that society doesn't consider them worthy of being treated like a decent human being, why are people surprised when people leave prison and don't act like decent human beings?

Going by your user name and by the knowledge displayed by your posts I imagine that you are involved in law enforcement (I am not asking -- it's none of my business ). If that's so then I expect that you know much more about the subject than I do. My limited knowledge is sadly only that obtained from the media, and that is not usually a good source. So, I would be happy if rehabilitation worked, and possibly in many cases it does although the evidence seems to me to be that in many other cases it doesn't. Perhaps, though, there is one significant barrier to its doing so -- for example, if someone is sentenced and serves time for a violent armed robbery, is rehabilitated and released, how does he then support himself as a responsible member of the community? Who is going to employ him given his record? Is rehabilitation simply the first step without any follow up? What actually happens afterwards?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So, arrested in short order, as I suggested.

Not roaming the countryside with impunity, as you suggested.

Are you going to admit you were wrong?

Vote Fine Gael?

Well, they managed, I am told, to attack three shops in the area and were not caught until the following day. That is not a criticism of the Gardai, who clearly didn't hang about in this case! However, the point of my first and later posts was that the public perception seems to be that violent armed robbery of shops and family homes is on the increase, and the justice minister's response is to close 100 rural Garda stations.

Of course I have no means of knowing whether or not this particular crime would still have been committed if there had been a Garda station in our village, but I can't help wondering if their knowledge that the nearest one was on the other side of the city something like ten miles away gave them some comfort. Anyway, it is not just a matter of how many small stations there are, but more a case of resources. I would argue that we need a better resourced Gardai, with significantly more of them. If, for example, the robbers knew that there were Garda patrol cars out on the roads in numbers and might quickly turn up anywhere, they might have pause for thought. My (limited) perception is that this government and its predecessor has taken the opposite approach and, if so, has failed in its duty to the public.

So no, I am not yet going to "admit that I was wrong" on the strength of this particular case. I will happily do so when I see evidence that the problem of violent armed crime is being addressed. That doesn't necessarily mean draconian punishments or flogging at the stake (tempting though that might be for some crimes :rolleyes:), or the end of rehabilitation since I can believe that there are a number of complex issues involved. I just am not convinced by endless ministerial sound bites and little else. And I won't be voting for FG, or Labour, or FF at the next election since I have no faith in any of them.

Zubeneschamali

ART6 wrote: »

However, the point of my first and later posts was that the public perception seems to be that violent armed robbery of shops and family homes is on the increase, and the justice minister's response is to close 100 rural Garda stations.

Your original point was that armed gangs are roaming with impunity and it's time for us citizens to kill them ourselves instead of relying on the guards.

Paranoid nonsense.

spank_inferno

So in a nutshell.

There was a couple of burglaries down in Waterford.

Therefore the country is in anarchy & we must arm ourselves.

2days later burglars arrested & I suppose the country is no longer going to the dogs.

ART6

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Your original point was that armed gangs are roaming with impunity and it's time for us citizens to kill them ourselves instead of relying on the guards.

Paranoid nonsense.

Okay, have it your way! Perhaps I am paranoid when I read of families and elderly citizens being targeted in their homes by increasingly violent criminals. Do those criminals roam with impunity? I can only go by what I read or hear in the media. What happened here in Waterford only demonstrates the efficiency of the local Gardai, but it doesn't change my opinion of what is happening nationwide.

And in case of doubt, I don't particularly want to arm myself to defend my home and my family. I don't have an urge to kill a robber. I believe that the protection of the people from them is the responsibility of the state. I don't want to wake up in the middle of the night to face two or more men armed with guns and knives and to face the sheer terror of knowing that I must resist when I don't have the skills to do so. I don't want to discover that the lady employed to look after our rural village shop in the absence of the owner for half an hour has been threatened by two armed thugs to the extent that she is so traumatised that she will never feel comfortable there again.

So putting aside your suggestion that my opinions are paranoid nonsense -- an accusation that I find insulting-- I remain to be convinced that this issue nationwide is being properly addressed.

Zubeneschamali

ART6 wrote: »

Okay, have it your way! Perhaps I am paranoid

Can't say fairer than that!

ART6

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Can't say fairer than that!

I reserve any comment, although I am sorely tempted.:mad:

djpbarry

bmaxi wrote: »

How are these drugs and the means to administer them getting into supposedly secure institutions? Why are they not picked up in the "systematic searches" that are "routinely" carried out in these same institutions. Why are sniffer dogs not finding them?

Hang on a second – I thought you didn’t give a damn about the well-being of prisoners? Now you want to expend resources to make sure they don’t have access to drugs?

bmaxi wrote: »

Comparing doctors and Psychologists is not apples and apples. Medical misdiagnoses will, in time, manifest themselves physically, the same cannot be said of psychiatric misdiagnoses.

Psychopathy, for example, is often misdiagnosed:
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/july-2012/psychopathy-an-important-forensic-concept-for-the-21st-century

djpbarry

jmayo wrote: »

Why the fook can't some people get into their heads that rehabilitation is a waste for some...

I don’t recall anyone arguing otherwise?

djpbarry

ART6 wrote: »

However, the point of my first and later posts was that the public perception seems to be that violent armed robbery of shops and family homes is on the increase, and the justice minister's response is to close 100 rural Garda stations.

Contrary to popular belief, crime generally is on the decrease: http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/crimejustice/2010/qnhscrimeandvictimisation2010.pdf

ART6 wrote: »

I don't want to wake up in the middle of the night to face two or more men armed with guns and knives and to face the sheer terror of knowing that I must resist when I don't have the skills to do so.

Nobody does, but of course, the probability of you being faced with such a situation is extremely low. In 2010, 3% of houses experienced burglaries and about half of the time, the property was occupied at the time of the incident. In 95% of cases, no weapon was used, so, if we ignore the fact that burglaries are far more likely in urban areas than rural, the chances of you being faced with armed burglars in your home in any 12-month period is about 1 in 1,300. For the purposes of comparison, you’ve a roughly 1 in 3,000 chance of being struck by lightning at some point during your life.

jmayo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Rehabilitation may be wasted on some, but that is a piss-poor argument for replacing any attempt at rehabilitation with tougher punishment for all offenders.

The problem is that a lot of our sentencing is cr**.
Remember the ex garda who now sits on the bench, who decided that sex offenders should get suspended sentences if they pay off their victims, while on the other hand a garlic smuggler, who is repaying his import duties, gets consecutive sentences.

Hell larry murphy didn't get consecutive sentences.

Across the board tougher sentences are needed for serious criminals and particularly repeat offenders.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the only lesson people learn in prison is that society doesn't consider them worthy of being treated like a decent human being, why are people surprised when people leave prison and don't act like decent human beings?

Ahh the poor pets.
You don't seem to quiet get the fact that some of them are not decent human beings and once they have crossed the line they should lose the right to be treated as such.
Some people do not deserve the label of being an animal nevermind that of a human being.

What about the victims, are they worthy of consideration, are they worthy of being treated as decent human beings, because in our system the victims are often shabbily treated and forgotten apart from being added as another statistic ?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So, arrested in short order, as I suggested.

Not roaming the countryside with impunity, as you suggested.

Are you going to admit you were wrong?

Vote Fine Gael?

What's the bet that they are going to be out on bail and free to roam the country ?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Your original point was that armed gangs are roaming with impunity and it's time for us citizens to kill them ourselves instead of relying on the guards.

Paranoid nonsense.

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean you are necessarily wrong.

BillyBoy13

ART6 wrote: »

We can now resist them provided that we only use "reasonable force" when those of us who are not trained in the military or the Gardai would not know what "reasonable force" is.

Reasonable force is a pretty straight forward concept. People seem to think if someone robs your house you have an automatic right to assault them.

2 wrongs don't make a right.

Just because he breaks the law by breaking into your house doesn't automatically give you the right to break the law too.

For example, you hear a noise one night, you creep down the stairs and see there's that hateful little 15 year old from the across the street and hes looking through the press in your living room.

You quietly pick up a baseball bat, creep up behind him he doesnt even realise you are there. Then you hit him as hard as you can across the head and when he falls down you start stamping on him. Even though hes unconscious you still continue to hit him with the bat.

You broke just about every bone in his body, organ damage etc... you leave him within a hair of his life and 8 months later he finally gets out of hospital but is paralysed from the neck down and has to eat soup for the rest of his life.

That wasn't self defense. That was an assault pure and simple. There is no way, in that scenario you can claim you were reasonably defending yourself.


Yes he broke into your house. Yes you are mad/pissed off/absolutely raging but that doesnt give you the green light to assault him.

ART6 wrote: »

Is smacking a knife-wielding intruder over the head with an axe reasonable force Mister Shatter?

There is no one size fits all answer regarding reasonable force. It depends on the circumstances...

Perhaps someone runs into your shop demanding the money from the till, you give it to him, he runs out the door with the money. As soon the door closes behind him you run out to the store room grab the axe and give chase. You finally catch him almost a kilometer down the road and then you buried the axe in his skull and killed him.

Or maybe he was robbing your house one night, you hear a noise and go down stairs. He charges at you with with the knife shouting and screaming and then you picked up the axe and hit him with it.


One of those examples is reasonable force the other one is assault... I'll leave you to figure out which ones which.

Naz_st

oscarBravo wrote: »

Rehabilitation may be wasted on some, but that is a piss-poor argument for replacing any attempt at rehabilitation with tougher punishment for all offenders.

I think it would be hard to argue that rehabilitation (or attempted) is not a good idea when it comes to a justice system, but I'm curious about this:

1) How does the current prison service actually pro-actively provide rehabilitation? (Genuine question, I don't know enough about it, I mean are there educational programs prisoners are made to go on, requirements on understanding victims and their impacts, etc)? I don't mean to say that there aren't former prisoners who are now reformed, but what about their stay in prison actively helped to rehabilitate them?

2) Rehabilitation takes time surely? From reports about "50 previous convictions etc", it would imply that offenders are not spending time actually in prison, so no rehabilitation can occur? Or they are spending very little time in prison, same outcome?

The second point is the key issue for me - I'm happy to have a rehabilitation-focused prison service (rather than simply locking up for punishments sake) if criminals who were convicted actually spent time in prison being rehabilitated...

djpbarry

jmayo wrote: »

Ahh the poor pets.
You don't seem to quiet get the fact that some of them are not decent human beings and once they have crossed the line they should lose the right to be treated as such.

You and others don’t seem to quite get the fact that most criminals in Ireland are not psychopathic, paedophilic rapists. Arguing against rehabilitation on the grounds that some criminals are beyond help is like arguing against law enforcement because some criminals are never caught.

jmayo

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Reasonable force is a pretty straight forward concept. People seem to think if someone robs your house you have an automatic right to assault them.

2 wrongs don't make a right.

Just because he breaks the law by breaking into your house doesn't automatically give you the right to break the law too.

For example, you hear a noise one night, you creep down the stairs and see there's that hateful little 15 year old from the across the street and hes looking through the press in your living room.

You quietly pick up a baseball bat, creep up behind him he doesnt even realise you are there. Then you hit him as hard as you can across the head and when he falls down you start stamping on him. Even though hes unconscious you still continue to hit him with the bat.

You broke just about every bone in his body, organ damage etc... you leave him within a hair of his life and 8 months later he finally gets out of hospital but is paralysed from the neck down and has to eat soup for the rest of his life.

That wasn't self defense. That was an assault pure and simple. There is no way, in that scenario you can claim you were reasonably defending yourself.


Yes he broke into your house. Yes you are mad/pissed off/absolutely raging but that doesnt give you the green light to assault him.

There is no one size fits all answer regarding reasonable force. It depends on the circumstances...

Perhaps someone runs into your shop demanding the money from the till, you give it to him, he runs out the door with the money. As soon the door closes behind him you run out to the store room grab the axe and give chase. You finally catch him almost a kilometer down the road and then you buried the axe in his skull and killed him.

Or maybe he was robbing your house one night, you hear a noise and go down stairs. He charges at you with with the knife shouting and screaming and then you picked up the axe and hit him with it.

One of those examples is reasonable force the other one is assault... I'll leave you to figure out which ones which.

I think you need to stop watching Quentin Tarantino movies.
You have gone to an extreme which actually rarely if ever happens.

You are disregarding the type of breakin/robberies that are sadly all too common enough in rural Ireland.
Those are the ones where people breakin to a house with elderly people and proceed to tie them up, beat them and almost torture them to extract some money from them.

Do you suggest the elderly victims do nothing if they have a chance to protect themselves.
A number of years ago I recall an incident in Galway where some such lowlifes broke into an eldlerly farmer one night.
He told them he had a gun and would shoot them if they came into the bedroom.
They did and he shot at one of them and hit him.
He fled but ended up in hospital.
If the farmer had blown his head clear off I think it was justified.

jmayo

djpbarry wrote: »

You and others don’t seem to quite get the fact that most criminals in Ireland are not psychopathic, paedophilic rapists. Arguing against rehabilitation on the grounds that some criminals are beyond help is like arguing against law enforcement because some criminals are never caught.

And it appears you and others think that prision should be some sort of readjustment centre where punishment never comes into it.
Ah shure being there is punishment enough, so might as well give them all the comforts of a hotel.

Ever hear of the carrot and the stick approach.

Where is the use in rehabilitation when it is the persons 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc time in prison ?
Where is the use of rehabilitation for someone that hasn't shown an ounce of genuine remorse for an awful crime they have committed ?

djpbarry

jmayo wrote: »

I think you need to stop watching Quentin Tarantino movies.
...
You are disregarding the type of breakin/robberies that are sadly all too common enough in rural Ireland.
Those are the ones where people breakin to a house with elderly people and proceed to tie them up, beat them and almost torture them to extract some money from them.

Eh, who needs to stop watching Tarantino movies?

jmayo wrote: »

And it appears you and others think that prision should be some sort of readjustment centre where punishment never comes into it.

The primary purpose of a criminal justice system is to protect society. The best way to protect society is to reform criminals, is it not?

jmayo wrote: »

Where is the use in rehabilitation when it is the persons 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc time in prison ?

You’re missing the obvious contradiction in your question.

Niall Keane

playing Devil's Advocate.....

How much does it cost to imprison someone for a year?

How much does it cost to build a prison?

How much would it cost to provide opportunities to disadvantaged communities rife with criminal element?

What kind of lack of opportunity and poverty drives someone to risk 3-5 years locked up for the takings of a till, probably less than a months salary for most here?

Once "criminalised", having a record, how does that look on a Job application?

Could repeat offending be not just a learned behaviour but perhaps a necessity?

If the average poster here was thus "given a record" and so outcast to the dole for life on 9.5K a year, would they happily oblige society and not take what they cannot earn? Particularly for their children?

Are prisons universities for criminals?

Worse still, are prisons "the masons" for criminals, a closed business network?

What is the difference regarding damage to society, between say selling alcohol and drugs?

Why does society abhor the criminal who raids a till, which is probably insured, and yet that same culture has films glorifying "Robin Hood"? (one could argue that the criminal introduces cash to our economy, and so stimulates growth?)

Could thieves simply be frustrated people denied opportunity by social contract but with the "drive" to be more successful than simply sitting on their rear on the dole?

Is this simply natural animal behaviour? a direct form of competing for resources? No one calls for cookoos to be caged because they steal the resources of other birds to the detriment of their offspring? Is "stealing" a deviant behaviour? or is the system that allows for such disparity of wealth, resources and opportunity the thing that is deviant?

If criminals disregard law and carry weapons in any case, who does it serve to disarm the general public?

Many call for the right to shoot thieves etc. but they never consider that retaliation may follow, and if a class war breaks out, the "have-nots" have the numbers!!! Perhaps such anarchy would be more natural?

If one robs a till one is branded a criminal, if one robs a country one is called a banker?

Nothing is black and white!

BillyBoy13

jmayo wrote: »

You have gone to an extreme which actually rarely if ever happens.

I used an extreme example to get the point across.

jmayo wrote: »

You are disregarding the type of breakin/robberies..........where people breakin to a house with elderly people and proceed to tie them up, beat them and almost torture them to extract some money from them.

Im not disregarding anything.

Like I said, there is no one size fits all when it comes to reasonable force.

Everything has to be considered. For example was Mike Tyson the house owner or was it a frail old lady. Did the home owner attack first even if there was no need, or did they feel threatened and then attack.

If they used a weapon why did they use a weapon and how did they use it and what way did they use it.

Again, extreme example, but if Mike Tyson comes down stairs after his shower and finds a 15 year old intruder who comes running swinging punches and Mike pulls out a shotgun and blows him away- its hard to say reasonable force.

If its a frail old granny in the country and the 15 year old comes running swinging punches and she blows him away with a shotgun then yes she can argue it was reasonable.

jmayo wrote: »

Do you suggest the elderly victims do nothing if they have a chance to protect themselves.

No I dont. I suggest everybody (not just elderly) do whatever they can to protect themselves- just so long as its reasonable.

jmayo wrote: »

A number of years ago I recall an incident in Galway where some such lowlifes broke into an eldlerly farmer one night.
He told them he had a gun and would shoot them if they came into the bedroom.
They did and he shot at one of them and hit him.
He fled but ended up in hospital.

Thats an excellent example of reasonable force and how it should work.

walshb

Damien360 wrote: »

There should be a limit and then you disappear for many years. Not quite 3 strikes and you are out, b
s.

Why? Once a mistake, twice is careless and three times is absolute deliberate and with malice.

walshb

I only read an article in the Irish Daily Mail yesterday about a 60 something con artist with 124 convictions and he's been up till recently robbing pensioners. 100 plus convictions. Vermin like that need to be permanently taken out of society.

For Reals

walshb wrote: »

Why? Once a mistake, twice is careless and three times is absolute deliberate and with malice.

Class bias. Three strikes could be a burglary, parking fine, TV licence. All it takes is an upper middle class judge with no idea of working class life....yeah unlikely I know

walshb

For Reals wrote: »

Class bias. Three strikes could be a burglary, parking fine, TV licence. All it takes is an upper middle class judge with no idea of working class life....yeah unlikely I know

Maybe bring in a 3 strike rule for a class of crimes?

Anyway, I have never had faith in our sentencing laws here. There's far too many instances where real scum are not punished effectively and fairly. Take murder, the most heinous of crimes. Average time spent in prison is 17 years. That is disgusting.

Niall Keane

walshb wrote: »

Maybe bring in a 3 strike rule for a class of crimes?

Anyway, I have never had faith in our sentencing laws here. There's far too many instances where real scum are not punished effectively and fairly. Take murder, the most heinous of crimes. Average time spent in prison is 17 years. That is disgusting.

I believe there are problems with that in the US, where rapists become murderers after number 2 and armed robbers - killers, as in both cases "witnesses" present a problem!!!

Niall Keane

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/food-poverty-affects-457-000-people-across-the-state-1.1630073

no need for me to comment!

jmayo

djpbarry wrote: »

Eh, who needs to stop watching Tarantino movies?

Yer man Bill the kid (BillyBoy13) below.

djpbarry wrote: »

The primary purpose of a criminal justice system is to protect society. The best way to protect society is to reform criminals, is it not?
You’re missing the obvious contradiction in your question.

Maybe the best thing is to just shoot the worse of them ala Russia or China.
Please tell me one reason the likes of gerard barry should ever be allowed free again ?

What good is he doing sitting in jail wasting resources that could be spent on someone that might contribute more to society than pain and suffering ?

Our justice system is not protecting people, that is the problem.
Look at the list of murderers who have committed multiple offences.
Look at the list of rapists who have committed multiple offences.

My point is some people are beyond reform, if you rape and kill a young innocent girl, after having raped another girl, after having led a gang to kick someone to death, then you don't deserve anything bar incarceration‎ for the rest of your life.

If a young fellow is in for first offence and it aint rape or murder then fine try to rehabilitate them.
The younger that a potential career criminal is helped the better.
But lets not waste resources on a career criminal who has bludgoened some poor sod to death and is on his 50 conviction.

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

... Again, extreme example, but if Mike Tyson comes down stairs after his shower and finds a 15 year old intruder who comes running swinging punches and Mike pulls out a shotgun and blows him away- its hard to say reasonable force.

I would say the 15 year old deserved it for being muppet enough to start swinging at old Mike.
Think Darwins Law and all that.

For Reals wrote: »

Class bias. Three strikes could be a burglary, parking fine, TV licence. All it takes is an upper middle class judge with no idea of working class life....yeah unlikely I know

I absolutely hate this cr** about working class.
Most of those who come from certain areas are not working class, they are the "never work class".
Of course that is the fault of everyone else bar themselves.