Crime and Punushment in Ireland

tom1ie

tom1ie wrote: »

No I’m not advocating a far right government not at all, but how can fg or ff be called a centre right government when you have the current welfare system, with high state pensions high jsa and high amounts of numbers on disability benefit, all funded by the working person?

Because that's what the public wants. It doesn't matter which party gets into power, if they expect to get in again, then they're going to pander to the greatest voting blocks. Irish people tend to demand greater benefits, and complain bitterly at any suggestion of a reduction of those benefits, without any real consideration of how to economically support those benefits. Democracies tend to move away from strong distinct political parties after a few decades, so the difference between parties blurs. In the end, they all soften their attitudes to get the votes.

I really don't like the Irish political groups, and these political families turn my stomach, but you can't pass everything off on to the politicians. They do actually reflect the desires of the electorate.

conorhal

Sardine wrote: »

It's a tough one because I see people on these boards longing for mega prisons to be built and tougher judges etc. I do realise sentences are way too leniant a lot of the time, but I fear harsher sentences and mega prisons etc may turn our society into a more dog-eat-dog society and will actually increase crime and violence. I think that's how it is in the US.
Probably some kind of Nordic model works best, but I can't see any Irish governments investing in that kind of thing any time soon.

The reality is that a lack of enforcement or consequence for crime increases crime and violence.
If there is no penalty, if you can rack up a hundred plus convictions and the only penalty you face is a wasted afternoon in court, then there is no incentive not to rack up conviction one hundred and one.
You also have to ask, how many crimes can be attributed to such people that would not be committed if repeat offenders were taken off the street? Locking up repeat offenders would logically reduce crime rates and decreases those crimes at the higher end of severity, because these thugs often only face doing time after their crime spree ends in an act of violence so horrific that jail is inevitable. Time and again we see a violent assault or murder that could have been prevented if the perp was serving the time they should be.

Also, the 'Nordic model' is breaking down under a the strain of a current crime wave. The reality is that you can only have such a model where crime rates are low and manageable. In fact, you could make an argument that you can only have a free and democratic society when crime rates are low and manageable. If you lose public trust and embolden criminals by virtue of the fact you can only investigate a small percentage of crimes then you’re heading for a society in freefall.

Shenshen

tom1ie wrote: »

No I’m not advocating a far right government not at all, but how can fg or ff be called a centre right government when you have the current welfare system, with high state pensions high jsa and high amounts of numbers on disability benefit, all funded by the working person?

As with most things in life, it's a matter of perspective. State pensions here are high compared to places like Venezuela, but low compared to places like Germany.
Venzuela has an extreme left-wing government in place, Germany has been run for the last decade by a centre-right government.

Shenshen

conorhal wrote: »

The reality is that a lack of enforcement or consequence for crime increases crime and violence.
If there is no penalty, if you can rack up a hundred plus convictions and the only penalty you face is a wasted afternoon in court, then there is no incentive not to rack up conviction one hundred and one.
You also have to ask, how many crimes can be attributed to such people that would not be committed if they were off the street? Locking up repeat offenders would logically reduce crime rates and decreases those at the higher end, because these thugs often only face doing time after their crime spree ends in an act of violence so horrific that jail is inevitable

Also, the 'Nordic model' is breaking down under a the strain of a current crime wave. The reality is that you can only have such a model where crime rates are low and manageable. In fact, you could make an argument that you can only have a free and democratic society when crime rates are low and manageable. If you lose public trust and embolden criminals by virtue of the fact you can only investigate a small percentage of crimes then you’re heading for a society in freefall.

I just want to put his here again, for people who may not have seen it earlier :

Grayson wrote: »

there's a very long article about viewing crime as a public health issue here.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/24/violent-crime-cured-rather-than-punished-scottish-violence-reduction-unit

I'd recommend reading it. It doesn't eliminate crime but it does help reduce it.

It's a fascinating take on how to tackle crime by applying the same logic to it as you would to any other epidemic. And highlights some very impressive results, reducing crime in areas for which many posters here would consider burning to the ground with all inhabitants the only solution.

tom1ie

Shenshen wrote: »

As with most things in life, it's a matter of perspective. State pensions here are high compared to places like Venezuela, but low compared to places like Germany.
Venzuela has an extreme left-wing government in place, Germany has been run for the last decade by a centre-right government.

Yes but what’s the marginal rate of tax in germany? How much value do they get for their money?
They have a world class health system, world class public transport systems etc,
We have a barely functioning health system and drastically underfunded and backward public transport systems, yet, we still have a higher rate of marginal tax and the money is going into welfare. A prime example being the Prsi hike to pay for pensions Regina Doherty is kite flying at the moment.
She’s fg. If fg were truly a right of centre party they would be looking at welfare reform not taxing workers more.
I could understand this move if labor were in power.

Shenshen

tom1ie wrote: »

Yes but what’s the marginal rate of tax in germany? How much value do they get for their money?
They have a world class health system, world class public transport systems etc,
We have a barely functioning health system and drastically underfunded and backward public transport systems, yet, we still have a higher rate of marginal tax and the money is going into welfare. A prime example being the Prsi hike to pay for pensions Regina Doherty is kite flying at the moment.
She’s fg. If fg were truly a right of centre party they would be looking at welfare reform not taxing workers more.
I could understand this move if labor were in power.

Not entirely sure how showing that tax rates and compulsory contributions in Germany are higher than here will have anything to add to your claim that Ireland has a left government, but let me google that for you... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Germany
https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/german-retirement.html
https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/working.html

tom1ie

Shenshen wrote: »

Not entirely sure how showing that tax rates and compulsory contributions in Germany are higher than here will have anything to add to your claim that Ireland has a left government, but let me google that for you... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Germany
https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/german-retirement.html
https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/working.html

Ok fine. I’ll simplify.
If labour were in power you would expect people who work to have high taxes and the tax take to be spent on welfare to support disadvantaged areas.
If fg were in power you would expect lower taxes on working people to give an incentive for working people to work more, no?

What we have is fg in power (kept there by ff) who are raising taxes to provide for the welfare system, which is what I would expect from labour.

Is this not the case? Or have I got my left and rights mixed up? If I have I apologise.

FGR

The current system doesn't work simply because the deterrent factor is non existent.

Sure allow for more educational opportunities for the disadvantaged but you need to back that up with Social Services that are empowered to intervene and possibly remove children from families associated with constant criminality and neglect to give them a genuine chance. This hardly exists in the country.

In addition - there is a percentage of people out there (those with large numbers of convictions) that will never assimilate to society and they are the people that need to be kept in prison. Not to reform or to punish but to keep the public safe.

People argue about the US - but could you imagine how much worse that country would be if they were so soft on crime as we are here? A huge amount of criminality there is associated with the lack social supports - but going soft on sentencing won't help anyone.

Grayson

FGR wrote: »

The current system doesn't work simply because the deterrent factor is non existent.

Sure allow for more educational opportunities for the disadvantaged but you need to back that up with Social Services that are empowered to intervene and possibly remove children from families associated with constant criminality and neglect to give them a genuine chance. This hardly exists in the country.

In addition - there is a percentage of people out there (those with large numbers of convictions) that will never assimilate to society and they are the people that need to be kept in prison. Not to reform or to punish but to keep the public safe.

People argue about the US - but could you imagine how much worse that country would be if they were so soft on crime as we are here? A huge amount of criminality there is associated with the lack social supports - but going soft on sentencing won't help anyone.

See, the public health view is that your bolded bit is incorrect. People can and do change when presented with the right encouragement. And they have stats to prove it. Now it's not everyone but enough to make it worth our while.

And if you check that article I linked you'll see that the public health approach has decreased crime in really badly hit areas in the US. More than their policing & punishment strategy ever did.

vetinari

The US would be a better place if they were "softer" on crime.
They lock up far too many people at a huge financial and personal cost.

People seem to forget the main deterrent factor of any criminal system.
One serious conviction is enough to shut the door on a lot of jobs for the rest of your life.
A 4 year sentence vs 6 year sentence? Ultimately that's secondary in terms of the deterrence factor.
We have reams of data to prove this. As other posters have continually pointed out, drastically harsher sentencing in the US has not resulted in a drastically lower crime rate.

FGR

Grayson wrote: »

See, the public health view is that your bolded bit is incorrect. People can and do change when presented with the right encouragement. And they have stats to prove it. Now it's not everyone but enough to make it worth our while.

And if you check that article I linked you'll see that the public health approach has decreased crime in really badly hit areas in the US. More than their policing & punishment strategy ever did.

I agree it's a well thought out article.

Is there an element to be taken into consideration as regards the theory of justice vs the practical implementation of same? Say for example the family whose loved one was raped and/or killed - only for the killer to be walking the streets a short time afterwards. Naturally a family wanting to see the killer adequately punished to suit their own 'life sentence' for losing their loved one is something they would want taken into account.

Is is appropriate? Is it fair?

Recidivism aside, that is.

Grayson

vetinari wrote: »

The US would be a better place if they were "softer" on crime.
They lock up far too many people at a huge financial and personal cost.

People seem to forget the main deterrent factor of any criminal system.
One serious conviction is enough to shut the door on a lot of jobs for the rest of your life.
A 4 year sentence vs 6 year sentence? Ultimately that's secondary in terms of the deterrence factor.
We have reams of data to prove this. As other posters have continually pointed out, drastically harsher sentencing in the US has not resulted in a drastically lower crime rate.

The only thing it did was make people feel safer and demonise criminals more. they felt that criminals deserved longer and longer sentences. And when they got those sentences people felt safer even though it actually made no difference.

It means we end up developing out policing strategies based on the fears of the public and what the public think will work, rather than on what will actually work. Politicians stoke those fears to get votes rather than educating the public on what will work.
It's like the Dara O'Brian bit

give out when people talk about crime going up, but the numbers are definitely down. And if you go, “The numbers are down”, they go, “Ahh, but the fear of crime is rising.” Well, so ****ing what? Zombies are at an all-time low level, but the fear of zombies could be incredibly high. It doesn’t mean you have to have government policies to deal with the fear of zombies.

Grayson

FGR wrote: »

I agree it's a well thought out article.

Is there an element to be taken into consideration as regards the theory of justice vs the practical implementation of same? Say for example the family whose loved one was raped and/or killed - only for the killer to be walking the streets a short time afterwards. Naturally a family wanting to see the killer adequately punished to suit their own 'life sentence' for losing their loved one is something they would want taken into account.

Is is appropriate? Is it fair?

Recidivism aside, that is.

A serious crime would still have a serious sentence. The idea is to intervene in troubled areas to stop violence from spreading. It contains it and lessens it. Plus for smaller crimes like vandalism maybe it's better to engage the youth rather than just running them through the court system. And for crimes that involved a sentence, take that time to try and improve their lives so they don't break the law again.
However if someone murdered a whole family, they'd still be going to jail for a long time.