American justice system in Ireland

end of the road

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Serious sentences would send a message. A pickpocket than knew they were getting 5 years for the hundred euro they got would think twice. They would still stay on social welfare but they wouldn't take the same chances

Indeed but it was supposed to be replaced and never was

You can take the PlayStations away for starters. They need something, I understand that and I'm not a cruel man but **** that. They can read quality books, not trash. They can take classes to actually improve themselves and now importantly, learn legitimate skills. Too many classes in prisons are almost empty cause the prisoners don't bother. They have made the career choice to always be a Criminal. 5 years for 1 wallet? Might make them realise they made the wrong decision.

However, after all that the simple reality is a Criminal in jail is not committing crimes against decent people while locked up. if you factor in stopping their dole, the cost of legal aid every time they go to court and the cost of a judge + Gardai compared to the cost of prisoner officers I'm thinking the be cost of locking then up isn't as much as the numbers suggest if actually even cheaper

That's enough justification for me.

because they are a threat to society is a good reason to lock them up, yes, absolutely, and that is how it should be.
my point is that locking people up to send a message doesn't work, it's pointless and it's political type nonsense designed to make people feel better.
political type speak has no place in terms of dealing with this issue nor has political type stunts.
absolutely increased sentences, an end to concurrent sentences, more gardai and more prison spaces, are the sensible things we need, they will allow us to manage the issue and deal with it effectively.
we will never eradicate it, but we can certainly keep individuals out of society and protect the public much much better.

blackbox

end of the road wrote: »

...absolutely increased sentences, an end to concurrent sentences, more gardai and more prison spaces, are the sensible things we need, they will allow us to manage the issue and deal with it effectively.
we will never eradicate it, but we can certainly keep individuals out of society and protect the public much much better.

I never understood the rationale behind concurrent sentencing.
.

Rodney Bathgate

jimmyrustle wrote: »

From Derry. How in the jaysis did the dissidents never take him out under the guise of their community policing?

Maybe he is well connected?

Muahahaha

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Serious sentences would send a message. A pickpocket than knew they were getting 5 years for the hundred euro they got would think twice. They would still stay on social welfare but they wouldn't take the same chances

I know to many people what you've written there seems like sound logic but unfortunately it is not. Its long been established in the field of criminal psychology that when a criminal decides to whether or not to commit a crime their thinking is not on a potential sentence, is it only on will I get caught? Thats all they think about, not the sentence, studies have shown this to be the case for decades now.

So the idea that you introduce a 5 year sentence for robbing 100 euro will make them think twice just doesnt wash. Throw addictive drugs like heroin into the mix and then you can be sure it wont work, they want their fix and that is their only consideration. We see this is the states, there are prisoners inside for getting caught dealing weed three times. Some states hand them 20+ year sentences, the criminals knew that but they still dealt the weed anyway. Its 70k per prisoner per year here so 70 x 25 years = 1.7m euro. Are you really going to spend that amount just to lock someone up for dealing weed three times? Its a complete waste of resources and even if we wanted society couldnt afford that kind of bill.

The best way to avoid much of this is prevention of crime in the first place. We have the technology of ankle tags, go use it and suddenly criminals know they cant take a dump without their location being known and logged.

end of the road

blackbox wrote: »

I never understood the rationale behind concurrent sentencing.
.

i would agree, it certainly is something that doesn't and never did make sense.

JustAThought

If politicians had the willpower this problem could be fixed overnight - like the way the found a billion to bail all the baks out, overnight - or how they decided to dig up and meter every house in the state to tax their water - overnight - or gow they decided many other things never democratically voted on or demanded by the electorate. I agree totally with an american style punitive system that frees our streets of crininal vermin in a maKe them feel the pain and pay their way prison - earn your food by making envelopes or sewing hotel sheets or doing laundry and make the prisons pay for themselves - as someone has shrewdly commented here if you add up all the laywers, barristers, assistants, researchers, admjnistrators and gaurds fees or salaries and balance that against the cost of keeping someone in prison it will start becoming clear that is does pay to put them away - and for 20 or 30 yeara at a time.

And stop payng them dole when they are in so that don’t come out after 3 or 4 years to a 40 or 50k cash bonus in their bank account. This country is a joke. The same criminals are classified as homeless while in prison and put on free house for life waiting lists while they are inside - why are the media not talking about those items?

The Tetrarch

I think instead of prison they should go to a centre every Saturday morning, and listen to recorded speeches of MD Higgins, Mary Robinson, Bertie Ahern, Eamon De Valera.
Let them out in the late afternoon if they can give a good summary of what they heard.

Gerry T

Gerry T wrote: »

That's how it works in some american states. 3 strike rule, and offenders shoot to kill.
If the punishment doesn't suit the crime then offenders get more vicious.

Our revolving door and minor crimes not being punished Consistently is the problem. With an ankle bracelet, 140 convictions could be 140*6mths locked up at home. No major cost to the state and their not walking about. Hell you could have anyone with 3 convictions on a curfew, so easy and so effective.

Not at all. 3 strikes, which I said was too harsh had not resulted in petty criminals becoming murderers. Please show me stats backing that.

Who enforces the curfew? We have curfews as part of bail already and it takes Garda time.

Do you realise why we call them criminals? They don't follow rules so suggesting house arrest just stinks of never having dealt with any Criminals and nativity

Gerry T

JustAThought wrote: »

If politicians had the willpower this problem could be fixed overnight - like the way the found a billion to bail all the baks out, overnight -

They had no choice, if they didn't we would have been in a far worse situation.

JustAThought wrote: »

or how they decided to dig up and meter every house in the state to tax their water - overnight -

The people of Ireland pay to process water to drink. For other utilities such as gas, coal, electricity, food each house pays for what it uses. You seem o think Water is different. This was a condition from the EU bailout.

JustAThought wrote: »

or gow they decided many other things never democratically voted on or demanded by the electorate.

They were democratically voted, we elect a govt and they make decisions. It's not possible to hold a referendum of the people for every decision.
Take the water example, either we pay what we use or it gets paid from central taxation. If there's not enough money and we know there isn't, then you and me will pay more taxes.

JustAThought wrote: »

I agree totally with an american style punitive system that frees our streets of crininal vermin in a maKe them feel the pain and pay their way prison - earn your food by making envelopes or sewing hotel sheets or doing laundry and make the prisons pay for themselves - as someone has shrewdly commented here if you add up all the laywers, barristers, assistants, researchers, admjnistrators and gaurds fees or salaries and balance that against the cost of keeping someone in prison it will start becoming clear that is does pay to put them away - and for 20 or 30 yeara at a time.

Nothing pays to lock people away, there are ankle bracelets and that keeps them out of the public and doesn't cost the state.

JustAThought wrote: »

And stop payng them dole when they are in so that don’t come out after 3 or 4 years to a 40 or 50k cash bonus in their bank account. This country is a joke.

Does that happen, real question as I haven't a clue. If so it seems crazy.

JustAThought wrote: »

The same criminals are classified as homeless while in prison and put on free house for life waiting lists while they are inside - why are the media not talking about those items?

For those that have to be locked away, when they do get out if they have no job, no chance of getting a job and nowhere to live, what do you think they will do ? They would need some support to break the cycle.

Gerry T

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Not at all. 3 strikes, which I said was too harsh had not resulted in petty criminals becoming murderers. Please show me stats backing that.

I've a friend living in California and he told me people there fear that criminals will be more desperate and would resort to that.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Who enforces the curfew? We have curfews as part of bail already and it takes Garda time.

The ankle braclet is a GPS device, so basically using geo-tagging if your say 20m from your house/apartment after curfew then the police get a alarm and they can go pick you up. They can even use google maps to get you !
The beauty is you heat your own house, buy and cook your own food, pay your rent (maybe).

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Do you realise why we call them criminals? They don't follow rules so suggesting house arrest just stinks of never having dealt with any Criminals and nativity

I don't think asking them to just stay at home would work but it really annoys me that these people cost us so much money.
Don't get me wrong, rapists & known violent people should always be put in prison.
These people could work in society, cutting grass, painting walls, sweeping streets etc... during the day to get some money to help them pay their rent. But "punishing" people I don't think is a deterrent.

Gerry T

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

And what happens when they leave the house as they must certainly will, on a daily basis?

Then lock them up. But a high percentage would much prefer to be out, living with wife and kids with restrictions rather than in prison.
Also, with the bracelet you know where they are 24/7, so if there is a break in at 3pm at zxy house you can check if any bracelet wearers were anywhere near by.

Take it a step further, if a bracelet wearer after serving his time was then caught again. Then he might have to wear a bracelet for 15yrs, which stops him doing any future crimes with the geo-tag. Feck his civil rights, the rights of honest people are far more important

I Am Nobody

Gerry T wrote: »

Then lock them up. But a high percentage would much prefer to be out, living with wife and kids with restrictions rather than in prison.
Also, with the bracelet you know where they are 24/7, so if there is a break in at 3pm at zxy house you can check if any bracelet wearers were anywhere near by.

Take it a step further, if a bracelet wearer after serving his time was then caught again. Then he might have to wear a bracelet for 15yrs, which stops him doing any future crimes with the geo-tag. Feck his civil rights, the rights of honest people are far more important

Ankle bracelet doesn't stop certain crimes though. He could be sitting on his sofa with a burner phone still conducting business with his ankle bracelet. Law enforcement tactics is at least 10 steps behind criminal activity.

Capt'n Midnight

Montage of Feck wrote: »

I want an AD 2000 justice system.

I would dread a 2000 AD system.

https://2000adonline.tumblr.com/post/141152175452/with-the-british-government-announcing-a-so-called#.VurWCbiLS02
That Sweet Stuff” ran in 2000 AD Prog 613, was written by Alan Grant, with art by Vanyo, and letters by Tom Frame.

Gerry T

Gerry T wrote: »

I've a friend living in California and he told me people there fear that criminals will be more desperate and would resort to that.

The ankle braclet is a GPS device, so basically using geo-tagging if your say 20m from your house/apartment after curfew then the police get a alarm and they can go pick you up. They can even use google maps to get you !
The beauty is you heat your own house, buy and cook your own food, pay your rent (maybe).

I don't think asking them to just stay at home would work but it really annoys me that these people cost us so much money.
Don't get me wrong, rapists & known violent people should always be put in prison.
These people could work in society, cutting grass, painting walls, sweeping streets etc... during the day to get some money to help them pay their rent. But "punishing" people I don't think is a deterrent.

A, right well that is too be honest, a truly terrible supporting statement. Your friend thinks people will do something. Right. I will disregard that then and go with cold hard statistics and direct personal experience. I think we can leave that one behind.

B, for starters they don't heat their own homes, you do. You also rent it for them. You fill the fridge. The Criminal gets welfare and subsidies like a house which he probably doesn't even pay towards because they won't evict him. He only pays for what he must like TV (if he has paid TV still. I would suggest piracy comes into play so he pays for wifi).

He then engaged in crime in addition to what you are giving him already. It's not instead of.

I am also aware of how the tags work. I also know there's both crude and sophisticated ways around them plus it only monitors physical movement. How customers can still call him and visit him BUT and this is the part I want you to pay attention to, the Criminal WILL. Leave the house and he WILL. commit more crime and then return home. The Gardai will not have the tech or the time to immediately run out the door and arrest him.

So, still committing crime and still costing you money. It will actually cost more money to implement. First you need the tags, then you need the monitoring tech, the staff to use it, a lot more Gardai to arrest him and then you still have to go to court which involves paying judges and solicitors for both the new crime and the breach of conditions and after all that, he will be sent back home.

Again, consider the cost of welfare, social housing, solicitors, judges and Gardai compared to a prison cell, food and prison officers.

The simple reality is tags will only work with a select few individuals and it's those individuals that people want to see behind bars in the first place. The old, career business man that committed a financial crime.

Prison, cheaper and more effective in the vast majority of cases

Gerry T

Niner leprauchan wrote:

A, right well that is too be honest, a truly terrible supporting statement. Your friend thinks people will do something. Right. I will disregard that then and go with cold hard statistics and direct personal experience. I think we can leave that one behind.......

It's not terrible, it's a fact and very logical. A criminal on strike 2 facing life if caught will have a different attitude to being caught if he has no strikes.
As it costs near 1,800 to house a criminal a week in prison I think there are hugh savings to having him sit in his own house. If hes in prison the state is in most cases still paying for his house outside, why add an extra 1,800.
If hes on lock down and leaves he can be tracked, it's very simple technology and it wouldn't take long to pick him up. That would end with the time the bracelet is on being extended. Some as you say will go back to crime but with the tag you know they did it, no need for courts, just a quick hearing and additional sentence. Repeat offenders go back to prison, but there are many that would follow the rules and that would save alot of money.
Not all prisoners get social housing benefits and have no job.

GarIT

I'd be strongly in favour of a system where the number of previous convictions was the minimum sentence in months. i.e. 1 previous = 1 months minimum, 5 previous = 5 month minimum. In that time there can't be early release or anything like that. By the time you get to 20 convictions you'd have spent almost your whole life in prison.

Stovepipe

Gerry T wrote: »

.
These people could work in society, cutting grass, painting walls, sweeping streets etc... during the day to get some money to help them pay their rent. But "punishing" people I don't think is a deterrent.

A story I was told was that, a guy was give 240 hours of civic service, sweeping streets,picking up papers and so on,or he'd get no dole,etc. He turned for a few days and then intimidated the monitoring staff so much that he was essentially allowed to go free; turn up for an hour and then disappear and then attend for the last day to be seen working and then get his release. I prefer locking up scum like that.

kowloon

I'm not sure any country should be looking at the US as a model for a justice system. There are people on this site who tug themselves dry at the thought of the death penalty. The World's largest prison population but still a vastly higher homicide rate than Ireland - even with our current gang feud - I'll give it a miss.

IAMAMORON

I would say that we need another 1,500 beds at least, 3-4 prisons?

If they introduced a tax scheme to invest in 3-4 private prisons it would get wolfed up by taxpayers. It is simply too good an idea. You could build the prisons very quickly.

Allow tax breaks on investment and then allow 10 year debentures on the operating costs, via tax breaks. It would run itself. Total no-brainer.

It would shore up a lot of holes and it would be the end of the line for guttersnipes throughout the country. Currently they can't get locked up until they are 18 and even then they have no issue getting off the streets for a few months while their street rep develops. Criminals would definitely think twice if they knew that their sentences would be served.

We waste enough money on legal aid as it is. The more you lock up the less crime we will have.

I respect that not everyone gets a fair chance sometimes. But **** roaming our streets after 500 convictions is a disgrace. There are hundreds of thousands of people from impoverished backgrounds who are not involved in crime, this country needs to get tougher with **** that are.

Gerry T

Stovepipe wrote: »

A story I was told was that, a guy was give 240 hours of civic service, sweeping streets,picking up papers and so on,or he'd get no dole,etc. He turned for a few days and then intimidated the monitoring staff so much that he was essentially allowed to go free; turn up for an hour and then disappear and then attend for the last day to be seen working and then get his release. I prefer locking up scum like that.

I've no issue with people like that being locked up, I wouldn't think all prisoners should be out with a bracelet.

end of the road

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I would say that we need another 1,500 beds at least, 3-4 prisons?

If they introduced a tax scheme to invest in 3-4 private prisons it would get wolfed up by taxpayers. It is simply too good an idea. You could build the prisons very quickly.

Allow tax breaks on investment and then allow 10 year debentures on the operating costs, via tax breaks. It would run itself. Total no-brainer.

It would shore up a lot of holes and it would be the end of the line for guttersnipes throughout the country. Currently they can't get locked up until they are 18 and even then they have no issue getting off the streets for a few months while their street rep develops. Criminals would definitely think twice if they knew that their sentences would be served.

We waste enough money on legal aid as it is. The more you lock up the less crime we will have.

I respect that not everyone gets a fair chance sometimes. But **** roaming our streets after 500 convictions is a disgrace. There are hundreds of thousands of people from impoverished backgrounds who are not involved in crime, this country needs to get tougher with **** that are.

nope, it's highly unlikely they would run themselves at all regardless of how much or many tax breaks or other stuff you would give, as a prison costs money to run and it's costs generally seem to be fixed.
for any private investment in prisons, serious guarantees would be needed to guarantee a return, the only way to really give such guarantees is via a guaranteed number of inmates and in all likely hood a serious amount of public funding which the state probably couldn't afford vs a public system.
there isn't always going to be a certain amount of the particular inmates we would like to be in prison, so therefore the numbers will in all likely hood be made up from low hanging fruit and i would expect our revolving door issue would have to continue, if not increase.
so no, i don't see the tax payers wolfing up this idea.

corner of hells

Stovepipe wrote: »

A story I was told was that, a guy was give 240 hours of civic service, sweeping streets,picking up papers and so on,or he'd get no dole,etc. He turned for a few days and then intimidated the monitoring staff so much that he was essentially allowed to go free; turn up for an hour and then disappear and then attend for the last day to be seen working and then get his release. I prefer locking up scum like that.

Through work , I'd occasionally interact with probation officers and community service supervisors, whoever that guy was , trying intimidate members of the probation service is one hell of a gamble.You'd want to be very careful intimidating a member of the probation services.

The idea behind probation and community service is to support the individual in staying away from criminal activity and avoid picking up more charges ultimately avoiding more convictions.

Anyone I've worked with who picks up community service are generally fairly relaxed characters interacting well with wherever they do their service.

Dravokivich

Are we looking to deter or to punish?

The american system isn't one we'd want to take much inspiration from. Too many operators in there with financial incentives running it. From local/regional Police departments, sheriffs and those running the prisons.

IAMAMORON

end of the road wrote: »

nope, it's highly unlikely they would run themselves at all regardless of how much or many tax breaks or other stuff you would give, as a prison costs money to run and it's costs generally seem to be fixed.
for any private investment in prisons, serious guarantees would be needed to guarantee a return, the only way to really give such guarantees is via a guaranteed number of inmates and in all likely hood a serious amount of public funding which the state probably couldn't afford vs a public system.
there isn't always going to be a certain amount of the particular inmates we would like to be in prison, so therefore the numbers will in all likely hood be made up from low hanging fruit and i would expect our revolving door issue would have to continue, if not increase.
so no, i don't see the tax payers wolfing up this idea.

I would also use current prisoners to build it, that is right, free labour. They would get the option of working to reduce their sentence.

I think private enterprise is the only way forward. The building itself would have a solid value, but there is profit to be made in leasing it back to the government. If you privatise the workforce also it would increase current wages for prison employees, I doubt you would hear any complaints there.

If I was a career criminal I would invest in one for sure. It makes economic sense and it would be a great way of laundering my money. Talk about leaving a trail right in the systems' face. I guarantee you organised crime invests in the US prisons, the income is steady and guaranteed.

Gerry T

Gerry T wrote: »

It's not terrible, it's a fact and very logical. A criminal on strike 2 facing life if caught will have a different attitude to being caught if he has no strikes.
As it costs near 1,800 to house a criminal a week in prison I think there are hugh savings to having him sit in his own house. If hes in prison the state is in most cases still paying for his house outside, why add an extra 1,800.
If hes on lock down and leaves he can be tracked, it's very simple technology and it wouldn't take long to pick him up. That would end with the time the bracelet is on being extended. Some as you say will go back to crime but with the tag you know they did it, no need for courts, just a quick hearing and additional sentence. Repeat offenders go back to prison, but there are many that would follow the rules and that would save alot of money.
Not all prisoners get social housing benefits and have no job.

That is so unbelievable bad.

For starters, your friends opinion is absolutely NOT a fact. Not at all, it's an opinion. An opinion of a lay person who is predicting the future behavior of other people in a hypothetical situation. What's his qualification to even make such a prediction?

Now factor in that despite what you think, not every crime in the USA carries life sentence. The 3 strike system means they get the maximum allowed sentence for that particular crime. Theft in Ireland carries a maximum sentence if 10 years even for petty theft. In California it carries a maximum of 6 months.

Second, you clearly don't know how the system works. No need for court because a GPS tracker showed his location at the crime? This isn't CSI TV. That's an absurd stance and view of the system. It's incredibly naive. You will be spending money on a GPS tracker, you will then spend money on Gardai to both track him, arrest him and investigate the crime. Then to will be spending money on his legal team, the prosecution (which may or may not be a garda) andb the courts including the judge. All so, in your opinion he can go back home with the same tag. How the hell is that any better than just releasing them from jail in temporary release like we do now?

Also, the cost of 1800 hundred is inaccurate. The staff and the prison will exist with this prisoner or not. The facilities won't change so the cost of this guy is food and supplies.

Even allowing the 1800 a week. Do you know how much legal aid costs for every single case this person is involved in? Then for the prison officer, factor in the Garda. Then account for the full court and prosecution. Judges and solicitors cost more than prison officers.

I'm sorry but your suggestion is not a realistic one and that's why it's used in only a few countries and only for people on bail or parole release AFTER prison. As a sentence, it's not feasible

Stovepipe

Stovepipe wrote: »

A story I was told was that, a guy was give 240 hours of civic service, sweeping streets,picking up papers and so on,or he'd get no dole,etc. He turned for a few days and then intimidated the monitoring staff so much that he was essentially allowed to go free; turn up for an hour and then disappear and then attend for the last day to be seen working and then get his release. I prefer locking up scum like that.

Where was that?

IAMAMORON

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I would also use current prisoners to build it, that is right, free labour. They would get the option of working to reduce their sentence.

Well first up,That's slave labor and against both un and eu agreements and laws.

Secondly, there's plenty of areas where a bit of diy works fine but a maximum security prison is probable not one of them. Especially when it's in the interests of the builder to ensure a bad job.

IAMAMORON

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Well first up,That's slave labor and against both un and eu agreements and laws.

Secondly, there's plenty of areas where a bit of diy works fine but a maximum security prison is probable not one of them. Especially when it's in the interests of the builder to ensure a bad job.

Absolutely, prison is supposed to be punishment and a deterrent to crime. Make the **** work rather than sit in cells doing gear and playing computer games.

Security would not be an issue, just chain workers up in groups of three. If they all make a run for it they would not get far.

The EU will be disbanded before long, it has not solved the criminal crisis. They assassinated a prosecuting solicitor in Rotterdam last year. That's what happens when you start giving **** too much free reign. Lock them up and make them work.

I don't buy into any rehabilitation garbage, criminals need to be punished and locked up. They didn't think about speaking to criminal psychologists when they were shooting rival gang members or intimidating their families.... lock the **** up and make them work, hard labour.

Grab All Association

Lobotomies or psychiatric treatment for repeat offenders is the only way to stop Jimmy the scumbag types.

There’s medications that can change people’s personalities, failing that lobotomies. Scumbags tend to have 7 scumbags who go on to have their own little crotch goblins. Eventually we’ll become the minority

s1ippy

Grab All Association wrote: »

Lobotomies or psychiatric treatment for repeat offenders is the only way to stop Jimmy the scumbag types.

There’s medications that can change people’s personalities, failing that lobotomies. Scumbags tend to have 7 scumbags who go on to have their own little crotch goblins. Eventually we’ll become the minority

Why lobotomise people when it's society that should change. I'm serious, look at the fuçkin world at the moment. Trauma everywhere, we're all going to be unhinged after this and you think medicating people is the answer to crime.

I'm fascinated by justice systems and how they developed, from enforced labour in ancient Egypt to witch-hunts. This is where the idea of a jail came from.

https://www.google.ie/search?q=panopticon&oq=panopticon&aqs=chrome..69i57.5084j0j9&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

When society decides it is "civilised" and enforces a set of rules, it presumes a level playing field. But we don't all start out equal, do we. And the people in the middle who have to fight for the scraps are starting to resemble the Salem residents more and more.

Maybe if people were afforded basic human rights as a certainty they wouldn't attack each other, literally in the streets and ideologically on the stupid Internet. Maybe if all children could get a breakfast every morning their brains would develop well and they wouldn't grow up to be luddites. Human beings are neglected caged animals.

Greyfox

s1ippy wrote: »

Maybe if people were afforded basic human rights as a certainty they wouldn't attack each other, literally in the streets and ideologically on the stupid Internet.

Loads of people get plenty of chances to have a decent life but decide crime is more profitable than living an ordinary life. Some scumbags attack people in the street because for them it's a fun thing to do despite the fact that theirs other fun things that they could do instead.

IAMAMORON

Stovepipe wrote: »

A story I was told was that, a guy was give 240 hours of civic service, sweeping streets,picking up papers and so on,or he'd get no dole,etc. He turned for a few days and then intimidated the monitoring staff so much that he was essentially allowed to go free; turn up for an hour and then disappear and then attend for the last day to be seen working and then get his release. I prefer locking up scum like that.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Where was that?

This is true. I was consulting once at southside hospice/day centre for the mentally handicapped. The operations manager would regularly get in community service workers for painting, sweeping up etc, menial tasks. Any career criminals would turn up in the morning and get their parole form signed and off they go after doing phuck all. It is not worth the hassle of the operations manager to pipe up and say anything, you get on the wrong side of serious organised crimes people and your life is not worth living, they don't give a phuck.

Lock them all up and make them work for change, build more prisons and use the criminals to build them.

Too much faffing around with the chunts, they are laughing at everyone. Believe.

end of the road

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I would also use current prisoners to build it, that is right, free labour. They would get the option of working to reduce their sentence.

I think private enterprise is the only way forward. The building itself would have a solid value, but there is profit to be made in leasing it back to the government. If you privatise the workforce also it would increase current wages for prison employees, I doubt you would hear any complaints there.

If I was a career criminal I would invest in one for sure. It makes economic sense and it would be a great way of laundering my money. Talk about leaving a trail right in the systems' face. I guarantee you organised crime invests in the US prisons, the income is steady and guaranteed.

free forced labour is not going to be used to build infrastructure, it's not going to happen, it breaches international and other laws i would expect.
leasing the building back to the government when they could just spend the money themselves to build the prison sounds like way to much of a risk for the tax payer, it would i suspect end up costing more as the government is paying and they want the building badly enough.

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Absolutely, prison is supposed to be punishment and a deterrent to crime. Make the **** work rather than sit in cells doing gear and playing computer games.

Security would not be an issue, just chain workers up in groups of three. If they all make a run for it they would not get far.

The EU will be disbanded before long, it has not solved the criminal crisis. They assassinated a prosecuting solicitor in Rotterdam last year. That's what happens when you start giving **** too much free reign. Lock them up and make them work.

I don't buy into any rehabilitation garbage, criminals need to be punished and locked up. They didn't think about speaking to criminal psychologists when they were shooting rival gang members or intimidating their families.... lock the **** up and make them work, hard labour.

making them work would require quite a bit of resources that just aren't justifiable for a country our size, + i believe hard labour may breach human rights and international law.
the EU will be fine, it's not it's job to solve any criminal crisis, that is a domestic issue for each country to deal with.
i would be interested in your claim that the EU assassinated a prosecuting solicitor in Rotterdam last year. more so in relation to the EU being responsible for the killing.
it doesn't matter whether you buy into rehabilitation or not, it does work some times.

IAMAMORON

end of the road wrote: »

free forced labour is not going to be used to build infrastructure, it's not going to happen, it breaches international and other laws i would expect.
leasing the building back to the government when they could just spend the money themselves to build the prison sounds like way to much of a risk for the tax payer, it would i suspect end up costing more as the government is paying and they want the building badly enough.

Pay them a minimum wage, that would get Amnesty international off our back and allow this country to efficiently deal with the criminal problem it has. International law is dreamt up by SJW's who have no concept of the crime problem this country has. It has become socially acceptable, there is even a thread on this forum where criminals, journalists and undercover Gards are discussing gun crime and shooting openly as if they are taking about salmon fishing. It is disgusting, shootings in residential areas where kids are playing on the street has become the new norm... lovely.

end of the road wrote: »

making them work would require quite a bit of resources that just aren't justifiable for a country our size, + i believe hard labour may breach human rights and international law.
the EU will be fine, it's not it's job to solve any criminal crisis, that is a domestic issue for each country to deal with.
i would be interested in your claim that the EU assassinated a prosecuting solicitor in Rotterdam last year. more so in relation to the EU being responsible for the killing.
it doesn't matter whether you buy into rehabilitation or not, it does work some times.

Look up the car crime statistics in Germany and come back and talk to me. The Germans don't ponce around with criminals, they study their facilities and calculate their efficiency. It stops guttersnipes robbing and burning cars for starters.

Irish criminals laugh their tits off at international liberals who meet up for taxpaid law conferences worldwide to discuss how to "tackle" crime. They spend the afternoon nodding at each other and the evening committing adultery and then back to their families for the weekend. In the meantime Irish teenagers are stashing glock pistos and kilos of heroin because they cannot do real time for it.

They are laughing at us. Make them build their own prison and phuck them in it. Get on with it. Some 30something over educated Harvard Law school bullshighter should have no say on what they think is the internationally correct way to "rehabilitate" criminals.

They need to be rehabilitated by getting locked the phuck up for 15 years and made do hard labour.

end of the road

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Pay them a minimum wage, that would get Amnesty international off our back and allow this country to efficiently deal with the criminal problem it has. International law is dreamt up by SJW's who have no concept of the crime problem this country has.

amnesty international have nothing to do with this, international law is put together, not dreamed up, by experts of multiple opinions and viewpoints who bring their expertese together from which laws are formed and countries signup to them.
ireland has no more of a crime problem then other countries really, in our case it's easily cut, but it will never be eradicated.

IAMAMORON wrote: »

It has become socially acceptable, there is even a thread on this forum where criminals, journalists and undercover Gards are discussing gun crime and shooting openly as if they are taking about salmon fishing. It is disgusting, shootings in residential areas where kids are playing on the street has become the new norm... lovely.

Look up the car crime statistics in Germany and come back and talk to me. The Germans don't ponce around with criminals, they study their facilities and calculate their efficiency. It stops guttersnipes robbing and burning cars for starters.

it has not become socially acceptable.
there is a thread discussing gangland criminality yes, not sure what the issue is . if you have evidence that there is a major issue with the thread then use the channels of the site to bring it to the attention of the relevant mods/admins etc.
people will always commit crime, it's not something that can be stopped.
we are in a lucky position where a small few things will reduce it. more gardai, more publically funded prison spaces and longer sentences.

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Irish criminals laugh their tits off at international liberals who meet up for taxpaid law conferences worldwide to discuss how to "tackle" crime. They spend the afternoon nodding at each other and the evening committing adultery and then back to their families for the weekend. In the meantime Irish teenagers are stashing glock pistos and kilos of heroin because they cannot do real time for it.

They are laughing at us. Make them build their own prison and phuck them in it. Get on with it.

yeah, yeah. sure.
it doesn't matter how much or long the time is one does, it will never deal with drugs. only legalisation will help deal with the problems associated with drugs as it will be treated as the public health issue it should be treated as.
it is not possible or viable to make them build their own prisons. so not get on with it.

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Some 30something over educated Harvard Law school bullshighter should have no say on what they think is the internationally correct way to "rehabilitate" criminals.

They need to be rehabilitated by getting locked the phuck up for 15 years and made do hard labour.

there is no such thing as being over-educated.
experts with expertese and experience absolutely should decide what is the internationally correct way to do something as they will have the correct expertese and experience based on multiple factors to come together and work everything out.
hard labour is not going to happen as it breaches i suspect, international law, human rights law, and there would probably be some health and safety breaches also as you are having people doing work they have no experience of actually doing.

IAMAMORON

end of the road wrote: »

amnesty international have nothing to do with this, international law is put together, not dreamed up, by experts of multiple opinions and viewpoints who bring their expertese together from which laws are formed and countries signup to them.
ireland has no more of a crime problem then other countries really, in our case it's easily cut, but it will never be eradicated.

I thought I was being controversial? How is irish crime being "cut" exactly?

end of the road wrote: »

it has not become socially acceptable.
there is a thread discussing gangland criminality yes, not sure what the issue is . if you have evidence that there is a major issue with the thread then use the channels of the site to bring it to the attention of the relevant mods/admins etc.
people will always commit crime, it's not something that can be stopped.
we are in a lucky position where a small few things will reduce it. more gardai, more publically funded prison spaces and longer sentences.

I don't agree with anything you have written here, sorry. The country does not have the public funds to invest in more prisons, that is why they won't, the money is not there so instead the government panders with dealing with the states criminals. Even our most popular political party (allegedly as per 2020 election) wants to eradicate our special criminal court to enable their own underworld, do not get me started there.

end of the road wrote: »

yeah, yeah. sure.
it doesn't matter how much or long the time is one does, it will never deal with drugs. only legalisation will help deal with the problems associated with drugs as it will be treated as the public health issue it should be treated as.
it is not possible or viable to make them build their own prisons. so not get on with it.

Drugs need to be legalised to eradicate the black market they supply. However this will lead to escalation in other crimes such as extortion and robbery ( for example, this list is not exhaustive btw, free roaming criminals have a remarkable tenacity when it comes to wealth creation). The criminals need to make their money somewhere. Legalise drugs so we can all do better ones, then lock up the criminals when they divert to other crime. It is quite a simple formula really and will make our streets and communities safer places to live in.

end of the road wrote: »

there is no such thing as being over-educated.
experts with expertese and experience absolutely should decide what is the internationally correct way to do something as they will have the correct expertese and experience based on multiple factors to come together and work everything out.
hard labour is not going to happen as it breaches i suspect, international law, human rights law, and there would probably be some health and safety breaches also as you are having people doing work they have no experience of actually doing.

I agree. In the evening when the criminals have finished work they should have the option to re-educate themselves or get treatment for any learning difficulties they have. All the best criminals know how to use the criminal justice system to their advantage.

Hard labour never did anyone any harm, the guttersnipes should be made sweat their crimes away. Punishment will eradicate crime, you cannot rehabilitate criminals by massaging their backs and telling them they are societies victims? Millions of Irish people are born into poverty and social depravation and get on with their lives legally and in tandem with the rest of the country, you are disrespecting their efforts to get ahead by pandering to **** who deal drugs, steal cars and terrorise communities. Criminals need to be worked hard, imprisoned and then educated how to not get locked up again.

Do you reckon the Mafia Shqiptare are shítting bricks at the concept of getting 3 months for fueling the inner city with gear?

sdanseo

Like most things when comparing US systems to European ones, there is a balance.

There's everything to be said for a hardline approach on crime when you compare it to the likes of Martin Nolan letting a person walk free with their 137th conviction after battering some wan's face in.

It's also complete overkill to lock up a homeless guy for smoking a joint in the street for 30, 60, 90 days when in another state of the same country it's perfectly legal. Or parade kids accused of terrible things through the courts in orange jumpsuits when here, they'd probably be below the age of criminal responsibility altogether. Having 2% of your population incarcarated is a reflection on your society's failure. Letting people go systematically unpunished for their umpteenth crime is also a failure.

Das Reich

I prefer way more the Iran justice system than the American (I think OP was referring to the USA).

IAMAMORON

sdanseo wrote: »

Like most things when comparing US systems to European ones, there is a balance.

There's everything to be said for a hardline approach on crime when you compare it to the likes of Martin Nolan letting a person walk free with their 137th conviction after battering some wan's face in.

It's also complete overkill to lock up a homeless guy for smoking a joint in the street for 30, 60, 90 days when in another state of the same country it's perfectly legal. Or parade kids accused of terrible things through the courts in orange jumpsuits when here, they'd probably be below the age of criminal responsibility altogether. Having 2% of your population incarcarated is a reflection on your society's failure. Letting people go systematically unpunished for their umpteenth crime is also a failure.

By privatising the criminal justice system you would allow for a better resourced workforce and more facilities. Homeless junckies could be offered more robust treatments giving them a better chance of getting their lives at least moving in a more positive direction. But this is impossible under the current revolving door we are operating. More prison space would offer junckies better opportunities to genuinely rehabilitate. That may not be the solution but it would be a start.

Currently this problem is being " addressed" by paying off some bullshighting consultant to tell the Dept of Justice that such remedies are "unquantifiable". In other words it is cheaper for civil servants to pay experts to write reports stating that more prisons would not benefit the system rather than actually building more prisons. The system itself is dysfunctional and leads to corruption, at all levels.

As long as all the Solicitors, Barristers and Judges are getting paid the politicians will not bat an eyelid. They don't have to because they have a "report" from some expert advising against the investment.... In the meantime your girlfriends Volkswagon Golf spends its' last 4 hours being driven at high speed around a field in west Finglas before being burnt to a crisp. Happy Days. She can look forward to an increase in her insurance premium after she loses her no claims bonus. Lovely stuff.

IAMAMORON

Das Reich wrote: »

I prefer way more the Iran justice system than the American (I think OP was referring to the USA).

Go on?

Rodney Bathgate

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Go on?

Cut off the hand of a thief? Cut off the ****** of a rapist?

IAMAMORON

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Cut off the hand of a thief? Cut off the ****** of a rapist?

Pub talk surely?

Iran gets an awful bad press at the best of times.

Do you have a link outlining any such activity?

end of the road

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I thought I was being controversial? How is irish crime being "cut" exactly?



I don't agree with anything you have written here, sorry. The country does not have the public funds to invest in more prisons, that is why they won't, the money is not there so instead the government panders with dealing with the states criminals. Even our most popular political party (allegedly as per 2020 election) wants to eradicate our special criminal court to enable their own underworld, do not get me started there.





Drugs need to be legalised to eradicate the black market they supply. However this will lead to escalation in other crimes such as extortion and robbery ( for example, this list is not exhaustive btw, free roaming criminals have a remarkable tenacity when it comes to wealth creation). The criminals need to make their money somewhere. Legalise drugs so we can all do better ones, then lock up the criminals when they divert to other crime. It is quite a simple formula really and will make our streets and communities safer places to live in.



I agree. In the evening when the criminals have finished work they should have the option to re-educate themselves or get treatment for any learning difficulties they have. All the best criminals know how to use the criminal justice system to their advantage.

Hard labour never did anyone any harm, the guttersnipes should be made sweat their crimes away. Punishment will eradicate crime, you cannot rehabilitate criminals by massaging their backs and telling them they are societies victims? Millions of Irish people are born into poverty and social depravation and get on with their lives legally and in tandem with the rest of the country, you are disrespecting their efforts to get ahead by pandering to **** who deal drugs, steal cars and terrorise communities. Criminals need to be worked hard, imprisoned and then educated how to not get locked up again.

Do you reckon the Mafia Shqiptare are shítting bricks at the concept of getting 3 months for fueling the inner city with gear?

there is plenty of money available for prisons.
we only need about 1 or 2, which is very affordable. couple that with only jailing offenders who are a threat to society and who keep committing crime, and we have a very workable and affordable system.
hard labour is not going to happen no matter how much you want it. i suspect it actually did plenty of people harm also.

IAMAMORON wrote: »

By privatising the criminal justice system you would allow for a better resourced workforce and more facilities. Homeless junckies could be offered more robust treatments giving them a better chance of getting their lives at least moving in a more positive direction. But this is impossible under the current revolving door we are operating. More prison space would offer junckies better opportunities to genuinely rehabilitate. That may not be the solution but it would be a start.

Currently this problem is being " addressed" by paying off some bullshighting consultant to tell the Dept of Justice that such remedies are "unquantifiable". In other words it is cheaper for civil servants to pay experts to write reports stating that more prisons would not benefit the system rather than actually building more prisons. The system itself is dysfunctional and leads to corruption, at all levels.

As long as all the Solicitors, Barristers and Judges are getting paid the politicians will not bat an eyelid. They don't have to because they have a "report" from some expert advising against the investment.... In the meantime your girlfriends Volkswagon Golf spends its' last 4 hours being driven at high speed around a field in west Finglas before being burnt to a crisp. Happy Days. She can look forward to an increase in her insurance premium after she loses her no claims bonus. Lovely stuff.

this is highly unlikely to be correct, i would expect, i'm afraid.
privatizing the justice system is not going to lead to a better resourced anything, or more facilities as it would not be financially viable.
private investors want a serious return on investment, there is no way they will get that by spending large amounts of money on resourcing prisons, because it's not profitable.
the only reason the US system is profitable is because of serious amounts of public funding and a revolving door system, the exact thing we are trying to end.
i have not heard of one successful example of a system such as you propose in use, i suspect because it's not deliverable, if it was then it would have been tried and be currently working successfully.

IAMAMORON

end of the road wrote: »

there is plenty of money available for prisons.
we only need about 1 or 2, which is very affordable. couple that with only jailing offenders who are a threat to society and who keep committing crime, and we have a very workable and affordable system.
hard labour is not going to happen no matter how much you want it. i suspect it actually did plenty of people harm also.

When you say 1or 2 new prisons what sort of capacity are you talking?

end of the road wrote: »

this is highly unlikely to be correct, i would expect, i'm afraid.
privatizing the justice system is not going to lead to a better resourced anything, or more facilities as it would not be financially viable.
private investors want a serious return on investment, there is no way they will get that by spending large amounts of money on resourcing prisons, because it's not profitable.
the only reason the US system is profitable is because of serious amounts of public funding and a revolving door system, the exact thing we are trying to end.
i have not heard of one successful example of a system such as you propose in use, i suspect because it's not deliverable, if it was then it would have been tried and be currently working successfully.

If you lease the service to the department of justice you can make a profit. You have already stated that money is not an issue? The model is to outsource the prison system to private ownership. Very doable although I am not in the humour to be drawing you up any business plans.

Your final paragraph is not making any sense, when has an alternative prison procurement system been explored in Ireland? Don't waste a brain cell dreaming up an answer here either, there never has been. I was being facetious, my apologies.

Rodney Bathgate

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Pub talk surely?

Iran gets an awful bad press at the best of times.

Do you have a link outlining any such activity?

Not entirely. The second was wishful thinking - the rape victim is probably more likely to get in trouble.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-middle-east-50179741

end of the road

IAMAMORON wrote: »

When you say 1or 2 new prisons what sort of capacity are you talking?




If you lease the service to the department of justice you can make a profit. You have already stated that money is not an issue? The model is to outsource the prison system to private ownership. Very doable although I am not in the humour to be drawing you up any business plans.

Your final paragraph is not making any sense, when has an alternative prison procurement system been explored in Ireland? Don't waste a brain cell dreaming up an answer here either, there never has been. I was being facetious, my apologies.

oh i would expect that it's doable if you wish to throw away money to suit an ideology, sure. if you wish to spend money wisely however, then i would expect that it would not be advisable, and would likely not be good value for money.
i would expect that the tax payer would absolutely be taken advantage of with such a deal, a government wanting something badly and a private company wishing to get the best return they can do not seem to mix very well.
why would we explore an alternative prison procurement system when we already know what actually works and what doesn't? what doesn't work doesn't suddenly start working because shur it's ireland and we are different begorra.

IAMAMORON

end of the road wrote: »

oh i would expect that it's doable if you wish to throw away money to suit an ideology, sure. if you wish to spend money wisely however, then i would expect that it would not be advisable, and would likely not be good value for money.
i would expect that the tax payer would absolutely be taken advantage of with such a deal, a government wanting something badly and a private company wishing to get the best return they can do not seem to mix very well.
why would we explore an alternative prison procurement system when we already know what actually works and what doesn't? what doesn't work doesn't suddenly start working because shur it's ireland and we are different begorra.

I hear the Department of Justice are looking for new civil servants in their executive. Give them a shout, sure see if it is doable, it won't cost the tax payer a penny. Begorrah.

This is one seriously Walter Mitty thread but very entertaining