Peter Mcverrys support for syringe criminal.

the_syco

mynamejeff wrote: »

monsters are almost all human

Hitler was just misunderstood :pac:

mynamejeff

mynamejeff wrote: »

monsters are almost all human

google is your friend

No, monsters don't exist.

I don't know why some think it's helpful to dehumanise violent criminals. Maybe it's a primitive hangover that operates to stigmatise an individual. But we have the legal process to make outsiders of them now.

Maybe it makes people feel instinctively better (or more secure) to make monsters of criminals, but it achieves no legitimate or worthwhile objective. It would be a lot more civilised to try and understand what went wrong with them, and to try to address those problems.

Or we could just get angry, do what we've always done (which has failed repeatedly) and continue to express surprise at its lack of success.

In short, we have to choose between pursuing a scientific approach or following our animal instincts.

overkill602

Take a walk past his centre on berkeley road at your peril he has the worst of the worst scumbags loitering saw 3 of them later breaking and entering a building close by, luckily the guards arrived.
He supports a group that reak havoc on our streets our system has given up

Hal3000

https://www.thejournal.ie/man-sentenced-unprovoked-attack-tourists-dublin-hostel-4626716-May2019/

he had employment prospects on his release and that he had a “pro-social” partner.

Ahhhh, god love him !

He has 26 previous convictions. I look forward to his return to society soon.

El_Duderino 09

mynamejeff wrote: »

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

How does living in prison prove they can live within the rules of society?

El_Duderino 09

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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.

Precisely!

Locking people up is just treating the symptom-badly. If you care about victims you would want to do whatever you can to prevent more victims from being created. That would involve dreadful lefty ideas like better addiction treatment and tackling the reasons people turn to drugs in the first place.

But some people do t care about any of that. They just want to see “justice” for victims while shunning the things that would result In fewer victims in the first place.

Hal3000

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Precisely!

Locking people up is just treating the symptom-badly. If you care about victims you would want to do whatever you can to prevent more victims from being created. That would involve dreadful lefty ideas like better addiction treatment and tackling the reasons people turn to drugs in the first place.

But some people do t care about any of that. They just want to see “justice” for victims while shunning the things that would result In fewer victims in the first place.

Not all violent criminals are drug addicts. How do you propose treating repeat offenders ?

El_Duderino 09

Hal3000 wrote: »

Not all violent criminals are drug addicts. How do you propose treating repeat offenders ?

I didn't. I proposed that specifically for drug offenders. A fairly significant subset of repeat offenders, wouldn't you say? Do you have any comment on that proposal or do you just want to shift the discussion away from that idea? What say you?

No point asking what you prescribe. 10 years, am I right?

Mad_maxx

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No, monsters don't exist.

I don't know why some think it's helpful to dehumanise violent criminals. Maybe it's a primitive hangover that operates to stigmatise an individual. But we have the legal process to make outsiders of them now.

Maybe it makes people feel instinctively better (or more secure) to make monsters of criminals, but it achieves no legitimate or worthwhile objective. It would be a lot more civilised to try and understand what went wrong with them, and to try to address those problems.

Or we could just get angry, do what we've always done (which has failed repeatedly) and continue to express surprise at its lack of success.

In short, we have to choose between pursuing a scientific approach or following our animal instincts.

Some people are happy - enjoy being bad

Don't complicate it

Mad_maxx

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

And Michael D has been talking sh1te since the early seventies.

Lots of people are wrongheaded their entire lives

KikiLaRue

Mad_maxx wrote: »

And Michael D has been talking sh1te since the early seventies.

Lots of people are wrongheaded their entire lives

Are there any reflective surfaces near by you could take a look into?

weldoninhio

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why is 10 years the magic number? I asked some of the same posters what they would give for a completely different crime and they each said 10 years. The poster above said 8-10 years for another completely different crime. I tried to ask for the rationale and they said “20 years seemed too many. 5 years seemed too few. I don’t think they understood what I was asking.

Sentencing should have a rationale. Plucking a random number out of the air is silly. It’s using that 10 years seems to keep coming up

Ok, so explain the rationale behind 3 years with 18 suspended. So with automatic remission she'll be in for just over a year. Whats the rationale behind that??

weldoninhio

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s something he could easily find out if he has anything to do with the man’s case file or asked the service providers. References are more about the referee and their status than any academic qualifications the referee has.

Would he be allowed ask the service providers. GDPR and all that.

El_Duderino 09

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No, monsters don't exist.

I don't know why some think it's helpful to dehumanise violent criminals. Maybe it's a primitive hangover that operates to stigmatise an individual. But we have the legal process to make outsiders of them now.

Maybe it makes people feel instinctively better (or more secure) to make monsters of criminals, but it achieves no legitimate or worthwhile objective. It would be a lot more civilised to try and understand what went wrong with them, and to try to address those problems.

Or we could just get angry, do what we've always done (which has failed repeatedly) and continue to express surprise at its lack of success.

In short, we have to choose between pursuing a scientific approach or following our animal instincts.

I couldn't agree more. You have to punish people who break the law. That's a given. But the focus of the justice system should be in action ages before crimes occur. I asked the people who want harsher sentences what causes crime and they identified breakdown in social cohesion. but they stopped talking about it as soon as I proposed it as something we should be addressing to prevent crime.

I genuinely thing some people are much more concerned with punishing crime and feigning concern for victim than preventing people from becoming victims I the first place.

weldoninhio

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No, monsters don't exist.

I don't know why some think it's helpful to dehumanise violent criminals. Maybe it's a primitive hangover that operates to stigmatise an individual. But we have the legal process to make outsiders of them now.

Maybe it makes people feel instinctively better (or more secure) to make monsters of criminals, but it achieves no legitimate or worthwhile objective. It would be a lot more civilised to try and understand what went wrong with them, and to try to address those problems.

Or we could just get angry, do what we've always done (which has failed repeatedly) and continue to express surprise at its lack of success.

In short, we have to choose between pursuing a scientific approach or following our animal instincts.

monster[ mon-ster ]

noun
1. a legendary animal combining features of animal and human form or having the forms of various animals in combination, as a centaur, griffin, or sphinx.

2. any creature so ugly or monstrous as to frighten people.

3. any animal or human grotesquely deviating from the normal shape, behavior, or character.

4. a person who excites horror by wickedness, cruelty, etc.

5. any animal or thing huge in size.

El_Duderino 09

weldoninhio wrote: »

Would he be allowed ask the service providers. GDPR and all that.

If McVerry is involved in his case it would be quite proper to share that kind of information. That's the whole point of multi disciplinary teams, to share relevant information between professionals E.g. Mcverry's charity is involved in the man's case from a homelessness point of view. Whether a person is currently using drugs or is engaging in a rehab programme is relevant to the type of accommodation and the level of support the person needs.

But let's remember that neither of us actually know. We're speculation and i'm demonstrating that it is very normal to share that kind of information.

It might even be normal to ask for specific information to provide a reference for court. I don't know about that. Do you know about that?

El_Duderino 09

weldoninhio wrote: »

Ok, so explain the rationale behind 3 years with 18 suspended. So with automatic remission she'll be in for just over a year. Whats the rationale behind that??

That's a great question. I'm glad you see the merit of asking such a good question.

Now, I'm about to do something you and the others refused to do when I asked the same question about the magic 10 year sentence they repeatedly said were appropriate - i'm going to be honest. I don't know what the rationale behind the 3 year sentence is. I don't know if it's based on any solid ground of research re Punishment, public safety, retribution, victim reconciliation or payback. I doubt it is to be honest.

You might remember that I never once said I thing the current sentencing is correct. You seem to be making up a lot of arguments on my behalf. feel free to ask me what I think rather than assuming what I think. I'll tell you what I think even when I don't know enough to make a conclusion

jmayo

mynamejeff wrote: »

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

One would think, but some seem to think the addict and perp was a lifelong victim deserving of sympathy. :rolleyes:

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I think most of us are. But...

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.

Sorry my sympathy is all out for fookers, and yes that is what this person is, who decide to traumatise innocent people so that they can get their next fix or so that they can live a lifestyle at others expense.

And shoving a needle to someone with the fear that you could be giving the person a lifelong health sentence or even a death sentence is the ultimate in scummy.
To me that is GBH bordering on attempted murder.

And I am sick and tired of the so called "do gooders" championing the plight of the poor addicts.

Yes they may have had a tough upbringing, their parents may have been addicts, but somewhere along the way they had a choice.
There is always a point somewhere where someone has a choice.

Lots of people have come from tough disadvantaged backgrounds, but have gone on to have successful lives and contribute to society.

Everytime a dogooder brings up their awful past, their background they are then offering them an excuse and in effect condoning their bad choices.

You will find it is very same people offering excuses for our latest ethnic group and it is not helping anyone, least of all the ones in that group.

I believe everyone deserves a chance and unless they are total scumbag or total bad egg (ala the thomas murrays, gerard barrys, larry murphys, brian hennessys of this world), they deserve second chances.

But there is a line.

I think our justice system and prison system are a joke which I have documented here many times.
And whether it is the progressive "dogooders" or just governments that don't want to spend money, it is an even bigger joke that we haven't added a huge number of prison places with new prisons over the last couple of decades.

Our population has risen dramatically, our level of voilent crime has risen drastically from decades ago.
Who here is old enough to remember how we had many days of front page coverage when murders occurred ?
Now unless it is has a salacious angle (Mr Moonlight) or is downright inconceivable (Hawe family) it just passes as yet another killing.

We have added school places, supposedly hospital places, university places, but nothing really for violent criminals.
Why not ?

And by prison I mean a place where people are made work, a clean non drug environment, but also offered rehabilitation.
And if you refuse rehabilitation then you serve every single second of your sentence.

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

.

Our population has risen dramatically, our level of voilent crime has risen drastically from decades ago.
Who here is old enough to remember how we had many days of front page coverage when murders occurred ?

the number of suspicious killings in Ireland are about half the rate it was in the mid-00s, when organised crime was at its peak. We're back now to 1980s levels.

Your perceived increase in murders and violent crime generally appears to be a falsehood, a bias. Ireland was a far more violent place 100+ years ago, at a time when we were sentencing people to hard labour and deporting our own citizens and when there were very few social supports.

These things are all related. Education, opportunity and a social safety-net has provided an alternative to crime and to ignorant behaviour for millions of us. And I really do mean 'us'.

El_Duderino 09

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

the number of suspicious killings in Ireland are about half the rate it was in the mid-00s, when organised crime was at its peak. We're back now to 1980s levels.

Your perceived increase in murders and violent crime generally appears to be a falsehood, a bias. Ireland was a far more violent place 100+ years ago, at a time when we were sentencing people to hard labour and deporting our own citizens and when there were very few social supports.

These things are all related. Education, opportunity and a social safety-net has provided an alternative to crime and to ignorant behaviour for millions of us. And I really do mean 'us'.

The people who are most easily frightened never believe that crime is down on years ago. They have this rose tinted fantasy of the past where all they young people were respectful and everyone obeyed the law. In reality the past was far more violent and punishments were far more severe than now.

As you say the main difference is that dreadful lefty programmes like education is free for everyone. There are some problems like social cohesion and connectedness with the community.

The way to drive crime down further is to tackle social issues which lead to breakdown in social cohesion, drug addiction and crime.

Hal3000

https://www.thejournal.ie/russian-heiress-scam-4627910-May2019/

12 years in the states for fraud and rightly so. She was old enough to know better and others will now think twice before committing such a crime.

If that was in Ireland, I'll take a guess. 3 month with last 2 months suspended and 2000 compensation. Letter from family, bright future.

El_Duderino 09

Hal3000 wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/russian-heiress-scam-4627910-May2019/

12 years in the states for fraud and rightly so. She was old enough to know better and others will now think twice before committing such a crime.

If that was in Ireland, I'll take a guess. 3 month with last 2 months suspended and 2000 compensation. Letter from family, bright future.

Crikey. Now you're getting upset about imagined crimes and sentences in Ireland. You'll never stop being cross if you can get your kicks from making up crimes and sentences.

Sam Quentin

I feel a 7 year sentence with the final 2 suspended, would be a suitable punishment for such a crime,.I can only imagine the immediate fear and horror of the victim,never mind the stress and trauma which will follow her for the rest of her life..

El_Duderino 09

Sam Quentin wrote: »

I feel a 7 year sentence with the final 2 suspended, would be a suitable punishment for such a crime,.I can only imagine the immediate fear and horror of the victim,never mind the stress and trauma which will follow her for the rest of her life..

Ok. How did you determine that is the appropriate sentence? Could you walk me through the thought process or is it more based on feeling than reason?

begbysback

Hal3000 wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/russian-heiress-scam-4627910-May2019/

12 years in the states for fraud and rightly so. She was old enough to know better and others will now think twice before committing such a crime.

If that was in Ireland, I'll take a guess. 3 month with last 2 months suspended and 2000 compensation. Letter from family, bright future.

Might need to read that again, it’s not actually 12 years

Sam Quentin

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. How did you determine that is the appropriate sentence? Could you walk me through the thought process or is it more based on feeling than reason?

Jaysizzzzzz I don't know,.just think he shuda got more than 3 years inside.
How many years do you think he should spend in prison?

Hal3000

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The people who are most easily frightened never believe that crime is down on years ago. They have this rose tinted fantasy of the past where all they young people were respectful and everyone obeyed the law. In reality the past was far more violent and punishments were far more severe than now.

As you say the main difference is that dreadful lefty programmes like education is free for everyone. There are some problems like social cohesion and connectedness with the community.

The way to drive crime down further is to tackle social issues which lead to breakdown in social cohesion, drug addiction and crime.

Maybe some day we can all join hands in this wonderful social uptopia of yours. They've had decades to figure this stuff out. They can't !!

Hal3000

Hal3000 wrote: »

Maybe some day we can all join hands in this wonderful social uptopia of yours. They've had decades to figure this stuff out. They can't !!

Compared to an era before social supports, when crime was penalised by hard labour and transporting people out of the country, this is relatively utopian. Crime rates are a lot lower now because of social supports and greater income equality.

As El Duderino mentioned, if you're really interested in having fewer victims of crime, it makes sense to keep doing what works; only do it better.

Countries like Brazil, Mexico, and the USA which have high income-inequality, high rates of imprisonment and cannot be described as social democracies, have some of the the highest homicide rates in the world, and the highest in the OECD. Yet we repeatedly hear support for their 'no nonsense' approach, when their approach is, in fact, nonsensical.

Meanwhile in Ireland, we've seen a dramatic drop in violent crimes like homicide, which is well below the OECD average. We're not the ones doing it all wrong.

Hal3000

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Compared to an era before social supports, when crime was penalised by hard labour and transporting people out of the country, this is relatively utopian. Crime rates are a lot lower now because of social supports and greater income equality.

As El Duderino mentioned, if you're really interested in having fewer victims of crime, it makes sense to keep doing what works; only do it better.

Countries like Brazil, Mexico, and the USA which have high income-inequality, high rates of imprisonment and cannot be described as social democracies, have some of the the highest homicide rates in the world, and the highest in the OECD. Yet we repeatedly hear support for their 'no nonsense' approach, when their approach is, in fact, nonsensical.

So crime rates were higher in Ireland years back than today? Funny how people often commented on how rare a murder was in the country years ago, and how you could leave your door open! Do you mean medieval Ireland is it ?

Hal3000

Hal3000 wrote: »

So crime rates were higher in Ireland years back than today? Funny how people often commented on how rare a murder was in the country years ago and how you could leave your door open.... Do you mean medieval Ireland is it ?

No, I'm talking about the twentieth century and the previous one. The murder rate is back around what it was in the early 1980s, after falling dramatically since the early-mid noughties.

We're nowhere near as violent as we were in the 19th century, from where most people have drawn their support for a Victorian model of justice.

The countries with the world's lowest rates of violent crime are social democracies. A rule of thumb is the less income inequality, the greater the social supports, the less crime you'll see.