Which political party would be toughest on crime?

bonzothedog

Sinn Fein, ni ceapaim.

boombang

Never understand why it's not more of an electoral issue. Big selling point for me.

Terry136

Mad_maxx wrote: »

it has never been a safer time to be a woman in ireland than today

ignore the hysteria , even in North Korea , the state cant wipe out murder by one citizen against another.

Some might say in the whole world but it's not good enough for the feminists.

One of the left-wing parties as they'd start to address the issues that lead to criminality.

What do posters mean exactly, when they want political parties to be 'tough on crime'?
What would they expect them to do?

blackvalley

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

When there seems to be weekly stories of someone with "hundreds of convictions" it does happen often enough, it just rarely makes local/national news.

Established parties are too busy making excuses for criminals for their to be any consequences.

NONE. is the answer to the original post.
" Hundreds of convictions " for an individual probably means multiples of hundreds of court appearances and all of the lovely " legal fees " that land at the snout of those currently gorging from that particular trough .
That means that mainstream political parties will never do anything to annoy their buddies in that profession.
On the other side those parties who see multiple offenders always as " Victims " have absolutely no interest in coming down hard on what is the cannon fodder of the legal system . :rolleyes:

Mules

Renua. They proposed bringing in a 3 strikes law for offenders.

HBC08

briany wrote: »

None of the main parties may be that hard on crime because they've looked at the big picture and decided that crime isn't enough of an issue to build a political platform around. It's been on Liveline before, and probably will be again,

"Joe, my house was broken into last night. They took the TV, the stereo, the jewellery and the dog. The gards have done nothing. What is this country coming to?"

and

"Joe, I was cycling along the canal when a bunch of barely adolescent boys jumped out, kicked lumps out of me and stole my bike and wallet. The gards are doing nothing about this. What is the country coming to?

And incidents such as these are hugely emotive, particularly because they are innocent people falling foul of ne'er-do-wells with seemingly little punishment for the offender, but the problem is that the incidents don't happen frequently enough to enough people to form any kind of electoral mandate, and the anger in those hearing those stories doesn't really seem to last or come to the fore of their mind when election time rolls around. We all seem to be much more worried about taxes and house prices.

I think you'll find traveller crime in rural areas particularly is becoming a very strong issue for a lot of voters in these areas.
We saw that clown Peter Casey go from 2% to 23% when he mentioned it.Imagine a capable and somewhat genuine politician/party grasping that nettle,they would get massive support.

Mules

Mules wrote: »

Renua. They proposed bringing in a 3 strikes law for offenders.

Reducing it from the current 73 strikes law.

Mules

Deleted User wrote: »

Reducing it from the current 73 strikes law.

Exactly

AndrewJRenko

Mules wrote: »

Renua. They proposed bringing in a 3 strikes law for offenders.

How's the 3 strikes law working out as a deterrent in other countries?

AndrewJRenko

HBC08 wrote: »

I think you'll find traveller crime in rural areas particularly is becoming a very strong issue for a lot of voters in these areas.
We saw that clown Peter Casey go from 2% to 23% when he mentioned it.Imagine a capable and somewhat genuine politician/party grasping that nettle,they would get massive support.

Didn't do him much good in the general election in Donegal

ThunbergsAreGo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Reducing it from the current 73 strikes law.

Has it been reduced?

Mules

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How's the 3 strikes law working out as a deterrent in other countries?

Badly. Deterrent doesn't seem to work for some people. I remember reading something about IRA punishment beatings of drug dealers. The dealers knew well what would happen to them if they were caught, but they still did it. Young fellas still went in to the drug business. I think it's because some people have a very low risk perception. At the same time you can't have the lads with 73 convictions out strolling around the place. A punishment in between kneecapping and 73 strikes perhaps

Thelonious Monk

boards.ie and the journal is an echo chamber of people (men) who bang on about political parties needing to be tough on crime and immigration and all of these things.
If they were such a vote winner why don't any parties put this out in their manifesto, a much harsher sentencing and prison system that I'm sure you'd all love? No one would vote for that sh*t or see it as progressive.
I think the Garda are pretty useless sometimes but generally Ireland is really safe, including Dublin city centre.

.anon.

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the left-wing parties as they'd start to address the issues that lead to criminality.

I don't want to see those issues being addressed. I want to see a party getting tough on crime because I get off on seeing scum (i.e. poor people whose accents don't sound like mine) being punished. The problem with addressing those issues is that it would result in fewer crimes, which would result in less of a need for punishment.

Black and white answers only, please.

briany

Mules wrote: »

Badly. Deterrent doesn't seem to work for some people. I remember reading something about IRA punishment beatings of drug dealers. The dealers knew well what would happen to them if they were caught, but they still did it. Young fellas still went in to the drug business. I think it's because some people have a very low risk perception

The risks have always been high when you you're a drug dealer. If not the law, then other drug gangs, or even groups such as the IRA, who became sort of drug dealers themselves in latter years. So, what makes a young man take up all that risk? There are incentives there, as well, such as lots of fast money and notoriety. In the same way as there are thousands and thousands and thousands of jobbing actors who want to get to Hollywood, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of young men who fancy rising through the ranks of the criminal underworld up the level of Daniel Kinahan, living the high life in Dubai. In either case, few make it all the way, but it doesn't seem to stop them from trying.

Thelonious Monk

People want to buy drugs, so we're always going to have drug dealers. The law doesn't matter. I mean they could always try a different approach to the war on drugs, which fails in every single country.

Mules

Mules wrote: »

Badly. Deterrent doesn't seem to work for some people. I remember reading something about IRA punishment beatings of drug dealers. The dealers knew well what would happen to them if they were caught, but they still did it. Young fellas still went in to the drug business. I think it's because some people have a very low risk perception. At the same time you can't have the lads with 73 convictions out strolling around the place. A punishment in between kneecapping and 73 strikes perhaps

The IRA only punished dealers that failed to cough up the money, any dealers who handed over money was allowed to continue their business.

So, what do posters want from a 'tough on crime' party?

Mules

bubblypop wrote: »

The IRA only punished dealers that failed to cough up the money, any dealers who handed over money was allowed to continue their business.

So, what do posters want from a 'tough on crime' party?

Later iterations yes but not the provisionals.

ThunbergsAreGo

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Has it been reduced?

I was joking about the amount of convictions people seem to need these days before being sent to prison.

ThunbergsAreGo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I was joking about the amount of convictions people seem to need these days before being sent to prison.

Oh so was i!!

That number seemed low

Notmything

bubblypop wrote: »

The IRA only punished dealers that failed to cough up the money, any dealers who handed over money was allowed to continue their business.

So, what do posters want from a 'tough on crime' party?

No more automatic reduction in sentence, less use of concurrent sentencing. No more "last warnings" for Mr/missus with multiple convictions.

The problem tho extends, imo, beyond sentencing. We don't have the spaces for what we need, the resources don't exist to stop people falling into a life of crime. It's become a family industry with father's getting their kids involved. Let the kid get caught and sure what's the worst will happen.

I worked with families torn apart by crime, try convince a young lad that they should try stay in school, learn a trade and maybe in a few years they'll have decent wages. They're listening and seeing their immediate family getting by and doing ok with a bit of dealing, some theft and the occasional burglary. It's a vicious cycle.

We can't be tough on crime without finding away of stoping people getting into it to begin with.

Government buildings

Just lock them up. For good. I don't care whether they perceive it as a deterrent or not. Take them out of circulation, so they can't destroy anyone else's life.

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the left-wing parties as they'd start to address the issues that lead to criminality.

This face is the only valid rebuttal to that absolute waffle of an answer.

Government buildings

Mad_maxx wrote: »

it has never been a safer time to be a woman in ireland than today

ignore the hysteria , even in North Korea , the state cant wipe out murder by one citizen against another.

How come no woman I know would walk anywhere after dark? And I live in a rural area.

AndrewJRenko

Government buildings wrote: »

Just lock them up. For good. I don't care whether they perceive it as a deterrent or not. Take them out of circulation, so they can't destroy anyone else's life.

What's that going to cost?

ExMachina1000

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Or terrorists.

Like ISIS or Al Qaeda?

I don't think they have much presence in Ireland. Although you never know

Notmything

Notmything wrote: »

We can't be tough on crime without finding away of stoping people getting into it to begin with.

Agree, all the talk about locking people up & throwing the keys away is pointless.
Will not reduce crime.

.anon.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This face is the only valid rebuttal to that absolute waffle of an answer.

No, it's the kind of thing people post when they don't have any rebuttal. Tackling the complex issues that lead to criminality isn't as much fun as punishing people.