Quinn Director abducted and assaulted

ohnonotgmail

celt262 wrote: »

If there were sentences like that the toe rags might think twice about committing the crimes.

yes because decades long sentences in the US have really reduced their crime rate.

walshb

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If we implemented sentencing like that we would need to build new super prisons on an annual basis.

I don't know

But seriously, something needs to be done to tackle serious crime....

The sentencing I am reading about are disgustingly lenient...

Another thing: Not sure if I am alone, but this CAB........Seems nothing but a money making racket....

Every so often you are hearing of a car seized, a rolex seized, a hot tub seized, a HOUSE extension seized, a bottle of aftershave seized; sorrY, wtf about the actual seizing of the criminals, CAB?

Why are the criminals still walking around if all these things are the proceeds of their criminality?

walshb

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yes because decades long sentences in the US have really reduced their crime rate.

The U.S. are a 300 + million population of every ethnicity on earth.....it's a little more complicated there....

walshb

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yes because decades long sentences in the US have really reduced their crime rate.

You honestly telling me that if we had real stiff and serious jail stretches for serious type crimes, that people wouldn't stop and think hard about risking it?

Right now there is next to no risk involved, because the scum know that they are very likely to receive a "light" sentence...

elperello

McDowell had a go at building a big jail and where did it get him.
Banished to the Four Courts and a nixer in the Senate.

Tacitus Kilgore

walshb wrote: »

I don't know

But seriously, something needs to be done to tackle serious crime....

The sentencing I am reading about are disgustingly lenient...

Another thing: Not sure if I am alone, but this CAB........Seems nothing but a money making racket....

Every so often you are hearing of a car seized, a rolex seized, a hot tub seized, a HOUSE extension seized, a bottle of aftershave seized; sorrY, wtf about the actual seizing of the criminals, CAB?

Why are the criminals still walking around if all these things are the proceeds of their criminality?

Ehm, different levels of proof required.


CAB can take your money, UNLESS YOU can prove the legitimate source for you having it,

The justice system can only prosecute you IF THEY can prove you did the crime,

one is a hell of a lot easier to implement than the other - hence the creation of the (imo) greatest state body ever produced in this state.

ohnonotgmail

walshb wrote: »

You honestly telling me that if we had real stiff and serious jail stretches for serious type crimes, that people wouldn't stop and think hard about risking it?

Right now there is next to no risk involved, because the scum know that they are very likely to receive a "light" sentence...

experience in other countries would suggest that it would not make criminals stop and think long and hard about it. criminals generally dont think they will be caught so why worry about any possible sentence?

Edgware

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yes because decades long sentences in the US have really reduced their crime rate.

It has stoped the scumbags who are serving the sentences from committing crime. What would you have them do, painting youth clubs?

walshb

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

experience in other countries would suggest that it would not make criminals stop and think long and hard about it. criminals generally dont think they will be caught so why worry about any possible sentence?

Nonsense...

They’re human. Not robots. And the current situation sees them have next to no fear of repercussions...

Of course it would make them think twice about committing the crime..

And criminals absolutely do weigh up risk v reward, as well as risk of getting caught vs risk of not...

If we had seriously tough deterrents you can bet your house that they’d be thinking twice about the crime..

Anyway, as it stands, there is not much fear whatsoever of repercussions, and the pathetic sentencing absolutely lends into that lack of fear...

tdf7187

elperello wrote: »

McDowell had a go at building a big jail and where did it get him.
Banished to the Four Courts and a nixer in the Senate.

He lost his seat and threw a bit of a tantrum, resigning as his party leader. The reality is the PD's had a small vote % and were vulnerable to swings against them.

I am not saying his proposals to build a new large jail were wrong, quite posssibly he was right on that matter.

ChikiChiki

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If we implemented sentencing like that we would need to build new super prisons on an annual basis.

Flawed logic. If we implemented sentencing like that it would be a deterrent and crime would slow down.

Lads with 200+ convictions walking the streets. Not a bit of fear committing crime. Joke of a country.

Dual wheels

Purple Mountain wrote: »

If Kevin or any of his family are reading this, I send sincere good wishes to them and hope he gets full healing both mentally and physically and gets the justice he deserves and that his family have a peaceful and healthy Christmas.

Here here however I think the only thing that will make that family’s Christmas is the quinns behind bars where they belong

AndrewJRenko

walshb wrote: »

You honestly telling me that if we had real stiff and serious jail stretches for serious type crimes, that people wouldn't stop and think hard about risking it?

Right now there is next to no risk involved, because the scum know that they are very likely to receive a "light" sentence...

walshb wrote: »

Nonsense...

They’re human. Not robots. And the current situation sees them have next to no fear of repercussions...

Of course it would make them think twice about committing the crime..

And criminals absolutely do weigh up risk v reward, as well as risk of getting caught vs risk of not...

If we had seriously tough deterrents you can bet your house that they’d be thinking twice about the crime..

Anyway, as it stands, there is not much fear whatsoever of repercussions, and the pathetic sentencing absolutely lends into that lack of fear...

You don't by any chance of anything to back this up, like experience in other countries or anything?

givyjoe

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

experience in other countries would suggest that it would not make criminals stop and think long and hard about it. criminals generally dont think they will be caught so why worry about any possible sentence?

Let's just leave them free to roam the streets so.. what could go wrong.

walshb

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You don't by any chance of anything to back this up, like experience in other countries or anything?

This is not some exact science...

It’s common sense....

Similar analogy: police presence vs non police presence....goes without saying that people will think twice about committing crimes when there is a police presence in an area vs when there is not...

Same with crime: if we had real tough sentencing then only an absolute fool would discount it and still go ahead committing serious crimes. Most of these criminals would absolutely think twice...

Let’s say that we brought in new sentences for a host of crimes. And the sentences were seriously tougher than what is already in place....

Example: no ifs, buts...burglary...mandatory minimum 15 years on prison on conviction vs. what is currently in place, what, a possible year or two inside? You saying this has no effect on how the potential burglar thinks?

Another example: dealing class A drugs/possession class A drugs: Mandatory minimum 30 years vs what in place now, what anything from 3-10 years? You telling me that this would have no bearing on a person’s decision to deal in class A drugs?

Not to mention these career recidivist scum who are out roaming the streets committing crime after crime after crime after crime....why? Absolute sh1tty justice system with sh1tyy deterrents!

STB.

givyjoe wrote: »

Let's just leave them free to roam the streets so.. what could go wrong.

They get light sentences for serious crimes. The DPP appeal the leniency. The "learned" judges don't agree with the DPP.

Part of their sentence is suspended (despite the fact that they have convictions in the 100's). They serve fúck all of their actual sentence anyway. They are subsequently let out early and might commit even more serious crimes like murder for example. They are then let out on bail. They then roam the streets for say 3 to 4 years whilst the court system tries to slot them to face the charges. Meanwhile they cause carnage on both sides of the border, because they might think they are fecked anyway.

Hypothetically, that's what could possibly go wrong I suppose.

AndrewJRenko

walshb wrote: »

This is not some exact science...

It’s common sense....

'common sense' is very subjective. Some people might think the diametrically opposite Norwegian approach which seems to actually achieve good results would be common sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb-gOS3p44U

CrankyHaus

Isn't the evidence from the US that a decades long increase in crime was reversed when criminal sanction was significantly increased?
People can argue about causation all they like ("it was actually abortion/removing lead from petrol/whatever") but the correlation is certainly there.

Sofiztikated

walshb wrote: »

This is not some exact science...

It’s common sense....

Similar analogy: police presence vs non police presence....goes without saying that people will think twice about committing crimes when there is a police presence in an area vs when there is not...

Same with crime: if we had real tough sentencing then only an absolute fool would discount it and still go ahead committing serious crimes. Most of these criminals would absolutely think twice...

Let’s say that we brought in new sentences for a host of crimes. And the sentences were seriously tougher than what is already in place....

Example: no ifs, buts...burglary...mandatory minimum 15 years on prison on conviction vs. what is currently in place, what, a possible year or two inside? You saying this has no effect on how the potential burglar thinks?

Another example: dealing class A drugs/possession class A drugs: Mandatory minimum 30 years vs what in place now, what anything from 3-10 years? You telling me that this would have no bearing on a person’s decision to deal in class A drugs?

Not to mention these career recidivist scum who are out roaming the streets committing crime after crime after crime after crime....why? Absolute sh1tty justice system with sh1tyy deterrents!

So, if hard sentencing absolutely must put people off crime, the US must have nobody in prison...Oh...wait...698 per 100,000 are in prison. Their cops are armed, and not afraid to use their weapons, criminals must be terrified...Oh...wait...382.9 reported violent crimes.per 100,000 people.

Sentencing has nothing to do with the crimes being committed. **** me, if you are a believer in religion, the threat of Hell *should* be enough to keep you on the straight and narrow, but that doesn't happen either.

I've asked a mate of mine that has done time, and was an all round bastard when he was younger, "What stopped you?" and it wasn't the threat of going back to prison, it was getting a job that paid well enough to support his family. His brother was the same, utter bastard, worse record than my mate, got a job, and is now responsible for shipping over 1/4 of a billion euro's worth of product per annum.

Instead of writing people off, and pretending that just throwing away the "bad guys" works, maybe think of ways to stop people becoming the bad guys in the first place, or give them ways out of staying the bad guy.

walshb

Sofiztikated wrote: »

So, if hard sentencing absolutely must put people off crime, the US must have nobody in prison...Oh...wait...698 per 100,000 are in prison. Their cops are armed, and not afraid to use their weapons, criminals must be terrified...Oh...wait...382.9 reported violent crimes.per 100,000 people.

Sentencing has nothing to do with the crimes being committed. **** me, if you are a believer in religion, the threat of Hell *should* be enough to keep you on the straight and narrow, but that doesn't happen either.

I've asked a mate of mine that has done time, and was an all round bastard when he was younger, "What stopped you?" and it wasn't the threat of going back to prison, it was getting a job that paid well enough to support his family. His brother was the same, utter bastard, worse record than my mate, got a job, and is now responsible for shipping over 1/4 of a billion euro's worth of product per annum.

Instead of writing people off, and pretending that just throwing away the "bad guys" works, maybe think of ways to stop people becoming the bad guys in the first place, or give them ways out of staying the bad guy.

What about people not ever wanting to be not bad| There are just nasty people, end of. And there are many of them out walking the streets, after having committed "many" nasty crimes. There is no "cure" for these people, but there should be a way to stop them hurting people....Lock the fookers up....keep them locked up.

So, we can argue till the cows come home as regards stiffer sentences being a deterrent or not, but one thing for sure, if we actually implemented hard and tough sentences, a lot of these vermin would not be out able to commit their crimes....because they would be properly and rightly banged up, and out of society, where they are a threat.

We absolutely need to lock these people up for far longer time.....that is a given.

And nobody can tell me that this threat of serious long stretches won't make any difference...it won't make a difference to ALL criminals, but it will to many....

And the U.S. analogy to us is ridiculous. Vastly huger country with a vastly huger population, with far more ethnicity and diversity...

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Go to google and search for a timeline of events at QIH and you will see an escalating catalogue of crimes, that the media knew who was responsible for YET there was no effective intervention from the Gardai, The DPP etc.

If there is nothing to hide fair enough. It is my opinion as a resident of the area, that that needs to be looked into.

And how much intervention was there from the PSNI?
How many offences took place in this jurisdiction & how many in theirs?
You can't blame Gardai & the DPP for everything

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

You can't blame Gardai & the DPP for everything

I didn't blame them for everything. Settle the head.

willowthewisp

New damning report in the Irish Independent today.
Also apparently they’re looking return of an Audi and an older Range Rover belonging to the company.
In fairness it be fairly old and worthless, considering he hasn’t owned the company for a good few years now.

walshb

Wouldn’t you think Quinn, after all that has happened now, would pull back and let go here.....doing himself no favours regarding the Lunney atrocity!

irishgeo

walshb wrote: »

Wouldn’t you think Quinn, after all that has happened now, would pull back and let go here.....doing himself no favours regarding the Lunney atrocity!

Greed.

The same thing that got him into trouble in the first place.

nacho libre

irishgeo wrote: »

Greed.

The same thing that got him into trouble in the first place.

I think in his case it's more about being obsessed with power- if i can't control my former company, nobody else can. The man seems to be mentally unhinged at this stage.

piplip87

The three men appeared in court today. All refused bail and one man is still unnamed as naming him would jeopardize his right to fair trial ?

Anybody know why this is ?

I thought at first he maybe was supplying information to the state to help with the case but the reason given for not naming him is new ?

Perhaps he might have a surname beginning with Q ?

irishgeo

piplip87 wrote: »

The three men appeared in court today. All refused bail and one man is still unnamed as naming him would jeopardize his right to fair trial ?

Anybody know why this is ?

I thought at first he maybe was supplying information to the state to help with the case but the reason given for not naming him is new ?

Perhaps he might have a surname beginning with Q ?

He is due in court on a different matter and it might prejudge that one if he is named.

Beasty

I've just removed a number of posts. Please allow justice to run its course, and do not speculate over guilt of particular individuals. All this does is potentially prejudice potential action, or indeed leave posters exposed to potential action themselves

Any questions PM me - do not discuss this warning in-thread

josephsoap

Has anyone heard anything about a funeral for ‘Dublin Jimmy’?