Why is Ireland's justice system so lenient?

Brian?

RandRuns wrote: »

How is it done in Ireland?

And perhaps more importantly, is there any evidence that it works?

There is plenty of evidence that the current system works better than the punishment method. Because governments did that for hundreds of years. I think it's a good thing people aren't sent to Australia for rustling a pig.

The excuse for lenient sentencing here seems to be "let's rehabilitate rather than punish" (or keep the public safe), so is this just, as I suspect, pie in the sky to keep the legal gravy train moving, or do we actually successfully rehabilitate?

It's not an excuse for lenient sentencing. I don't accept sentences are lenient in the first place.

Brian?

RandRuns wrote: »

The "faciliteeeees" argument is easily disproved - pretty much the whole of rural Ireland is a faciliteeeeeees black spot - how come we haven't a wave of culchie knife and drug crime?

There are fewer people around. You have to walk miles to find someone to stab.

RandRuns

Brian? wrote: »

I think it's a good thing people aren't sent to Australia for rustling a pig.
.

So that's the only choice is it?

Either we let decco and anto off with suspended sentences for punching that tourist for not giving them a yooro at the luas ticket machine, or we send them to Australia?

Perhaps there's a middle road?

RandRuns

Brian? wrote: »

There are fewer people around. You have to walk miles to find someone to stab.

You'd think the young people would be so incensed by the lack of faciliteeeeeeeeeees that they wouldn't mind the walk. I mean, if we are to believe the narrative, people have dedicated an entire lifetime to criminality because of a lack of facilitieeeeeeees, so you'd think a bit of a walk would be a minor inconvenience in comparison?

Brian?

RandRuns wrote: »

So that's the only choice is it?

Either we let decco and anto off with suspended sentences for punching that tourist for not giving them a yooro at the luas ticket machine, or we send them to Australia?

Perhaps there's a middle road?

The middle road is what we have now. It’s that simple.

smellyoldboot

portlygent wrote: »

I'm genuinely astounded when I read the news. Its not uncommon for someone who has committed a serious assault to be given a fully suspended sentence, despite numerous previous convictions.

Is it due to over-packed prisons? If so, why haven't we built more, or even re-start the Thorton Hill prison, which was planned before the crash?

Is it an ideology that has changed? Have we become a soft touch?

We've no prison spaces and aren't willing to spend the money to create more. That's about the long and short of it.

smellyoldboot

Brian? wrote: »

It's not an excuse for lenient sentencing. I don't accept sentences are lenient in the first place.

This is just a bizarre comment altogether. What feckin country do you live in?

Brian?

smellyoldboot wrote: »

This is just a bizarre comment altogether. What feckin country do you live in?

The Netherlands

Which is ranked well below Ireland in terms of safety. Ireland is the 10th safest country in the world to live in. Iceland is no. 1.

McCrack

AllForIt wrote: »

You are somewhat misrepresenting me here although I admit I wasn't detailed on that aspect of my post as my whole post was rather general.

I was not suggesting is someone comes from micro-culture x they get an automatic higher sentence. I am saying it should be taken into account as a negative factor rather than a mitigating factor which it often is.

I'm saying you start off with very substantial high sentence for violent crime for everyone. Then the judge can subtract years of the high sentence per case If you come from a stable family background time may be subtracted and if you don't then why would you.

If one doesn't have a role model, if one comes form a feckless family that live off the state from birth, then when that person is released from prison they are much more likely to repeat offend. Wouldn't that assumption be a fairly obvious one. I'm sure there are stats that would back that up.

How could a child from micro culture x have a role model? How could someone who never works be a role model to a child? It is the whole culture they live in that is the problem and we should invest time and money figuring out how we integrate them into 'normal' society.


Just one think to add, I was listing to an officer on UK radio who was talking about rehabilitation and how it works there. Basically an officer will take them out of their cell and have a word in their ear in private on the stairs. Change your ways or you'll be back in here kinda thing. It wasn't a bit surprised to hear that because I always though that those who advance rehabilitation are just virtue signalling when in reality it really is not even a thing.

Again you are suggesting a court should consider a defendants postal address/perceived social class as being an aggravating factor (negative factor as you call it) and that's completely wrong and would be incompatible constitutionally re equality before the law.

Consideration is given to each defendant and their personal circumstances sometimes assisted by the probation service report and the risk of reoffending when a judge is deciding sentence.

RandRuns

Brian? wrote: »

The middle road is what we have now. It’s that simple.

Not as far as the majority of people on this thread seem to think.

Perhaps if one was a social worker who's living was earned off the "poor little criminals are victims of society" mindset, or a solicitor drunk on the free legal aid, then it might seem like the middle road, but to the rest of us, it seems like a raw deal for the law-abiding schmucks paying for it all.

Wanderer78

RandRuns wrote:

Perhaps if one was a social worker who's living was earned off the "poor little criminals are victims of society" mindset, or a solicitor drunk on the free legal aid, then it might seem like the middle road, but to the rest of us, it seems like a raw deal for the law-abiding schmucks paying for it all.

You could always opt for the illegal life, and see what happens

Brian?

RandRuns wrote: »

Not as far as the majority of people on this thread seem to think.

Is posters/thread an SI unit for truth now? It's quite possible a lot of people can be wrong at the same time.

Perhaps if one was a social worker who's living was earned off the "poor little criminals are victims of society" mindset, or a solicitor drunk on the free legal aid, then it might seem like the middle road, but to the rest of us, it seems like a raw deal for the law-abiding schmucks paying for it all.

Another appeal to emotion.

RandRuns

Brian? wrote: »

Is posters/thread an SI unit for truth now? It's quite possible a lot of people can be wrong at the same time.
Another appeal to emotion.

Weak effort 2/10.

Pointing out that the (vast) majority of the thread agree with the thread premise is hardly "and SI unit of truth" merely an indication that your belief may be wrong. I know that seems impossible to you, but expand your mind and give the possibility some thought.

No "appeal to emotion" (my how you love your Internet Argument 101 terms), merely a statement of facts. People who's livelihood is being made on the back of a particular situation aren't going to countenance changing that situation (ask oil companies, Heads of charities and NGO's, and the aforementioned solicitors, to name a few).

weldoninhio

Brian? wrote: »

Is posters/thread an SI unit for truth now? It's quite possible a lot of people can be wrong at the same time.





Another appeal to emotion.

Is the Department of Justice wrong??

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/judges-too-lenient-on-repeat-offenders-says-department-1.3679012

Brian?

RandRuns wrote: »

Weak effort 2/10.

Pointing out that the (vast) majority of the thread agree with the thread premise is hardly "and SI unit of truth" merely an indication that your belief may be wrong. I know that seems impossible to you, but expand your mind and give the possibility some thought.

It's quite possible I'm wrong. It happens sometimes.

No "appeal to emotion" (my how you love your Internet Argument 101 terms), merely a statement of facts. People who's livelihood is being made on the back of a particular situation aren't going to countenance changing that situation (ask oil companies, Heads of charities and NGO's, and the aforementioned solicitors, to name a few).

ok, can I see some proof that the majority of sentences handed out by the courts are overly lenient. If possible an objective measurement of leniency would be nice.

Brian?

weldoninhio wrote: »

Is the Department of Justice wrong??

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/judges-too-lenient-on-repeat-offenders-says-department-1.3679012

No, but they are not saying sentences are too lenient. Just that some were too lenient. Which is something I already agreed with:

The department suggested that in some cases, judges are too reluctant to impose prison terms for serious offences such as manslaughter, assault causing harm or serious harm, sexual assault, rape, aggravated robbery and burglary.

weldoninhio

Brian? wrote: »

No, but they are not saying sentences are too lenient. Just that some were too lenient. Which is something I already agreed with:

Sentences aren't too lenient, except these sentences which are too lenient. Gotcha!! :rolleyes:

Brian?

weldoninhio wrote: »

Sentences aren't too lenient, except these sentences which are too lenient. Gotcha!! :rolleyes:

Yes, some sentences are. But the majority aren't. That's hardly complicated.

weldoninhio

Brian? wrote: »

Yes, some sentences are. But the majority aren't. That's hardly complicated.

You also claimed that repeat offenders shouldn't be jailed. Again, something the Dept of Justice disagrees with you on.

The principle of using prison as a last resort, which is widely accepted by Irish judges, should be abandoned in the case of persistent offenders, the Department of Justice has said.

Brian?

weldoninhio wrote: »

You also claimed that repeat offenders shouldn't be jailed. Again, something the Dept of Justice disagrees with you on.

The principle of using prison as a last resort, which is widely accepted by Irish judges, should be abandoned in the case of persistent offenders, the Department of Justice has said.

I said repeat offenders who commit non violent crimes shouldn't be jailed. Petty theft etc. . Obviously there's a limit to that.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Is posters/thread an SI unit for truth now? It's quite possible a lot of people can be wrong at the same time.

Or right. If most people think the justice system is failing then it is failing. And it’s not because of crazy right wing ideas - but the lived reality of working class and middle income people. The class war here is led by the bourgeois in the crime free leafy suburbs. If you accept the present situation you are accepting that the poor, and increasingly the middle income groups, should suffer criminality and the rich shouldn’t.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

I said repeat offenders who commit non violent crimes shouldn't be jailed. Petty theft etc. . Obviously there's a limit to that.

That’s great. Except a non violent crime can destroy the life of an old woman who has lost her pension money in the street. Or maybe her life savings if her house was burgled albeit in violently.

RandRuns

Brian? wrote: »

I said repeat offenders who commit non violent crimes shouldn't be jailed. Petty theft etc. . Obviously there's a limit to that.

In fairness to you, you've gone (albeit a little reluctantly) from "repeat offenders shouldn't be jailed, sentences aren't too lenient, jailing anyone for anything is the same as Australian convict transports" to "some repeat offenders should be jailed, and some sentences are too lenient" in the space of a couple of pages - in another couple of pages we'll have you demanding the introduction of 3 strikes, return of the cat 'o nine tails, and chain gangs

Mike Murdock

Brian? wrote: »

I said repeat offenders who commit non violent crimes shouldn't be jailed. Petty theft etc. . Obviously there's a limit to that.

What is the limit though? 10 convictions? 20? 30? 40? 100?

Strumms

I’d like a three strikes and you are IN rule. INcarcerated.

Attempt to stop habitual criminals.. so after your third conviction... regardless what it’s for, something as basic as criminal damage, theft of say some toilet rolls, you will receive a custodial sentence, your liberty removed.

Of course depending on the seriousness of crimes one and two you might need to receive a custodial sentence for either or both but the third, regardless of what crime, stealing a packet of toilet rolls... doesn’t matter, it’s your third conviction, time for the state to impose harsher measures to bring about a change in your mindset and behaviors as you’ve shown that you are not willing or not capable of behaving lawfully.

RandRuns

Mike Murdock wrote: »

What is the limit though? 10 convictions? 20? 30? 40? 100?

Imagine how much a professional criminal with 80 or 100 convictions will have earned for the legal firm representing him - considering the amount of work that goes into defending most of these repeat clients (my client accepts he was drunk and violent on the day your honour, but he comes from a particularly difficult background, and has suffered considerably due to the lack of faciliteeeeeees in his area, he promises to cut down on the heroin, and stop beating people senseless in future), these lads are the ultimate golden geese.
The legal asylum in Ireland is well and truly run by the inmates.

Esho

My father was in Argentina after a coup last century.
To make sure everyone kept the new rule of law,
there was a soldier on every junction with orders to shoot j-walkers.

One way to reduce casual street crime....

Dick phelan

Irish politics is very much liberal at this point, no party will get harsh on crime for fear of being called "Facist" by some ivory tower cnut. Irish people also have to take some blame, we should be making this a major election issue, contacting TD's to express our disgust at joke sentencing but we don't.

kildare lad

Brian? wrote: »

I said repeat offenders who commit non violent crimes shouldn't be jailed. Petty theft etc. . Obviously there's a limit to that.

Really ? I'm sure you don't own a shop or ever had all your tools robbed , taking people's livelihoods away . Would you class burglary as a non violent offence ? Sure just let ever scrote have a free reign robbing everything that's not nailed down without fear of getting a sentence

Strumms

Brian? wrote: »

I said repeat offenders who commit non violent crimes shouldn't be jailed. Petty theft etc. . Obviously there's a limit to that.

So in other words, the law would stop being a deterrent which causes more people to suffer at the hands of thieving scumbags, and those committing non violent crimes...

So you wouldn’t jail the person who might steal and joyride, then burn out somebody's car ? That’s a non violent crime.

An asset of 27,000 euros, stolen, destroyed....

The owner still has to pay a car loan, has to get themselves, three kids, to work and school every morning...now by bus.... which is no joy in the pissy Irish winter...everybody up an hour earlier, quality of life impacted...

You think it’s ok that the perpetrator when caught, his third or forth conviction, a repeat offender who isn’t getting the message, suddenly IS going to get the message by being able to continuously enjoy his freedom, he gets that hall pass because he hasn’t been violent ? He has the potential to keep hurting people because he hasn’t been violent?

There is no deterrent. A situation like you are suggesting should never be allowed to materialize. People have to take responsibility for their actions in life... I know that’s not exactly fashionable in 2021 seeing as any bad behavior, criminal or otherwise, scumbaggary and so forth is sought to be excused away but no...

Decent people, their lives, enjoyment of life, success, homes , family’s and property deserve protection...

The scenario you talk about would bring anarchy.