Where's the deterrent for shіthead scumbags in society?

El_Duderino 09

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I thought 5 years too small and 20 too large.

10 would only be 6 in Irish prison terms anyway.

OK. I'm not sure you understand the question I'm asking. Why is 5 years too small and 20 too large?

What's the purpose of the prison sentence in your opinion and how is that purpose achieved by serving 10 years in prison?

sydthebeat

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

OK. I'm not sure you understand the question I'm asking. Why is 5 years too small and 20 too large?

What's the purpose of the prison sentence in your opinion and how is that purpose achieved by serving 10 years in prison?

Surely the purpose of the length of the prison sentence is as a deterrent to the offender from committing the crime?
And surely the longer the sentence the bigger the deterrent?

Isn't that pretty much what this thread is about?

El_Duderino 09

Hal3000 wrote: »

10 to 15 years . And for you, let me guess. 3 with 2 suspended.....

And how did you conclude that 10 to 15 years is the best sentence? Whats the purpose of the sentence and how is it achieved by serving 10 to 15 years?
Walk me through the logic you're using.

El_Duderino 09

sydthebeat wrote: »

Surely the purpose of the length of the prison sentence is as a deterrent to the offender from committing the crime?
And surely the longer the sentence the bigger the deterrent?

Isn't that pretty much what this thread is about?

If that was the case wouldn't the sentence be tailored to the likelihood of recidivism rather than the severity of the actual crime?

Ush1

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If that was the case wouldn't the sentence be tailored to the likelihood of recidivism rather than the severity of the actual crime?

Something tells me that if you're committing violent burglaries, it's not your first rodeo.

sydthebeat

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If that was the case wouldn't the sentence be tailored to the likelihood of recidivism rather than the severity of the actual crime?

Absolutely not.

But that doesn't mean that the current sentencing "just" takes the severity of the crime into account.

El_Duderino 09

Ush1 wrote: »

Something tells me that if you're committing violent burglaries, it's not your first rodeo.

Is that the only reason you can think of for asking people for their logic for sentencing?

On yeah. I'm big in the burglary scene alright 🙄

The logic from the two people who suggested an appropriate sentence seems to be just spunk out a number of years off the top of their head as an appropriate sentence. I think we can do better than that.

El_Duderino 09

sydthebeat wrote: »

Absolutely not.

But that doesn't mean that the current sentencing "just" takes the severity of the crime into account.

In your ideal system wouldn't that be the way it's done though? The sentence should deter the person from committing the same crime again so it should be linked to the likelihood of recidivism rather than the actual crime itself?

sydthebeat

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

In your ideal system wouldn't that be the way it's done though? The sentence should deter the person from committing the same crime again so it should be linked to the likelihood of recidivism rather than the actual crime itself?

No. completely incorrect.

The sentence should be a deterrent for comitting the crime in the first instance.

Mad_maxx

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

OK. I'm not sure you understand the question I'm asking. Why is 5 years too small and 20 too large?

What's the purpose of the prison sentence in your opinion and how is that purpose achieved by serving 10 years in prison?

The purpose is to remove the threat to other people, ten years also offers the wrongdoer more time to think on their sins

Gael23

There is none. That’s why we need to bring back the hangman

Ush1

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is that the only reason you can think of for asking people for their logic for sentencing?

On yeah. I'm big in the burglary scene alright ��

The logic from the two people who suggested an appropriate sentence seems to be just spunk out a number of years off the top of their head as an appropriate sentence. I think we can do better than that.

You mentioned recidivism. I'm pointing out that the people who commit violent burglaries are normally habitual recidivists which will have an impact on sentencing.

Hal3000

Light sentencing clearly hasn't worked in Ireland. Hence these guys going around with 100 plus convictions. Victim is never taken into account in sentencing. Things will only change when a judge or a politican experiences what it's like to have your life ruined by a crime.

El_Duderino 09

sydthebeat wrote: »

No. completely incorrect.

The sentence should be a deterrent for comitting the crime in the first instance.

Ah OK. I get you. Not a deterrent for the one who committed the crime. A deterrent for everyone else.

How do you conclude what's an appropriate sentence then?

El_Duderino 09

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The purpose is to remove the threat to other people, ten years also offers the wrongdoer more time to think on their sins

Why 10 years or any other number of years? Is it a matter of picking a number out of the sky?

Panthro

Have Russian style prisons. Suspend human rights once you've a conviction.

Chain the fcukers up and make them clean up public areas.

Make prison the last place they'd want to wind up.

El_Duderino 09

Hal3000 wrote: »

Light sentencing clearly hasn't worked in Ireland. Hence these guys going around with 100 plus convictions. Victim is never taken into account in sentencing. Things will only change when a judge or a politican experiences what it's like to have your life ruined by a crime.

If you want to take the victim into consideration you won't like the research. The research suggests that some kind of reconciliation is effective. Sentencing the criminal actually does very little for the victims. They don't get much from punishing the criminal. They actually get more from a discussion with the criminal and sincere apology if it's possible.

I'm sure you won't care about that even though it's the thing that is shown to help the victim.

El_Duderino 09

Panthro wrote: »

Have Russian style prisons. Suspend human rights once you've a conviction.

Chain the fcukers up and make them clean up public areas.

Make prison the last place they'd want to wind up.

Lol. Cos Russia isa famously crime free country.

Panthro

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lol. Cos Russia isa famously crime free country.

You can write about it on your blog.

Hedgelayer

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why 10 years or any other number of years? Is it a matter of picking a number out of the sky?

I was reading the last few pages and just wondering what you think is an appropriate sentence yourself.

In my opinion the whole system needs an over haul and maybe like the injuries board there should be a set sentence for each crime.

Zero tollerence and no suspension for good behaviour, do the crime you do the time.

Lux23

This story sort of makes me understand why lynchings happen.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/wifes-anger-as-scrambler-rider-avoids-court-over-husbands-injury-38044612.html

Ush1

Lux23 wrote: »

This story sort of makes me understand why lynchings happen.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/wifes-anger-as-scrambler-rider-avoids-court-over-husbands-injury-38044612.html

What sort of mother would not make any contact with them? The bottle of the barrel scum out there really know no bounds.

sydthebeat

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah OK. I get you. Not a deterrent for the one who committed the crime.

how do you come up with that... of course is a deterrent for the one who commits the crime... criminals do not have exclusivity for different types of crimes.

are you actually trying to argue that a sentence of 10 years is not more of a deterrent than a sentence of say 5 years? if so, why are you saying this?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How do you conclude what's an appropriate sentence then?

beyond my pay grade.

but as an external observer i can absolutely criticize what i see as lenient sentences for dangerous offenders.... or meager sentences for repeat offenders.

you should read this:
https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/sentencing-guidelines-lottery-3867865-Mar2018/

Mad_maxx

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why 10 years or any other number of years? Is it a matter of picking a number out of the sky?

I know you are being sneery but how and ever, Ten years is a long time as the majority of perpetrators are in the eighteen to thirty five bracket, loosing ten years during that period of your life is a big loss to reclaim

Mad_maxx

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you want to take the victim into consideration you won't like the research. The research suggests that some kind of reconciliation is effective. Sentencing the criminal actually does very little for the victims. They don't get much from punishing the criminal. They actually get more from a discussion with the criminal and sincere apology if it's possible.

I'm sure you won't care about that even though it's the thing that is shown to help the victim.

The kind of people who do " research" in this area are invariably social studies leftists of some kind who primarily see victimhood in the perpetrator

El_Duderino 09

Hedgelayer wrote: »

I was reading the last few pages and just wondering what you think is an appropriate sentence yourself.

In my opinion the whole system needs an over haul and maybe like the injuries board there should be a set sentence for each crime.

Zero tollerence and no suspension for good behaviour, do the crime you do the time.

Ive no idea how to figure out the appropriate sentence and neither do any of the others posting here. Im Waiting to see how long it takes them to figure that out.

I'd agree the system needs an overhaul. But we would need to figure out the purpose of the new system. Is it to punish crime? Deter crime? Reduce recidivism? Make amends to the victims?

I suspect the main motivation for most of the posters here is simply to punish. That does almost nothing for the victim and barely affects likelihood of recidivism. But for some reason it seems to be the only thing they're Interested in discussing. That's fascinating to me.

I'd be much more interested in finding out what factors lead to crime and addressing those factors to prevent crime in the first place. Mad idea, isn't it?

El_Duderino 09

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The kind of people who do " research" in this area are invariably social studies leftists of some kind who primarily see victimhood in the perpetrator

Like I said, I'm sure you won't like the research.

So if you're going to dismiss the research without so much as considering it (very convenient) then how are you going to determine what actually works?

mariaalice

If punishment worked how come the Saudia Arabas system of beheading dissidents, criminals, and terrorists has not worked.

El_Duderino 09

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I know you are being sneery but how and ever, Ten years is a long time as the majority of perpetrators are in the eighteen to thirty five bracket, loosing ten years during that period of your life is a big loss to reclaim

I'm not being sneery. I'm asking why10 years and you're struggling to come up with a reason.

5 years is a long time. So is 20 years a long time. Why is 10 years the magic number?

You picked 10 years out if the sky and now you're struggling to defend it. Why bother defending it if you font have a reason to?

Chancer3001

mickdw wrote: »

Welfare is regarded a minimum living allowance so no financial penalty for them once they are on the dole.
I believe fines/ compensation should be taken directly from welfare payments when scum misbehave.

Seems the obvious solution.

But, lets see how it works in reality.

Jo is on the dole. Wants more money anywahs for booze drugs gambling birds etc etc etc.

So he smahses the window for a gps.

Gets caught. Now hes minus 1000 euro over the next 6 month of dole payments as punishment.

So does he say, oh no, now ill go hungry and ill stay in all weekend and watch tv?

Does he hell. He goes out and tries to rob 4 GPSs this time. Make up the shortfall this way.

If hes caught maybe he gets jail. Costs tax payers a lot more. Or maybe he doesnr get jail and the situation repeats itself all over again.

Hal3000

mariaalice wrote: »

If punishment worked how come the Saudia Arabas system of beheading dissidents, criminals, and terrorists has not worked.

Again, this is just a crazy comparison. No one here is abdicating for barbaric punishments. Have you seen the sentencing in this country lately ? Endless amounts of suspended sentences for pretty horrific crimes. There are countless examples of judges being overly lenitent on absolute thugs in this country. Bottom line is our system is broke and needs total overhaul

sydthebeat

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I suspect the main motivation for most of the posters here is simply to punish. That does almost nothing for the victim and barely affects likelihood of recidivism. But for some reason it seems to be the only thing they're Interested in discussing. ?

ive read back through the last 4 pages and i really dont see anyone saying that at all...

you keep asking what should we do...

did you read the article that i linked to?

El_Bee

Lux23 wrote: »

This story sort of makes me understand why lynchings happen.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/wifes-anger-as-scrambler-rider-avoids-court-over-husbands-injury-38044612.html

Literally clown world, is there an AGM for Judges or any kind of event where they're in the same place together at any point? Asking for a friend.

El_Bee

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm not being sneery. I'm asking why10 years and you're struggling to come up with a reason.

5 years is a long time. So is 20 years a long time. Why is 10 years the magic number?

You picked 10 years out if the sky and now you're struggling to defend it. Why bother defending it if you font have a reason to?

Congratulations, once again you've derailed the thread with nitpicking and splitting hairs. I'm baffled as to why you are like this, but I'll give you an answer before I block you, it's about taking the worst elements of society OUT of society, giving society a break from them, 10 years is a nice break for the victims of crime, but you obviously begrudge them even that, and that is why we are where we are.

Panthro

sydthebeat wrote: »

ive read back through the last 4 pages and i really dont see anyone saying that at all...

you keep asking what should we do...

did you read the article that i linked to?

It's all dáta collection for a blog she's writing on.
Ignorant men etc etc etc.

Jane98

Vince135792003 wrote: »

It will only get worse. I'm a primary teacher at the senior end and each year less and less basic discipline is being accepted by parents. Basic manners are decreasing and an entitled, spoilt attitude is on the rise. Soon we will only be allowed to reprimand children in Morse code. And that is not good for society when these children reach adulthood.

I totally agree. As a secondary school teacher, I have become more and more concerned in recent years with what seems to be an increase in the number of students I meet who aspire to a life on the dole and nothing more. Many of these students make the job of a teacher a difficult one as they have no interest in learning, turn up to class with no pens, copies etc and expect them to be given to them by the school for free because everything else they get is given to their families for free. It is truly worrying. Many of the parents do not engage with the school too.

I also think it's time we modernised our social welfare system so that people have to give something back in return for benefits. There is a huge disincentive for many in our society to take responsibility for themselves and their families. A fit and healthy 18 year old should not be handed money to sit on their arse. We are pushing the pension age for people who have worked all their lives up and up but a fit and healthy 18 year old can get free money.

Hal3000

Panthro wrote: »

It's all dáta collection for a blog she's writing on.
Ignorant men etc etc etc.

That won't be much of a read. Man is ignorant because he seeks harsher punishments for violent crimes. Christ Almighty perhaps we really are doomed.

weldoninhio

dxhound2005 wrote: »

There used to be many more of those murders back in the day. 586 road deaths in 1975, 165 in 2015. Nowadays as well there is a lot less anti social behaviour compared to 20 or 30 years ago. I remember gangs of youngsters congregating and causing trouble. I don't see that any more, probably because they are all inside on their smart phones. Football hooliganism was a big thing back then as well. The crowds are mostly a lot more civilised now.

Today's generation of children play outside for only half the time their parents did, so that seems to be translating into less trouble on the streets when they get a bit older as well.

I'd suggest a trip to Balbriggan, Rush, Skerries, Lusk, Malahide etc at the weekends.

weldoninhio

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you want to take the victim into consideration you won't like the research. The research suggests that some kind of reconciliation is effective. Sentencing the criminal actually does very little for the victims. They don't get much from punishing the criminal. They actually get more from a discussion with the criminal and sincere apology if it's possible.

I'm sure you won't care about that even though it's the thing that is shown to help the victim.

Surely if we just hug the criminals and they'll feel the warmth of human compassion and change their ways?? :rolleyes:

weldoninhio

mariaalice wrote: »

If punishment worked how come the Saudia Arabas system of beheading dissidents, criminals, and terrorists has not worked.

How many beheaded "dissidents, criminals, and terrorists" have caused trouble once they have been dealt with??

El_Duderino 09

Panthro wrote: »

It's all dáta collection for a blog she's writing on.
Ignorant men etc etc etc.

Where did you get any of that from? A blog on ignorant men? Crikey that's a dreadful chip on your shoulder.

You're wrong on every point in that statement (not that you asked). I'm not collecting data, I don't write a blog, I'm not a woman and I didn't even consider the gender of the posters.

But your reply was fascinating.

El_Duderino 09

El_Bee wrote: »

Congratulations, once again you've derailed the thread with nitpicking and splitting hairs. I'm baffled as to why you are like this, but I'll give you an answer before I block you, it's about taking the worst elements of society OUT of society, giving society a break from them, 10 years is a nice break for the victims of crime, but you obviously begrudge them even that, and that is why we are where we are.

I've simply asked posters what would be an appropriate sentence and how they arrive at their conclusion. If that's enough to derail the discussion then it suggests the conclusions aren't very well thought out.

Again you're back to defending the arbitrary number of 10 years. Why 10? Why not 12 or 15 or 17 or 8 or 7 or 5. Why jot just lock people up for ever?

Have you even thought about what you're saying or have you literally just picked a number out of the air and decided to defend it?

suicide_circus

We are trying to follow the "Norse" model of sentencing and prisons.

In Norway they give light sentences and the inmates live in great conditions with loads of rehabilitation and counselling etc and they find this reduces repeat offending.

Irish people and society are very different from Scandinavians. One size does not fit all.

The legal profession here have dropped all pretence of honour and dignity and are now openly and flagrantly exploiting the free legal aid and personal injury systems for their own greasy gain while literally putting the public at risk and making ireland a worse place to live.

El_Duderino 09

I know you'll find this baffling but Im actually more Interested in the victims and preventing people becoming victims by reducing crime in the first place.

Locking people up is the most basic and unthinking thing to do. It does nothing for the victim or the criminal. It removes then from the streets for a while then they're back out to commit more crime.

Do none of you have any Interest in reducing crime rather than just waiting for crime to happen so it can be punished?

Franz Von Peppercorn

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

OK. I'm not sure you understand the question I'm asking. Why is 5 years too small and 20 too large?

What's the purpose of the prison sentence in your opinion and how is that purpose achieved by serving 10 years in prison?

The main purpose of all legal systems is in fact retributive. The second most important thing is deterrence. Rehabilitation would be a good thing but is a side affect. Also a rehabilitative system on its own is open to locking people up indefinitely.

What does retributive justice mean? It isn't revenge. Revenge is personal. The state intervenes and stops revenge happening, and when law and order breaks down vigilantes or feuds break out.

What it means is that somebody, judged to be guilty impartially by the state and not emotionally by his victims, pays proportionately for his or her crimes even if he or she is not really a threat anymore. A rapist who is now incapacitated sexually ( for whatever reason) would be jailed under a retributive system but not under a rehabilitative system, as he is now incapable of rape. An old man who isn't a threat who nevertheless has a history of sexual abuse, would also be jailed if enough evidence was found. Neither of them would avoid jail in a retributive system even if they showed genuine remorse, or engaged in restoration, whatever that could be.

Deterrence works into this as well, as longer sentences can obviously deter criminals, and the State has a moral duty to stop 80 year olds being terrorised.

Franz Von Peppercorn

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I know you'll find this baffling but Im actually more Interested in the victims and preventing people becoming victims by reducing crime in the first place.

You have literally said nothing concrete to this effect.

Locking people up is the most basic and unthinking thing to do. It does nothing for the victim or the criminal. It removes then from the streets for a while then they're back out to commit more crime.

Basically you don't want a justice system. You don't even give an alternative here. Just don't lock people up.

Do none of you have any Interest in reducing crime rather than just waiting for crime to happen so it can be punished?

Absolutely.

Mad_maxx

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Like I said, I'm sure you won't like the research.

So if you're going to dismiss the research without so much as considering it (very convenient) then how are you going to determine what actually works?

I've no interest in the views of ideological leftists who arrogantly believe they know what's best in these circumstances, the left have written policy re_ delinquency this past several decades and its been an abject failure

Mad_maxx

Jane98 wrote: »

I totally agree. As a secondary school teacher, I have become more and more concerned in recent years with what seems to be an increase in the number of students I meet who aspire to a life on the dole and nothing more. Many of these students make the job of a teacher a difficult one as they have no interest in learning, turn up to class with no pens, copies etc and expect them to be given to them by the school for free because everything else they get is given to their families for free. It is truly worrying. Many of the parents do not engage with the school too.

I also think it's time we modernised our social welfare system so that people have to give something back in return for benefits. There is a huge disincentive for many in our society to take responsibility for themselves and their families. A fit and healthy 18 year old should not be handed money to sit on their arse. We are pushing the pension age for people who have worked all their lives up and up but a fit and healthy 18 year old can get free money.

Left wing backed government policy is the root cause of this rotten feckless culture, an ideology of viewing endless victims where people are powerless to even behave to a minimal level of decency

We must demand more of our citizens and increasing child benefit is no substitute for espousing two parent families, the left have cheered on the downgrading of the traditional family unit.

Far more people were poor fifty years ago yet the country did not have communities of feral delinquents all over the nation

Franz Von Peppercorn

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I've no interest in the views of ideological leftists who arrogantly believe they know what's best in these circumstances, the left have written policy re_ delinquency this past several decades and its been an abject failure

More upper class liberals than the old school left.

One of the reasons for this is there is less crime in rich areas, and one of the reasons for that is there are more police in rich areas. I know this because I see more police activity in the leafy north Dublin county town I live in than I saw in the north city working class estate I grew up in. Even now if rowdy kids from working class estates turn up here and do what they do in those estates (be rowdy, occasional gangs of shoplifters, etc) a few paddy wagons turn up while in their own backyard the police are as rare as hens teeth.

The criminals are aware of this too which is why the attacks on the old are on the old and poor, not the old and rich though the latter have more money or jewellery hanging about.

Panthro

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Where did you get any of that from? A blog on ignorant men? Crikey that's a dreadful chip on your shoulder.

You're wrong on every point in that statement (not that you asked). I'm not collecting data, I don't write a blog, I'm not a woman and I didn't even consider the gender of the posters.

But your reply was fascinating.

When in doubt.. deflect.

Classic El_Duderino.