How is this thug allowed to roam free

Anus Von Skidmark

When I read stories like that, I get really frustrated that a certain Mr. Hitler ruined the whole concept of gas chambers for everyone by using them against entirely undeserving people.

There'd be a lot to be said for constructing a gassing facility somewhere remote down the west of Ireland and building a train line to there from all major cities in the country. You'd create employment building the facility, as well as the railways. Then anyone who manages to rack up three convictions for violent / sexual offences could be put on a train and sent down there to be gassed. That one project would provide jobs, keep society at large protected from violent scumbags, and might free up some housing to help alleviate the property crisis.

Who'd be the best politician to write to with this proposal?

armaghlad

Up here in the good old days he’d have been kneecapped by the provos for strike one and strike three left at the side of concession road (there is no strike two)

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

armaghlad wrote: »

Up here in the good old days he’d have been kneecapped by the provos for strike one and strike three left at the side of concession road (there is no strike two)

You mean the good old days of the troubles?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Boggles wrote: »

Meh.

Ireland and the Netherlands are safe countries relative to the rest of the world.

You can always pick a case and scare monger to your hearts content.

The reality is proper rehabilitation lowers the crime rate, the alternative doesn't.

People throw this word rehabilitation around - how would we rehabilitate this guy, how would we know he was genuinely rehabilitated, what happens if he isn’t rehabilitated in prison? Is he kept in?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Boggles wrote: »

What would you compare it with, an apple?

The user offered a perspective from another country because another asked for it.

You'll have to take it up with them I'm afraid.

Also I'm pretty sure our housing and health system rate relatively poorer when compared with similar nations.

Bizarre, comparisons are no no in your mind. Bubble?

You’ve utterly moved the goalposts there with “similar”. Ireland isn’t that safe by European standards.

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

People throw this word rehabilitation around - how would we rehabilitate this guy, how would we know he was genuinely rehabilitated, what happens if he isn’t rehabilitated.

I think the issue is that we're using this guy as an example of everyone that goes through the criminal justice system. He probably only represents 1% or less of people that go through the criminal justice system

My previous arguments have been from a general standpoint. Most people have commited crimes in their lives. Most people have stolen once in their life. And some people end up actually going to court over it. However, this guy is an absolute outlier. He's an anomaly.

Using this guy as some sort of metric on how we should deal with most criminals is wreckless at best.

Sweet.Science

All these do gooders minds would soon change if they were personally affected by people like this

Until then they will peddle the same oul cr@p

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

Sweet.Science wrote: »

All these do gooders minds would soon change if they were personally affected by people like this

Until then they will peddle the same oul cr@p

Do gooders? What scientifically-minded people?

No. It's called having principles. And some times sticking to your principles, logic and reason, doesn't always turn out in favour for the individual.

If a criminal hurt me who had gone through some rehabilitation but regressed back to old habbits, It doesn't mean i'll think "oooh taste of my own medicine." It doesn't work like that.

Cost/benefit analysis. We fly planes and we travel. Some of the planes crash. But we still fly because there is value to be gained. Same with rehabilitation.

Sweet.Science

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

Do gooders? What scientifically-minded people?

No. It's called having principles. And some times sticking to your principles, logic and reason, doesn't always turn out in favour for the individual.

If a criminal hurt me who had gone through some rehabilitation but regressed back to old habbits, It doesn't mean i'll think "oooh taste of my own medicine." It doesn't work like that.

Cost/benefit analysis. We fly planes and we travel. Some of the planes crash. But we still fly because there is value to be gained. Same with rehabilitation.

Its very easy to say that now

Boggles

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

You’ve utterly moved the goalposts there with “similar”. Ireland isn’t that safe by European standards.

Really?

Show your work?

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Its very easy to say that now

I'm not trying to score points. There's nothing virtuous about sticking to what you believe.

I believe in free-speech. That means I'll defend the right for a Nazi to espouse ****ty views and I'll defend that. But it's a principle that I know benefits the greater good. I'm satisfied with that.

You can say that it's easy for me to say that. And you'll question or doubt me, but that's all inconsequential. Fact of the matter is overall, I think rehabilitation is good and having a blanket knee-jerk reaction to thugs like this guy, isn't a good idea. It's a bit rare that people like him exist.

I would much rather a few of these guys walking about at least with some sort of rehab than to live in a society that just wants longer sentencing. It doesn't tackle the real problem. It's just throwing a plaster on the situation.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

Do gooders? What scientifically-minded people?

No. It's called having principles. And some times sticking to your principles, logic and reason, doesn't always turn out in favour for the individual.

If a criminal hurt me who had gone through some rehabilitation but regressed back to old habbits, It doesn't mean i'll think "oooh taste of my own medicine." It doesn't work like that.

Cost/benefit analysis. We fly planes and we travel. Some of the planes crash. But we still fly because there is value to be gained. Same with rehabilitation.

What exactly would re-habilitation mean for this particular guy? And if he can’t be rehabilitated?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

I'm not trying to score points. There's nothing virtuous about sticking to what you believe.

I believe in free-speech. That means I'll defend the right for a Nazi to espouse ****ty views and I'll defend that. But it's a principle that I know benefits the greater good. I'm satisfied with that.

You can say that it's easy for me to say that. And you'll question or doubt me, but that's all inconsequential. Fact of the matter is overall, I think rehabilitation is good and having a blanket knee-jerk reaction to thugs like this guy, isn't a good idea. It's a bit rare that people like him exist.

I would much rather a few of these guys walking about at least with some sort of rehab than to live in a society that just wants longer sentencing. It doesn't tackle the real problem. It's just throwing a plaster on the situation.

Rehabilitation would have to go hand in hand with longer sentencing or at least longer prison sentences. Otherwise it’s meaningless.

The virtue signalling is also a form of wealth signalling. The rich suffer less from crime than the poor.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Boggles wrote: »

Really?

Show your work?

I should probably have said Western European of course, which is probably what you mean by similar.

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

What exactly would re-habilitation mean for this particular guy? And if he can’t be rehabilitated?

Haven't a breeze. I'm not a professional. And there's a good chance he could re-offend.

As I said, I think he's an outlier and I understand why people are frustrated that this type of person with so many convictions and a propensity for violence could be let out.

But, he's a unique case. He's served his time. I don't think he's a good example to judge the merits of our justice system on because he's so unique.

I don't know if he's engaged in behavioural therapy. My assumption is that he has. And some people when they go through therapy, they gas out from their previous life. Some violent people and I'd say even a lot of violent people probably don't want to be violent. It comes from somewhere. It's mostly learned, I would say or as a symptom of multiple things during their upbringing. But if you can show someone there are ways to handle the impulsiveness to, and propensity to be violent then it's empowering.

Like, I don't think people addicted to gambling like being addicted to gambling. But you can rehabilitate people. And I know gambling doesn't physically hurt others directly, unlike this guy, it's the same principle. To think we can't rehabilitate people, is to give up on any and every rehabilitation.

For example, I don't think we should ban alcohol because there are some chronic alcoholics. And I think that of the justice system. Because men like this exist, is no excuse for longer sentencing and/or further corporal or capital punishment. I think the majority benefit from rehabilitation and only a minority get the sense of "safety" and "security" for longer sentencing.

Edit: Any maybe longer sentencing isn't a bad idea for outliers like this. With that many convictions etc. It's a matter of public safety.

So I'm clear, I don't want all sentencing to become longer, especially if people are thinking it will deter people. Longer sentencing if deemed appropriate for the health of the public.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

Haven't a breeze. I'm not a professional. And there's a good chance he could re-offend.

If he re-offends he’s not rehabilitated, so what happens then?

As I said, I think he's an outlier and I understand why people are frustrated that this type of person with so many convictions and a propensity for violence could be let out.

The law has to deal with outliers. Murderers are outliers.

But, he's a unique case. He's served his time. I don't think he's a good example to judge the merits of our justice system on because he's so unique.

Is he unique?

I don't know if he's engaged in behavioural therapy. My assumption is that he has. And some people when they go through therapy, they gas out from their previous life. Some violent people and I'd say even a lot of violent people probably don't want to be violent. It comes from somewhere. It's mostly learned, I would say or as a symptom of multiple things during their upbringing. But if you can show someone there are ways to handle the impulsiveness to, and propensity to be violent then it's empowering.

I hate the word empowering. It’s meaningless. It might be empowering for this guy to be violent. And he may not be curable, or want to be cured and it isn’t always upbringing.

Like, I don't think people addicted to gambling like being addicted to gambling. But you can rehabilitate people. And I know gambling doesn't physically hurt others directly, unlike this guy, it's the same principle. To think we can't rehabilitate people, is to give up on any and every rehabilitation.

And if this guy isn’t rehabilitated?

For example, I don't think we should ban alcohol because there are some chronic alcoholics. And I think that of the justice system. Because men like this exist, is no excuse for longer sentencing and/or further corporal or capital punishment. I think the majority benefit from rehabilitation and only a minority get the sense of "safety" and "security" for longer sentencing.

I still haven’t worked out what you mean by rehabilitation.

splinter65

Boggles wrote: »

Good idea or bad idea has nothing to do with it.

He was found guilty and sentenced to X amount.

He is now out.

What do you want me or anybody else to do about it?

Do you think there should be a pre-crime division in Ireland?

He’s by all accounts a very violent person who has no control over his anger. He’s proved that to be true over and over. Do you not think that he’s a danger to the public and that the innocent public at large have a right not to have this violent out of control man at large?

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

If he re-offends he’s not rehabilitated, so what happens then?

Not to say he's not rehabilitated. If an aloholic gets drunk one day in a year. Do the other 364 days account for nothing? ......I don't know. I'm not an expert. Maybe he get get locked up and receive more rehabilitation/therapy. Find out why he did it again. Ask questions. Learn from guy. See if there's any other preventative measures we can take to stop others in a similar situation. Does that sound agreeable? If not, tell me why.

The law has to deal with outliers. Murderers are outliers.

Not sure what your point is? My broader point of saying he's an outlier is saying that he doesn't represent the larger population of people that go through the criminal justice system. If you read through this thread, people on here want sentencing laws to change based on this one guy. I'm giving the argument that basing all sentencing on outliers like this, isn't wise. In their world, that would mean John the plasterer who rarely/never gets in a fight does 5 or 10 years because he ended up getting caught in a fight defending his friend. I don't want to live in that society. This guy isn't same as the majority of people that go through the system for violence.

Is he unique?

Yes, that's why we're discussing him on public forum because he's unique.

I hate the word empowering. It’s meaningless. It might be empowering for this guy to be violent. And he may not be curable, or want to be cured and it isn’t always upbringing.

Whether you like or dislike a word isn't of any consequence. It has meaning. You what it means. Funny how you then continue to use the word of your own volition then isn't it? So whats the point? And he may not be curable.

And if this guy isn’t rehabilitated?

If he's not rehabilitated then the law deals with him when necessary. If he breaks his any of his conditions he's locked up again.

I still haven’t worked out what you mean by rehabilitation.

Funny you say that because you've been using the word in your rebuttals but then at the end you claim ignorance.

OK, lets define rehabilitation a bit better then.

Treatment for psychological, and compulsive and violent behaviours. Continuing psychological assessment, cognitive behavioural therapy.

Boggles

splinter65 wrote: »

Do you not think that he’s a danger to the public and that the innocent public at large have a right not to have this violent out of control man at large?

Again you are talking about "rights" but you are displaying absolutely no concept of what that means.

He was found guilty of a crime(s) and he was sentenced, he has completed his sentence, now he is out. He had his liberty removed for X amount of year to atone for his crimes. It's a common enough concept in most civilized countries.

What part of that is confusing you?

Are you suggesting that once an individual has completed their sentence they should be retried for the same crime and given a longer one because they may re-offend?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Boggles wrote: »

Again you are talking about "rights" but you are displaying absolutely no concept of what that means.

He was found guilty of a crime(s) and he was sentenced, he has completed his sentence, now he is out.

What part of that is confusing you?

Are you suggesting that once an individual has completed their sentence they should be retried for the same crime and given a longer one because they may re-offend?

Actually a rehabilitation type of prison sentence may not let him out until rehabilitated. Or he’s left out on parole and serves the rest of his sentence consecutively with whatever new sentence is applied.

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Actually a rehabilitation type of prison sentence may not let him out until rehabilitated. Or he’s left out on parole and serves the rest of his sentence consecutively with whatever new sentence is applied.

I don't see any issue with that. It's a more pro-active, positive approach than just blanket locking people up for longer.

Those that show signs of being able to be re-introduced to society will gain and those that don't can may end in the system for longer.

splinter65

Boggles wrote: »

Again you are talking about "rights" but you are displaying absolutely no concept of what that means.

He was found guilty of a crime(s) and he was sentenced, he has completed his sentence, now he is out.

What part of that is confusing you?

Are you suggesting that once an individual has completed their sentence they should be retried for the same crime and given a longer one because they may re-offend?

No, as I mentioned earlier in my opinion I don’t think our justice system is working very well at all.
I think we need a whole new approach to sentencing which is very heavily weighted towards the protection of the innocent non criminal public at large.
For instance the last time this criminal was put to prison it was for a violent dangerous crime. There needs to be a way of keeping him in prison indefinitely while he continues to behave in a violent dangerous way while in prison.
He should also have been imprisoned for a minimum amount of time when he was sentenced.
The last time he was sentenced it was his numerous conviction, all for violent crimes, and he should have been sent away at that stage for a minimum of 20 years before he could be considered for release.
Then, every time he was violent in prison a further 5 years needed to be added to his sentence.
What kind of sentencing would you like to see?

1874

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

I will always be in favour of rehabilitation over just adding long sweeping sentences. Thing is, rehabilitation doesn't satisfy the savage human need for "eye for an eye" revenge.

We could give the electric chair to multiple offenders. It's not a deterrent. People are still human. They'll still act impulsively and out of desperation and greed. Longer sentencing isn't a deterrent. Our government knows this. You think in the US who have the most incarcerated population in world have reduced crime because of long sentencing and death sentencing? **** no. You end up with a growing prison population and tax payers have to pay for. So how do you pay for that? You then privatize it. Then what happens? Judges start locking people up because it's profitable. Yes, that sounds like a slippery slope argument but it's happened all ready in the U.S.

Rehabilitate people. Not everyone is going to going to react ideally to rehabilitation but it beats the alternative of just locking everyone up for longer out of some fear that one of these boogeymen will live down the street from you and then come after you. I mean the odds of that.

Longer sentencing is like trying to put out a fire with petrol. Rehabilitative sentencing is at least attempting to correct the individual from recidivism.

Would I like this guy living down the road from me? Not really. But I don't like half the people around me anyway. I could get knocked down by drunk driver tomorrow but I still live my life.

This guy has been psycho-analyzed by professionals. I'm sure he's completed some behavioral therapy. He'll be subject to inspection from the Gards and will be under supervision. He did the time. He's out. People just have to deal with it. If there's an issue, call the gardai. Hopefully, he can turn his life around and he doesn't injure or cause harm to anyone else.

Isnt that the POINT, He did NOT do the time!

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

I think the issue is that we're using this guy as an example of everyone that goes through the criminal justice system. He probably only represents 1% or less of people that go through the criminal justice system

My previous arguments have been from a general standpoint. Most people have commited crimes in their lives. Most people have stolen once in their life. And some people end up actually going to court over it. However, this guy is an absolute outlier. He's an anomaly.

Using this guy as some sort of metric on how we should deal with most criminals is wreckless at best.

Probably represents? wtf!, well the system should be able to deal with extreme cases, outliers is a nice way of saying he is more violent than most inmates, therefore the system should account for that, if they cannot mend their ways and this guys repeat violent offense even while in prison, not to mention what got him there in the first place show he should serve the full duration of his sentence and a sentence for every attack on those employed to manage prisoners. Regardless of the cost, extreme cases should be held for the full duration of imposed senteces as an example of what bad behaviour will lead to, and not lead to, if his behaviour gets early release then the system is broken and can only get worse. For the good of society people like this need to be locked up for a long time to show that it can happen and will be done, no early release, no parole, no going home at Xmas and returning, a FULL sentence.
Then maybe we would see good behaviour forced on prisoners, not having to appeal to them, some people just need to be locked up and essentially left there permanently. People like this threw their right to freedom away when they got involved in violent crimes, if they cant be rehabilitated and this animal doesnt sound like he has, then for the good of society, the greater good, then they need to be locked up for a very long time. What benefit does it serve any of us to release him?

Sonny noggs

Turtyturd wrote: »

In true boards fashion you clearly don’t have a clue. Remission is nothing to do with good behavior

Not quite true.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/prison_system/remission_and_temporary_release.html

“Whether or not you get remission depends on your good behaviour while you are in prison”

So getting remission does have something to do with good behaviour.

Boggles

splinter65 wrote: »

Then, every time he was violent in prison a further 5 years needed to be added to his sentence.

He was tried for assault in prison AFAIK and was found not guilty in court, he was also found not guilty by the prison board or whatever they are called.

But you think he should have got 5 years regardless. So no trial, just some dude working at the prison dishing out custodial sentences? :pac:

I think you need to re-access what you want and have a think about the consequences, it's dangerous folly.

Now if you are advocating for tougher sentencing for repeat offenders, I fully support you.

What you are advocating for is just plain nuts though.

Chalk McHugh

Please god his anger management course is bearing fruit.

splinter65

Boggles wrote: »

He was tried for assault in prison AFAIK and was found not guilty in court, he was also found not guilty by the prison board or whatever they are called.

But you think he should have got 5 years regardless. So no trial, just some dude working at the prison dishing out custodial sentences? :pac:

I think you need to re-access what you want and have a think about the consequences, it's dangerous folly.

Now if you are advocating for tougher sentencing for repeat offenders, I fully support you.

What you are advocating for is just plain nuts though.

I’m not altogether sure that you know what your talking about Boggles.
He assaulted 3 prison officers in 2017 in one incident, was found guilty of that and only got an extra 6 months.
He should have got 5 years.
He has 250 breaches of discipline against him while in prison.
It should be 3 months extra for each breach for the first 25 breaches. 6 months extra for the next 25 etc
Because he’s clearly not accepting that prisons must have rules.
How much time do you think he should have got for attacking the prison officers or do you not think that attacking s prison officer should be a punishable offense?
What should the penalty for breaching prison discipline be?

hatrickpatrick

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

As I said, I think he's an outlier and I understand why people are frustrated that this type of person with so many convictions and a propensity for violence could be let out.

The problem is, he's not an outlier. Many, many people with dozens, sometimes even hundreds, of convictions for both violent attacks on innocent people and repeated thefts, burglaries and vandalism, are allowed to continue repeatedly breaking the law without being properly punished for it.

But, he's a unique case. He's served his time. I don't think he's a good example to judge the merits of our justice system on because he's so unique.

But it's the very fact that he's served his time which makes him a perfect example upon which to judge the merits of our justice system - someone like him shouldn't have served his time, he should be permanently locked up to ensure the safety of the general law abiding public. Again, he is not a unique case - there are plenty of violent psychopaths in Ireland, who engage in repeated, random acts of violence from the petty to the extreme for no reason other than "I thought it was funny" or whatever.

Nermal

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

Cost/benefit analysis. We fly planes and we travel. Some of the planes crash. But we still fly because there is value to be gained. Same with rehabilitation.

There is no value to be gained from attempting to rehabilitate this person. He will be a drain on society his whole life. A society with morals would have only one answer to the cost/benefit analysis: a bullet.

armaghlad

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

You mean the good old days of the troubles?

The good old days when proper punishments were handed out to people who were beyond rehabilitation