Enough

walshb

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?
.

I agree it's best to reform criminals, but do you believe a convicted murderer should ever see the light of day again?

AlekSmart

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

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

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

An excellent example indeed.

However,the reality of current life in Ireland is one where the victims of aggrivated burglaries and other such attacks on the person are not afforded time to carry out the risk-assessment which this "Reasonable" response requires.

The majority of us are not walking about wearing Flak-Jackets to cope with known threats to our wellbeing,as we have an expectation that we can live our lives without let or hinderance from others (except,perhaps The Revenue Commissioners),as long as we show similar respect to others.

High minded arguements regarding the merits of Rehabilitation and Punishment are quite enjoyable until the situation rocks up on your own doorstep,whereupon one is forced to stare sheer unpredictable evil straight in the eye whilst wondering if he takes sugar in his tea.

What tends to annoy,and perhaps worry,a great many reformists is the regularity with which the necessary leniency and understanding is availed of simply to further the criminal CV many of these criminally inclined types in the first place.

The ability of the Court Reports to throw up ever more impressively long "Previous" lists surely cannot be ignored or simply put down to our uncaring nature ?

What is most glaringly obvious to the young criminally inclined,is a ready availability of excuses,get-out clauses,and associated mechanisms which allow such people to dabble and get a feel for how it works.

The ratio of such dabblers who proceed to enter mainstream criminality would appear to be a good indicator of how well the system is working.....for the criminally inclined.

AlekSmart

Niall Keane wrote: »

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

no need for me to comment!

Indeed Niall,indeed....

Whilst at first reading it would appear a "Newsy" article,but with the bit of personalisation,it reaches a wider,perhaps more "Socially Concerned" audience with its big-number headline.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/kitty-holland-7.2276472

It may well reflect the writers own area of interest more accurately than the greater society it purports to ..?

BillyBoy13

AlekSmart wrote: »

An excellent example indeed.

However,the reality of current life in Ireland is one where the victims of aggrivated burglaries and other such attacks on the person are not afforded time to carry out the risk-assessment which this "Reasonable" response requires.

Look, Im only trying to help people understand what reasonable force is. As I said there is no one size fits all and Im not getting into an debate about this. So this is the last Im going to say on the matter.

Generally speaking, when you are using force on a person, when you are no longer attacking them because of fear, but are attacking them because of anger, generally speaking, that's the point when you have gone from reasonable force to assault.

Niall Keane

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Look, Im only trying to help people understand what reasonable force is. As I said there is no one size fits all and Im not getting into an debate about this. So this is the last Im going to say on the matter.

Generally speaking, when you are using force on a person, when you are no longer attacking them because of fear, but are attacking them because of anger, generally speaking, that's the point when you have gone from reasonable force to assault.

Fear and Anger have no place in using the art of violence successfully. A fearful person will be slower in reaction, I read somewhere this is the body's way of taking in and "recording" everything to make sure you learn never to enter such a situation again, it is why boxers etc. remember clearly their losses and are vague about their wins. Anger and going apesh1t means "big" and "wide" movements which are easily read, dodged, blocked and utilised against you.

I believe as the law stands we no longer must retreat in our homes? and can use deadly force when we believe we or our family etc are in danger?

The problem with "reasonable force" is that it is a concept born from those with no clue about violence, personally if I was on a jury say, I would find nearly any case of using lethal force to defends one's home "reasonable", even against a sole intruder. Is he armed? How strong is he? Does he do martial arts as a hobby making trying to "restrain" him a gamble (coming from someone with experience - mistakes happen!) Is he really alone?

There is an important concept known to fighters called "the immediacy of combat", coupled with the fact that technique suffers under pressure, the only reasonable thing to do is to take any advantage you can in the situation, and disable him as quickly and easily as you can, great if its a knock out - fantastic and lucky for you both, ends fast and chances are, he will recover! BUT - Will you have the opportunity to be that "clean"! (It can take a world class pro boxer a few rounds to pull it off!!!) And how many people here have been training their KO skills?

Don't have the power or trained skill? Normally people don't, SO what then? well the obvious equaliser is a weapon. Especially when the intruder could be armed, and got in the kitchen window beside your knife rack. SO I take it everyone here has been training their blade skills? Evasion, footwork and targeting are second nature right? Otherwise you might as well hand over the knife as you all know right?

A gun!!! point and squeeze!!! KEEP your eyes open!!! You get one shot! But wait, this is Ireland, you law abiding people with shotguns for hunting must keep your guns locked up and your ammunition in another area of the house by law! SO no guns then! even for those besieged rural citizens.

Like I said, seems anything you can do in such a sh1t situation has to be considered "reasonable"?

Witcher

Niall Keane wrote: »

A gun!!! point and squeeze!!! KEEP your eyes open!!! You get one shot! But wait, this is Ireland, you law abiding people with shotguns for hunting must keep your guns locked up and your ammunition in another area of the house by law! SO no guns then! even for those besieged rural citizens.

There is no law that requires ammunition to be kept seperately from a firearm. You don't even need a safe for a shotgun either.

AlekSmart

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Look, Im only trying to help people understand what reasonable force is. As I said there is no one size fits all and Im not getting into an debate about this. So this is the last Im going to say on the matter.

Generally speaking, when you are using force on a person, when you are no longer attacking them because of fear, but are attacking them because of anger, generally speaking, that's the point when you have gone from reasonable force to assault.

Accepted....however "Generally Speaking" we are presented with ever more cases where totally innocent passers-by,householders and the likes are physically attacked,often with extreme force,by individuals out on bail after strikingly similar assaults.

Are "We" (rehabilitation sceptics) expected to keep turning cheeks until we run out of them,in the hope that these assailants will experience a Pauline conversion which might see them sparing us next time around ?

The Reasonable actions of a Reasonable Man are only such,when carried out within accepted boundaries of reason itself.....I'm suggesting that allowing individuals the freedom to amass three figure convictions yet remaining free to continue that process is as good a definition of Unreasonableness as you'll find ?

BillyBoy13

AlekSmart wrote: »

Accepted....however "Generally Speaking" we are presented with ever more cases where totally innocent passers-by,householders and the likes are physically attacked,often with extreme force,by individuals out on bail after strikingly similar assaults.

Are "We" (rehabilitation sceptics) expected to keep turning cheeks until we run out of them,in the hope that these assailants will experience a Pauline conversion which might see them sparing us next time around ?

The Reasonable actions of a Reasonable Man are only such,when carried out within accepted boundaries of reason itself.....I'm suggesting that allowing individuals the freedom to amass three figure convictions yet remaining free to continue that process is as good a definition of Unreasonableness as you'll find ?

Why are you trying to link reasonable force with rehabilitation..?? There is no connection between the two.

To be totally frank, Im not a huge fan of rehabilition myself but Im still a firm believer in reasonable force.

walshb

There really is no link between reasonable force and rehabilitation. A person defending themselves doesn't stop to think or to ask the other person if they've committed violent crimes before. They do what they have to do to survive.

I am all for rehabilitation for certain crimes. Other crimes, not so much. A murderer may well "deserve" rehabilitation, but they can be rehabilitated whilst also being kept incarcerated for life. He/she deserves a life behind bars.

djpbarry

Niall Keane wrote: »

The problem with "reasonable force" is that it is a concept born from those with no clue about violence, personally if I was on a jury say, I would find nearly any case of using lethal force to defends one's home "reasonable", even against a sole intruder. Is he armed? How strong is he? Does he do martial arts as a hobby making trying to "restrain" him a gamble (coming from someone with experience - mistakes happen!) Is he really alone?

There is an important concept known to fighters called "the immediacy of combat", coupled with the fact that technique suffers under pressure, the only reasonable thing to do is to take any advantage you can in the situation, and disable him as quickly and easily as you can, great if its a knock out - fantastic and lucky for you both, ends fast and chances are, he will recover! BUT - Will you have the opportunity to be that "clean"! (It can take a world class pro boxer a few rounds to pull it off!!!) And how many people here have been training their KO skills?

Don't have the power or trained skill? Normally people don't, SO what then? well the obvious equaliser is a weapon. Especially when the intruder could be armed, and got in the kitchen window beside your knife rack. SO I take it everyone here has been training their blade skills? Evasion, footwork and targeting are second nature right? Otherwise you might as well hand over the knife as you all know right?

A gun!!! point and squeeze!!! KEEP your eyes open!!! You get one shot! But wait, this is Ireland, you law abiding people with shotguns for hunting must keep your guns locked up and your ammunition in another area of the house by law! SO no guns then! even for those besieged rural citizens.

All of which is based on the premise that the intruder has not fled the scene on being discovered and is therefore looking for a fight - pretty much anything falls under the heading of "reasonable self-defence" in such a scenario.

Zubeneschamali

Niall Keane wrote: »

A gun!!! point and squeeze!!! KEEP your eyes open!!! You get one shot!

Congratulations! You just shot your husband sneaking in from the pub after a few!

laoch na mona

the problem is that there is no attempt to address the root causes of crimes such as social degradation. if we want crime levels to stay at low levels then we need to stop people becoming criminals. prevention is always better then the cure

walshb

laoch na mona wrote: »

the problem is that there is no attempt to address the root causes of crimes such as social degradation. if we want crime levels to stay at low levels then we need to stop people becoming criminals. prevention is always better then the cure

That can work for normal and average people. Evil people is a different story!

Niall Keane

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-143147/Father-jailed-killing-burglar.html

Does this guy "deserve" a jail sentence?

Two kids under 4!!!

12 stab wounds can happen in seconds, under 5 seconds in capable hands, certainly less than 10. Do you think the man was in full capacity of his senses with an intruder in his childrens home, enough to deal out "reasonable force"? Can adrenalin be flushed out so easily and quickly that we may all rest assured we will act in the "proper" manner? Do you think abstract concepts such as legal thresholds (front door) entered his mind during the confrontation?

Is he a danger to society? (or just to people who burst in doors and enter homes with his small children inside?)

What do other mammals such as Bears and Lions do when their young are threatened? How ridiculous to assume a relatively recent intellectual concept such as common law can negate millions of years of evolution! Who's being unreasonable?

Zubeneschamali

Niall Keane wrote: »

12 stab wounds can happen in seconds, under 5 seconds in capable hands, certainly less than 10.

How long does it take to chase the guy out of your house, catch him outside and repeatedly stab him in the back?

djpbarry

Niall Keane wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-143147/Father-jailed-killing-burglar.html

Does this guy "deserve" a jail sentence?

Yes. He chased the guy out of the house and stabbed him repeatedly. That goes way, way beyond self-defence.

Niall Keane wrote: »

What do other mammals such as Bears and Lions do when their young are threatened? How ridiculous to assume a relatively recent intellectual concept such as common law can negate millions of years of evolution! Who's being unreasonable?

You? "Humans are animals" could be used to defend pretty much anything.

laoch na mona

walshb wrote: »

That can work for normal and average people. Evil people is a different story!

considering that human nature is socially constructed and behaviour is learned we can safely say there are no "evil" people, well not born evil anyway

walshb

laoch na mona wrote: »

considering that human nature is socially constructed and behaviour is learned we can safely say there are no "evil" people, well not born evil anyway

You know that for sure? That a person cannot be born evil? How can we explain people with very good upbringings and privilege who come from decent and good families who commit heinous crimes?

Do you believe that some humans are evil? I do. We are part of the animal kingdom. A very complex creature.

oscarBravo

walshb wrote: »

Do you believe that some humans are evil? I do.

The idea that some people are "evil" is a rather dated one. If someone is evil, in the sense of being inherently and irretrievably malevolent, wouldn't it be better to kill them? We could burn them at the stake or something.

jmayo

laoch na mona wrote: »

considering that human nature is socially constructed and behaviour is learned we can safely say there are no "evil" people, well not born evil anyway

Well maybe if you re-label it as being a personality disorder, would that make you happy.

Some people have absolutely no empathy or feelings of remorse and they see no difference between "right" and "wrong".
Some people label those people as "evil".

Ever notice how the signs exhibited by serial killers are sometimes visible from a very young age.

And please don't try and pedal the line "bad" people are always a product of their upbringing or are somehow constructed through society.

A lot of the people who led and were involved with the Einsatzgruppen death squads on the Eastern front in WWII were highly qualified supposedly well adjusted upstanding members of society before they oversaw actions which could only be described as "pure evil".

oscarBravo wrote: »

The idea that some people are "evil" is a rather dated one. If someone is evil, in the sense of being inherently and irretrievably malevolent, wouldn't it be better to kill them? We could burn them at the stake or something.

Well some people do add little to society or would you argue the deaths of the likes of andrei chikatilo (Russia), ian brady (UK), fred west (UK), jeffrey dahmer (US) are a loss to man/womankind ?

Can we just consider evil to be an old religious term that has been replaced by more hip psychoanalytic theoretical terms.
No matter what way you label it, some people do some very bad things to other people.

And I wish to feck some people would cop on that some so called "evil" people are beyond help.
And there are some of those in Ireland.
I have on numerous occassion drawn attention to one such person in an Irish jail who has killed elderly neighbours on two separate occassions separated by a period of incarceration.

Mrs Nancy Nolan's son and five daughters sat in the Central Criminal Court today still trying to make sense of their mother's murder. Thomas Murray was on a day release from Castlereagh Prison when in mid-afternoon on St Valentines Day, he bludgeoned 80-year-old Mrs Nolan to death with a lump hammer. A retired national school teacher, she had taught Murray and had always been kind to him when he returned to Ballygar on temporary release from prison. There was no known motive for his attack on her.

In 1981, when he was just 17 years old, Murray had stabbed William Mannion, an elderly man, to death also in Ballygar. Again there was no motive or reason for the murder. After today's conviction Mrs Nolan's brother questioned the unsupervised temporary release that Murray was enjoying when he carried out his second murder in less than 20 years.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/1205/10615-roscommon/

Now who thinks this guy should be allowed out again ?
And who thinks our criminal justice system protected Mrs Nolan ?

nacho libre

jmayo wrote: »

Well maybe if you re-label it as being a personality disorder, would that make you happy.

Some people have absolutely no empathy or feelings of remorse and they see no difference between "right" and "wrong".
Some people label those people as "evil".



Can we just consider evil to be an old religious term that has been replaced by more hip psychoanalytic theoretical terms.
No matter what way you label it, some people do some very bad things to other people.

And I wish to feck some people would cop on that some so called "evil" people are beyond help.
And there are some of those in Ireland.
I have on numerous occassion drawn attention to one such person in an Irish jail who has killed elderly neighbours on two separate occassions separated by a period of incarceration.



http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/1205/10615-roscommon/

Now who thinks this guy should be allowed out again ?
And who thinks our criminal justice system protected Mrs Nolan ?

He is also the chief suspect in another murder that occurred while he was on day release on a different occasion. He and the Galway man you mentioned earlier are simply beyond rehabilitation - or as the films says " some men you can't reach"
I'm all for trying to reintegrate people into society who make very bad choices due to a bad environment/upbringing, but in the case of these two men i doubt it would have mattered what kind of upbringing they had- some people are psychopathic and there is little evidence to suggest its a social construct, rather it is innate.

oscarBravo

jmayo wrote: »

Well maybe if you re-label it as being a personality disorder, would that make you happy.

Some people have absolutely no empathy or feelings of remorse and they see no difference between "right" and "wrong".
Some people label those people as "evil".

Ever notice how the signs exhibited by serial killers are sometimes visible from a very young age.

And please don't try and pedal the line "bad" people are always a product of their upbringing or are somehow constructed through society.

A lot of the people who led and were involved with the Einsatzgruppen death squads on the Eastern front in WWII were highly qualified supposedly well adjusted upstanding members of society before they oversaw actions which could only be described as "pure evil".



Well some people do add little to society or would you argue the deaths of the likes of andrei chikatilo (Russia), ian brady (UK), fred west (UK), jeffrey dahmer (US) are a loss to man/womankind ?

Can we just consider evil to be an old religious term that has been replaced by more hip psychoanalytic theoretical terms.
No matter what way you label it, some people do some very bad things to other people.

And I wish to feck some people would cop on that some so called "evil" people are beyond help.
And there are some of those in Ireland.
I have on numerous occassion drawn attention to one such person in an Irish jail who has killed elderly neighbours on two separate occassions separated by a period of incarceration.



http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/1205/10615-roscommon/

Now who thinks this guy should be allowed out again ?
And who thinks our criminal justice system protected Mrs Nolan ?

So that's a "yes" to burnings at the stake?

walshb

oscarBravo wrote: »

So that's a "yes" to burnings at the stake?

What's wrong with a more humane method? You sound a little "Evil.":)

There are people in our world who are plain bad. Plain crazy bad. No amount of searching for excuses or reasons can justify their badness. They're just plain bad. Many of them get kicks out of their badness and violence and pain infliction on other human beings. That's evil, plain and simple. That word doesn't sit well, apply some other word!

Reminds me of Chris Rock performing a stand up act where he was talking about kids/teens murdering other kids in cold blood in schools. People searching for answers, blaming rap videos and tv programmes and magazines etc etc. He said: "Whatever happened to just being crazy."

For me there are two kinds of these people. Mad and bad. The bad ones are the evil ones. They enjoy their actions.

jank

What ever high-minded university types want to lecture us about, there are some people in society that should never be allowed roam the public streets again. No amount of money or rehabilitation on them. The problem of course is sorting the wheat from the chaff. For the others, jail has to be a deterrent for committing a crime. Thats what its there for in essence. It is primarily a way to punish people not to keep the streets safe, otherwise why jail white collar criminals or non violent offences? Once jail stops being a deterrent then the criminal justice system has to be looked at. I personally think manual labour should be brought back in but bleeding hearts will jump up and down at that.
Rehabilitation is a distraction as the vast vast majority of criminals reoffend. We don't jail them to rehabilitate them, we jail them as punishment but thats not working out either.

oscarBravo

walshb wrote: »

That's evil, plain and simple. That word doesn't sit well, apply some other word!

I could choose "sick", but that would imply the possibility of curing them, which would mean we wouldn't be allowed to kill them. Where's the fun in that?

jank wrote: »

...jail has to be a deterrent for committing a crime. Thats what its there for in essence. It is primarily a way to punish people not to keep the streets safe, otherwise why jail white collar criminals or non violent offences? Once jail stops being a deterrent then the criminal justice system has to be looked at.

The idea of punishment as a deterrent is one of those ideas that's simple, obvious and wrong. If punishment worked as a deterrent, then the ultimate punishment - death - would be the ultimate deterrent. It's not.

Rehabilitation is a distraction as the vast vast majority of criminals reoffend. We don't jail them to rehabilitate them, we jail them as punishment but thats not working out either.

There's a glaring contradiction in the above. You say that we're not jailing people to rehabilitate them but to punish them, and that punishment isn't working. You also claim that rehabilitation isn't working - despite admitting that we're not actually attempting to rehabilitate them.

It's pointless trying to decide whether or not rehabilitation is effective in criminal justice regimes where it's either barely attempted or not at all. Look at a country where it's actually taken seriously - Norway is my go-to example - and compare recidivism rates with countries - such as the US - where prison is solely about punishment. The numbers speak for themselves.

walshb

oscarBravo wrote: »

The idea of punishment as a deterrent is one of those ideas that's simple, obvious and wrong. If punishment worked as a deterrent, then the ultimate punishment - death - would be the ultimate deterrent. It's not. There's a glaring contradiction in the above. You say that we're not jailing people to rehabilitate them but to punish them, and that punishment isn't working. You also claim that rehabilitation isn't working - despite admitting that we're not actually attempting to rehabilitate them.

.

To many people punishment is a deterrent. Of course to some it is not. Many people do not commit crimes because they are good and decent and honest people, AND they may also fear the possible punishment associated with it.

Many don't commit crimes because of the possible punishment associated with getting caught. Many do commit crime because they don't really care too much about the punishment. But to flat out claim that "The idea of punishment as a deterrent is one of those ideas that's simple, obvious and wrong" is off the mark.. We're not all the same, us people.

walshb

And punishment in the form of being imprisoned does work for many people. Many people do NOT reoffend. Nothing runs perfectly in this world.

walshb

Our biggest issue is more to do with leniency as regards sentencing. So the punishment for many crimes is just too lenient. To think that you could be free from prison in 17 years or less for murder says it all. I watched the recent case of Sean Courtney on TV3. That man isn't even 50 and he's free. Life sentence? He could have 30-40 years ahead of him. He battered to death a 32 year old woman. Lights out for her. He is a free man now.:rolleyes:

Leniency in sentencing has to enter some peoples minds when they are thinking about committing murder or other serious offences. Of course, for some people they don't care what the punishment; they will commit the crime.

Think about drugs smuggling and dealing. Some of the lenient sentences you read about for these serious crimes is just sickening. I am not up on the statistics for other countries, but if I had to smuggle drugs into any country I'd go with Ireland.

I take that back: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/ireland-imposes-longest-jail-terms-for-drugs-offences-104966.html

But I still think the sentencing is way too lenient!

oscarBravo

walshb wrote: »

To many people punishment is a deterrent. Of course to some it is not. Many people do not commit crimes because they are good and decent and honest people, AND they may also fear the possible punishment associated with it.

Many don't commit crimes because of the possible punishment associated with getting caught. Many do commit crime because they don't really care too much about the punishment. But to flat out claim that "The idea of punishment as a deterrent is one of those ideas that's simple, obvious and wrong" is off the mark.. We're not all the same, us people.

It's true: different individuals are motivated in different ways, and will respond differently to different approaches. What does that mean in terms of forming policy?

It means that we need to stop citing individual cases as if they proved anything about anything except those individual cases. It means we need to look at the big picture, and decide what's best for society. It means we need to compare long-term outcomes of policies consistently implemented on a large scale, for example by comparing the results of Norway's penal system to those of America's.

Now, if your goal is to make society a safer place, you'll choose Norway's. If, on the other hand, the most important thing to you is to see criminals suffer for their crimes (at the cost of a less safe society overall), then feel free to push for the American approach.

walshb wrote: »

Our biggest issue is more to do with leniency as regards sentencing. So the punishment for many crimes is just too lenient. To think that you could be free from prison in 17 years or less for murder says it all. I watched the recent case of Sean Courtney on TV3. That man isn't even 50 and he's free. Life sentence? He could have 30-40 years ahead of him. He battered to death a 32 year old woman. Lights out for her. He is a free man now.:rolleyes:

Leniency in sentencing has to enter some peoples minds when they are thinking about committing murder or other serious offences. Of course, for some people they don't care what the punishment; they will commit the crime.

You're still talking about punishment. You have demonstrated not the faintest interest in what's good for society; all you care about is a pound of flesh. As I've said above, if a more dangerous society is a price you're willing to pay for that pound of flesh, fair enough; some of us have different priorities.

Think about drugs smuggling and dealing. Some of the lenient sentences you read about for these serious crimes is just sickening. I am not up on the statistics for other countries, but if I had to smuggle drugs into any country I'd go with Ireland.

You could always try not smuggling drugs.

walshb

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're still talking about punishment. You have demonstrated not the faintest interest in what's good for society; all you care about is a pound of flesh. As I've said above, if a more dangerous society is a price you're willing to pay for that pound of flesh, fair enough; some of us have different priorities. You could always try not smuggling drugs.

I will tell you what is good for society. For us to know that a murderer will not be free amongst us in 17 years or less. If life meant life then we as society wouldn't have to worry about murderers living amongst us. That is a lb of flesh and a rehabilitated and safe society.

I am not anti rehabilitation. Can't a person be both for a lb of flesh and for rehabilitation?

Finally, some people need to be be removed from society to make society safer. The primary focus here is removal from society (lb of flesh). The secondary is an effort to rehabilitate.

oscarBravo

walshb wrote: »

I will tell you what is good for society. For us to know that a murderer will not be free amongst us in 17 years or less. If life meant life then we as society wouldn't have to worry about murderers living amongst us. That is a lb of flesh and a rehabilitated and safe society.

I am not anti rehabilitation. Can't a person be both for a lb of flesh and for rehabilitation?

Finally, some people need to be be removed from society to make society safer. The primary focus here is removal from society (lb of flesh). The secondary is an effort to rehabilitate.

Simple, obvious, and wrong. Which society is safer: the US, or Norway?

walshb

oscarBravo wrote: »

Simple, obvious, and wrong. Which society is safer: the US, or Norway?

I don't know. I have lived in neither. I do know that the U.S. has a population in excess of 300 million people from all ethnicities.

oscarBravo

walshb wrote: »

I don't know. I have lived in neither.

So you're content to argue for something with no idea whether or not it will work?

I do know that the U.S. has a population in excess of 300 million people from all ethnicities.

So?

walshb

I can't answer the question and nor can you.

Comparing two countries with vast differences isn't something I'd place too much faith in.

Like I said, a person can be both pro rehabilitation and also want to see real punishment.

oscarBravo

walshb wrote: »

I can't answer the question and nor can you.

Are you claiming that it can't be answered? That there is no way of ever determining whether it's better to have a penal system that's focused on punishment or one that's focused on rehabilitation?

Because (a) that's a load of bollox, and (b) if you can't know which is better, why are you arguing almost exclusively for one of them?

Comparing two countries with vast differences isn't something I'd place too much faith in.

I wonder if you'd be so reluctant to compare them if the results of the comparison agreed with your preconceived ideas.

Like I said, a person can be both pro rehabilitation and also want to see real punishment.

Not really, no.

walshb

Why can't a system focus on both rehabilitation and punishment. Are you completely anti punishment?

I am for both. Not sure why you're even debating me on these points. I want persons who commit serious crimes to be removed from society for long spells. Some crimes I want to see people being permanently removed from society. This has nothing to do with my views on rehabilitation. I don't see why my view is odd, wrong or only pro punishment. Rehabilitate all you want, but do that whilst also leaving the murderer inside a prison.

You seem to be claiming that because people want to see tough sentencing laws, or longer spells inside being introduced that these people are somehow not interested in rehabilitation. Not sure why you are doing this.

Take Anders Brehvik. That man should never ever see the light of day again. Is that me being anti rehabilitaion?

oscarBravo

walshb wrote: »

Why can't a system focus on both rehabilitation and punishment Are you completely anti punishment?

I'm for whatever makes society safer. When you're interested in finding out which approach works best, let me know.

Rehabilitate all you want, but do that whilst also leaving the murderer inside a prison.

When you've figured out why this sentence doesn't make the tiniest bit of sense, we'll have enough common ground for a useful discussion.

walshb

oscarBravo wrote: »

When you've figured out why this sentence doesn't make the tiniest bit of sense, we'll have enough common ground for a useful discussion.

So explain why it doesn't make sense? I am pro life sentences for murderers. Does this mean that rehabilitation is precluded? Does the system say we can't try to rehabilitate because the man/woman will never see the light of day again? I don't know the answer to this question. If they don't attempt rehabilitation, then yes, I do not care at all that a murderer is left to die inside prison.

For some crimes I believe life sentences should be imposed. That means a person is never ever to be released into society. If that means that we then cannot rehabilitate these people, so be it. Society won't suffer, as these people will never be out to possibly damage society.

djpbarry

walshb wrote: »

Think about drugs smuggling and dealing. Some of the lenient sentences you read about for these serious crimes is just sickening.

Two things on this. First of all, drug dealing is not necessarily something that would be considered a serious crime by the majority of society.

Secondly, I was in Malaysia recently, where drug trafficking carries a mandatory death penalty. But, drugs are still readily available in certain parts of the country.

walshb wrote: »

Does the system say we can't try to rehabilitate because the man/woman will never see the light of day again?

This sentence suggests that you fundamentally misunderstand what “rehabilitate” means.

jmayo

nacho libre wrote: »

He is also the chief suspect in another murder that occurred while he was on day release on a different occasion. He and the Galway man you mentioned earlier are simply beyond rehabilitation - or as the films says " some men you can't reach"
I'm all for trying to reintegrate people into society who make very bad choices due to a bad environment/upbringing, but in the case of these two men i doubt it would have mattered what kind of upbringing they had- some people are psychopathic and there is little evidence to suggest its a social construct, rather it is innate.

I sometimes forget about him being the suspect in the taxi driver case.

oscarBravo wrote: »

So that's a "yes" to burnings at the stake?

We can't be burning as it will be deemed environmentally unsound.

BTW what do you suggest happens to the person awaiting trial for the murder of the two Castlebar Blaine brothers?

Tell you what, wander into Rockys and start telling the lads how the guy that battered their poor inocent harmless neighbours to death should get rehabiliation and should be released as part of that.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I could choose "sick", but that would imply the possibility of curing them, which would mean we wouldn't be allowed to kill them. Where's the fun in that?

The idea of punishment as a deterrent is one of those ideas that's simple, obvious and wrong. If punishment worked as a deterrent, then the ultimate punishment - death - would be the ultimate deterrent.

It is the deterrent for lots of people.

Actually punishment does work, at least for some people.
For instance did Michael Milikan, Martha Stewart, etc reoffend ?
So punishment works for white collar crime as an example.
For instance look at Ireland where we have had loads of white collar crime and corruption, probably because everyone knows that shag all is done about it.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not. There's a glaring contradiction in the above. You say that we're not jailing people to rehabilitate them but to punish them, and that punishment isn't working. You also claim that rehabilitation isn't working - despite admitting that we're not actually attempting to rehabilitate them.

Hang on, are saying that rehabiliation means no prison time ?
What about education, therapy and counseling whilst in prison, is that not rehabilitation ?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Simple, obvious, and wrong. Which society is safer: the US, or Norway?

Which one had the biggest single incident of mass murder recently ?

And do you think that anders brehvik should get rehabilitation and release back into society ?

walshb

jmayo wrote: »

Hang on, are saying that rehabiliation means no prison time ?
What about education, therapy and counseling whilst in prison, is that not rehabilitation ?

Excellent point, jmayo.

I feel that oscarBravo is seeing this in black and white. I am pro punishment and pro rehabilitation. But not in all cases to the same degree. Some cases will see me more for the punishment of a criminal. Some will see me more for the rehabilitation of a criminal. The two can exist independently, and they can exist together. It very much depends on the person and the crime that he/she committed.

djpbarry

jmayo wrote: »

Tell you what, wander into Rockys and start telling the lads how the guy that battered their poor inocent harmless neighbours to death should get rehabiliation and should be released as part of that.

Who said any individual should necessarily be released?

jmayo wrote: »

Actually punishment does work, at least for some people.
For instance did Michael Milikan, Martha Stewart, etc reoffend ?
So punishment works for white collar crime as an example.

And yet we still have white collar crime?

jmayo wrote: »

For instance look at Ireland where we have had loads of white collar crime and corruption...

You mean where people assume there’s way more white collar crime than elsewhere?

jmayo wrote: »

Which one had the biggest single incident of mass murder recently ?

In which country are incidents of mass murder more common?

oscarBravo

jmayo wrote: »

BTW what do you suggest happens to the person awaiting trial for the murder of the two Castlebar Blaine brothers?

I suggest that we stop trying to turn a debate about the overall direction our criminal justice system should take into anecdotal discussions of the worst crimes we can think up.

Hang on, are saying that rehabiliation means no prison time ?

No, I'm not saying that. You can tell that I'm not saying that by the fact that I've never said it.

Which one had the biggest single incident of mass murder recently ?

The one with the lower recidivism rate.

If you think that criminal justice policy should be set in knee-jerk response to tabloid headlines, you should probably run for office - you'd fit right in.

jank

oscarBravo wrote: »

The idea of punishment as a deterrent is one of those ideas that's simple, obvious and wrong. If punishment worked as a deterrent, then the ultimate punishment - death - would be the ultimate deterrent. It's not. There's a glaring contradiction in the above. You say that we're not jailing people to rehabilitate them but to punish them, and that punishment isn't working. You also claim that rehabilitation isn't working - despite admitting that we're not actually attempting to rehabilitate them.

Why do we therefore jail people who commit a crime? The criminal justice system works via a system of deterrent first and foremost. That is why more severe crimes have longer sentences. It is why a speeding fine in in the hundred of dollars rather than in single digits. It has the secondary benefit where one commits violent crime they are off the streets for a period of time. We do not jail people to rehabilitate them first and foremost and anyone who tries to sell that is fooling themselves.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's pointless trying to decide whether or not rehabilitation is effective in criminal justice regimes where it's either barely attempted or not at all. Look at a country where it's actually taken seriously - Norway is my go-to example - and compare recidivism rates with countries - such as the US - where prison is solely about punishment. The numbers speak for themselves.

Well Norway is full of Norwegians first and foremost. Plus they have money to burn. I am sure most Norwegians will not be happy when Andres Breivik will be released in 20 years. The one shoe fits all model would not work in most other countries.

laoch na mona

jank wrote: »

The criminal justice system works

LOL I really don't know how in your mind criminal justice works, punitive justice ensures people who end up in jail are more likely to re offend due to the fact they are viewed as a criminal therefore struggle to find work.

It also does nothing to address the structural causes of crime like endemic poverty

walshb

Many jailed people do reoffend when released, but many don't. We still need to jail people. We can't be worrying that they may reoffend when released. As mentioned, first priority is to safeguard society. Then when inside prison the rehab can take place. If that works, great, if not, thrown them back inside. Rinse and repeat. Now, for serious crimes like rape, murder, drugs smuggling, drugs dealing, and armed robbery etc, then the rinse and repeat can't happen for too long.

walshb

laoch na mona wrote: »

LOL I really don't know how in your mind criminal justice works, punitive justice ensures people who end up in jail are more likely to re offend due to the fact they are viewed as a criminal therefore struggle to find work.
y

So, what would you suggest we do with a person who is violent? There are people who are innately violent, and no amount of rehab can help them.

jank

laoch na mona wrote: »

LOL I really don't know how in your mind criminal justice works, punitive justice ensures people who end up in jail are more likely to re offend due to the fact they are viewed as a criminal therefore struggle to find work.

It also does nothing to address the structural causes of crime like endemic poverty

So you are advocating shorter sentences so? :roll eyes: Hmm maybe here is a thought so. If one doesn't want to be locked up, don't commit crime.

I hate the scape goat of the last point. As if being born in a low socio economic area excuses ones capacity to commit crime. No one has the right to commit a crime so that excuse doesn't wash. The Irish state has thrown billions at the traveller community for example, at what stage do they accept responsibility of their own actions and stop blaming everyone but themselves for their high incarceration rates.

djpbarry

walshb wrote: »

Now, for serious crimes like rape, murder, drugs smuggling, drugs dealing, and armed robbery etc, then the rinse and repeat can't happen for too long.

See, the problem there is that list is entirely arbitrary. For example, there's no way I'd put drug dealing in the same category as rape and there's certainly no way a drug dealer or an robber is beyond rehabilitation.

So, how do we decide who is beyond rehabilitation and who is not?

walshb

djpbarry wrote: »

See, the problem there is that list is entirely arbitrary. For example, there's no way I'd put drug dealing in the same category as rape and there's certainly no way a drug dealer or an robber is beyond rehabilitation.

So, how do we decide who is beyond rehabilitation and who is not?

Drug dealing/smuggling is an absolute cancer to society. It destroys whole communities. It's one of the worst crimes. What do you think of it? It's in its own category. Just like murder and rape are in theirs. They're all vile crimes.

Drug dealers and drugs smugglers deserve severe sentences. It cannot be tolerated. The ramifications and effects it has on society are so severe.

We need to be very very tough on drugs smugglers and dealers to send a clear message that we will not allow it to destroy our communities. There's no other way.

BTW, I never said a drugs dealer or smuggler are beyond rehabilitation. I am sure there are many cases where prison time has made them see the error of their ways.