This can't go on.

hatrickpatrick

Ah Jaysus, I'm very much torn between my hatred of Dublin scumbags and my hatred of Dublin cyclists when reading this story.

Sleepy

I don't know how we can do anything about the current crop but maybe if we offered any teenager guilty of a second offence 5k to be voluntarily sterilised we could prevent the next generation of scum from being born?

Doctors room ghost

Sleepy wrote: »

I don't know how we can do anything about the current crop but maybe if we offered any teenager guilty of a second offence 5k to be voluntarily sterilised we could prevent the next generation of scum from being born?

I said that before.it would be like planting a tree.its a gift for future generations to enjoy and benefit from and get a vet to do it so as not to stress the already stressed health system

lucast2007us

Chuck Norris wouldn't take this ****e I can tell ya

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ah Jaysus, I'm very much torn between my hatred of Dublin scumbags and my hatred of Dublin cyclists when reading this story.

What kind of a stupid post is that?

Cyclist get a punch in the face by some scumbag and from that you hate cyclists? How did you manage to turn this into an anti cyclist thread? Wtf are you talking about?

Beanntraigheach

soups05

strange for a topic like this not to have someone coming in defending the scum. it warms my heart that others are coming around to my way of thinking.

the intervention type response of providing second chances, more facilities, all that rubbish has shown to be useless so to me there are two choices:

1) as has been suggested before, increased sentences for each conviction with no do one get one free bs.

2) has anyone considered a purge?

also, with the greatest respect to other posters i am afraid you cannot claim this as a dublin problem, this scum exists in every town and village in the country.

AllForIt

Fabian Bald Sifter wrote: »

What kind of a stupid post is that?

Cyclist get a punch in the face by some scumbag and from that you hate cyclists? How did you manage to turn this into an anti cyclist thread? Wtf are you talking about?

There really should be a thumbs down option on posts, I didn't want to comment on that remark your quoted myself.

Meanwhile, the Children’s Court has heard how a boy, who cannot be named because he is a minor, was aged 14 when he was involved in a string of vicious robberies and a street assault.

He was already a convicted burglar.

As far as the case is concerned the quote above from the Indo article is one of the problems. Why on earth can he not be named when he is capable of murder? His face should be plastered over every newspaper and all shops etc in his community should be warned about him directly by the Gardai.

In recent weeks I recall reading a story in the press about the Government allowing ppl to find out if registered sex offenders are living in their area. Why just sex offenders? My point is someone said earlier that nothing can be done. I don't believe this at all. Lots can be done but afaics absolutely nothing is being done - noting even being considered. I have lots of other ideas myself and I'm just causally thinking about it. It seems to me particularly that where the knacker community in Dublin in concerned and juvenile crime is concerned no Government wants to touch it with a bargepole.

hatrickpatrick

Fabian Bald Sifter wrote: »

What kind of a stupid post is that?

Cyclist get a punch in the face by some scumbag and from that you hate cyclists? How did you manage to turn this into an anti cyclist thread? Wtf are you talking about?

It's just a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of dilemma. I despise Dublin scumbags with a fiery passion, but at the same time if they're doing the Lord's work by engaging in anti-cyclist vigilantism, they have to earn some brownie points, dammit.

Here's a nice idea for a compromise: We pay them to take their rope and use it at traffic-lighted junctions in the city - but they're only allowed to deploy it during moments of the lights actually being red. They get a slap from a baton-wielding robocop type yoke any time they use it inappropriately, but they get a fiver any time they successfully decapitate a light-breaking menace to humanity. Everyone wins.

In other news: Welcome to AH, we hope you enjoy your stay :pac:

One eyed Jack

Uriel. wrote: »

Turn children's allowance into a tax credit,

Tax credits for children already exist.

recoup court and policing costs for these renegade children from allowances.

It would cost more to attempt to recoup the cost of child benefit than it does to pay it, and even then the amount recouped wouldn't even come close to covering the cost of court appearances and policing.

discourage these kind of people from kids in the first place.
with free abortions on the way this should be a no brainer.

It's a no-brainer of an idea alright. No thought put into it whatsoever. It may have been some people's intent to introduce abortion to deal with undesirables that way, but reality had other ideas if we look at the US and the UK. Their juvenile crime statistics are even worse than ours!

how the **** is that child still in the "care" of the mother I don't know.

See point two above. It would simply cost more to incarcerate children than it would to allow them to remain with their parents. We've already tried incarceration of the undesirables in Irish society, and now we look back at that time in our recent past and condemn those people who incarcerated the undesirables in Irish society at the time.

One would hope the next generation would have learned from the experiences of generations that went before them, but apparently not.

Uriel.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Tax credits for children already exist.

It would cost more to attempt to recoup the cost of child benefit than it does to pay it, and even then the amount recouped wouldn't even come close to covering the cost of court appearances and policing.

It's a no-brainer of an idea alright. No thought put into it whatsoever. It may have been some people's intent to introduce abortion to deal with undesirables that way, but reality had other ideas if we look at the US and the UK. Their juvenile crime statistics are even worse than ours!

See point two above. It would simply cost more to incarcerate children than it would to allow them to remain with their parents. We've already tried incarceration of the undesirables in Irish society, and now we look back at that time in our recent past and condemn those people who incarcerated the undesirables in Irish society at the time.

One would hope the next generation would have learned from the experiences of generations that went before them, but apparently not.

Child benefit is effectively a cash payment at the moment as is my understanding. The "benefit" of having a child for a cash benefit is obviously reduced if the welfare parent doesn't get cash and can't make use of the credit because they are sitting on their ass at home all day.


The purpose of recouping (part of) the costs is not for direct financial gain to the public purse, rather it is the act as a penalty to the absent parents and perhaps also to help discourage children for welfare attitudes.

I never mentioned incarceration. There are other options, particularly for children. The child in question here hasn't been in school since third class. At that stage he should have been removed from the parents and cared for by the State via foster families or other appropriate means. Yes that does cost money, but I would wonder the long-term benefits or cost savings to be gained by putting that child on the right path at an early stage rather than have him spend decades wasting court, policing, hospital, welfare and other State services.
I am certainly not talking about incarceration or for example, mother and baby home style scenarios.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We've already tried incarceration of the undesirables in Irish society, and now we look back at that time in our recent past and condemn those people who incarcerated the undesirables in Irish society at the time.

That's because the definition of "undesirables" included people who had committed absolutely no offence to any other human being, but against society's ideologies. They were wrongly labelled "undesirables".

Those who set out to hurt others because they enjoy hurting others are genuine "undesirables", this has been true for all of human history and always will be true. Or are you suggesting that you can foresee a future in which assaulting people against their will is no longer seen as wrong?

Most problems with "mass incarceration" including the "mass" nature of it, totally disappear when victimless "crimes" stop being regarded as crimes and grounds for incarceration. Even in the present day, how many people currently in prison wouldn't be there if the "crime" of either using or providing mind-altering substances was no longer considered wrongdoing, as it crucially doesn't involve an unwilling victim?

Assaulting people is and always will be considered scumbaggery. It's not something which is ever likely to change, unlike the moronic phenomenon of labelling victimless actions as wrongdoing.

freedominacup

corner of hells wrote: »

What should we do ?

Well the canal was right there apparently and we were talking about grown men vs kids in at least a couple of cases in the article. A quick swim for one or two of them?

hatrickpatrick

freedominacup wrote: »

Well the canal was right there apparently and we were talking about grown men vs kids in at least a couple of cases in the article. A quick swim for one or two of them?

Jesus Christ, I thought I'd seen it all on this website.

The swans have to actually live there, like. Pollution is not a laughing matter.

One eyed Jack

Uriel. wrote: »

Child benefit is effectively a cash payment at the moment as is my understanding. The "benefit" of having a child for a cash benefit is obviously reduced if the welfare parent doesn't get cash and can't make use of the credit because they are sitting on their ass at home all day.

The purpose of recouping (part of) the costs is not for direct financial gain to the public purse, rather it is the act as a penalty to the absent parents and perhaps also to help discourage children for welfare attitudes.

That argument doesn't arise though if the children in question are removed from the care of their parents.

The 'kids for cash' argument is a bit of a non-starter anyway because it assumes the persons primary motivation is a cash incentive of €35 per week from the State. There are much easier ways to make €35 a week while indeed sitting at home on their asses all day. One doesn't need a degree in economics to work out that their primary motivation is unlikely to be financial gain.

Uriel. wrote: »

I never mentioned incarceration. There are other options, particularly for children. The child in question here hasn't been in school since third class. At that stage he should have been removed from the parents and cared for by the State via foster families or other appropriate means. Yes that does cost money, but I would wonder the long-term benefits or cost savings to be gained by putting that child on the right path at an early stage rather than have him spend decades wasting court, policing, hospital, welfare and other State services.
I am certainly not talking about incarceration or for example, mother and baby home style scenarios.

Where do you imagine children are taken when they are removed from the care of their parents? They are incarcerated in facilities considered appropriate by the State. If you're genuinely wondering about the long-term cost/benefit analysis to these children and to society of removing children from the care of their parents, the answer may well surprise you:

1.2 Research on Outcomes for Children in Care: An Overview

In Ireland children frequently enter care due to abuse and neglect in the family home. The literature from Ireland largely corroborates international studies of factors predicting a child’s entry into care, although there are some differences which may be attributable to Ireland’s distinctive ‘care histories’ (O’Brien, 2013). This literature is detailed in the chapters that follow. Generally speaking, the research broadly indicates that poverty and dependence on social welfare, homelessness and family break-up, experience of violence in the family home, the child’s mental health and the intellectual capacity of parents are predictive factors indicating a child’s placement in Ireland’s care system (McSherry et al., 2008). Other compounding factors identified in the Northern Irish and international literature as increasing the likelihood of entry into care include alcohol misuse, particularly by the child’s biological mother, and substance misuse (Malet et al., 2010). Children in care frequently experience placement instability and multiple moves, significant behavioural and psychological problems, education deficits, and difficulties in maintaining familial contact and social networks (Rock et al., 2013; Daly and Gilligan, 2005). Those in long-term care are more likely than other children to experience difficult transitions to independent life and to experience homelessness and poverty and other social harms in adulthood. Such findings are consistent with international and UK literature which postulates that children who experience care placements are 10 times more likely to be more excluded from school, 12 times more likely to leave with no qualifications, and 60 times more likely to become homeless later in life (see McSherry et al., 2008).

Taken from here.

Uriel.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That argument doesn't arise though if the children in question are removed from the care of their parents.

The 'kids for cash' argument is a bit of a non-starter anyway because it assumes the persons primary motivation is a cash incentive of €35 per week from the State. There are much easier ways to make €35 a week while indeed sitting at home on their asses all day. One doesn't need a degree in economics to work out that their primary motivation is unlikely to be financial gain.





Where do you imagine children are taken when they are removed from the care of their parents? They are incarcerated in facilities considered appropriate by the State. If you're genuinely wondering about the long-term cost/benefit analysis to these children and to society of removing children from the care of their parents, the answer may well surprise you:





Taken from here.

IF, the child benefit was of course the only benefit derived from the State, which isn't the case.
Naturally, I haven't read that research yet, but outcomes for children who are in care are bad compared... to what? children from functional families?
As a matter of interest does the research compare the outcomes for children brought into State care versus those children left in dysfunctional families - e.g. like the one outlined in the OP?

Donald Trump

stevensi wrote: »

One day I'd love one of the defense lawyers for these kids turn up and say...actually your honour this guy is a scumbag and deserves a heavy sentence! Do they really believe the bull they spout when they talk about a hard upbringing/fell in with the wrong crowd etc...

They have an obligation to their client. Whether they like them or not.



Probably if it's free legal aid they might not even be able to refuse a particular case.

Doctors room ghost

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's just a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of dilemma. I despise Dublin scumbags with a fiery passion, but at the same time if they're doing the Lord's work by engaging in anti-cyclist vigilantism, they have to earn some brownie points, dammit.

Here's a nice idea for a compromise: We pay them to take their rope and use it at traffic-lighted junctions in the city - but they're only allowed to deploy it during moments of the lights actually being red. They get a slap from a baton-wielding robocop type yoke any time they use it inappropriately, but they get a fiver any time they successfully decapitate a light-breaking menace to humanity. Everyone wins.

In other news: Welcome to AH, we hope you enjoy your stay :pac:

Every single village in Ireland has a healthy catchment of these feral pond rats.thanks to free money referred to as entitlements these pond rats have nothing to do all day long except plot and scheme while indulging in whatever is their go to drug of choice.and breed like rabbits while not being in the position of being able to look after a cat not to mind children.add in social housing fuel vouchers Doley and bull money for breeding and its us the working class that are the idiots.
The whole social welfare system needs to be overhauled.a person out of work more than 6 months that are deemed healthy enough to work by a medical practitioner should be cut off or put picking rubbish and at least earn their entitlements.
There are genuine people who cannot work through illness and personal circumstances fair enough but the majority from what I see are lay about good for nothing leeches.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's because the definition of "undesirables" included people who had committed absolutely no offence to any other human being, but against society's ideologies. They were wrongly labelled "undesirables".

Those who set out to hurt others because they enjoy hurting others are genuine "undesirables", this has been true for all of human history and always will be true. Or are you suggesting that you can foresee a future in which assaulting people against their will is no longer seen as wrong?

Most problems with "mass incarceration" including the "mass" nature of it, totally disappear when victimless "crimes" stop being regarded as crimes and grounds for incarceration. Even in the present day, how many people currently in prison wouldn't be there if the "crime" of either using or providing mind-altering substances was no longer considered wrongdoing, as it crucially doesn't involve an unwilling victim?

Assaulting people is and always will be considered scumbaggery. It's not something which is ever likely to change, unlike the moronic phenomenon of labelling victimless actions as wrongdoing.

You appear to be ignoring the fact that the people who committed these crimes against other people were also indulging in what you prefer to call a 'victimless crime':

Judge O’Connor noted that the boy, who was accompanied to court by his mother and his barrister, was found by the Probation Service to be at a high risk of re-offending. The court heard he had been taking 15 to 20 tablets a day and had been out of education since third class in primary school.
He was drug free since going into custody on remand.

Alison Fynes, defending, said the boy was adamant about turning his life around and has been going to classes in custody.

He had been found to have Attention Deficit Disorder, the barrister said. A previous welfare report stated the teen lacked victim empathy but counsel said that there has been an improvement in relation to the boy’s attitude toward victims.

...

He noted from reports that the teen started smoking cigarettes then moved on to cannabis, then tablets and cocaine.

It would suggest to me anyway that in order to fund what you consider their 'victimless' crimes, they had no empathy for the victims of their crimes. It would appear that your definition of a 'victimless crime', and societal standards of 'victimless crimes' are at odds with each other. They were at odds with each other then, and they're at odds with each other now. Of course how you define 'scumbags' and 'undesirables' is also a matter of opinion.

I would also say that if we were to release people from prison who feel that they shouldn't be there because they feel their crimes were 'victimless', then of course the numbers of people in prison would plummet, but the number of people who commit crimes who have no empathy for the victims of their criminal enterprise, would increase dramatically.

CPTM

Sam Quentin wrote: »

Why is this ALLOWED to happen, just patrol the area more regularly or ...., even just flood those areas with Gardaí!?
But it has to be stopped.

http://www.thejournal.ie/canal-crime-courts-4122979-Jul2018/

I have cycled this canal twice:

On the way to someone: There were lads throwing stones at a homeless man sitting in a heap on the bank.

On the way back: Young lad racing his scrambler bike down the narrow canal path reaching at least 50/60 mile an hour. I heard him coming and waited up on the bank for him.

Horrible lads, which is a pity because the cycle track itself was lovely that sunny evening.

Vic_08

Uriel. wrote: »

IF, the child benefit was of course the only benefit derived from the State, which isn't the case.
Naturally, I haven't read that research yet, but outcomes for children who are in care are bad compared... to what? children from functional families?
As a matter of interest does the research compare the outcomes for children brought into State care versus those children left in dysfunctional families - e.g. like the one outlined in the OP?

Of course it doesn't. That's the problem with looking for stats to support an argument, on a skim read the above appears to suggest that taking kids into care is bad because the outcomes for them are sub par. What it actually describes is the outcomes of kids growing up in utterly dysfunctional families who (obviously) are the only ones who end up in care.

If you compare kids taken from unfit families at teen age to those taken at infant and adopted the differences are huge.

The unpalatable truth is that we have a relatively small segment of our society who are entirely unsuitable to be raising children but because of the emphasis on individual rights of these people over the greater needs of society the state is too lax in removing children from them before they do irreparable damage to their offspring and any suggestion of forcibly preventing them from reproducing is considered a taboo subject.

One eyed Jack

Uriel. wrote: »

IF, the child benefit was of course the only benefit derived from the State, which isn't the case.
Naturally, I haven't read that research yet, but outcomes for children who are in care are bad compared... to what? children from functional families?
As a matter of interest does the research compare the outcomes for children brought into State care versus those children left in dysfunctional families - e.g. like the one outlined in the OP?

It does, and the comparison is outcomes for children removed from their parents versus children who remain with their parents, the outcomes are still worse.

Franz Von Peppercorn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It does, and the comparison is outcomes for children removed from their parents versus children who remain with their parents, the outcomes are still worse.

Well even so it does keep the canals safe for the working classes who need to commute. You seem to be proposing no action at all.

By the way why isn’t the fact that children from dysfunctional families don’t do well in State care an issue to fix in care, rather than a cudgel to blame society, or propose no incarceration at all.

One eyed Jack

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Well even so it does keep the canals safe for the working classes who need to commute. You seem to be proposing no action at all.

By the way why isn’t the fact that children from dysfunctional families don’t do well in State care an issue to fix in care, rather than a cudgel to blame society, or propose no incarceration at all.

No, it clearly doesn't keep the canals safe for anyone, and I'm not proposing no action. It is the Gardaí who are suggesting that patrolling the canal to prevent criminal behaviour is not their responsibility.

The fact that children don't do well in State care is the responsibility of the State, and one that the State doesn't take seriously, because society doesn't take the issue seriously. It's not that I'm saying society is responsible for children in care, but rather that society is responsible for society. If people in society don't like it, then the responsibility is on them to make the State take action against these people, and who are the agents of the State charged with responsibility for maintaining public order? The Gardaí, the people who say it isn't their responsibility.

Ipso

So how is a society meant to deal with a serial pest?

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You appear to be ignoring the fact that the people who committed these crimes against other people were also indulging in what you prefer to call a 'victimless crime':

It would suggest to me anyway that in order to fund what you consider their 'victimless' crimes, they had no empathy for the victims of their crimes. It would appear that your definition of a 'victimless crime', and societal standards of 'victimless crimes' are at odds with each other. They were at odds with each other then, and they're at odds with each other now. Of course how you define 'scumbags' and 'undesirables' is also a matter of opinion.

I would also say that if we were to release people from prison who feel that they shouldn't be there because they feel their crimes were 'victimless', then of course the numbers of people in prison would plummet, but the number of people who commit crimes who have no empathy for the victims of their criminal enterprise, would increase dramatically.

It's not difficult to design a system in which crimes that hurt other people are punished harshly, and actions which do not hurt other people are not considered crimes. In such a system, the people getting locked up would be people who hurt others, which would mean that there were fewer people hurting others free to roam the streets and hurt others.

Let me simplify: These scumbags should be locked up because they were engaging in violence against innocent people. There are many people who are locked up despite not engaging in violence against innocent people. That's what I'm seeing as a problem in our scenario. Your conflation of this issue with Ireland's past of locking people up for sexual immorality is ridiculous. It literally has nothing to do with it. Nobody except you seems to be arguing that violent assholes shouldn't be locked up for acting like violent assholes, so it's kinda up to you to justify why they shouldn't. The justification for locking them up is obvious - fewer violent assholes on the streets = fewer innocent people falling victim to the actions of violent assholes.

One eyed Jack

Ipso wrote: »

So how is a society meant to deal with a serial pest?

By coming up with new long-term approaches in preventative strategies, as opposed to falling back on old short-term, ill-thought out approaches to deal with the symptoms of those short-term approaches, which have been shown from past experience to be wholly ineffective, inefficient, and do more damage to society in the long-term, rather than addressing the underlying causes.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By coming up with new long-term approaches in preventative strategies, as opposed to falling back on old short-term, ill-thought out approaches to deal with the symptoms of those short-term approaches, which have been shown from past experience to be wholly ineffective, inefficient, and do more damage to society in the long-term.

And how do we deal with the feral scumbags who already exist, if you're ruling out locking them up? The gang mentioned in the OP, for instance. How do we physically restrain them from attacking another member of the public, if we're not supposed to lock them up in prison?

Long term solutions, absolutely. But how do we deal with the scumbags who exist in the here and now, so that tomorrow, they can't go out and ruin someone else's day through mindless violence?

Donald Trump

Harvest the little shits for spare parts.

I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who will be willing and able contribute a lot to society when they get their heart or lung or kidney transplant

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's not difficult to design a system in which crimes that hurt other people are punished harshly, and actions which do not hurt other people are not considered crimes. In such a system, the people getting locked up would be people who hurt others, which would mean that there were fewer people hurting others free to roam the streets and hurt others.

Let me simplify: These scumbags should be locked up because they were engaging in violence against innocent people. There are many people who are locked up despite not engaging in violence against innocent people. That's what I'm seeing as a problem in our scenario. Your conflation of this issue with Ireland's past of locking people up for sexual immorality is ridiculous. It literally has nothing to do with it. Nobody except you seems to be arguing that violent assholes shouldn't be locked up for acting like violent assholes, so it's kinda up to you to justify why they shouldn't. The justification for locking them up is obvious - fewer violent assholes on the streets = fewer innocent people falling victim to the actions of violent assholes.

The system you're proposing is the one we have already HP, and it's clearly not very effective.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The system you're proposing is the one we have already HP, and it's clearly not very effective.

It isn't, not by a long shot. And it won't be as long as peoples' natural desire to get high is criminalised, which both wastes valuable prison spaces with non-violent "offenders" and also fuels criminality by removing the provision of such substances from the legitimate marketplace and into an unregulated and unpoliced criminal underworld.

EDIT: You'll have read this morning of the Gardai making a drug bust in Davitt Flats in Drimnagh and uncovering a mushroom growing operation. This is a perfect example of the waste of justice system resources on non-victim "offences" - how many feral scumbags were able to act like feral scumbags in other parts of the Sundrive Station catchment area this morning because an overstretched police force had to commit resources to something which shouldn't be any of their concern to begin with?

archer22

Keyzer wrote: »

As much as I abhor these scumbags, what's the solution? Seriously, ask yourself what is the solution? Throw them in jail? Rehabilitate them? Sterilize them? Lock them all up in a giant walled scumbag enclosure?

None of the above - society will always have this kind of bjollox going on. Its never going to change. Even if the cops went down and beat the living sh1te out of them on a daily basis, they'd still do it.

Sorry to sound deafist but this kind of crap goes on in every country on the planet.

Ah jasus c'mon...no it doesn't.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It isn't, not by a long shot. And it won't be as long as peoples' natural desire to get high is criminalised, which both wastes valuable prison spaces with non-violent "offenders" and also fuels criminality by removing the provision of such substances from the legitimate marketplace and into an unregulated and unpoliced criminal underworld.

People who care more about their natural desire to get high, will place their natural desire to get high above all else, and that leads to people indulging in hurting and harming other people as a means to an end.

It's their desire to put their desires above the welfare of all others which leads to fuelling criminality to meet the demand for people's natural desire to get high, and fuelling their desire to to get high is what fuels people's compulsive criminal behavior, which leads to them needing to get high to escape having to empathise with the people who are hurt by their behavior.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People who care more about their natural desire to get high, will place their natural desire to get high above all else, and that leads to people indulging in hurting and harming other people as a means to an end.

It's their desire to put their desires above the welfare of all others which leads to fuelling criminality to meet the demand for people's natural desire to get high, and fuelling their desire to to get high is what fuels people's compulsive criminal behavior, which leads to them needing to get high to escape having to empathise with the people who are hurt by their behavior.

So you're denying the obvious fact that taking and selling drugs being illegal means that the justice system has to waste time dealing (pun intended) with criminal cases involving the aforementioned, which means less time to deal with violent crime - and the same for valuable prison space?

What you're saying is the establishment line on drugs now. When they were banned it wasn't about that, it was part of the same misguided belief that consenting adults could commit a "wrong" entirely between themselves which led to us locking up young women for being sexually active out of wedlock. Drugs were banned for now-outdated reasons of social conservatism, nothing more.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So you're denying the obvious fact that taking and selling drugs being illegal means that the justice system has to waste time dealing (pun intended) with criminal cases involving the aforementioned, which means less time to deal with violent crime - and the same for valuable prison space?

What you're saying is the establishment line on drugs now. When they were banned it wasn't about that, it was part of the same misguided belief that consenting adults could commit a "wrong" entirely between themselves which led to us locking up young women for being sexually active out of wedlock. Drugs were banned for now-outdated reasons of social conservatism, nothing more.

What I'm saying is that people's desire to put themselves and their desires above the welfare of other people is the cause of their anti-social behavior which is harmful to other people. People who want to ingest drugs don't care about the harm that sourcing those drugs causes to other people, any more than people who want to indulge their sexual desires don't care about the harm that their behavior causes for other people. That's why we institute laws, for the good of society, as opposed to pandering to the whims and desires of a tiny minority of people who just want to get high or have sex, and not have to think about the ill-effects of their behavior on society.

Society doesn't generally tend to look kindly on those sorts of people who only act in their own self-interest.

Franz Von Peppercorn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, it clearly doesn't keep the canals safe for anyone, and I'm not proposing no action. It is the Gardaí who are suggesting that patrolling the canal to prevent criminal behaviour is not their responsibility.

The fact that children don't do well in State care is the responsibility of the State, and one that the State doesn't take seriously, because society doesn't take the issue seriously. It's not that I'm saying society is responsible for children in care, but rather that society is responsible for society. If people in society don't like it, then the responsibility is on them to make the State take action against these people, and who are the agents of the State charged with responsibility for maintaining public order? The Gardaí, the people who say it isn't their responsibility.

Blaming “society” is blaming everyone and no one. Society pays taxes. If the state agencies are failing to do their job then it is still their responsibility to fix.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What I'm saying is that people's desire to put themselves and their desires above the welfare of other people is the cause of their anti-social behavior which is harmful to other people. People who want to ingest drugs don't care about the harm that sourcing those drugs causes to other people, any more than people who want to indulge their sexual desires don't care about the harm that their behavior causes for other people. That's why we institute laws, for the good of society, as opposed to pandering to the whims and desires of a tiny minority of people who just want to get high or have sex, and not have to think about the ill-effects of their behavior on society.

Society doesn't generally tend to look kindly on those sorts of people who only act in their own self-interest.

But you're still not addressing the fact that the simplest and most effective solution would be to stop jailing people for victimless crimes so that people who commit crimes with victims, such as those mentioned in the OP, could be locked up more often and for longer periods.

The alternative is of course building more prisons, but there seems to be absolutely no political will to do it. What I'm advocating is that in a situation with prison shortages, those who commit violent crimes should be at the absolute top of the list of priorities in terms of who "gets" a space. And we shouldn't put a single non-violent person in jail if there are violent people going free due to lack of space.

Even if you don't agree with decriminalising non-victim "crimes", fair enough, but would you at least agree with prioritising the violent? The gang who attacked this cyclist should spend several years in jail, and if the only way to make that happen is to let some tax evaders and drug users go, so be it. Punish them some other way, but the priority in terms of locking people up should be to rid the streets of those who make the streets unsafe for others.

Analog for you. You're a cop. Your under-resourced police station has only one holding cell. You arrest two people simultaneously, one for selling cocaine and the other for setting fire to peoples' houses for fun, causing people to be hospitalised.

Which one "gets" the one holding cell you've got, and which one do you let go due to lack of space to hold them?

One eyed Jack

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Blaming “society” is blaming everyone and no one. Society pays taxes. If the state agencies are failing to do their job then it is still their responsibility to fix.

But it is an issue which society is responsible for, and there aren't enough people in society who actually care about these people's welfare enough to force the States agencies to take responsibility for doing their jobs properly. Why should they when they are able to get away with not doing their jobs properly because society doesn't actually care for these people's welfare?

I'll be the first to admit I don't particularly care what happens to people who have no immediate effect on my life, but when we're talking about social policy, that's a different matter entirely as it relates to society as a whole.

dd972

I remember taking a different bus home instead of my usual and encountering a pair of these f***ing charmers, got a load of verbals throughout my journey which I ignored, I'd be gutted if they ended up as gangland shooting victims later on, probably not though, there's lots of lightweights who act heavy.

Wish I'd got off the bus or busted their eye sockets now as it feels like they got away with what they did.

This kind of behaviour is the one thing that would make me consider leaving Ireland. Contrary to an earlier poster, I don't actually think it happens everywhere.

Just came upon a cyclist lying on the road between Stillorgan and Blackrock in the past hour and a lady in a VW Golf next to him and other people on phones. Hope he's OK (a young cyclist was killed not far from him outside UCD earlier this year).

Regarding these teenagers, the government could do worse than re-open Spike Island as a massive juvenile detention centre just as they opened it for Dublin's joyriders in the 1980s. It would make the lives of other people in those areas more bearable. It would also allow the kids in those areas to learn in classrooms and advance. Too many poor areas held to ransom by such people.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But you're still not addressing the fact that the simplest and most effective solution would be to stop jailing people for victimless crimes so that people who commit crimes with victims, such as those mentioned in the OP, could be locked up more often and for longer periods.

The alternative is of course building more prisons, but there seems to be absolutely no political will to do it. What I'm advocating is that in a situation with prison shortages, those who commit violent crimes should be at the absolute top of the list of priorities in terms of who "gets" a space. And we shouldn't put a single non-violent person in jail if there are violent people going free due to lack of space.

Even if you don't agree with decriminalising non-victim "crimes", fair enough, but would you at least agree with prioritising the violent? The gang who attacked this cyclist should spend several years in jail, and if the only way to make that happen is to let some tax evaders and drug users go, so be it. Punish them some other way, but the priority in terms of locking people up should be to rid the streets of those who make the streets unsafe for others.

It's a bit pointless talking about these things when we already have fundamentally different ideas on concepts like 'victimless' behavior, what constitutes a crime, what constitutes a violent crime, and what are the appropriate responses to those crimes.

Analog for you. You're a cop. Your under-resourced police station has only one holding cell. You arrest two people simultaneously, one for selling cocaine and the other for setting fire to peoples' houses for fun, causing people to be hospitalised.

Which one "gets" the one holding cell you've got, and which one do you let go due to lack of space to hold them?

You didn't really compare like for like there at all. You presented the consequences for other people of the arsonists behavior, but you neglected to mention the consequences for other people of the drug dealers behavior. Personally, I'd have them share the cell, give the arsonist a zippo lighter and the drug dealer a joint, and see could they understand the value of mutual cooperation for their greater benefit (they both get off their tits and don't give me any grief), or would their desire to fulfil their own selfish needs motivate them to continue their respective patterns of behavior. My moneys on the arsonist coming out the better of that scenario :pac:

But it also means one less drug dealer selling drugs to 10 year olds and destroying whole communities and causing children to go assaulting and robbing people to fund their habit.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's a bit pointless talking about these things when we already have fundamentally different ideas on concepts like 'victimless' behavior, what constitutes a crime, what constitutes a violent crime, and what are the appropriate responses to those crimes.





You didn't really compare like for like there at all. You presented the consequences for other people of the arsonists behavior, but you neglected to mention the consequences for other people of the drug dealers behavior. Personally, I'd have them share the cell, give the arsonist a zippo lighter and the drug dealer a joint, and see could they understand the value of mutual cooperation for their greater benefit (they both get off their tits and don't give me any grief), or would their desire to fulfil their own selfish needs motivate them to continue their respective patterns of behavior. My moneys on the arsonist coming out the better of that scenario :pac:

But it also means one less drug dealer selling drugs to 10 year olds and destroying whole communities and causing children to go assaulting and robbing people to fund their habit.

Alright, so putting our differences around drugs policy aside - replace the drug dealer in my analogy with a tax evader. And suppose that for one reason or another, you'd not allowed to have them share a cell - you have to let one of them go. Do you let the tax evader or arsonist walk?

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Alright, so putting our differences around drugs policy aside - replace the drug dealer in my analogy with a tax evader. And suppose that for one reason or another, you'd not allowed to have them share a cell - you have to let one of them go. Do you let the tax evader or arsonist walk?

It's pointless talking hypothetical scenarios like that either though HP because they very rarely ever map well to reality. You present a set set of circumstances like it's a zero-sum game and all things are equal, and that obviously isn't true. You're comparing things by saying all circumstances are equal, and then saying I should have to excuse one and punish the other. That means the circumstances can't have been equal in the first place. It's just not a very well thought out thought experiment as there's too much scope to introduce all sorts of crazy stuff altogether.

It could simply come down to which one of 'em is wrecking my bulb more, I won't want to be listening to either of them screaming all night that they don't deserve to be locked up because their victimless crimes shouldn't be seen as criminal behavior.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's pointless talking hypothetical scenarios like that either though HP because they very rarely ever map well to reality. You present a set set of circumstances like it's a zero-sum game and all things are equal, and that obviously isn't true. You're comparing things by saying all circumstances are equal, and then saying I should have to excuse one and punish the other. That means the circumstances can't have been equal in the first place. It's just not a very well thought out thought experiment as there's too much scope to introduce all sorts of crazy stuff altogether.

It could simply come down to which one of 'em is wrecking my bulb more, I won't want to be listening to either of them screaming all night that they don't deserve to be locked up because their victimless crimes shouldn't be seen as criminal behavior.

My point is that our top priority should be locking up these scumbags where they can't continue to f*ck with random people for no reason. That's literally the only point I'm trying to make. How you want to accomplish that is up to you, I've outlined how I want to accomplish it. You seem to be advocating for not locking them up at all, in which case, I again ask you, what do you do? Should we make it legal for a civilian to carry a weapon and use it to defend him or herself should he or she encounter a gang such as that described in the OP? That hasn't worked out too well in the US. Should we electronically tag such people and put them under house arrest? That sounds like a great idea in my book, except how do you enforce it? What penalties do you have for them violating their geographical restrictions? And how many more Gardai do you have to hire to police scumbags who are dispersed throughout communities by being under house arrest, as opposed to the comparatively fewer guards needed if they're all held in the same building, AKA jail?

You're all for shooting down proposals here, but the only counter-proposals you've made are ones which might solve the problem in twenty years. I'm asking what we do here, now, today, so that the good Irish people of this day, Thursday the 12th of July 2018, can go about their business without fear of an unprovoked attack from a bunch of asshole scumbags like those mentioned in the OP.

Have you any suggestions to offer? Anything at all?

Well, what happens when you remove corporal punishment from parents, and adults without replacing it with a more effective manner of punishment? They just went and banned corporal punishment... replacing it with pink flowers and good wishes.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

This kind of behaviour is the one thing that would make me consider leaving Ireland. Contrary to an earlier poster, I don't actually think it happens everywhere.

Well... UK/Ireland are the only places where I'm actually worried about the consequences of defending myself... and where I'm very cautious around groups of teenagers.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

My point is that our top priority should be locking up these scumbags where they can't continue to f*ck with random people for no reason. That's literally the only point I'm trying to make. How you want to accomplish that is up to you, I've outlined how I want to accomplish it. You seem to be advocating for not locking them up at all, in which case, I again ask you, what do you do? Should we make it legal for a civilian to carry a weapon and use it to defend him or herself should he or she encounter a gang such as that described in the OP? That hasn't worked out too well in the US. Should we electronically tag such people and put them under house arrest? That sounds like a great idea in my book, except how do you enforce it? What penalties do you have for them violating their geographical restrictions? And how many more Gardai do you have to hire to police scumbags who are dispersed throughout communities by being under house arrest, as opposed to the comparatively fewer guards needed if they're all held in the same building, AKA jail?

You're all for shooting down proposals here, but the only counter-proposals you've made are ones which might solve the problem in twenty years. I'm asking what we do here, now, today, so that the good Irish people of this day, Thursday the 12th of July 2018, can go about their business without fear of an unprovoked attack from a bunch of asshole scumbags like those mentioned in the OP.

Have you any suggestions to offer? Anything at all?

One very simple suggestion to start with - more community policing, and Gardai forging better links with the community. Better resources to fund community development and working towards a greater sense of community and making people feel like they have a contribution to make to their communities as opposed to simply immediate gratification of their own selfish desires. If you're not setting an example of the kind of behaviors and attitudes you expect from other people, then why are you surprised when they're following the example you want to set for society? They're as much about wanting more from society as you are without feeling they owe society anything.

c.p.w.g.w

Sam Quentin wrote: »

Why is this ALLOWED to happen, just patrol the area more regularly or ...., even just flood those areas with Gardaí!?
But it has to be stopped.

http://www.thejournal.ie/canal-crime-courts-4122979-Jul2018/

First offense warn both parents, second time take the child's left hand, third offence right hand

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

One very simple suggestion to start with - more community policing, and Gardai forging better links with the community. Better resources to fund community development and working towards a greater sense of community and making people feel like they have a contribution to make to their communities as opposed to simply immediate gratification of their own selfish desires. If you're not setting an example of the kind of behaviors and attitudes you expect from other people, then why are you surprised when they're following the example you want to set for society? They're as much about wanting more from society as you are without feeling they owe society anything.

I agree with all that. But again, this is a long term solution. In the immediate term, if we don't have enough space in prison for the scrotes described in the OP, and you're not up for prioritising one kind of crime over another in terms of who gets a jail cell, how should we be restricting their movements so as to keep them away from decent people who don't deserve to be randomly attacked for no reason?