Is Ireland's justice system lenient?

Mike Murdock

Ronaldinho wrote: »

3.5 years for manslaughter. Like, how pi$$ed would you be if before you passed away after an assault, someone told you that the fella that did it would only get 3.5 years.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/kildare-man-arrested-over-alleged-assaults-in-australia-1.4368702

How pissed would you be if you were the victim's family?

If it were a close family member of mine, maybe I feel 3.5 years is not nearly enough and decide to settle matters my way when the toerag is out of prison.

Shebean

con747 wrote: »

Just say you were from a broken home have a drink problem and ended up on drugs. Always works in Ireland. :rolleyes:

Coming from a good family and having a bright future ahead of you works wonders. They let one young man out to sit his third level exams.

Real Donald Trump

spurious wrote: »

Martin Nolan gave 20 months (MONTHS) for attacking a toddler in a pram with a blowtorch. A blowtorch to the face of a two year old.

https://www.thejournal.ie/man-jailed-burning-toddler-blow-torch-5440723-May2021/

Words fail me.

No surprise there

Chris_Heilong

We need harder punishments and long sentences for hard criminals as the idea is to remove them from society so the rest of us dont have to suffer.

Wanderer78

Chris_Heilong wrote:

We need harder punishments and long sentences for hard criminals as the idea is to remove them from society so the rest of us dont have to suffer.

What do these terms even mean, harder punishments etc, some people simply don't care, they don't care about consequences, they're wired this way

Jequ0n

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What do these terms even mean, harder punishments etc, some people simply don't care, they don't care about consequences, they're wired this way

It needs to be shouted at the tv while holding at least one pint. This magical procedure will then magically make all stage scum realise that they need to chan their ways.

TomSweeney

<snip> case ongoing...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ronaldinho wrote: »

Or 20 months for burning a baby's face with a blowtorch.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-jailed-for-burning-toddler-s-face-with-mini-blowtorch-1.4568525

Just go full Saudi on the cnut and chop his hands off.

The problem here is the judge, not the system.

The drugs are no excuse (he's already on anti-psychotic medication and he took hallucinogens? - that's a choice he voluntarily made) and he refused to take responsibility for it - so if the maximum sentence is 5 years, why did he not.get. the full five years...?

We need tougher judges as much as tougher sentences.

starkid

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What do these terms even mean, harder punishments etc, some people simply don't care, they don't care about consequences, they're wired this way

What do these terms mean...Oh lets see....take a Michael McHugh for instance. Murder a gardai like he did...longer than 30 years? i mean there is so many examples out there. Not allowing Gerald Barry rack up multiple convictions before murdering and raping Manuel Riedo. And having him actually serve a full life sentence for you know taking somebodys life.

People like you annoy the hell out of me. Whats the alternative. why should a guy whos clearly a danger to people serve only 20 months. Blow torch a babys face and you get 20 months? go on argue it out. Why should he be released after 20 months and how does it benefit society? And bear in mind, my argument also eoncompasses the fact is you seem to want it all, i mean if you aren't going to have visible police, tagging, public work detail, cctv, proper monitoring etc then where exactly is the rehabilitation going to come from?

starkid

Jequ0n wrote: »

It needs to be shouted at the tv while holding at least one pint. This magical procedure will then magically make all stage scum realise that they need to chan their ways.

oh what a clever riposte.

yeah and people like you with their woke uber liberal visions of rehabilitation, redemption and perfect people, and looking after utter scum who forfeit their right to sympathy. what a just society.

Your version of society is a ****ing pipedream. And your lazy arguing against it is typical of the sort.

harsher sentencing is what it ****ing says on the tin. Blowtorch a babys face, regardless of mental health, you spend a minimum of 2-3 years in prison. Anybody who argues 20 months with him most likely only doing 12 is utterly sick in the head imo. Murder somebody with a knife and its not treated as manslaughter etc. so many things can be done.

If you shoot a person in the head, taking their life for eternity you don't deserve release. Malcolm McCarthur should have rotted in jail. By releasing him the only person benefiting is himself, not society. He forfeited his claim to be a member of it when he killed two people. I wil laccept crimes of passion and manslaughter are different.

Mike Murdock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The problem here is the judge, not the system.

The drugs are no excuse (he's already on anti-psychotic medication and he took hallucinogens? - that's a choice he voluntarily made) and he refused to take responsibility for it - so if the maximum sentence is 5 years, why did he not.get. the full five years...?

We need tougher judges as much as tougher sentences.

You need to get rid of judicial discretion then.

Wanderer78

starkid wrote:

People like you annoy the hell out of me. Whats the alternative. why should a guy whos clearly a danger to people serve only 20 months. Blow torch a babys face and you get 20 months?

Oh there's no question, some sentences are not long enough, but it's also important to realise, it doesn't matter how long or short some are locked up for, as theyre simply wired not to care. we have no effect treatment methods for these individuals, we simply have to wait for them to offend to act

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mike Murdock wrote: »

You need to get rid of judicial discretion then.

Depends - can you point to any judge that hands down satisfactorily harsh sentences when necessary, or do you think they're all the same?

If no, then that's what we're taking about, yes.

If the law states that the maximum sentence iwas 20 years hard labour but the judge hands down 20 months, then the law is not the problem.

Jequ0n

starkid wrote: »

oh what a clever riposte.

yeah and people like you with their woke uber liberal visions of rehabilitation, redemption and perfect people, and looking after utter scum who forfeit their right to sympathy. what a just society.

Your version of society is a ****ing pipedream. And your lazy arguing against it is typical of the sort.

harsher sentencing is what it ****ing says on the tin. Blowtorch a babys face, regardless of mental health, you spend a minimum of 2-3 years in prison. Anybody who argues 20 months with him most likely only doing 12 is utterly sick in the head imo. Murder somebody with a knife and its not treated as manslaughter etc. so many things can be done.

If you shoot a person in the head, taking their life for eternity you don't deserve release. Malcolm McCarthur should have rotted in jail. By releasing him the only person benefiting is himself, not society. He forfeited his claim to be a member of it when he killed two people. I wil laccept crimes of passion and manslaughter are different.

Finally my dream has come true, I am part of the woke brigade.

You are right. We should all scream and shout, criticise everyone before we know best.
Maybe adopt the Chinese model? Because there is no crime in China now since people are too scared of the consequences?

wes

We make 0 effort to rehabilitate people in this country. Its not like we can't just copy systems that work in the rest of Europe, that don't go completely off the rails like the US.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What do these terms even mean, harder punishments etc, some people simply don't care, they don't care about consequences, they're wired this way

Longer sentences, for the reasons already stated.

Not enough prisons? Build more.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Oh there's no question, some sentences are not long enough, but it's also important to realise, it doesn't matter how long or short some are locked up for, as theyre simply wired not to care. we have no effect treatment methods for these individuals, we simply have to wait for them to offend to act

I'm not interested in treating them. I want to protect those who do "care". Lock them up.

Those guilty of minor crimes can do community service.

Don't turn up to community service?

Lock em up.

starkid

Jequ0n wrote: »

Finally my dream has come true, I am part of the woke brigade.

You are right. We should all scream and shout, criticise everyone before we know best.
Maybe adopt the Chinese model? Because there is no crime in China now since people are too scared of the consequences?

Why argue with a strawman? whats to be gained? Every country will have crime. Yes even China. The Saudis have prostitutes and drug abusers as well. what of it? If you murder somebody like happened in the IFSC you deserve no sympathy. thats not the argument though. Is Ireland's system too lenient?yes. Does a harsher system provide a safer society? Probably not. Does a harsher system like that give the victims of such crime justice? I would argue yes. I know if somebody murdered anyone of my ralatives i would want to A) kill them and when i calm down, at least see them jailed for actual life. Victims of crime must always come first imo.

If you argue that a 20 month sentence is fair or somehow just then yes you are part of the same argument.

Wanderer78

wes wrote: »

We make 0 effort to rehabilitate people in this country. Its not like we can't just copy systems that work in the rest of Europe, that don't go completely off the rails like the US.

...and this is exactly where the problem is....

Deleted User wrote: »

Longer sentences, for the reasons already stated.

Not enough prisons? Build more.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not interested in treating them. I want to protect those who do "care". Lock them up.

Those guilty of minor crimes can do community service.

Don't turn up to community service?

Lock em up.

...do you realise how costly that actually is, you could potentially be putting an astonishing bill, primarily on the backs of the average citizen, it is not cheap to incarcerate people, and ultimately, you pay!

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

...and this is exactly where the problem is....





...do you realise how costly that actually is, you could potentially be putting an astonishing bill, primarily on the backs of the average citizen, it is not cheap to incarcerate people, and ultimately, you pay!

I'll gladly pay.

starkid

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not interested in treating them. I want to protect those who do "care". Lock them up.

Those guilty of minor crimes can do community service.

Don't turn up to community service?

Lock em up.

Exactly. In this strange society we are putting the perpatrators before the victims. Its utterly vile imo. I don't care about that persons wishes or views etc. He is no benefit to society in certain crimes. And the only justice is a Gerald Barry or that sort facing actual life.

People who argue for rehabilitation need to argue that point on a case by case process. In good faith. YOu have to start with the worst offence imo. Does a murderer who takes the life in cold blood ( so not self defence, a fight, a lovers quarrel) deserve to be rehabilitated. And if so, why? and how does it benefit society?

The people who shout loudest on these matters can't actually answer it. https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/crime/killer-malcom-macarthur-moans-30-23790309 - this pos deserves absolutely no sympathy.

And we can work our way down then to lesser crimes. the issue is we don't do any ****ing deterrents here, nor rehabilitation. so the same people just want what? Can't have prisons, nor police because jackboots, can't have tagging because of civil liberties same with punishment like litter details etc. gtfo of it i say. pick one or the ****ing other.

In the case of the blowtorch guy. yes he seems ****ed up and there is mitigating factors. But he should be in the mental hospital or whatnot. He's not fit to walk the streets with such disregard. 20 months which is most likely 12 is a ridiculous sentence for such a crime.

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

Longer sentences, for the reasons already stated.

Not enough prisons? Build more.

What? Spend money on prisons when it could be funnelled toward politicians cronies in NGOs?

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll gladly pay.

this could significantly increase taxes across all citizens, it may in fact push more towards the world of crime, in order to survive, but if you alone would like to take on this cost, so be it, and thank you

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

it may in fact push more towards the world of crime

I didn't know dole lifers paid taxes.

LOL

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't know dole lifers paid taxes.

LOL

they do indeed, most citizens do, including the unemployed

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

they do indeed, most citizens do, including the unemployed

I don't think vat increases would be required. In case you didn't realize, we have a progressive tax system, which means the middle class like me pay most taxes.

I'd gladly pay a little more if it meant sub human scum was locked away.

You'll never change my mind on this.

starkid

Wanderer78 wrote: »

they do indeed, most citizens do, including the unemployed

they pay vat on goods and motor tax, that have been mostly subsidiesd by the very same taxes. Ireland has one of the lowest tax bases in the World. For all intent and purposes i don't think he's talking about vat etc.

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think vat increases would be required. In case you didn't realize, we have a progressive tax system, which means the middle class like me pay most taxes.

I'd gladly pay a little more if it meant sub human scum was locked away.

You'll never change my mind on this.

we have no clue where taxes would be truly increased for such an approach, it would depend on many factors, and ultimately the governments we chose, and of course their underlying ideologies. we say we have a progressive tax system, but we actually dont really, the bulk of taxation ultimately does fall on your back, i.e. the middle classes, while we leave wealth largely untouched, particularly the asset owning classes.

its very likely many middle classes simply cannot take more taxes on, as theyre probably struggling to make ends meet as it is, so....

who says im trying to convince you, you re not alone either...

Wanderer78

starkid wrote: »

they pay vat on goods and motor tax, that have been mostly subsidiesd by the very same taxes. Ireland has one of the lowest tax bases in the World. For all intent and purposes i don't think he's talking about vat etc.

funnily enough, tax is still tax!

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

we have no clue where taxes would be truly increased for such an approach

Well since we are speaking in hypotheticals, I'm proposing a system that would work in the way I stated. Oh and look at that, it functions.

The end.