The law and repeat offenders....

Archytas

Recently there was an attack in naas by a 24yr old man on two people, one a polish worker and another someone who tried to come to the aid of the polish man.

This man was sentenced to 3yrs for the attack. He was out of prison for another crime about a week before this event occured. It emerged during the trial that the man had 37(really!) previous convictions mostly while he was under the age of 18(having spent a number of years in prison, unable to commit further crimes on the general populace...).

How does a repeat offender and a vicous thug only get three years in prison? Because thats the strictest sentance the judge could hand down for that offence....

Should there be a facility for trying repeat offenders like this in a manner more suited to them? Surely they have little role in real society and having shown no willingness to rehabilitate, deserve to be dealt with in a more severe manner? I'm not advocating capital punishment, merely something to deal better with these people...

Comments?

hawkmoon269

There should be tougher sentences for violent crime.

As regards repeat offences I think it depends on the seriousness of the crimes involved. If some of them involve violence, then yes they should be treated more harshly. If it is a teenager constantly in trouble for say, (non-violent) shop-lifting or driving without tax, then not necessarily.

Flukey

Serial offenders should of course face stiffer sentences.

A Dub in Glasgo

3 strikes rule for violent offences? I don't really know if it works.

skywalker

Id certainly be in favour of something similar to the 3 strikes rule. Only problem is you'l get a few years of these people going around using up their 2 strikes.

28064212

The 3 strikes rule is great. In theory. In practice it's very difficult to implement. In California (I think that's the main place they use it), it's been attributed with blocking a lot of minor offences, but then you get people being sent away for years for 3 relatively benign crimes. It's very difficult to draw the line.

Quantum

I read a great suggestion on another board last year about adopting an 'escalating' level of punishment that I think is the best idea I have read on this subject.

Punishment should escalate depending on the number of times you are convicted etc. So a first time burgler might get probation, because he may have gotten into the wrong crowd and made a bad decision - but a conviction on a second burglery would produce a two year sentence and a third a six year conviction etc.
The same would apply to all other offences. (Though first time punishment would not necessarily be probation, that was just an example)

This would produce leniency and compassion for human mistakes but really punish repeat offenders. And it is also a natural form of justice.

I think that although it would require a good deal of well thought out escalation calculations - it is the best solution I have ever heard.

Zillah

Quantum wrote:

I read a great suggestion on another board last year about adopting an 'escalating' level of punishment that I think is the best idea I have read on this subject.

Punishment should escalate depending on the number of times you are convicted etc. So a first time burgler might get probation, because he may have gotten into the wrong crowd and made a bad decision - but a conviction on a second burglery would produce a two year sentence and a third a six year conviction etc.
The same would apply to all other offences. (Though first time punishment would not necessarily be probation, that was just an example)

This would produce leniency and compassion for human mistakes but really punish repeat offenders. And it is also a natural form of justice.

I think that although it would require a good deal of well thought out escalation calculations - it is the best solution I have ever heard.

Hmm, I may aswell try burglary once then, I'll barely get in trouble if I get caught...

Ben: Hey Bob, dont worry about it, whats the worst that could happen?
Bob:Um, probation?
Ben: Exactly kido!

seamus

28064212 wrote:

The 3 strikes rule is great. In theory. In practice it's very difficult to implement. In California (I think that's the main place they use it), it's been attributed with blocking a lot of minor offences, but then you get people being sent away for years for 3 relatively benign crimes. It's very difficult to draw the line.

"Relatively Benign".

Burglary is relatively benign, but if you get caught three times, tough cookies, you're a moron. I don't think it's too harsh at all. It's very easy not to commit crimes.
The main problem with the three strikes rule is that people don't learn. Idiots will always be idiots and will continue to commit crimes. But once they start using up their strikes, they become violent and desperate idiots. The last thing we'd need is a joyrider on his last strike doing 100mph the wrong way down the M50 trying to escape.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

28064212

seamus wrote:

"Relatively Benign"

I wouldn't actually view burglary as benign, but I was thinking more along the lines of shoplifting/petty theft and drug possession for personal use. You'd still be a scumbag for shoplifting, but if it's your third strike, and you'd been done twice for cannabis possession, or something like drunk and disorderly (or a dreaded ASBO if it comes in) it'd seem pretty tough to be put away for a few years.

seamus

28064212 wrote:

I wouldn't actually view burglary as benign, but I was thinking more along the lines of shoplifting/petty theft and drug possession for personal use. You'd still be a scumbag for shoplifting, but if it's your third strike, and you'd been done twice for cannabis possession, or something like drunk and disorderly (or a dreaded ASBO if it comes in) it'd seem pretty tough to be put away for a few years.

In fairness, particularly in this country, social order offences and minor drugs offences couldn't possibly be included. We're talking about stuff like burglary, car theft, mugging, drug dealing, etc.

MT

Yes, I think the escalating sentencing system mentioned above could improve on the current revolving door problem. However, the first sentence would need to remain as ‘tough’ as those currently handed down. What I wouldn’t support would be escalating sentencing with increased leniency for first time offenders. Such a route would simply invite potential criminals to ‘have a go’ for their initial transgression in the knowledge that relatively little in the way of a penalty would be imposed.

This system is, I believe, operated in some countries to impose penalty points for driving offences. Speed once and you get the basic number of points, speed again and the number awarded goes up. Definitely something to consider in Ireland.

Quantum

MT wrote:

Yes, I think the escalating sentencing system mentioned above could improve on the current revolving door problem. However, the first sentence would need to remain as ‘tough’ as those currently handed down. What I wouldn’t support would be escalating sentencing with increased leniency for first time offenders. Such a route would simply invite potential criminals to ‘have a go’ for their initial transgression in the knowledge that relatively little in the way of a penalty would be imposed.

I was only using the burgery example as probation because that's basically what they get here for a first time offence.

The "Escalation System" could be easily applied to a range of offences that are the repeat-type. First time offenders don't always need to get probation, but leniency provides a stern warning where they will learn that they are out of chances and the next time they will get hit really hard.

Being in court facing a second time offence will also provide a major wake up call when they see how things are going.

Sure, it may not reduce crime straight away... but I believe that over time... say five or ten years... the fact that so much crime is committed by repeat offenders will eat into the crime statistics as they are either deterred by the increasing penalties or in jail for that same reason.

I think we should try it.

billy the squid

I am in favour of the 3 strikes and your gone idea.

Only thing is though, for things like mugging, assault, someone putting in your living room window, the guards don't seem to bother following up on reports of these crimes. eventually the scumbag moves on to bigger and bigger crimes, until eventually someone inds up dead at the hands of this person. It is then and only then that the guards will do anything.

If stiff sentences for the first two offences are handed down by judges it might knock someone capible of it back on the straight and narrow. If they go and commit a third crime then they are taken out of circulation. the thing is though that the guards would need to follow up and get prosecutions of people who have been reported for crimes. this is not happening.

rander00

Just, shoot the ***** that do violent crime!
Simple really.

Bring them to a public square and shoot them.

It could be called skanger cleansing, and operated under the tidy towns competitions.