A little controversy

Crash

Piste wrote:

On the whole Methadone thnig, It is a joke, it's more addictive than heroin. 'Twould be easier to wean addicts onto a less a_Harmfull and b)Addictive drug and then wean them off that. Methadone is controlled by large pharmacutical companies who'd hate to loose out on the easy market that is Junkies.

thought the stronger than case was only in relation to morphine > heroine.

i.e. heroin was created as an attempt to get people off morphine, under the logic that if they make it stronger and give smaller doses, it'll wean em off. :rolleyes:

Methadone then came around as an attempt to get those ex morphine now heroin addicts off heroin. and now we have methadone addicts

Piste

Y'think they would've learned after the whole Morphine-addicts-now-heroin-addicts cock-up.

abraham lincoln

LiamD wrote:

I can't believe what complete and utter gob****es you are.Who the hell do you seriously think you all are saying that stuff about the northside and west dublin?They haven't got the problem you have.I can't believe that people at CTYI who claim to be very accepting people blah blah blah are here talking about shooting all scumbags and looking down on the northside.Get a life saddos because no-one likes snobs.

f**k you liam! I grew up in a north side corporation housing estate with red hair...
..."who the hell do you seriously think you are" to tell me that i can't hate these people?

doonothing

well, our area was a lil bit worse than some...
remember when they threw the fireworks in at our scout meeting yoke??
fcukin hell.
when the northside is good, its ok, when its bad, its sh*t..

Starbabe

to keep everyone happy:

1) lets all hate scumbags where ever they come from.

2) lets not pick on the north side, there are some lovely parts (lets keep liam happy;)

3) people who brake the law should get harsh yet humane punishments. they're a little namby pamby at the mo.

4) Abraham, dear, you can hate whoever you want. If they just so happen to be from the northside, so be it.

5)... scumbags=bad.
some bad people do bad things.
bad things=decent punishment
decent punishment=deterrent
...*drum roll*... less bad people, more good people.

HeyYou

Starbabe wrote:

5)... scumbags=bad.
some bad people do bad things.
bad things=decent punishment
decent punishment=deterrent
...*drum roll*... less bad people, more good people.

You should get that published, it's pure gold Scumbags are indeed bad, but not deserving of the snobbery from before. Bad people do do bad things, but executing drug dealers or killing all scumbags isn't really that good an idea. Decent punishment is REALLY open to interpretation, what is decent anyway? Putting people in a cell for 20 years is kinda cruel, and not really decent at all woudln't you say?

I love playing Devil's Advocate

Crash

whereas the other side of it all, the "everyones a victim of society" ideal is any better?

HeyYou

Oh come on, you couldn't give a reason why I was wrong on this last time and you haven't given one now either! Besides, I think I said that they were products of society, not victims. I'll ask you that question from before again:

People in poor areas are more likely to become drug addicts. Is that because:

a) They're just stupid and think drugs are cool and not at all dangerous?

or

b) Their environment means they're automatically more likely to become drug addicts because of the stigma attached to education and the prevalence of drugs in deprived areas?

What you're saying in denying that people are affected by their environments is belittling people who make mistakes as stupider than the rest, because they aren't subject to any external factors. That's rubbish.

I'm Irish and feel Irish because I grew up in Ireland, not because of an Irish "gene". Had I been raised in France, I would have developed into a France-loving person (or "cheese-eateing surrender-monkey"). Similarly, many criminals descend into criminalty because they're brought up in areas rife with crime.

So, are drug addicts just born stupid?

TalkISCheap

But surely you can't argue that background/environment is a mitigating factor when it comes to conviction? If we start to probe too deeply into any (criminal) situation it opens up a huge can of worms. At the risk of sounding sensationalist, judges would start letting murderers walk free and muggers would receive State aid instead of prison/a fine. That would destroy the "deterrent" aspect of the legal system. and would stop protecting our society.

IMO, a higher standard of proof should be demanded and then staggeringly harsh sentences. Better 10 guilty walk free than imprison 1 innocent man and all that, but once you've got your guilty man by all means hand him an indeterminate sentence.

Shoeless Ailbhe

please shut up. Sven, nice thought on starting all this,this board has turned to crap, but its just playing into the hands of those who think their smart because they can reel off other peoples opinions. Honestly, CTYI used to be fun, I'm glad I'm a very very nevermore because its full of snobs now. I mean, how many of you only got in on sciences or humanities and not both? And how many on Psych evaluation?? Get over yourselves you young pretentious idiots! Noone gives a damn that you can read and write..... Go and get out of the house and do something worthwhile with your lives, cos otherwise you'll all end up failing miserably. By the way, i like the bit of re-emergance of nevermores thats goin on....

HeyYou

At the risk of being politically incorrect, that's a big pile of gay. Boards are for discussing things, if you don' want to discuss stuff then hump off. But don't come in here and tell us we're all crap and pretentious. Oh, and what does "I mean, how many of you only got in on sciences or humanities and not both?" mean? I'm genuinely confused, it sounds like you're trying to engage in intellectual snobbery, but that would be contradicting yourself wouldn't it?

Also: "Go and get out of the house and do something worthwhile with your lives, cos otherwise you'll all end up failing miserably." Wow, if I never hear another assertion again I could live off that one for the rest of my life. What are you basing that on? The fact that we check this board every few days? Your post is the most pathetic one I've seen yet, it seems you've already made all the mistakes you're trying to warn us about. Who do you think you are?

But back to the chat:

TalkIScheap; but aren't extenuating circumstances considered by a judge when he/ she hands down a sentence? Obviously murder will always be a crime with very little room for wavering in sentencing due to the severity of the crime. But for something like indecent conduct, wouldn't a judge be obligated to look into the background of the criminal and act accordingly? These are real questions by the way, not rhetorical ones; I'm not a law student so I don't really know any of this.

StupidLikeAFox

Shoeless Ailbhe wrote:

please shut up. Sven, nice thought on starting all this,this board has turned to crap, but its just playing into the hands of those who think their smart because they can reel off other peoples opinions. Honestly, CTYI used to be fun, I'm glad I'm a very very nevermore because its full of snobs now. I mean, how many of you only got in on sciences or humanities and not both? And how many on Psych evaluation?? Get over yourselves you young pretentious idiots! Noone gives a damn that you can read and write..... Go and get out of the house and do something worthwhile with your lives, cos otherwise you'll all end up failing miserably. By the way, i like the bit of re-emergance of nevermores thats goin on....

Boo-feckin-Hoo!

HeyYou

Well said. I'm never going to be as crap as that when I'm old.

LiamD

I think she's younger than you Irwin!Now there's old!

GlitterB

Shoeless Ailbhe wrote:

please shut up. Sven, nice thought on starting all this,this board has turned to crap, but its just playing into the hands of those who think their smart because they can reel off other peoples opinions. Honestly, CTYI used to be fun, I'm glad I'm a very very nevermore because its full of snobs now. I mean, how many of you only got in on sciences or humanities and not both? And how many on Psych evaluation?? Get over yourselves you young pretentious idiots! Noone gives a damn that you can read and write..... Go and get out of the house and do something worthwhile with your lives, cos otherwise you'll all end up failing miserably. By the way, i like the bit of re-emergance of nevermores thats goin on....

You are such a prententious hypocrite...calling us snobs then saying 'uh how many of you only got in on sciences etc' Do you think you have the right to criticise becuase you did?eh sounds like you are the only one who should be called a snob or pretentious and certainly in no position to call others anything of the sort

Crash

Ok lets try and keep it civil.

HeyYou

Well if she's younger than me it's even worse. That post had such a moany-granny-esque feel to it, I just assumed that she'd been around since the start of CTYI. Obviously not, but she makes up for her lack of age in annoyingness. "Annoyingness" should be a real word.

Undergod

¿Annoyingnity?

TalkISCheap

HeyYou: (what a great way to address someone in a debate!...)

Firstly, there is a mandatory life sentence for murder in this country. The Oireachtas has taken that out of the judge's hands.
All I was trying to point out is that it is very hard to draw a line in the sand, and say "Well, indecent behaviour is a product of society & environment, but manslaughter is not." Where would you stop? (once again, not meant rhetorically!)

If judges had to look into all of the details, trials would be longer, and lawyers would get payed more.
Conviction rates would drop, as would the average lenght of a sentence.

Who is going to vote for a government who plan on spending taxpayers money like that???

HeyYou

TalkISCheap wrote:

HeyYou: (what a great way to address someone in a debate!...)

Firstly, there is a mandatory life sentence for murder in this country. The Oireachtas has taken that out of the judge's hands.
All I was trying to point out is that it is very hard to draw a line in the sand, and say "Well, indecent behaviour is a product of society & environment, but manslaughter is not." Where would you stop? (once again, not meant rhetorically!)
QUOTE]

Fair point, but you've misunderstood me a little. The mandatory life sentence is a minimum; judges can give additional jail time if they feel it is warranted beyond that minimum sentence. And on the product of society thing:

I didn't say manslaughter or murder weren't a product of society, just that they're particularly severe cases. People's values and mores can be warped on many things, but taking someone's life is such a severe crime that no amount of societal influence could ever really make it OK: if someone kills someone else, they themsleves are responsible, not their society. If someone is of a mindframe where murder is OK, then that's a problem with that person specifically.

It's a bit different to getting drunk and disorderly don't you think?

Starbabe

i see Oisin has given up on trying to get you all to start a new topic;)

Starbabe

Hey, does Shoeless Ailbhe= Ailbhe Hayes who shared a room with Jennie Corbett in 2002?

TalkISCheap

HeyYou wrote:

but taking someone's life is such a severe crime that no amount of societal influence could ever really make it OK: if someone kills someone else, they themsleves are responsible, not their society. ... It's a bit different to getting drunk and disorderly don't you think?

Quite simply, why?! Consider Annabels nightclub: a group of youths get drunk & disorderly (could be considered societies fault) and end up accidentally killing someone (completely their faults.) Certainly we cannot become tolerant of murder/manslaughter, but to have an imaginary line, beyond which society washes it's hands of all responsibility is (to me) a means of avoiding the fact that life is not black & white. (or should that be coloured & white, in this PC age? :rolleyes: )

I can accept that killing someone is never "OK", but that does not means consign them to a prison cell for the rest of their lives + beyond, regardless. Obviously if someone can be proven to be of sound mind, and to have premeditated a killing, then as i said in a previous post, 'bang em up'.
That does not absolve the rest of us of responsibility, however, in the drug-fuelled/gangland/columbine-style/societal reject style killings.

Whatever else happens, we cannot tell a guy trying to support a kid, addicted to heroin, with little education, receiving little state attention, under huge peer pressure to join a gang, no future, etc. , etc. that if he kills someone accidentaly during a mugging it is all his fault. It might sound like liberal, socialist bull, but it is (at least partially) society's (and consequently, our) fault!!

metinks.

HeyYou

TalkISCheap wrote:

It might sound like liberal, socialist bull, but it is

That bit is true. That's all I'm saying for now...

StupidLikeAFox

TalkISCheap wrote:

Whatever else happens, we cannot tell a guy trying to support a kid, addicted to heroin, with little education, receiving little state attention, under huge peer pressure to join a gang, no future, etc. , etc. that if he kills someone accidentaly during a mugging it is all his fault. It might sound like liberal, socialist bull, but it is (at least partially) society's (and consequently, our) fault!!

metinks.

So your gonna base the whole law around this one, magical, unknown man and say good luck to the rest of ye?

Lets call a spade a spade here. the law cant suit everybody, all the time, and each individual case is different. The law is a set of guidelines and not that hard to follow. Therefore you cant take isolated cases and say the law is an ass.

Also, theres only so much you can blame society. If you say "Well of course hes gonna commit a crime, society has him conditioned that way", well hasnt society conditioned YOU to think THAT way? Think about that one....

(and for those of you who actually want to call a spade a spade, here )

GlitterB

TalkISCheap wrote:

Whatever else happens, we cannot tell a guy trying to support a kid, addicted to heroin, with little education, receiving little state attention, under huge peer pressure to join a gang, no future, etc. , etc. that if he kills someone accidentaly during a mugging it is all his fault. It might sound like liberal, socialist bull, but it is (at least partially) society's (and consequently, our) fault!!

metinks.

The law is reason free from passion(just thought i would throw that in )..anyone who has seen legally blonde will know where I am going with that!!