A little controversy

Oisín Collins

*slams head off desk*

Could this thread possibly stay one the one topic for longer than it takes to read the backposts?

You could give someone brain damage by making them read this pile of fast moving yet utterly pointless drivel.

EVERYONE HAS AGREED THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE BAD!!

log off and go to sleep

Zounds

Ois&#237 wrote: »

EVERYONE HAS AGREED THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE BAD!!

log off and go to sleep

Good point Oisín, cept about the sleeping *has DVDs to watch*

Raphael

Are they pr0n?

Zounds

Raphael wrote:

Are they pr0n?

only according to Bish...

Boston

I hate the Jew.

Plunky

Why?

Boston

Cause crash is a Jew. It obvious he has no forskin.

Plunky

Last I knew he wasn't tbh. And that's a pretty quick (and stupid) way to get yourself in a lot of trouble. Meh, it's your funeral

Raphael

Plunky, Boston is a troll. Not a particularily good one, but a troll. He delights in getting himself into trouble.

Plunky

Kinkeh

HeyYou

I can't believe this nonsense went so far. Just a few points:

1) "does anyone really beileve there's a solution out there to deal with bad people in the world?" It's called the Criminal Justice System, it's the best and only way of dealing with "bad people" fairly.

2) It Wasn't Me: what are you on?! Getting rid of all the people you don't like? Can't you see how crazy that is? Once you acknowledge that certain people can be disappeared from society you acknowledge that all of our rights to live and exist are qualified by some higher authority saying that we're "allowed" to be. Once you acknowledge that, you acknowledge that the right to live in society can be taken away from YOU by someone who objects to your moral code, or the way you dress. Yes, people break the law, that's why we have laws: so that those people can be punished appropriately. Anything else is just insane. The idea that these people exist only as criminals is absurd, they still deserve the same rights as everyone else to live their lives. If they abuse those rights and slip into criminality, then it's off to jail with them, but that's as far as we can go. For once, the Hitler accusation is completely justified.

3) Junkies do not just have themselves to blame. Drug dealers prey on the weakest in society and when they deal, they deal in death. It's not fair to just say "drugs are bad and it's their own fault for getting hooked", there are more factors at play: stigmatisation of education, socioeconomic ruin in urban areas, and ignorance (real word ;p) of the problems by politicians (except Tony Gregory, who revitalised the north inner city more than anyone else ever did, on his own).

4) Liam's the only person talking sense on this thread. Huzzah for Liam!

Boston

Raphael wrote:

Plunky, Boston is a troll. Not a particularily good one, but a troll. He delights in getting himself into trouble.

I'm an excellent Troll excuse me very much. Besides I've crash's forskin, if he want's it back he better not ban moi.

LiamD

Cheers Irwin!

StupidLikeAFox

Boston wrote:

I'm an excellent Troll excuse me very much. Besides I've crash's forskin, if he want's it back he better not ban moi.

Sure whats a bit of foreskin between friends?

Crash

ok I'm sorry but i dont quite get how people can honestly track out the old "Junkies and a lot of criminals are victims of society, social situations and society as a whole" line so often as an excuse.

I also dont know how HeyYou can honestly believe LiamD is talking sense after he has stated at least once that "Northsiders are the salt of the earth". they're not. they're people. there are some lovely ones and if you go to certain areas of the inner city you will find great parts, for instance when i worked down near the liberties there were some lovely parts, and then i'd have to go do runs down to the civic offices, right along by the old methadone clinic there, and the amount of abuse and threats and people trying to deal to me there when i walked past could be really ****ing high sometimes.

Simple fact is that you cannot excuse a persons crime on the basis that they felt outside pressure or that they had inner turmoil. they still commited a crime. They're still guilty. If i'm on a night out say, been drinking, been through a terribly rough patch, friend or family died or somesuch, and someone says the wrong thing to me, and i start a fight, are my actions excusable? because if you've ever gone through the inner torture and anger that that kind of incident can cause, you can very easily compare that to the torture and anger an addict will suffer.

HeyYou wrote:

3) Junkies do not just have themselves to blame. Drug dealers prey on the weakest in society and when they deal, they deal in death. It's not fair to just say "drugs are bad and it's their own fault for getting hooked", there are more factors at play: stigmatisation of education, socioeconomic ruin in urban areas, and ignorance (real word ;p) of the problems by politicians (except Tony Gregory, who revitalised the north inner city more than anyone else ever did, on his own).

...the only part of that i can not find a whole in is your praise of Tony Gregory tbh. the rest of it can be true, but as often as not is used as a cop out for a persons actions - and if you really wanna go down that road, look at the US legal system and some of the lawsuits that have been brought against multinational games and television production companies. People are responsible for their own actions, fullstop. whether or not they have an excuse is not a factor in my mind. while those issues that they may have been dealing with can be taken into account when considering punishment etc, they can NOT be used as a way out.

HeyYou

Are you trying to misunderstand me on purpose? When I said Liam was talking sense I was referring to the fact that he was one of the first to take issue with It Wasn't Me's crazy ramblings, and the fact that he's one of the only ones who hasn't sought to degrade the northside and its inhabitants. As for the salt of the earth comment, that could be said about nice people anywhere, so why are you taking issue with it?

But on the junkies thing. Never did I say that drug dealers shouldn't be punished for their crimes, and never did I say that junkies who commit crimes shouldn't be punished accordingly. But in the sentencing process, through which the three pilliars of the Justice System (Punishment, Retribution and Rehabilitation), a person's circumstances are very definitely taken into account by the courts, and appropriate measures are taken to try and better that person's lot in life. Of course people should be, and are, held responsible for their own actions. But the fact is, certain "bad" life decisions are made much more easily and frequently by people in poor socioeconomic situations. Do you think it's coincidence that poor people use hard drugs more? Or are they just stupider and think it's a good idea? Is it coincidence that cancer and heart disease are almost 50% more common in underprivileged areas, because of a lack of education on the dangers of smoking and an unbalanced diet? Or isn't it the case that because of the situation that the most vulnerable people in society are born into, that those people are just more likely AUTOMATICALLY to fall into a life of criminality and drug abuse? Most don't, but the proportion is far higher than in more affluent areas.

Of course these people still have to pay for whatever crimes they commit, be they poor or better-off, it's ludicrous to suggest other wise. But in my mind, a person who was born into a comfortable life who goes on to be a criminal is more culpable for his/ her actions than someone who becomes a junkie because education in their area just wasn't the done thing, someone who had a worse chance in life from the get-go.

Am I wrong?

HeyYou

"Or are they just stupider and think it's a good idea?"

Just read this; I don't think they're stupider, but that seems to be crash's logic. Just wanted to clarify.

TalkISCheap

Half of what has been, er, said is purely academic. We do not have a magic-killing-off-half-of-dublin machine, nor are we ever again likely to after they closed the nazi/communist/etc.. death camps. The debate is whather or not "scumbags" should be removed from society interminably, and the answer is that it is impossible to do, everyone removed under the system would practically automatically appeal (likely with free legal aid), and would cost €€€€€$$$££££ to the irish taxpayer. As for the death penalty (which is what i will assume the "wh-eeeres me shotgun bud, i'm gonna blow 'is BLEEDIN' head awwfff" relates to), it was voted out in a 2001 referendum by one of the largest majorities ever.

Finally, as for the drug addicts, lock them up by all means, but clean them up, give them a trade or qualification, and then help the rehabilitate (cheers irwin!). And when you catch the dealer, give him life, which should mean life. At least 30 years anyway...

joe the coat

lordy almighty. I was born, though not raised, a southsider, but one of the most horrible things I've seen in the news is those posh ****s who killed that guy outside Annabels getting away with it. But also, parts of the northside are truely nasty. This is life. Not modern life, not urban life, not western life. Everywhere, every time has its nasty bits. I'd say even the Vatican has a sleazy end.

Both side of this little spat are being blinkered and prejudiced, both to the good things about the other side, and the bad about their own.

Now. Will someone confirm or deny that teenagers have become more promiscious in the last 5 years? I kind of hope deny. I'd prefer to be wrong. Nothing wrong with sex. But promiscious behavior at the age of 13/14. Thats not a good thing. Or do people disagree? Am I a fuddy-duddy (thats really just an excuse to use the word fuddy duddy ... heheh

TalkISCheap

Je ne sais pas, not being a teenager 5 years ago

StupidLikeAFox

make love not war by all means

joe the coat

ColHol wrote:

make love not war by all means

Ok, yes, rampant horny teenagers are probably better than kinfe wielding thieving teenagers. But what about depressed teenage mothers getting into drugs? Think about it. Firstly, its a personal tragedy. Then, she is supplying business to organised criminals. Then, wheres her money for drugs come from? And then, think about what happens to the child. It won't be a nice happy Hollywood "I worked my way up from the very bottom " 4 Yorkshiremen sketch story... Or if it is, that child will be 1 in a million. My sister works in Womens Aid in London... it happens. Its truly nasty.

doonothing

eh, irwin? would this discussion really be happening if that system was working?
i mean, it works in dealing with people the police happen to catch, but is it really doing anything to make anyone feel safer?
and don't patronise me, i meant bad people as in people who do bad things, not just criminals because there is inevitably a problem defining criminals, and it was int context of people saying scumbags should all be killed but im sure the present system would run into as much trouble defining scumbags and saying who of them should be killed.
and i meant does anyone believe there's going to be a faultless system out there that everyone can agree on for pubishing all those who everyone can see fit to be punished.
i wasnt just asking for you to tell me the name of the justice system we have in place right now thanks.

joe the coat

The Criminal Justice System very often sucks. However, would you prefer secret police? Total Information Awareness? Armed Vigilantes roaming the streets? Give me imperfection that leans towards the safe end.

StupidLikeAFox

I said:

joe the coat

oh very true. love thy neighbour. But if you love him/her to much, don't be suprised if a restraining order gets put on you...

Bazookatone

Undergod wrote:

That's completely out of order! Killing a young fella because of a (admittedly long) serious of semi-serious crimes?

You're right, but don't you ever just feel "Damn! If I could just teach those smug little prats a lesson......"

Bazookatone

Ok, I got the thread onto this topic (I started the Civil Liberties thing) so I think I should do my make-numbered-points-thing, and please, can we let that be the end of the "kill scumbags" thing.

1. Plenty of scumbags out there, and plenty of them are rich.

2. My shotgun comment was an irrational expression, meant to highlight my feeling of a) disbelief at the magnitude of the kid's anti social behaviour
b) anger that nothing can seemingly be done

3. I do NOT advocate the death penalty, but I am glad that my comment got a debate going about it.

4. Many people are now aware of the problem, and people are doing something about it, the problem is not as big as you imagine it is.

5. People are always biased in an argument about this. Remember if you can see that, so can everyone else. Just take some of the extreme comments with a pinch of salt.

6. Back to the Cilvil Liberties issue. Should we sacrifice more of our rights in order to be safer?

HeyYou

"eh, irwin? would this discussion really be happening if that system was working?
i mean, it works in dealing with people the police happen to catch, but is it really doing anything to make anyone feel safer?
and don't patronise me, i meant bad people as in people who do bad things, not just criminals because there is inevitably a problem defining criminals, and it was int context of people saying scumbags should all be killed but im sure the present system would run into as much trouble defining scumbags and saying who of them should be killed.
and i meant does anyone believe there's going to be a faultless system out there that everyone can agree on for pubishing all those who everyone can see fit to be punished.
i wasnt just asking for you to tell me the name of the justice system we have in place right now thanks."

OK:

A system doesn't work 100% of the time, therefore it's obviously useless. That's essentially what you're saying. Yes, there are still criminals, and yes, the CJS should work harder to punish criminals and prevent criminality. But the issue here is a balance of rights one. People who commit crimes, or are accused of crimes, lose some (but NOT ALL) of their rights for the greater good of society; they can be held for interrogation (loss of freedom of movement) or jailed (loss of freedom entirely). They do retain other rights, like the right to life, etc. In order to "make people feel safer", in your words, you seem to be leaning towards a system that allows the police greater freedom to do as they see fit to prevent crime from occurring, and I'm not convinced that that's the way to go.

Look at the Patriot Act in America and all the extra rights that were given to police as a result. Yes, America is now "safer", but all the rights and principles of democracy it allegedly stands for don't seem to amount to much if the freedoms that non-criminals enjoy can be taken away on a whim. So, to answer you question: no, no-one will agree on a perfect system, but the one we've got is the worst except for all of the other ones.

doonothing

im not saying the system's useless, but the discussion we're having now, is it not showing that maybe this isnt the most effective possible? i agree with you about the balance of rights thing, but i wasnt suggesting we give the police more freedom in dealing with criminals.
im not trying to say i've all the answers or anything, i was just pointing out that the system we have now, is it really the best that could be? i don't think so, not that i can come up with anything better, but the is anyone happy with the system now?
im not pushing for any 1984 type monitoring or anything, its just there's so much injustice and violence and crime on all of our doorsteps, is this really the best we can hope for?