# Should people with 75 previous convictions ever be let out of prison again.



## z104 (20 May 2010)

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/thug-who-attacked-dying-pole-was-on-bail-2186636.html

Man who attacked Polish man was out on bail.

When do we say enough is enough, How many chances does somebody get. 75 previous convictions. To rack up 75 previous convictions how many crimes must you have committed.300, 400, 500

All of these crimes have victims.


----------



## csirl (20 May 2010)

And he was only 21 years old - these offences all happened in max. 3 year period (18 to 21) as offences committed under 18 are not included on an adults criminal record.

This guy should have been locked up sooner and for a long time.


----------



## Firefly (20 May 2010)

That means he was convicted of a crime every second week for something. Are our judges suffereing from amnesia?


----------



## censuspro (20 May 2010)

I'm sure there must have been some mitigating factors.


----------



## censuspro (20 May 2010)

Niallers said:


> http://www.independent.ie/national-news/thug-who-attacked-dying-pole-was-on-bail-2186636.html
> 
> Man who attacked Polish man was out on bail.
> 
> ...


 
BTW there are criminals with double that amount of convictions who are not in prison.


----------



## delgirl (20 May 2010)

They should introduce the 'three strikes' law, same as in the States, with a very harsh penalty for the 3rd offence.

Some people say that harsh penalties don't act as a derrent, but having lived in countries whose punishments fit the crimes, such as Singapore, I don't understand why tougher mandatory sentences are not introduced here.


----------



## csirl (20 May 2010)

> They should introduce the 'three strikes' law, same as in the States, with a very harsh penalty for the 3rd offence.


 
This reduced crime by 70% where it was introduced. Not because it acted as a deterant, but because the majority of crime is committed by a small number of habitual criminals. Once they get locked up, the crime rate plummets.


----------



## delgirl (20 May 2010)

I think it's a mix of both the criminals being locked up and those who have already committed two crimes being deterred by a potential 25 year jail sentence should they commit a third crime.

It has prompted, for example, a lot of Californian criminals to leave the state, which has also brought the crime rate down.


----------



## RMCF (20 May 2010)

Crime pays.


----------



## Pique318 (20 May 2010)

delgirl said:


> ....countries whose punishments fit the crimes, such as Singapore,



That's a very broad statement, right there !


----------



## censuspro (21 May 2010)

Pique318 said:


> That's a very broad statement, right there !


 
I think it's a counter arguement to those who argue that harsh prison sentences in the US hasn't reduced crime rates.


----------



## Ash 22 (21 May 2010)

How many times have we seen people out on bail killing others? Remember that Manuela Rieda case. The law is pure ridiculuous. With 75 previous convictions he belongs inside for a nice spell.


----------



## z104 (21 May 2010)

Ash 22 said:


> How many times have we seen people out on bail killing others? Remember that Manuela Rieda case. The law is pure ridiculuous. With 75 previous convictions he belongs inside for a nice spell.


 

I would argue that they should be in prison for life.


----------



## UFC (21 May 2010)

When I was younger I used to think "we should help them" and "they're a product of their environment".

Now I just think they're scum and should be put down (why waste the money keeping them in prison for life?)

We have too many scumbags in this country. Recidivists shouldn't have a right to live in our society.


----------



## Chocks away (21 May 2010)

+1


----------



## MANTO (22 May 2010)

Chocks away said:


> +1



And thats why life is the greatest teacher - you live and learn.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (23 May 2010)

I think we are giving this guy too much credit.  It is reasonably easy to chalk up convictions.  Take a simple theft of a packet of cigarettes from a shop, this might involve the following multiple convictions:

Larceny
Possession of an offensive weapon
Possession of illegal drugs
Threatening bodily harm
Resisting arrest
Trying to escape Garda custody
Dangerous driving (subsequent car chase)
Driving whilst under the influence of drugs
Damage to property (when car crashes)
Using abusive language to Gardai
Obstructing the course of justice
Contempt of court

So there's 12 convictions from a stolen packet of fags.

Now it is far, far more challenging for, say, an Anglo banker to secure even one conviction


----------



## haminka1 (23 May 2010)

i am all for the law of 3 strikes  - no matter what the crime was ....


----------



## UptheDeise (23 May 2010)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I think we are giving this guy too much credit. It is reasonably easy to chalk up convictions. Take a simple theft of a packet of cigarettes from a shop, this might involve the following multiple convictions:
> 
> Larceny
> Possession of an offensive weapon
> ...


 
Is your post for real?


----------



## Purple (23 May 2010)

haminka1 said:


> i am all for the law of 3 strikes  - no matter what the crime was ....



How about 30 strikes or 40? 
There has to be a point when people serve some serious prison time. I'm not saying lock them away for life or kill someone because they keep stealing cars but...


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (23 May 2010)

UptheDeise said:


> Is your post for real?


Sorry for the sarcasm, cheapest form of wit and all that.

Just pointing out that it is very easy for an underclass kid to accumulate convictions but seemingly impossible to bring to book those who have committed economic treason on a whole nation, and by the way creamed a few 10s of millions for themselves and their families.


----------



## Ancutza (23 May 2010)

> i am all for the law of 3 strikes  - no matter what the crime was ....



A life sentence for stealing your 3rd car?  Harsh but no doubt fair!


----------



## Latrade (24 May 2010)

I think we're looking at this the wrong way, if someone can clock up 75 convictions in so short a time, then there's obviously too much that is a criminal offence. We should reduce the number of offences, that way we decrease the number of crimes overnight.

And I'm only half joking, because when we sit back and judge these people (rightly or wrongly) we operate on the basis that we're 100% law abiding. And yet, some may break the speed limit, use a bus lane, some in their car while on work buisness, not declare a nixer, do something against a safety policy at work, take some paper home from work, etc. 

If you're just going to say "75 conviction" what are they for? I'd say given the way so much stuff has been criminalised over the last 15-20 years, it's hard not to go through the day without doing something illegal. 

So yeah, 3 strikes and you're out, but I suppose that only relates to the crimes that you don't commit, they're not proper crimes anyway. Because as we know, it's a fact that harsh punishment of crime works. Just look at when there was real punishment of criminals, when you could do hard time for pinching some bread, or be executed or be shipped off, crime was virtually zero... oh wait real crime rates are much less. 

But when we knew how to deal with murderers with hanging and all that good stuff. But them those pesky statistics and reality show that murder rates are lower these days, but then as we all know, reality has a liberal bias.


----------



## Complainer (24 May 2010)

UFC said:


> When I was younger I used to think "we should help them" and "they're a product of their environment".
> 
> Now I just think they're scum and should be put down (why waste the money keeping them in prison for life?)
> 
> We have too many scumbags in this country. Recidivists shouldn't have a right to live in our society.



So how did it come to be they are 'scumbags' and you are not?



csirl said:


> This reduced crime by 70% where it was introduced. Not because it acted as a deterant, but because the majority of crime is committed by a small number of habitual criminals. Once they get locked up, the crime rate plummets.


Source please?


----------



## UFC (24 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> So how did it come to be they are 'scumbags' and you are not?


 
Probably loads of reasons:

Terrible parents
Poor genetics
Possibly some sort of brain damage from fetal alcohol syndrome or some such thing
Laziness
Bad attitude
Mental illness
Complete lack of education
etc., etc. ...

Regardless, the fact of the matter is they are now pure scum and really should have no place in our society. As adults they understand they are doing wrong.


----------



## Latrade (25 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> Source please?


 
It wasn't 70% reduction, but there was a reduction in the states that introduced a 3 strikes system for certain crimes. Couple of problems with that though, first, crime also went down in States that don't have the same system. Like the zero tolerance approach in New York where Giuliani gets the credit, unfortunately crime was already dropping before he came to office and before the introduction of zero tolerance and at the same rate in other cities that didn't have the ZT system.

The massive drops in crime over the 90s and the 2000s had more to do the good economic times with low unemployment and good wages than any conservative, hard line approach to handling crime. Just like in the old Victorian days, it just didn't work being hard on crime. The only common feature in crime rates dropping and rising is economic stability and social conditions.

And in 3 strikes system rape and assault actually increased, so people were given 25 years for stealing a golf club or some cookies, but rapists and thugs still walked the streets. Sure you need to lock up your sister, wife and daughter after dark, but you can sleep at night knowing your golf clubs are finally safe and secure.


----------



## Complainer (25 May 2010)

UFC said:


> Probably loads of reasons:
> 
> Terrible parents
> Poor genetics
> ...



So out of the seven possible causes you list, five were things that these individuals have/had no control over. And the other two (laziness and bad attitude) are almost certainly related to the other five. You expect people who are mentally ill, and/or intellectually disabled and/or uneducated to have the same understanding of right and wrong as you. So these people were unlucky enough to be born into a very difficult environment, and your response is to 'put them down'.

Nice values.


----------



## csirl (25 May 2010)

Excuses, excuses, excuses. What's with the abdicating of responsibility? We are all human, we all possess advantageous and disadvantageous traits. There are plenty of people born in difficult environments who are model citizens. Nobody has a "right" to used their background as an excuse to commit crime and terrorise their fellow citizens.


----------



## Complainer (25 May 2010)

csirl said:


> Nobody has a "right" to used their background as an excuse to commit crime and terrorise their fellow citizens.


Fully agree with you there. But as long as we fail to look at the causes (not the excuses), we will fail to address the real issues.


----------



## Latrade (25 May 2010)

csirl said:


> Excuses, excuses, excuses. What's with the abdicating of responsibility? We are all human, we all possess advantageous and disadvantageous traits. There are plenty of people born in difficult environments who are model citizens. Nobody has a "right" to used their background as an excuse to commit crime and terrorise their fellow citizens.


 
My problem with this is not regarding excuses, rather causes. The only consistent indicator of "crime" regards social conditions. 

The other issue I can never get my head around and that is never taken into account is what crimes do we consider? So it's murder, assault, rape, theft, drugs, vandalism, begging, etc. They're the ones we want irradicating and they're the people we want locked up.

But what about white collar crime? A drug dealer may beat up a few people and murder the odd competitor every year and wreck the lives of a few thousand, but bankers in this country alone managed to ruin the lives of 4 million people. Hundreds of thousand now unemployed, thousands struggling to keep their houses and the one statistic we never get to hear about is suicide. 

And yet not one of the systems that are tough on crime ever include white collar crime. 

Excuses indeed.


----------



## censuspro (25 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> Fully agree with you there. But as long as we fail to look at the causes (not the excuses), we will fail to address the real issues.


 
But there comes a point where people have to be held accountable for their actions. By "failing to address the real issues" we are taking one thing and calling it something else "it's not crime, they're a product of their environment" this completly alleviates the responsibility for their own actions.


----------



## Complainer (25 May 2010)

censuspro said:


> But there comes a point where people have to be held accountable for their actions. By "failing to address the real issues" we are taking one thing and calling it something else "it's not crime, they're a product of their environment" this completly alleviates the responsibility for their own actions.


I've no problem with making people accountable for their actions. Crime is crime.

However, if we ever want to break out of this vicious cycle of crime in socially deprived areas, we need to address the causes.


----------



## censuspro (25 May 2010)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I think we are giving this guy too much credit. It is reasonably easy to chalk up convictions. Take a simple theft of a packet of cigarettes from a shop, this might involve the following multiple convictions:
> 
> Larceny
> Possession of an offensive weapon
> ...


 
Maybe he shouldn't:
Steal a pack of cigs
Posess an offensive weapon
Threaten to kill or hurt someone with the offensive weapon
Resist arrest
Steal a car and evade arrest
Use abusive language
obstruct justice or be in contempt of court.


----------



## Mpsox (25 May 2010)

delgirl said:


> They should introduce the 'three strikes' law, same as in the States, with a very harsh penalty for the 3rd offence.
> 
> Some people say that harsh penalties don't act as a derrent, but having lived in countries whose punishments fit the crimes, such as Singapore, I don't understand why tougher mandatory sentences are not introduced here.


 
Be careful for what you wish for. How many of us on here got up to mischef in our youth? I have a clean record but have been dragged into fights a couple of times in pubs in my youth where someone I was with in a group kicked it off (cause he was a pillock), or nipped up an alleyway on the way home when I was got short. Had the Guards come along, I could quite easily have 2/3 strikes against me now.

Harsher sentances is too simplistic a solution. After all, we imprison people in this country for not paying their debts, should they count as a "strike" when often the reason they are in debt may not necessarily be their fault but a reflection of circumstances. ?

Whilst I don't argue that harsher sentances are required in a lot of cases (or at the very least a complete overhaul of the bail laws in Ireland) I also know people who had a criminal record as long as their arm due to drug addiction, but who also sorted out their lives, are now happily married with kids and a full time job and if you met them, you'd never believe what their younger days were like.

You need only pick up any local newspaper and read the court cases to know that we are raising a generation of ferral children who have no respect for authority. Harsher punishments is only part of the solution, we should also be asking ourselves why these kids turned out like that (remember, they were all babies who went goo-goo gaa-gaa at some stage) and what we should as a society be doing about it for the future. It's a debate about what kind of Ireland we want to live in as much as a debate about sentancing


----------



## censuspro (25 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> I've no problem with making people accountable for their actions. Crime is crime.
> 
> However, if we ever want to break out of this vicious cycle of crime in socially deprived areas, we need to address the causes.


 
Agreed. But that has nothing to do with sentencing.


----------



## Complainer (25 May 2010)

censuspro said:


> But that has nothing to do with sentencing.


DIsagree - it has everything to do with sentancing, and with the broader criminal justice system.


----------



## censuspro (25 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> DIsagree - it has everything to do with sentancing, and with the broader criminal justice system.


 
How does someone coming from a socially deprived area have to do with whether we introduce mandatory sentencing? This is just a way to alleviate the responsibility people have for their own actions.


----------



## censuspro (25 May 2010)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Sorry for the sarcasm, cheapest form of wit and all that.
> 
> Just pointing out that it is very easy for an underclass kid to accumulate convictions but seemingly impossible to bring to book those who have committed economic treason on a whole nation, and by the way creamed a few 10s of millions for themselves and their families.


 
Mandatory sentencing would apply to them too.


----------



## MrMan (25 May 2010)

The system is best used and abused by those that it is supposed to be helping. We have a soft stance on crime and criminals of all types can get by on the knowledge that should they get caught, they won't be hard done by. 
When we catch a 'scumbag' and start analysing exactly how it came to pass that he punched a girl in the face so she would drop her handbag, we lose sight that the real victim is the priority and when we introduce his background into the debate we are already softening up his sentence.
You can't heal someones past, so if they continue to make choices outside the law, then we should be altering his future for our own sake, and by that I mean real sentences in prisons that meet their basic needs without luxuries.


----------



## redbhoy (25 May 2010)

The quicker people realise that the Legal System doesnt give a toss about victims or Society as a while the better. They care about perpetuating the Court System which keep all involved in their accustomed lifestyle at teh top of the pile. (Gardaí, Solicitors, Barristers, Judges, politicians are all complicit in this charade)


----------



## johnd (25 May 2010)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Sorry for the sarcasm, cheapest form of wit and all that.
> 
> Just pointing out that it is very easy for an underclass kid to accumulate convictions but seemingly impossible to bring to book those who have committed economic treason on a whole nation, and by the way creamed a few 10s of millions for themselves and their families.



The problem obviously lies with the Garda and the DPP for refusing to take cases against white collar crime and with judges for refusing to imprison those found guilty of such crimes. Or are you suggesting that they, the garda and DPP, have been warned off by their political masters?  While I accept that judges and the DPP share the same background as those involved in the banking scandals  I hardly think the same applies to your average garda


----------



## UFC (25 May 2010)

UFC said:
			
		

> Probably loads of reasons:
> 
> Terrible parents
> Poor genetics
> ...


 


Complainer said:


> So out of the seven possible causes you list, five were things that these individuals have/had no control over. And the other two (laziness and bad attitude) are almost certainly related to the other five. You expect people who are mentally ill, and/or intellectually disabled and/or uneducated to have the same understanding of right and wrong as you. So these people were unlucky enough to be born into a very difficult environment, and your response is to 'put them down'.
> 
> Nice values.


 
I understand you're just playing devil's advocate (you're not really trying to justify the actions of a serial criminal) so I'll play along.

I disagree agree with your point.

Reason 1:

Many of us have had a hard upbringing or have some sort of disadvantage but haven't turned out to be a scumbag.

Reason 2:

You seem to think someone else is responsible for how educated we are. As adults we can all choose to get educated. It's called personal responsibility.

Reason 3:

There is no such thing as an innocent recidivist. They may have disadvantages (e.g. poor genetics) but the fact of the matter is they are choosing to commit crimes.

As someone who grew up with a lot of petty criminals I can tell you they were all super conscious of what they were doing (and I will classify some of them as having mental illnesses and bad genetics, etc.) It's basic badness.


----------



## Complainer (25 May 2010)

UFC said:


> It's basic badness.


Any idea why a much larger proportion of people with this 'basic badness' come from socially deprived areas, than other areas?


----------



## UFC (25 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> Any idea why a much larger proportion of people with this 'basic badness' come from socially deprived areas, than other areas?


 
Angry at the world?


----------



## Complainer (25 May 2010)

They're is a lot of angry people out there at the moment, but most of them aren't committing serious crimes. Try again.


----------



## UFC (25 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> They're is a lot of angry people out there at the moment, but most of them aren't committing serious crimes. Try again.


 
Why are you trying to fight with a stranger online...? Come on, surely you have better things to be doing with your time. I know I do.

I agree there are a lot of angry people in the world, but some people are angrier than others. Growing up in relative poverty with bad parents and perhaps a lack of education which results in limited options probably causes a bit more anger than the average middle class life.


----------



## MrMan (26 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> They're is a lot of angry people out there at the moment, but most of them aren't committing serious crimes. Try again.




It sounds like you have the answer to this one so why not share it?

A persons background does have an impact on their life, but that doesn't deflect from the need to deal with the ruthless breed of young criminal on the street today. They need to face hard serious consequences because most of these lads are not for turning when it comes to rehabilitation.


----------



## csirl (26 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> I've no problem with making people accountable for their actions. Crime is crime.
> 
> However, if we ever want to break out of this vicious cycle of crime in socially deprived areas, we need to address the causes.


 
One way of breaking the cycle of crime is to have all the criminals locked up. This may seem a bit simplistic, but if they're locked up, they cant have children, so there's no next generation.


----------



## mathepac (26 May 2010)

MrMan said:


> ... They need to face hard serious consequences because most of these lads are not for turning when it comes to rehabilitation.


Can you identify some of the rehabilitation programmes / initiatives available to young offenders from the time they enter the penal / criminal justice system?


----------



## truthseeker (26 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> Any idea why a much larger proportion of people with this 'basic badness' come from socially deprived areas, than other areas?


 
A number of reasons - no easy answer here. But I would think that a different value system is a large part of it. Children pick up their value system from their peers (and their parents, but their peers play a larger part), so if a child is in an environment where breaking the law is the norm (or at least not a hugely shocking thing) then he or she is far more likely to think its ok to do so as well. Thats just my opinion btw.


----------



## Firefly (26 May 2010)

truthseeker said:


> ...Children pick up their value system from their peers (and their parents, but their peers play a larger part), so if a child is in an environment where breaking the law is the norm...


 
I walk past the Cork circuit court regularly and often see these young thugs hanging around outside having the craic. Almost like a badge of honour thing. I can't help but feeling that a year or 2 of hard labour somewhere (Spike Island perhaps) would sort a few of them out.


----------



## censuspro (26 May 2010)

mathepac said:


> Can you identify some of the rehabilitation programmes / initiatives available to young offenders from the time they enter the penal / criminal justice system?


 
Should we not lock up young offenders because there's no rehab programmes in prison?


----------



## Complainer (26 May 2010)

UFC said:


> Growing up in relative poverty with bad parents and perhaps a lack of education which results in limited options probably causes a bit more anger than the average middle class life.





truthseeker said:


> A number of reasons - no easy answer here. But I would think that a different value system is a large part of it. Children pick up their value system from their peers (and their parents, but their peers play a larger part), so if a child is in an environment where breaking the law is the norm (or at least not a hugely shocking thing) then he or she is far more likely to think its ok to do so as well. Thats just my opinion btw.


Now we're starting to get somewhere.



csirl said:


> One way of breaking the cycle of crime is to have all the criminals locked up. This may seem a bit simplistic, but if they're locked up, they cant have children, so there's no next generation.


This simply creates a vacuum for the next generation of criminals to prosper.



Firefly said:


> I walk past the Cork circuit court regularly and often see these young thugs hanging around outside having the craic. Almost like a badge of honour thing. I can't help but feeling that a year or 2 of hard labour somewhere (Spike Island perhaps) would sort a few of them out.


Has this 'hard labour' approach worked anywhere else? Thatcher tried the 'short sharp shock' treatment in the UK at one stage, and they gave up after a year or two - it was a waste of time.




MrMan said:


> It sounds like you have the answer to this one so why not share it?
> 
> A persons background does have an impact on their life, but that doesn't deflect from the need to deal with the ruthless breed of young criminal on the street today. They need to face hard serious consequences because most of these lads are not for turning when it comes to rehabilitation.





MrMan said:


> It sounds like you have the answer to this one so why not share it?


 Wish I did - I do believe that creating a more equal society is the way to go. There is pretty good research showing a strong correlation between low income inequality and low crime rates. See 
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]


----------



## redbhoy (26 May 2010)

Poverty might be an excuse in some cases but you can be sure that the majority of crime is not caused by poverty. I see scumbags from my own area up to no good all the time and its not down to poverty. These people have it better than most. They're homes are paid for by the taxpayer, as is their dole money. They have more or less €200 as disposable income. So poverty is far from the root cause here as they are better off than most who go out and earn their living.
Education could be a factor. They know no better? They cant see anything other than whats around them. The local hardman is their hero as they dont see much of their parents be it because of both working or both drinking/doing drugs. It was probably a blessing that my old man was out of work for periods during my youth and that enabled him to keep a tighter leash on us. Its funny that he was able to point out who was going to go down the 'wrong road' and he wasnt far wrong.
I come from a so called disadvantaged area where everyone is more or less in the same boat. Out of a class of 30 odd kids in primary school my classmates have gone off in various directions. Some work in run of the mill jobs, some are tradesmen, a few run their own businesses, theres an executive in a software company, drug dealer, whino etc. 
I did notice that some classes from that school would have far more scumbags in them than others. 
There are many factors involved but Id say the immediate surroundings of a person is what would dictate their behaviour in society.


----------



## Caveat (26 May 2010)

Far from a proper explanation or the whole picture, but planning has a lot to answer for. 'Problem' areas - usually sprawling esates - very easily become ghettoised and a result of this is often a distorted view of reality. The estates become a microcosm of society. The inhabitants can see themselves as looking out for themselves because no-one else will. Cutting corners to get by can easily cross over into the fringes of criminality and beyond. The esates are often practically unpoliced too. 

If Jimmy is supplying imported fags at €5 a pack to his neighbours and Johnny is selling stuff out of the back of his van, and everyone thinks fair play to Deco's dad for hospitalising yer man as  he was 'a scumbag anyway', and if many people are happy enough with this kind of set up in the estate - as they often are - then lawbreaking can very easily become accepted as a normal way of life.

The above maybe sounds patronising but I have had plenty of experience of this.


----------



## csirl (26 May 2010)

> Has this 'hard labour' approach worked anywhere else? Thatcher tried the 'short sharp shock' treatment in the UK at one stage, and they gave up after a year or two - it was a waste of time.


 
The problem with short sharp shock was that it was too short. Criminals just toughed it out for a few weeks and got released.

When people talk of hard labour, they usually think about prisoners breaking rocks for no reason. 

However, if a criminal learns how to get up early in the morning and do a full days meaningful work, then you have provided him with a realistic alternative to crime. It's all about forming new habits. Many young criminals have never done a ful days work and do not believe they are capable of doing one. It would be great if all our criminals left prison with respect for authority, some self discipline and able to do a hard days work.


----------



## csirl (26 May 2010)

> The esates are often practically unpoliced too.


 
I dont buy the unpoliced line as an excuse for bad behaviour. In the vast majority of housing estates in this country, a Garda on patrol is a very rare sight. In fact, when travelling around Dublin, one of the signs that you are in a bad area is that you frequently meet patrol cars and vans when driving around.


----------



## censuspro (26 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> Has this 'hard labour' approach worked anywhere else? Thatcher tried the 'short sharp shock' treatment in the UK at one stage, and they gave up after a year or two - it was a waste of time.


 
How would you determine if a method has "worked"?


----------



## Sunny (26 May 2010)

censuspro said:


> How would you determine if a method has "worked"?


 
How many have then gone on and re-offended?


----------



## MANTO (26 May 2010)

IMO there are 2 key aspects: (out of may other variables).

1: Education

Kids should be taught the correct values from an early age in school. IMO schools should have lessons built into the curriculum teaching kids the impact of crime on society and how it impacts on their lives.



2: Policing

As said above, a lot of these disadvantaged areas are barely policed, if policed at all. We need a bigger Garda presence on our streets but this has been discussed time and time again. IMO it will never happen.


----------



## csirl (26 May 2010)

> 1: Education
> 
> Kids should be taught the correct values from an early age in school. IMO schools should have lessons built into the curriculum teaching kids the impact of crime on society and how it impacts on their lives.


 
I agree that education is the key to prevention. As I've said on other threads on this forum, kids who attend schools where the majority of students are from disadvantaged areas are more likely to be underachievers. Changing the socio-economic profile of these schools is the key. Or closing these schools down and distributing the kids among schools where there is a more varied socio-economic mix of students.


----------



## truthseeker (26 May 2010)

Peer groups - which will improve if the socio-economic profile of certain schools is changed.

An adult to look up to. A lot of kids dont respect/care about/or want to be and particular teacher. But if there is someone in their lives, a sports trainer maybe, who they can admire, aspire to be like - this could be a huge help - especially if they dont have a parent or other adult who is a good solid role model.

The local priest probably filled the position of a good adult role model in times gone by, sports trainer type role models are good - but what if the kid isnt into sports? A community club leader?


----------



## censuspro (26 May 2010)

What exactly are we discussing on this thread? 

The OP was "Should people with 75 previous convictions ever be let out of prison again"

Nobody has denied the the co-relation between crime and socio economic circumstances. However, the causes of crime should not be a consideration when determining if someone with 75 previous convictions should ever be released from prison.

What should be considered is: If a person with 75 previous convictions is released from prison are they likely to re-offend? The answer in the overwhelming majority of cases is YES they are exremely likely to re-offend.

We can try to address the current causes of crime and we can try to address prisons conditions. However, prisons were not designed to prevent people from re-offending, prisons are where we put people who commit crime.


----------



## TarfHead (26 May 2010)

Why '75' ? Why not 74, or 76, or 20 ?


----------



## redbhoy (26 May 2010)

As a previous poster noted- You can have a lot more than one conviction from one incident. So personally I think you should be treated with kid gloves 1st couple of times so long as they are not serious and if they are sufficiently spaced apart. But if you're blatantly taking the p*ss you should have graduated sentences. i.e. your sentence gets increased every time you appear in front of a judge as its obvious you're not learning the lessons that prison is supposed to teach you.


----------



## MrMan (26 May 2010)

mathepac said:


> Can you identify some of the rehabilitation programmes / initiatives available to young offenders from the time they enter the penal / criminal justice system?



No I can't identify specific programmes, but I do know that there are sports programmes and tournaments organised inside prison and teams are given a chance to win something, there is of course the option to further ones education in prison, drug rehab, chaplain and councilling services.


----------



## johnd (26 May 2010)

truthseeker said:


> A number of reasons - no easy answer here. But I would think that a different value system is a large part of it. Children pick up their value system from their peers (and their parents, but their peers play a larger part), so if a child is in an environment where breaking the law is the norm (or at least not a hugely shocking thing) then he or she is far more likely to think its ok to do so as well. Thats just my opinion btw.



I don't agreee that peers have a bigger influence than parents on young people.  If a child is brought up with certain standards then it is very hard to stray from those when older. Of course, there are exceptions - there might be one child in a family who gets into trouble while his/her siblings do not but they tend to be minor crimes and when they grow and mature move on with their lives without getting into trouble. Its the minority we are talking about here who go on to commit more serious crimes


----------



## delgirl (26 May 2010)

csirl said:


> Excuses, excuses, excuses. What's with the abdicating of responsibility? We are all human, we all possess advantageous and disadvantageous traits. There are plenty of people born in difficult environments who are model citizens. Nobody has a "right" to use their background as an excuse to commit crime and terrorise their fellow citizens.


Agree totally with csirl.

Law abiding citizens need to be protected from criminals. The 3 strikes law is fair, you get two chances to change your behaviour and if you decide not to, you suffer the consequences. That's the problem in this country, there are no consequences or if there are, they're not sufficiently serious to deter the would-be criminals.

Look at the case of [broken link removed], who's out again to terrorise and possibly even kill. 

He should have received lengthy consecutive sentences for his crimes and, as some of the victims were choked during the course of the attacks, he should have been charged with attempted murder.

If the 3 strikes law were in place, we would be safe from creatures like him and he would be jailed for life.


----------



## johnd (26 May 2010)

delgirl said:


> Agree totally with csirl.
> 
> 
> Look at the case of [broken link removed], who's out again to terrorise and possibly even kill.
> ...



His lawyers are apparently taking a court case against several newspapers because they claim his "rights" are being violated by them disclosing his address or whereabouts


----------



## DB74 (26 May 2010)

TarfHead said:


> Why '75' ? Why not 74, or 76, or 20 ?


 
The specific number of 75 was the number of convictions Sean Keogh had on his record before becoming involved in the altercation in Drimnagh where 2 Polish men were murdered.


----------



## truthseeker (26 May 2010)

johnd said:


> I don't agreee that peers have a bigger influence than parents on young people. If a child is brought up with certain standards then it is very hard to stray from those when older. Of course, there are exceptions - there might be one child in a family who gets into trouble while his/her siblings do not but they tend to be minor crimes and when they grow and mature move on with their lives without getting into trouble. Its the minority we are talking about here who go on to commit more serious crimes


 
Im not sure how much I agree with this (again only my opinion not any kind of scientific evidence). Kids rebel against their parents, not against their peer group. They spend more 'quality' time with their peers, not their parents. They try things out behind their parents backs, some of these things are totally innocent and natural of course, but if they were in with a bad crowd they could be trying not so innocent things. They also develop their own morality based on other factors - some of these factors being that they disagree with their parents value system for one reason or another (like children of religious parents being atheist or children of smokers never taking up the habit/vice versa).

And of course, in some cases parenting is not a positive influence in a childs live due to various dysfunctions in a family.

The environment (parenting, peer group, school, tv, magazines, clubs etc...) all exert a lot of influence on a child, parenting may only be a small percentage in overall influence.

I suppose a lot depends on the type of parenting of course.


----------



## shnaek (26 May 2010)

csirl said:


> Changing the socio-economic profile of these schools is the key. Or closing these schools down and distributing the kids among schools where there is a more varied socio-economic mix of students.


I would have agreed with this in the past, but I'm not so sure any more. I remember attending a debate a long time ago that:

"University dulls diamonds and polishes stones"

Perhaps our entire society is geared this way? Is there merit in moving at the pace of the slowest? Or should we separate the worst and the best, and help them both equally so they can achieve their own potential?

Education is key, but not on its own. Parenting is also key. Maybe even more key (if that's even a term?)

I know this is dragging the post off topic, and you could write a thesis on this. For the record I agree with the three strikes rule. We the people have a contract with the State, and as far as I can see the State is pretty damn far from living up to its part of the bargain in a lot of areas - not least crime and the lax treatment of repeat criminals.


----------



## johnd (26 May 2010)

truthseeker said:


> Im not sure how much I agree with this
> 
> The environment (parenting, peer group, school, tv, magazines, clubs etc...) all exert a lot of influence on a child, parenting may only be a small percentage in overall influence.
> 
> I suppose a lot depends on the type of parenting of course.



We had very nice neighbours some years ago whose son was what would be regarded as a bit wild. No  harm,  just always messing around never seemed to be at home. Whenever you went out he was always there looking for someone to play with or as he got older to hang around the local streets.

By the time he was fifteen he was hanging around with a gang and then his parents decided to move because of the area. In all the years he lived there I never remember him being taken anywhere by his father. Apart from the two weeks holiday a year he was never off the road. Years later I heard he was in a rehab centre because of drugs and I don't know what happened to him since. 

The point i'm making is that his parents swore that the cause of all his problems was the area we lived in, nothing to do with them. Yet nobody had any time for him. He had a decent home, was fed well, dressed well but ignored most of the time. His only life was outside with his friends


----------



## UFC (26 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> I do believe that creating a more equal society is the way to go.


 
Could you define what is unequal about our society?

Also, why do people with the exact same backgrounds not always end up making the same bad decisions?

For example, a friend of mine from Killinarden (bad part of Dublin) has a masters degree, whereas others from his area are in prison. The difference? He _chose_ a different path.


----------



## Sunny (27 May 2010)

UFC said:


> Could you define what is unequal about our society?
> 
> Also, why do people with the exact same backgrounds not always end up making the same bad decisions?
> 
> For example, a friend of mine from Killinarden (bad part of Dublin) has a masters degree, whereas others from his area are in prison. The difference? He _chose_ a different path.


 
Do you honestly believe we live in an equal society?

Why don't you ask Daniel Mc Anaspie and the other children we have heard about recently why they made such bad choices.

Anyone who gets out of the poverty and criminal trap that they are born into deserves great credit. However, it shouldn't be a greater struggle for a child from Killinarden to get the same opportunities as someone born in D4. I know it's a utopian concept but all Children should be born with the same chance in life. They make their own choices after that.


----------



## csirl (27 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> Do you honestly believe we live in an equal society?
> 
> Why don't you ask Daniel Mc Anaspie and the other children we have heard about recently why they made such bad choices.
> 
> Anyone who gets out of the poverty and criminal trap that they are born into deserves great credit. However, it shouldn't be a greater struggle for a child from Killinarden to get the same opportunities as someone born in D4. I know it's a utopian concept but all Children should be born with the same chance in life. They make their own choices after that.


 
I think its more about perception than reality. The reality is that all children, including those from bad areas, get free primary and secondary eduction. It is possible for the child from Killinarden to study hard, get a good leaving cert and go to college. Once in college, children from such backgrounds get fees paid, grants etc. and can easily survive by doing some part time and summer work (as most students do). The problem is that these children dont realise or believe that they can do this. 

I know people will go on about the schools being bad etc. etc., but in the end of the day, every school in Ireland teaches exactly the same core curricullum and every kid sits the same paper in the leaving cert.


----------



## Sunny (27 May 2010)

csirl said:


> I think its more about perception than reality. The reality is that all children, including those from bad areas, get free primary and secondary eduction. It is possible for the child from Killinarden to study hard, get a good leaving cert and go to college. Once in college, children from such backgrounds get fees paid, grants etc. and can easily survive by doing some part time and summer work (as most students do). The problem is that these children dont realise or believe that they can do this.
> 
> I know people will go on about the schools being bad etc. etc., but in the end of the day, every school in Ireland teaches exactly the same core curricullum and every kid sits the same paper in the leaving cert.


 
School is only a small part of it. I have done work for inner city schools in Dublin as part of a programme with employers in the area. Talk to the teachers and ask them how many of the children come into school hungry, malnurished, tired, physically abused etc. Ask them how many don't turn up because their parents couldn't be bothered to take them. Ask them how many have family members serving time in prison. Ask them how many have seen and alcohol and drug abuse in their families. 

Now go to other parts of Dublin and ask the same questions. Then tell me it is an equal society, everyone has the same chance in life and the only reason people don't escape is that they are too lazy or make bad choices.


----------



## censuspro (27 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> Do you honestly believe we live in an equal society?
> 
> Why don't you ask Daniel Mc Anaspie and the other children we have heard about recently why they made such bad choices.
> 
> Anyone who gets out of the poverty and criminal trap that they are born into deserves great credit. However, it shouldn't be a greater struggle for a child from Killinarden to get the same opportunities as someone born in D4. I know it's a utopian concept but all Children should be born with the same chance in life. They make their own choices after that.


 
All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others.


----------



## redbhoy (27 May 2010)

UFC said:


> a friend of mine from Killinarden (bad part of Dublin) has a masters degree, whereas others from his area are in prison. The difference? He _chose_ a different path.


 
Your mate had good influences around him. His parents or someone exposed him to the way things can be. Most kids in disadvantaged areas dont get this support.


----------



## orka (27 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> Talk to the teachers and ask them how many of the children come into school hungry, malnurished, tired, physically abused etc. Ask them how many don't turn up because their parents couldn't be bothered to take them. Ask them how many have family members serving time in prison. Ask them how many have seen and alcohol and drug abuse in their families.
> 
> Now go to other parts of Dublin and ask the same questions. Then tell me it is an equal society, everyone has the same chance in life and the only reason people don't escape is that they are too lazy or make bad choices.


 


redbhoy said:


> Your mate had good influences around him. His parents or someone exposed him to the way things can be. Most kids in disadvantaged areas dont get this support.


The problem is figuring out how to change this dynamic. Magically creating an 'equal' society won't change things. I read the links that Complainer included and the drive seems to be for equalising income - either by having less difference at gross pay level or by taxing and redistributing so that net levels are less unequal. I don't think giving disinterested or abusive parents more money will make the slightest difference to their children's future. So what do you do to break the cycle? Direct provision of food instead of welfare? Remove all children from parents who don't know how or don't want to provide the opportunities to their children? It really is a vicious cycle - people need to be educated to know how to strive for the best for themselves and their children but if they don't know that, they won't push for their children to be educated... Equal opportunities ARE provided for children to access a good 14 year education - but it is the lack of interest/education of the parents that stops equal education being provided/accessed.


----------



## shnaek (27 May 2010)

Equality is a red herring. All a democratic society can offer is equality of opportunity. Unless one wants to go to North Korea, where people are equally miserable. There is always a tradeoff between equality and liberty. The balance is equality of opportunity. Society can do its part here, and Ireland has done a lot. Bad parenting has a lot to answer for though, and we need to ask the hard questions rather than running off blaming 'society' for the problems of individuals.


----------



## shnaek (27 May 2010)

orka said:


> The problem is figuring out how to change this dynamic. Magically creating an 'equal' society won't change things. I read the links that Complainer included and the drive seems to be for equalising income - either by having less difference at gross pay level or by taxing and redistributing so that net levels are less unequal. I don't think giving disinterested or abusive parents more money will make the slightest difference to their children's future. So what do you do to break the cycle? Direct provision of food instead of welfare? Remove all children from parents who don't know how or don't want to provide the opportunities to their children? It really is a vicious cycle - people need to be educated to know how to strive for the best for themselves and their children but if they don't know that, they won't push for their children to be educated... Equal opportunities ARE provided for children to access a good 14 year education - but it is the lack of interest/education of the parents that stops equal education being provided/accessed.


Hear hear. Excellent post.


----------



## redbhoy (27 May 2010)

+1 for Orka and Shnaeks posts.

Society is always blamed but it can only be blamed to a certain extent. There should be more emphasis on Individual Responsibility. We've ceded certain liberties for so called equality. We rely on government too much and society suffers because of it.
Why arent parents made do parenting courses? You need a licence for a dog but a child.... (cue can of worms opening)


----------



## Purple (27 May 2010)

Poverty in Ireland is an economic symptom of a social problem. Throwing money at it treats (masks?) the symptom but it solves nothing without the efforts of parents from a very early age


----------



## Sunny (27 May 2010)

orka said:


> The problem is figuring out how to change this dynamic. Magically creating an 'equal' society won't change things. I read the links that Complainer included and the drive seems to be for equalising income - either by having less difference at gross pay level or by taxing and redistributing so that net levels are less unequal. I don't think giving disinterested or abusive parents more money will make the slightest difference to their children's future. So what do you do to break the cycle? Direct provision of food instead of welfare? Remove all children from parents who don't know how or don't want to provide the opportunities to their children? It really is a vicious cycle - people need to be educated to know how to strive for the best for themselves and their children but if they don't know that, they won't push for their children to be educated... Equal opportunities ARE provided for children to access a good 14 year education - but it is the lack of interest/education of the parents that stops equal education being provided/accessed.


 


shnaek said:


> Equality is a red herring. All a democratic society can offer is equality of opportunity. Unless one wants to go to North Korea, where people are equally miserable. There is always a tradeoff between equality and liberty. The balance is equality of opportunity. Society can do its part here, and Ireland has done a lot. Bad parenting has a lot to answer for though, and we need to ask the hard questions rather than running off blaming 'society' for the problems of individuals.


 
Who is blaming society?

Nobody said it was easy to break the cycle but lets not pretend that all children have the same opportunities in life just because they have access to an education system. They don't choose their parents or the life they are born into. 

I have worked hard to earn myself a high salary and a good lifestyle that I feel that I deserve. I am not big headed enough to believe though that without the support and love given to me by my parents, I would be sitting here today. There are thousands of kids who cannot say that. 

However, simply blaming the parents is also simplistic. Many of them were born into conditions similar to what their own kids are born into. Its a vicious cycle. I have no idea how we break that cycle but we should at least try instead of simply saying 'it the child is good enough, they will break it themselves'.


----------



## Purple (27 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> Who is blaming society?
> 
> Nobody said it was easy to break the cycle but lets not pretend that all children have the same opportunities in life just because they have access to an education system. They don't choose their parents or the life they are born into.
> 
> ...



Big +1


----------



## shnaek (28 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> However, simply blaming the parents is also simplistic. Many of them were born into conditions similar to what their own kids are born into. Its a vicious cycle. I have no idea how we break that cycle but we should at least try instead of simply saying 'it the child is good enough, they will break it themselves'.



Indeed, we need to break this cycle. In fact, you are agreeing with my point in the statement above, in pointing out that the child is not to blame. We need to encourage and ensure good parenting, and discourage bad parenting. How do we do this? One thing is for certain - we've thrown a pile of money at it over the last 10 years, and things haven't gotten any better. We need some hard thinking, perhaps even unpopular thinking. But thinking is something our government don't do very often or very well. 
Sure, parenting isn't the only problem. But I would be of the opinion that it is the biggest problem. 
I would also be of the opinion that education is key, and would support a transfer of money from the department of social welfare to the department of education if that measure were to be voted on.


----------



## Sunny (28 May 2010)

shnaek said:


> Indeed, we need to break this cycle. In fact, you are agreeing with my point in the statement above, in pointing out that the child is not to blame. We need to encourage and ensure good parenting, and discourage bad parenting. How do we do this? One thing is for certain - we've thrown a pile of money at it over the last 10 years, and things haven't gotten any better.


 
To be fair to the current Government, todays problems have their roots going back long before they were in power. The creation of ghetto style housing estates like the Ballymun flats, fatima mansions etc, the introduction and booming popularity of illegal drugs into Ireland which destroyed whole areas and generations of families, the lack of research done into the whole area of poverty and social exclusion and the lack of community based initiatives. 

I think the current government deserve some credit for attempting to tackle the problem. As someone who grew up not too far from Ballymun and who had friends from the area (of which one is dead and a couple more are drug addicted criminals while a few more are very successful), I can really see the difference in recent years even if huge problems still exist.  

By the way, I am not absolving the individuals involved. We all make choices. Some of us are lucky enough and strong enough to be able to make the right ones. The problem is that I can't put my hand on heart and say that if I was born into another family or area, I wouldn't have made the same bad decisons and I am not a bad person. But by the Grace of God and all that........

I should point out that I am talking petty crime and repeat offenders here. Violent and sexual crimes are a completely different story.


----------

