Prisons & Sentencing in Ireland

ohnonotgmail

skooterblue2 wrote: »

But you wouldnt get Gerald Keane et al taking on a FLA client? its usually a certain type of solicitor?

yeah, solicitors who do pretty much nothing but. You are not getting shortchanged by using a solicitor on legal aid.

skooterblue2

joeguevara wrote: »

You never ask about guilt or innocence. One of the first cases I ever had, the clients father and the client immediately admitted guilt in a cosnultation with me and I told them I couldn't represent them as I could not put forward a defence of innocence.

But you must know the client is lying through their teeth and they are still protesting their innocents. You know the same client you see every 6months for drunk and disorderly and possession of drugs?

"I swear it wasnt me", despite the fact you know he has had 30 convictions and there are hash burns in his jumper from smoking the night before...

skooterblue2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yeah, solicitors who do pretty much nothing but. You are not getting shortchanged by using a solicitor on legal aid.

Tax payers are right dopes for putting up with these constant reoffenders.

skooterblue2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Isnt that always the way in life? You get what you pay for? You pay €5000 for a car dont be surprised if it lasts the year? Pay €60k you get an Audi? Have a medical card get on the waiting list, have VHI/Laya a slot just opened next week that is life. Well if you know you are innocent you will have no fear of being proven innocent.

I am guessing (I have never been to court and the focus of attention), that a Free legal aid solicitor is the lesser prefered option?

A fundamental human right is the right to fair trial, if a person cannot afford a legal defence, the state must provide it for that person.
They cannot provide a 'lesser' defence to that person.

thegetawaycar

bubblypop wrote: »

A fundamental human right is the right to fair trial, if a person cannot afford a legal defence, the state must provide it for that person.
They cannot provide a 'lesser' defence to that person.

This is the way it should be, the problem isn't that people get a fair trial and solicitors paid for it's that we don't sentence properly. Anyone with 100+ convictions is a menace to society and should be permanently off the streets in prison for life.

People say it costs a huge amount to house a prisoner, they don't run it off against the cost to victims, counselling costs, costs of jury payments, costs of court and solicitor time etc... Everyone employed in a prison also is paying tax so I can't believe the costs out weigh the benefits.

I'm all for rehabilitation but some are just incapable of it and after 50/100 attempts it's too late to reform. It would also free up housing as the state should get all assets of those incarcerated for life to sell and compensate their victims/pay for their prison stay, use for social housing etc...

thegetawaycar

thegetawaycar wrote: »

It would also free up housing as the state should get all assets of those incarcerated for life to sell and compensate their victims/pay for their prison stay, use for social housing etc...

How many prisoners that are imprisoned for life do you expect lived alone, in their own home before incarceration?
Not many I would bet.
By all their assets, so you mean money, vehicles etc also? What if they have dependants? You think the state should strip them of those assets?

If assets are shown to be from the proceeds of crime, then there is CAB, that can investigate and seize such assets.

skooterblue2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Yeah but surely there are different grades of solicitors? Like I am sure its going to cost a lot more to get Gerald Keane and co to come and defend you than it is to get some guy working over a book shop down a side street?

I'm not sure that being famous is the criteria I would use when choosing a solicitor!!

skooterblue2

bubblypop wrote: »

A fundamental human right is the right to fair trial, if a person cannot afford a legal defence, the state must provide it for that person.
They cannot provide a 'lesser' defence to that person.

Free Legal Aid should not be for Free, someone has to pay for it. now lets say if you were to run up a bill for €5000 what is so unreasonable for deducting €50 a week for 100 weeks from social welfare? Might teach you not to reoffend. Aparts from doing 6 weeks in the Arbour hill, Wheatfield (all nice shiny new prison systems), hang out with the lads (break from the lack), play pool and make a new mate? you would be like a horse after getting fresh oats. Now back to the usual program of deckin' guards and selling drugs to addicts.

Now you are doing your honest best as a working tax payer trying to save for a mortgage and get the next rung up the ladder and show your kid how to be an upstanding citizen and the Government 30% of your tax to fund this shower? What is the point?

skooterblue2

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm not sure that being famous is the criteria I would use when choosing a solicitor!!

I do apologise but that is the only high profile solicitor I know of, if you can inform me of another high profile solicitor that gets results I would be grateful. Is Paddy McEntee still practicing?

skooterblue2

thegetawaycar wrote: »

I'm all for rehabilitation but some are just incapable of it and after 50/100 attempts it's too late to reform. It would also free up housing as the state should get all assets of those incarcerated for life to sell and compensate their victims/pay for their prison stay, use for social housing etc...

Rehabilitation works for mentally sound and logical people, you arent dealing with those people. If you are dealing with the law at that level, the damage is already done. Nobody wants to hire anyone with a criminal record when they can get the same work done by someone without a criminal record. You have your counsel house, you have your social welfare, why even bother to change?

Lads rarely ever go to jail on the first offence unless it is something totally bizarre like murder. There are always hints these things are going to happen. There are always close calls and near misses, then they get caught. By that time its too late to turn back the clock

skooterblue2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Free Legal Aid should not be for Free, someone has to pay for it. now lets say if you were to run up a bill for €5000 what is so unreasonable for deducting €50 a week for 100 weeks from social welfare? Might teach you not to reoffend. Aparts from doing 6 weeks in the Arbour hill, Wheatfield (all nice shiny new prison systems), hang out with the lads (break from the lack), play pool and make a new mate? you would be like a horse after getting fresh oats. Now back to the usual program of deckin' guards and selling drugs to addicts.

Now you are doing your honest best as a working tax payer trying to save for a mortgage and get the next rung up the ladder and show your kid how to be an upstanding citizen and the Government 30% of your tax to fund this shower? What is the point?

I agree that it would be a nice idea to try recoup some money, however, taking it from social welfare is still money from the government, is it not? So the taxpayer would still be providing the service.

The point basically is, that it is a human right, our government do all they can to uphold our human rights. Pretty sure you don't want to live in a country where the government commit human rights violations

skooterblue2

bubblypop wrote: »

I agree that it would be a nice idea to try recoup some money, however, taking it from social welfare is still money from the government, is it not? So the taxpayer would still be providing the service.

The point basically is, that it is a human right, our government do all they can to uphold our human rights. Pretty sure you don't want to live in a country where the government commit human rights violations

No there has to be some stops and measures put on this. The cycle is endless. I am not opposed to bringing back corporeal punishment? Works well in Singapore I hear. Much lower crime rate. 10 lashes of a Bamboo cane and that will cure your sticky fingers fast enough.

skooterblue2

bubblypop wrote: »

I agree that it would be a nice idea to try recoup some money, however, taking it from social welfare is still money from the government, is it not? So the taxpayer would still be providing the service.

The point basically is, that it is a human right, our government do all they can to uphold our human rights. Pretty sure you don't want to live in a country where the government commit human rights violations

You know how we could recoup it? There is a particularly nasty job that needs to be done, dredging our waterways, that is project I would like to be put out to prisoners over the summer. Digging silt and doing something positive and its not taking work from decent citizens?

Do you think taking one in every three Euro that we earn is over taxing us? That is not taxing that is theft and then spending it on "Charities" and "NGOs". There is one charity and NGO for every 250 Irish people. Irish Taxpayers should be canonised saints and Bono and Geldof tells us we are the biggest Scrooges going?

thegetawaycar

bubblypop wrote: »

How many prisoners that are imprisoned for life do you expect lived alone, in their own home before incarceration?
Not many I would bet.
By all their assets, so you mean money, vehicles etc also? What if they have dependants? You think the state should strip them of those assets?

If assets are shown to be from the proceeds of crime, then there is CAB, that can investigate and seize such assets.

By all their assets, so you mean money, vehicles etc also? What if they have dependants? You think the state should strip them of those assets?

If the asset is owned by the person that went to prison it should be used to pay compensation to the victims, their upkeep etc... We are talking about people with 100 convictions + here not every prisoner. I don't know the numbers but even if it's 1 then I'm fine with that.

How many live on their own? No idea, nor do I really care.

joeguevara

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I do apologise but that is the only high profile solicitor I know of, if you can inform me of another high profile solicitor that gets results I would be grateful. Is Paddy McEntee still practicing?

In most criminal cases, the solicitor has a much different role than the barrister. Although they have right of audience in a trial, I have never seen one in any serious case. The best barrister I have seen run a murder trial and have been lucky enough to work with on occasion was Brendan Grehan. He had the jury hanging on every word. Just amazing. He was available for all legal aid work.

ohnonotgmail

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I do apologise but that is the only high profile solicitor I know of, if you can inform me of another high profile solicitor that gets results I would be grateful. Is Paddy McEntee still practicing?

Paddy McEntee is a barrister, well a SC. the highest earning legal aid solicitor is Michael Staines. he made over 600K from legal aid work last year so he must be doing something right.

skooterblue2

joeguevara wrote: »

In most criminal cases, the solicitor has a much different role than the barrister. Although they have right of audience in a trial, I have never seen one in any serious case. The best barrister I have seen run a murder trial and have been lucky enough to work with on occasion was Brendan Grehan. He had the jury hanging on every word. Just amazing. He was available for all legal aid work.

How is every case, not a serious case? I mean if you are up in court and there is a possibility of being jailed, losing your job and being excluded from your community not a serious case? Unless you are John Ward with a list of convictions as long as your arm. (apologies to any John Ward if they are actually a decent law abiding person). Also what is right of Audience?

ohnonotgmail

skooterblue2 wrote: »

How is every case, not a serious case? I mean if you are up in court and there is a possibility of being jailed, losing your job and being excluded from your community not a serious case? Unless you are John Ward with a list of convictions as long as your arm.

if you are risk of being jailed then of course it is serious. most district court cases dont fall into that category.

skooterblue2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if you are risk of being jailed then of course it is serious. most district court cases dont fall into that category.

So District court is mickey mouse stuff? and circuit court is more serious?

ohnonotgmail

skooterblue2 wrote: »

So District court is mickey mouse stuff? and circuit court is more serious?

I wouldn't say mickey mouse but less serious offences. The max jail sentence that can be given at a district court is 12 months. If an offence can attract a longer sentence it is sent to the circuit court.

joeguevara

skooterblue2 wrote: »

How is every case, not a serious case? I mean if you are up in court and there is a possibility of being jailed, losing your job and being excluded from your community not a serious case? Unless you are John Ward with a list of convictions as long as your arm. (apologies to any John Ward if they are actually a decent law abiding person). Also what is right of Audience?

Well you can have a district court trial. There is a maximum sentence. Seen some excellent solicitors run these. But when it goes on indictment and sentences can be up to life, that is what I mean.

Right of audience is to speak in court. Solicitors have the same as barristers. Recently saw that solicitors now may be designated as Senior Counsel too.

skooterblue2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I wouldn't say mickey mouse but less serious offences. The max jail sentence that can be given at a district court is 12 months. If an offence can attract a longer sentence it is sent to the circuit court.

District: small possession of drugs, beating the wife, traffic offences and common beastiality?

Circuit: GBH, manslaughter, rape, murder and terrorism?

thegetawaycar

thegetawaycar wrote: »

By all their assets, so you mean money, vehicles etc also? What if they have dependants? You think the state should strip them of those assets?

If the asset is owned by the person that went to prison it should be used to pay compensation to the victims, their upkeep etc... We are talking about people with 100 convictions + here not every prisoner. I don't know the numbers but even if it's 1 then I'm fine with that.

How many live on their own? No idea, nor do I really care.

What about their dependants?
Would you leave their children homeless?

skooterblue2

bubblypop wrote: »

What about their dependants?
Would you leave their children homeless?

Same with bankruptcy ....... You should have thought of that before you did the crime.

skooterblue2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

District: small possession of drugs, beating the wife, traffic offences and common beastiality?

Circuit: GBH, manslaughter, rape, murder and terrorism?

Rape, murder, etc go to the central criminal court.
Terrorism goes to the special criminal court.
Surely you listen to the news?

ohnonotgmail

skooterblue2 wrote: »

District: small possession of drugs, beating the wife, traffic offences and common beastiality?

Circuit: GBH, manslaughter, rape, murder and terrorism?

No. I gave you the criteria.

skooterblue2

joeguevara wrote: »

Right of audience is to speak in court. Solicitors have the same as barristers. Recently saw that solicitors now may be designated as Senior Counsel too.

Why would I need a Senior Counsel? Is that a rank within the profession?

skooterblue2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Same with bankruptcy ....... You should have thought of that before you did the crime.

So you would punish an innocent child because of the sins of the father?

skooterblue2

bubblypop wrote: »

So you would punish an innocent child because of the sins of the father?

Did the father punish the child with his sins? Take ownership of your actions

ohnonotgmail

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Why would I need a Senior Counsel? Is that a rank within the profession?

here you go https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/cbfc27ea-8a90-4ed5-9ee0-cd1336a6745c/Explaining%20the%20Courts%20Complete%20booklet%20for%20web.pdf/pdf#:~:text=In%20Ireland%2C%20there%20are%20basically,with%20specific%20types%20of%20cases.