Peter Mcverrys support for syringe criminal.

SouthDublin6w

Peter didn't give this letter the letter came from the trust which the man was a resident in the Lantern rehabilitation program. Why are people still thinking this letter came from peters pen.

El_Duderino 09

lawred2 wrote: »

?

You can't just ask for an unrelated person's case files...

A reference is a separate thing.. Peter McVerry seems to have made a statement as to the man's treatment. Can't see how he is in any position to do so.

If he is involved in the guys case in his charity he could well have that information as part of a multi disciplinary team. If he asks the rehab practitioners and relays what they say, then of course he could give the reference.

Let’s not forget that neither of us know the details. But it’s definitely possible that he has the necessary information.

El_Duderino 09

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Jaysus you're like a dog with a bone, as i've said numerous times it's my own personal opinion based on what I think it should be for a serious assault.

Lol. Asking why someone thinks something is I reasonable. “It’s hard enough to remember my opinions, let alone remember my reasons for my opinions”.

Seriously, if it was a reasoned opinion it would be easy to tell us those reasons. Since you can’t give a reason I’m coming to the conclusion you don’t actually have one.

Pulling sentences from between your cheeks should be enough to demonstrate you do t have a clue what you’re on about.

justincasey

lawred2 wrote: »

Is he qualified to make that statement?

Peter mc verry has worked with disadvantaged communities since early 70s id say he is qualified to make this statement dont you think

Brendan Delaney

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lol. Asking why someone thinks something is I reasonable. “It’s hard enough to remember my opinions, let alone remember my reasons for my opinions”.

Seriously, if it was a reasoned opinion it would be easy to tell us those reasons. Since you can’t give a reason I’m coming to the conclusion you don’t actually have one.

Pulling sentences from between your cheeks should be enough to demonstrate you do t have a clue what you’re on about.

What's wrong with 10 years for assault? We need tougher sentences in this country.

Hal3000

Brendan Delaney wrote: »

What's wrong with 10 years for assault? We need tougher sentences in this country.

Many people here think understanding is key. They don't like any mention of harsh sentencing...

Brendan Delaney

Hal3000 wrote: »

Many people here think understanding is key. They don't like any mention of harsh sentencing...

Very easy to be liberal when someone else is the victim.

El_Duderino 09

Brendan Delaney wrote: »

What's wrong with 10 years for assault? We need tougher sentences in this country.

I asked why 10 years is the right sentence. And the poster didn’t have a reason. If you propose a specific sentence it should at least have a rationale. I wouldn’t have thought it was an outrageously hard question.

Do you know why 10 is the right number of years?

El_Duderino 09

Hal3000 wrote: »

Many people here think understanding is key. They don't like any mention of harsh sentencing...

The sentences some people want seem to be random rather than anything else. Surely there should be a rationale for a sentence. But that’s too much to ask, particularly if someone doesn’t have a rationale.

Brendan Delaney

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The sentences some people want seem to be random rather than anything else. Surely there should be a rationale for a sentence. But that’s too much to ask, particularly if someone doesn’t have a rationale.

Inflict pain and suffering on another person? 10 years is your punishment. 10 years of your life gone because you're a worthless scumbag. What more rationale do you need?

El_Duderino 09

Brendan Delaney wrote: »

Inflict pain and suffering on another person? 10 years is your punishment. 10 years of your life gone because you're a worthless scumbag. What more rationale do you need?

It’s clear you don’t understand the question. The question I’m asking is how do you determine what the Appropriate sentence is?

Brendan Delaney

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s clear you don’t understand the question. The question I’m asking is how do you determine what the Appropriate sentence is?

It's an appropriate punishment for inflicting suffering on an innocent person.

lawred2

justincasey wrote: »

Peter mc verry has worked with disadvantaged communities since early 70s id say he is qualified to make this statement dont you think

So have thousands of volunteers. Are they all qualified?

He is not medically qualified to make such statements.

He may well be an capable means by which to relay medical reports but that's about it.

El_Duderino 09

Brendan Delaney wrote: »

It's an appropriate punishment for inflicting suffering on an innocent person.

Ok. Now the question I asked was how you deteriorated it’s the appropriate punishment. It’s a simple enough question.

Brendan Delaney

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. Now the question I asked was how you deteriorated it’s the appropriate punishment. It’s a simple enough question.

Because I believe it to be. I don't believe in soft sentences for violent crime.

Hal3000

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. Now the question I asked was how you deteriorated it’s the appropriate punishment. It’s a simple enough question.

You've been at this before dragging threads out. Instead, how about you tell us what an appropriate sentence for a syringe attack ? You won't as per your previous threads.

El_Duderino 09

Brendan Delaney wrote: »

Because I believe it to be. I don't believe in soft sentences for violent crime.

It’s amazing how many posters throw out numbers but have absolutely no idea how they came up with it. Don’t you think you should be able to say why you came up with that number as opposed to any other number?

Clearly not

Brendan Delaney

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s amazing how many posters throw out numbers but have absolutely no idea how they came up with it. Don’t you think you should be able to say why you came up with that number as opposed to any other number?

Clearly not

I feel that if you brutally assault a person you should spend 10 years behind a bars as a fitting punishment.

El_Duderino 09

Hal3000 wrote: »

You've been at this before dragging threads out. Instead, how about you tell us what an appropriate sentence for a syringe attack ? You won't as per your previous threads.

I know. I find it fascinating that you and others can’t string together a reason for why the sentence.

Do you want me to pull a number out of my arse like the others did? I told you already that I don’t know how sentences should be determined. I think they should have a strong rationale based on reason
And evidence.

Locking people up for random sentences is massively costly so it should at least have a better reason than “my opinion is it’s the right sentence because I think it’s the right sentence”. Laughable reasoning but strangely common

El_Duderino 09

Brendan Delaney wrote: »

I feel that if you brutally assault a person you should spend 10 years behind a bars as a fitting punishment.

Feelings? You’re willing to base a prison sentence on feelings? How very new-.age. Very honest but hardly a robust rationale.

Brendan Delaney

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Feelings? You’re willing to base a prison sentence on feelings? How very new-.age. Very honest but hardly a robust rationale.

As I said, if you commit serious assault then you should be spending years in prison. A decade seems appropriate to me.

justincasey

lawred2 wrote: »

So have thousands of volunteers. Are they all qualified?

He is not medically qualified to make such statements.

He may well be an capable means by which to relay medical reports but that's about it.

Well I'm sure he is relaying the reports from the staff in the centre and .In addition any judge in the land would look favourably on a letter from any volunteer that has worked as long as he has in this area.

Heat_Wave

SouthDublin6w wrote: »

Peter didn't give this letter the letter came from the trust which the man was a resident in the Lantern rehabilitation program. Why are people still thinking this letter came from peters pen.

How do you know?

Peter has known this guy for years. He was a father to him.

SouthDublin6w

Heat_Wave wrote: »

How do you know?

Peter has known this guy for years. He was a father to him.

The letter was given by the trust it's a letter issued by all services to those accessing treatment. Usually requested by the judge as a progress report

Heat_Wave

These attacks occurred in early 2017. What’s to say he’s been doing well for the past two years, drug free, and now he’s locked up for something he did two years ago? Where’s the justice there?

And we have all heard that prison is a drug haven, so if he’s been drug free for two years then he’ll be back on them in no time in prison.

This country has a strange way of dealing with problems.

mynamejeff

Heat_Wave wrote: »

These attacks occurred in early 2017. What’s to say he’s been doing well for the past two years, drug free, and now he’s locked up for something he did two years ago? Where’s the justice there?

And we have all heard that prison is a drug haven, so if he’s been drug free for two years then he’ll be back on them in no time in prison.

This country has a strange way of dealing with problems.

the justice is for the victims of his crimes not for him

the justice would be that you cant just be a violent scumbag without consequences

actions have consequences should be a basic requirement of understanding to become an adult

mynamejeff

mynamejeff wrote: »

actions have consequences should be a basic requirement of understanding to become an adult

and if an adult doesn't fully comprehend this, should they be tried like a child?

It impresses me that so many people accuse Liberals of being 'naïve', but can't acknowledge that some criminals -- especially those who are addicts -- often have their lives suspended somewhere in the teenage years. Many of them have never grown up and developed adult attitudes, because they have been stuck in a state of addiction since the age of 15 or 16.

You'll often hear a former addict joke that their brains are 'brand new', because they've never developed the same level of maturity that the rest of us did.

I'm trying to avoid making this post sound condescending towards addicted people because they also deal with horrible circumstances. But in terms of ordinary socialisation and social learning, many have the mental outlook of teenagers.

mynamejeff

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

and if an adult doesn't fully comprehend this, should they be tried like a child?

It impresses me that so many people accuse Liberals of being 'naïve', but can't acknowledge that some criminals -- especially those who are addicts -- often have their lives suspended somewhere in the teenage years. Many of them have never grown up and developed adult attitudes, because they have been stuck in a state of addiction since the age of 15 or 16.

You'll often hear a former addict joke that their brains are 'brand new', because they've never developed the same level of maturity that the rest of us did.

I'm trying to avoid making this post sound condescending towards addicted people because they also deal with horrible circumstances. But in terms of ordinary socialisation and social learning, many have the mental outlook of teenagers.

I m more concerned with the victim rather than the addict and the criminal. the victim did nothing that progressed them in their life to the point that they became prey for a selfish weak willed person who allowed themselves to become a monsterwho preys on those that they believed weak and vulnerable.
and yes i am very familiar with addicts and addiction .

the answer to that problem is to remove those who cannot live within the rules of our world from it until they have proven that they can in order to protect the innocent from them

mynamejeff

mynamejeff wrote: »

I m more concerned with the victim rather than the addict and the criminal.

I think most of us are. But...

the victim did nothing that progressed them in their life to the point that they became prey for a selfish weak willed person who allowed themselves to become a monster

... Every adult knows that monsters don't exist.

An alarmingly high number of addicts are themselves victims of physical or sexual abuse. For some reason, when we hear of a violent attack, we'd have nothing but sympathy to hear that the victim became a nervous wreck who couldn't leave the house, and maybe developed an addiction.

But in the same breath, we lack sympathy for an addict who probably also was a victim of some kind of physical or sexual violence, and probably had a miserable childhood. This is somewhat natural, but it's cognitive dissonance.

There are some violent criminals who can be fairly described as bad people, out and out, with no logical explanation for their addictions. But those people are needles in one big dysfunctional haystack.

mynamejeff

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

... Every adult knows that monsters don't exist

.

monsters are almost all human



google is your friend