# Death penalty for very serious crimes?



## Firefly (9 Dec 2011)

The current child abuse case has really upset me  

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1209/castlebar.html

This *coward* has been handed down a life sentence.

In cases like this I would be highly in favour of the death penalty. This animal (and that's an insult to animals everywhere) is IMO beyond redemption. What do others think?


----------



## MrMan (9 Dec 2011)

I would agree to the death penalty for people like this. I can't think of any reason to keep him alive, or see how anyone could argue otherwise.


----------



## truthseeker (9 Dec 2011)

There is no punishment to match the crime in this case, a life sentence is nothing compared to the suffering he inflicted on numerous daughters, all of whom will still suffer the effects of these horrendous crimes for their entire lives. Many lives ruined and he gets to sit in a warm prison and fed 3 square a day from here on in.

Life in solitary plus hard labour might go some way to allowing him to think about what he did, but realistically even that wouldnt go to punish him for his actions.

The problem with the death penalty is the finality of it. Ok - this case is clear cut, but there are many cases that are not and if the death penalty is imposed and then new evidence comes to light later exonorating the person - theres no come back from death.

In this case there must be something mentally wrong with the guy, no 'normal' person could do what he did, is there any point in keeping someone (something) like this alive? Probably not. I certainly wouldnt complain if he was sentenced to death, but I would worry about cases where things are not so clear cut.


----------



## Purple (9 Dec 2011)

I don't think any state should have the right to sentence someone to death.
War is a different matter but I'm against the death penalty in any peacetime situation.


----------



## truthseeker (9 Dec 2011)

Purple said:


> I don't think any state should have the right to sentence someone to death.


 
I dont know, when someone is a monster - like that guy Fritz in Austria, or Ted Bundy - is there any point in keeping someone like that (someone who it is not possible to rehabilitate) alive and locked up costing the taxpayers money for a reasonably comfortable life (ie, not starving, not cold, reasonably safe)?


----------



## T McGibney (9 Dec 2011)

Firefly said:


> The current child abuse case has really upset me
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1209/castlebar.html
> 
> ...



Its a good job the death penalty wasn't in place when Nora Wall and Pablo McCabe were convicted and sentenced for a shocking child rape offence that was later found to be fictitious. Sadly McCabe died prematurely within a few years of his ordeal so in a sense he did suffer a form of the death penalty, even when totally innocent.


----------



## The_Banker (9 Dec 2011)

I had to stop reading about that case in the paper this morning it was so upsetting. 

Words fail me. 

People who hurt children, the likes of Fred and Rosemary West, Hindley and Brady the Moors murders who did what what they did for enjoyment. Sickening.

The solution? Death penalty, Life imprisonment? I really dont know. I just cannot fathom people getting enjoyment from watching and inflicting pain on defenceless children.
What kind of a society allows this kind of aberration to develop. I just dont know.


----------



## Complainer (9 Dec 2011)

truthseeker said:


> In this case there must be something mentally wrong with the guy, no 'normal' person could do what he did, is there any point in keeping someone (something) like this alive? Probably not. I certainly wouldnt complain if he was sentenced to death, but I would worry about cases where things are not so clear cut.



I'd have thought that your acceptance of his mental illness would be a good reason NOT to consider capital punishment.


----------



## liaconn (9 Dec 2011)

I don't agree with the death penalty. Its a dangerous line to cross, one human being deciding that another should be killed. Also, is it worth some innocent people being wrongly executed in order to get rid of the 'monsters'.

I do think, for some crimes, 'life' should mean life, not twenty years with five off for good behaviour.


----------



## DerKaiser (9 Dec 2011)

truthseeker said:


> is there any point in keeping someone like that (someone who it is not possible to rehabilitate) alive and locked up costing the taxpayers money for a reasonably comfortable life (ie, not starving, not cold, reasonably safe)?


 
I have heard many times that the costs of a capital punishment case exceed the cost of lifetime imprisonment, don't know if it's true.


----------



## DB74 (9 Dec 2011)

It would be cheaper and more effective to get rid of segregation in the prisons instead of keeping some prisoners separated for their own safety


----------



## orka (9 Dec 2011)

I think the possibility of getting it wrong means that we probably shouldn't have the death penalty. I would like to see this guy shipped to a really tough US federal jail where he can become the special prison friend of some big 300 pound fellow-lifer - or maybe a special friend to many. 

And no possibility of release ever. He threatened his daughter that no matter how long he was in for he would find her and kill her - so there's only one way to make her feel safe that that will never happen.


----------



## demoivre (9 Dec 2011)

liaconn said:


> I do think, for some crimes, 'life' should mean life, not twenty years with five off for good behaviour.



I agree. We should have life without parole as an available sentence, which is appropriate in this case  imo. His wife got an effective eight year sentence for [broken link removed] in the crimes against their kids. 24 years to serve 24 and not a day less would be what I would have like to have seen. Concurrent sentences are also a farce imo.


----------



## MrMan (9 Dec 2011)

orka said:


> I think the possibility of getting it wrong means that we probably shouldn't have the death penalty. I would like to see this guy shipped to a really tough US federal jail where he can become the special prison friend of some big 300 pound fellow-lifer - or maybe a special friend to many.
> 
> And no possibility of release ever. He threatened his daughter that no matter how long he was in for he would find her and kill her - so there's only one way to make her feel safe that that will never happen.



And if we got it wrong on this case you think it's ok to send him to america to be raped in a tough prison??

I think that the death penalty is apt in some cases and the  prisoners should be kept in holding for a fixed number of years to allow for appeals. If there is no reasonable doubt, then let it happen.


----------



## MrMan (9 Dec 2011)

Complainer said:


> I'd have thought that your acceptance of his mental illness would be a good reason NOT to consider capital punishment.



She said there must be something mentally wrong, it wasn't an acceptance of anything, more a disbelief that one human could be so inhumane to another. If he was found to be mentally ill, I would still support the death sentance in his case.


----------



## Firefly (9 Dec 2011)

T McGibney said:


> Its a good job the death penalty wasn't in place when Nora Wall and Pablo McCabe were convicted and sentenced for a shocking child rape offence that was later found to be fictitious. Sadly McCabe died prematurely within a few years of his ordeal so in a sense he did suffer a form of the death penalty, even when totally innocent.



I take your point, but death sentences are rarely carried out immediately. Usually, a long stint in prison proceeds them so the two named above would not have been executed in that case. I'm sure though that there are other cases in the US where people have been wrongly executed so your point still stands. Sadly, a life in prison where free meals are enjoyed seems totally unfair either.


----------



## orka (9 Dec 2011)

MrMan said:


> And if we got it wrong on this case you think it's ok to send him to america to be raped in a tough prison??


I didn't say in ALL cases - I said 'this guy'.  He pleaded guilty to some pretty horrific stuff; there are scars as corroboration of his crimes in case you're worried the poor man might have pleaded guilty when he's not; the doctor said he cringed when he examined the scar where 'this guy' stabbed his daughter's flesh and dragged the knife down then stitched her up with thick thread and no anaesthetic.  So honestly I don't care what is done to him, it's a shame he won't suffer anywhere near as much as he inflicted on his own children.


----------



## Delboy (9 Dec 2011)

How did the Social Workers, neighbours, the local Gardai, Teachers, local Publican....how did none of them have an inkling what was going on.
This was serious serious crimes carried out over 18 years on 4 different people - surely people had to know something was not right. And it's not like it happened 40 or 50 years ago. 
There's an awful lot more to be incovered here


----------



## Complainer (9 Dec 2011)

MrMan said:


> She said there must be something mentally wrong, it wasn't an acceptance of anything,



How can there be 'something mentally wrong' with their being a mental illness? What other kind of 'mentally wrong' is there?


----------



## michaelm (9 Dec 2011)

Purple said:


> I don't think any state should have the right to sentence someone to death.


Me neither, I have a consistent life ethic.  To dehumanise offenders and put them down like dogs would IMHO be ultimately detrimental to society as a whole.   

Claims of mental illness or temporary insanity should only be entertained after verdicts are reached, in order to determine if the offender should serve the sentence in a prison or a secure hospital facility.  Should  those serving a sentence in a hospital facility recover their faculties then ship them off to prison to complete their sentence.


----------



## Chris (9 Dec 2011)

Purple said:


> I don't think any state should have the right to sentence someone to death.
> War is a different matter but I'm against the death penalty in any peacetime situation.



I'm with Purple on this, I don't think society has the right to take a life no matter how evil and inhumane the act is. 
At the same time I do think that life sentences are too light, and certainly a misnomer. Dependent on the country a life sentence can mean anything from 15 to 40 years. To me that is not life. I'd much rather see the most evil people in society punished by living in a 6 by 8 cell for the rest of their living days, without all the luxuries that prisons entail these days; in cases such as the above mentioned I think that punishment and not rehabilitation should be the main objective.


----------



## Chris (9 Dec 2011)

michaelm said:


> Me neither, I have a consistent life ethic.  To dehumanise offenders and put them down like dogs would IMHO be ultimately detrimental to society as a whole.
> 
> Claims of mental illness or temporary insanity should only be entertained after verdicts are reached, in order to determine if the offender should serve the sentence in a prison or a secure hospital facility.  If those serving a sentence in a hospital facility recover then ship them off to prison to complete their sentence.



Great post, Ii fully agree.


----------



## horusd (9 Dec 2011)

I had to switch the channel after hearing a bit of this case, dreadful stuff. But I think death penalties are too much. A states duty to all its citizens must be to protect them and not kill them. Legal or non- legal barbarity is plain wrong. In the case of the state, acting on our behalf, it's kind of worse, there is something very wrong with a state setting out to legally murder someone- what would it say about us?

 Anyway, I think a sentence for the rest of his natural life is better, death is too quick, and if there is a legal mistake in some (other) case, it's somewhat redeemable.


----------



## STEINER (10 Dec 2011)

I think 20 - 40 years in a prison is more punishing than a swift execution, preferably sharing a cell with a large dominant cellmate.


----------



## Ancutza (10 Dec 2011)

As long as a risk exists of executing one single innocent person then the death penalty is unacceptable.  There will always exist that risk therefore capital punishment is unacceptable.

And to those who say 'Aww, sure the odd innocent one is a small price to pay for being able to off a real monster' well then picture your, father, son, brother, sister, daughter or mother as being the one who is mistakenly accused and convicted.  

I do agree, however, with whole-life sentences for certain crimes.


----------



## truthseeker (10 Dec 2011)

Complainer said:


> How can there be 'something mentally wrong' with their being a mental illness? What other kind of 'mentally wrong' is there?


 
Mentally wrong as in mentally defective - without getting into the definitions of mental illness, I was thinking along the lines of a human being missing a vital 'humanity' chip in the brain, not having empathy - and no hope of 'fixing' it. 

Im not wholly against the death penalty for certain cases (like this or as I mentioned earlier, someone like Ted Bundy or Fritz) but because there is always the risk of someone innocent being put to death, I wouldnt like to see it in practice.

I think I see someone like this man as not quite human, an animal, a savage, 'something' that would be better off not being alive.


----------



## oldnick (10 Dec 2011)

It's morally wrong to kill any human being. The risk of killing an innocnet person is a risk too high.

But we are paying ca. 80.000 euros* a year to lodge,feed and protect him. Thats three million euros if he lives to a ripe old age. 

So kill him.


----------



## Complainer (10 Dec 2011)

truthseeker said:


> Mentally wrong as in mentally defective - without getting into the definitions of mental illness, I was thinking along the lines of a human being missing a vital 'humanity' chip in the brain, not having empathy - and no hope of 'fixing' it.
> 
> Im not wholly against the death penalty for certain cases (like this or as I mentioned earlier, someone like Ted Bundy or Fritz) but because there is always the risk of someone innocent being put to death, I wouldnt like to see it in practice.
> 
> I think I see someone like this man as not quite human, an animal, a savage, 'something' that would be better off not being alive.



From the reports I read, it sounded more like a social failing than a genetic issue, but I suppose none of us are experts or know the full facts of the case.

I would be very, very concerned about the idea of euthanasia for people who have genetic defects - a bit too reminiscent of the Nazi era for me.


----------



## shesells (11 Dec 2011)

I'm not in favour of the death penalty but I have an issue with the current prison system. It would be cheaper to put people up in a 5 star hotel than in prison, and prisoners make no contribution to the economy. Prison is also a guaranteed shelter, with three meals a day. 

I'm not saying it's luxury but at a time when people are going hungry as they struggle to keep a roof over their heads, it just doesn't sit well with me that people who break the law and are sent to prison, are better off. Prison isn't much of a deterrent these days.


----------



## Ancutza (11 Dec 2011)

I seriously think that the re-introduction of chain gangs should be considered.  Let them sweep the streets, clean up the parks even labour on projects such as, let's say, Metro North.

Pay them a pittance to do so.  The prison service should be able to contract their labour to local authorities hence helping to support the costs related to keeping them incarcerated.


----------



## Purple (11 Dec 2011)

Ancutza said:


> I seriously think that the re-introduction of chain gangs should be considered.  Let them sweep the streets, clean up the parks even labour on projects such as, let's say, Metro North.
> 
> Pay them a pittance to do so.  The prison service should be able to contract their labour to local authorities hence helping to support the costs related to keeping them incarcerated.



That sounds like a good idea in some respects (thought I’m not sure that it would either act as a deterrent or aid rehabilitation) but the costs of providing security, training, health and safety etc would probably mean it would be more expensive than just paying contractors.

I do think that community service should include non-skilled jobs like picking up litter.

The unions wouldn’t be too pleased with criminals undermining the jobs done by their members.


----------



## Ancutza (11 Dec 2011)

> The unions wouldn’t be too pleased with criminals undermining the jobs done by their members.



Of course that is where my proposal would fall down.  You're quite right.  I'm also sure someone would start bleating about how their civil rights were being infringed upon by being made to work, effectively, for free.

But it should be an option offered to low-risk prisoners who are otherwise behaving themselves inside.


----------



## Complainer (11 Dec 2011)

The HBO drama Oz showed how the prisoners there were engaged in call centre type work on the phones - maybe some opportunities there?


----------



## MrMan (11 Dec 2011)

Complainer said:


> How can there be 'something mentally wrong' with their being a mental illness? What other kind of 'mentally wrong' is there?



I'm not an expert in the field, but for someone to do something like that I would feel that they are different to normal people in their mentality, it doesn't mean they are mentally ill, just evil.


----------



## oldnick (11 Dec 2011)

Its a good idea to train and use most criminals in productive work. It will save us money and will aid rehabilitation.
But we should kill child murdering, torturing and raping monsters


----------



## MrMan (11 Dec 2011)

Ancutza said:


> Of course that is where my proposal would fall down.  You're quite right.  I'm also sure someone would start bleating about how their civil rights were being infringed upon by being made to work, effectively, for free.
> 
> But it should be an option offered to low-risk prisoners who are otherwise behaving themselves inside.



Not so sure I'd like a serial rapist sweeping the road outside my house, you might also end up having to protect the prisoners from the public.


----------



## MrMan (11 Dec 2011)

Chris said:


> I'm with Purple on this, I don't think society has the right to take a life no matter how evil and inhumane the act is.
> At the same time I do think that life sentences are too light, and certainly a misnomer. Dependent on the country a life sentence can mean anything from 15 to 40 years. To me that is not life. I'd much rather see the most evil people in society punished by living in a 6 by 8 cell for the rest of their living days, without all the luxuries that prisons entail these days; in cases such as the above mentioned I think that punishment and not rehabilitation should be the main objective.



You don't like the idea of society ending a life, but cage them up like battery hens and wait for them to die? It might ease your conscience, but it is pretty much just ordering a slow death.


----------



## Ancutza (11 Dec 2011)

> Not so sure I'd like a serial rapist sweeping the road outside my house,  you might also end up having to protect the prisoners from the public.



You'll note, of course, that I specified low-risk prisoners.  Shoplifters, burglars, car thieves, smugglers etc.

I don't think I'd be too happy with Ted Bundy pruning the roses either!


----------



## orka (11 Dec 2011)

In this particular case, I would like the addition of some Saudi-style justice - a man got 13 years and 2,000 lashes for raping his teenage daughter - with the 2,000 lashes spaced out over his sentence. [broken link removed]


----------



## dam099 (11 Dec 2011)

orka said:


> In this particular case, I would like the addition of some Saudi-style justice - a man got 13 years and 2,000 lashes for raping his teenage daughter - with the 2,000 lashes spaced out over his sentence. [broken link removed]


 Makes a change from the usual Saudi style justice where the female victim is often the one being convicted of "adultery"....


----------



## Ancutza (11 Dec 2011)

> Makes a change from the usual Saudi style justice where the female victim is often the one being convicted of "adultery"....



Massive +1 to that!  But you'd better shut it. Don't you know that the Saudis are 'made' irrespective of what atrocities they choose to inflict on human beings within their borders?

Bit like the israelis but with pajamas on.


----------



## truthseeker (11 Dec 2011)

Delboy said:


> How did the Social Workers, neighbours, the local Gardai, Teachers, local Publican....how did none of them have an inkling what was going on.
> This was serious serious crimes carried out over 18 years on 4 different people - surely people had to know something was not right. And it's not like it happened 40 or 50 years ago.
> There's an awful lot more to be incovered here


 
A Guard friend of mine investigated a case a few years back where a man was sexually abusing his daughters. One of the victims told the guards that at least 2 different neighbours knew about the abuse. When interviewed one of the neighbours said 'that family was always a bit weird - sure the daughters were LETTING their father have sex with them'.


----------



## Purple (11 Dec 2011)

Ancutza said:


> Massive +1 to that!  But you'd better shut it. Don't you know that the Saudis are 'made' irrespective of what atrocities they choose to inflict on human beings within their borders?
> 
> Bit like the israelis but with pajamas on.



I don't understand either point you made there.


----------



## Complainer (12 Dec 2011)

truthseeker said:


> A Guard friend of mine investigated a case a few years back where a man was sexually abusing his daughters. One of the victims told the guards that at least 2 different neighbours knew about the abuse. When interviewed one of the neighbours said 'that family was always a bit weird - sure the daughters were LETTING their father have sex with them'.



No Garda should be revealing details of sensitive cases like this (or any cases, tbh) to their friends.


----------



## annR (12 Dec 2011)

I'm not in favour of the death penalty but I think that life should be life and if it's too expensive, some way should be found for them to earn their keep.


----------



## Purple (12 Dec 2011)

The only real beneficiaries of having a death penalty are the lawyers who spend 20 years filing appeals.


----------



## Vanilla (12 Dec 2011)

Purple said:


> The only real beneficiaries of having a death penalty are the lawyers who spend 20 years filing appeals.


 
Nice sweeping generalisation there, completely ignoring the fact that most of those on death row cannot afford to pay for a pencil, never mind a lawyer, and thus many appeals are handled pro bono.


----------



## Sunny (12 Dec 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Nice sweeping generalisation there, completely ignoring the fact that most of those on death row cannot afford to pay for a pencil, never mind a lawyer, and thus many appeals are handled pro bono.


 
Indeed. Once met a lawyer in the States who dealt with death penalty cases. He left a huge firm in Washington, didn't have two cents to his name but I have never heard anyone speak so passionately about their work before. Death Penalty cases are not money making cases in the US.


----------



## Firefly (12 Dec 2011)

Sunny said:


> Indeed. Once met a lawyer in the States who dealt with death penalty cases. He left a huge firm in Washington, didn't have two cents to his name but I have never heard anyone speak so passionately about their work before. Death Penalty cases are not money making cases in the US.



I could understand this rationality if the lawyer honestly thought the prisoner was innocent, but if not, then there are more pertinent cases out there IMO (such as trying to help the victims for example). Having said that though, it is pro bono. 

Based on the posts in this thread, I concede that the risk of executing someone who may be innocent is too great. In the case of someone who abuses children, I'd be happy to forego the death sentence if they spent the remaining part of their life in prison without parole or visitors.


----------



## Sunny (12 Dec 2011)

Firefly said:


> I could understand this rationality if the lawyer honestly thought the prisoner was innocent, but if not, then there are more pertinent cases out there IMO (such as trying to help the victims for example). Having said that though, it is pro bono.


 
There are plenty of death row cases where the person is guilty but where there are circumstances that make the death penalty hard to stomach. The age of the person committing the crime, mental illness, intellectual disability, poor legal representation at original hearings, racial aspects to a case etc.


----------



## Purple (12 Dec 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Nice sweeping generalisation there, completely ignoring the fact that most of those on death row cannot afford to pay for a pencil, never mind a lawyer, and thus many appeals are handled pro bono.



OK, it depends on the country, state and circumstance. In our case they'd be entitled to legal aid.


----------



## truthseeker (12 Dec 2011)

Complainer said:


> No Garda should be revealing details of sensitive cases like this (or any cases, tbh) to their friends.


 
Why not? He didnt reveal when it was, where it was, or who it was. It was a remark made in a conversation about why more people dont report it where they suspect a child is being abused. You know that Guards are human too and will talk about work with their friends sometimes?


----------



## Complainer (12 Dec 2011)

truthseeker said:


> Why not? He didnt reveal when it was, where it was, or who it was. It was a remark made in a conversation about why more people dont report it where they suspect a child is being abused. You know that Guards are human too and will talk about work with their friends sometimes?



Because it is a horrendous breach of confidentiality. How many cases involved a man abusing his daughters occured in the area that where that Garda was posted at the time of his posting? Probably one - or at best a very small number. It wouldn't take a genius to put together the Garda's leaked information with newspaper reports to work out who his comment relates to.

I well understand that Gardai or human. That does not make it OK for them to reveal specific details of cases that they were involved in to friends.


----------



## truthseeker (12 Dec 2011)

Complainer said:


> Because it is a horrendous breach of confidentiality. How many cases involved a man abusing his daughters occured in the area that where that Garda was posted at the time of his posting? Probably one - or at best a very small number. It wouldn't take a genius to put together the Garda's leaked information with newspaper reports to work out who his comment relates to.


 
How is it a 'horrendous breach of confidentiality'? You know exactly as much about it now as I do. I have no idea where it happened or when it happened. He has been posted all over in the country in a long career. If you wish to assign that level of paranoia to a comment that reveals nothing more than what you have read here - then that is your choice.


----------



## Complainer (12 Dec 2011)

truthseeker said:


> How is it a 'horrendous breach of confidentiality'? You know exactly as much about it now as I do. I have no idea where it happened or when it happened. He has been posted all over in the country in a long career. If you wish to assign that level of paranoia to a comment that reveals nothing more than what you have read here - then that is your choice.



Strange - you seemed to have a rough idea of the timing of the incident in your original post.


----------



## truthseeker (12 Dec 2011)

Complainer said:


> Strange - you seemed to have a rough idea of the timing of the incident in your original post.


 
Can you show me where I had a rough idea of timing please? Ive re-quoted the timing element of my post for you below.



truthseeker said:


> .....a few years back....


----------



## Complainer (12 Dec 2011)

truthseeker said:


> Can you show me where I had a rough idea of timing please? Ive re-quoted the timing element of my post for you below.



You've just answered your own question there.


----------



## truthseeker (12 Dec 2011)

Complainer said:


> You've just answered your own question there.


 
So whats the rough idea? What does 'a few years back' mean exactly?

I would like to know what you are gleaning from my post that I am missing. Because to my mind, a few years could mean 2 years, 5 years, 7 years, 10 years or more. The term 'a few' is deliberately vague. I am still none the wiser to the timing of the incident based on the words 'a few years back' and Id like to know what you are getting from those words that I am not and how they constitute a 'horrendous breach of confidentiality' or 'leaked information'.

Because as far as I can see 'a few years back during a sex abuse case a person said this' gives no more information than 'a few years back during a sex abuse case a person said this'. I dont know who the person was, I dont know when the case took place, I dont know where the case took place - none of that was said. So to have a reaction using terms like 'leaked information' and 'horrendous breach of confidentiality' seems paranoid in the extreme and a big overreaction to a small anonymous comment.


----------



## Purple (12 Dec 2011)

truthseeker said:


> Can you show me where I had a rough idea of timing please? Ive re-quoted the timing element of my post for you below.



You're wasting your time.


----------



## Purple (12 Dec 2011)

Complainer said:


> You've just answered your own question there.



see?


----------



## truthseeker (12 Dec 2011)

Purple said:


> You're wasting your time.


 


Purple said:


> see?


 
Yeah, youre probably right, but I find it offensive for someone to make such serious acccusations as 'a horrendous breach of confidentiality' and 'leaked information' based on a post I made when the *truth* is that there was no such breach or leak.


----------



## Chris (12 Dec 2011)

MrMan said:


> You don't like the idea of society ending a life, but cage them up like battery hens and wait for them to die? It might ease your conscience, but it is pretty much just ordering a slow death.



I think you are taking a huge leap there. But let me clarify what I would consider as adequate prison conditions. As part of a sociology class in school (in Germany) we were taken to a juvenile detention center where youths from age 14 to 18 were imprisoned for periods of 4 weeks to 2 years. Cells were individual and 6 by 8 foot, had a fold down bed, which could only be used between 10pm and 7am, a toilette, a small table and chair and a wardrobe. On the wall there was a radio with a selection of 3 radio channels, there was unlimited access to books and 3 meals a day. There was no TV, no magazines unless deemed educational, sweets of all kind were forbidden unless handed out in the cantine. Inmates had to attend school which apparently mainly focused on literacy skills, but there were advanced programs as well.
These were not battery hen conditions, but there was absolutely no luxury by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Complainer (12 Dec 2011)

truthseeker said:


> Yeah, youre probably right, but I find it offensive for someone to make such serious acccusations as 'a horrendous breach of confidentiality' and 'leaked information' based on a post I made when the *truth* is that there was no such breach or leak.



For a Garda to reveal any details of any case that they are working, regardless of how coy or vague they are, is most certainly a leak. For a Garda to reveal gossipy tittle-tattle about the reactions of neighbours is a horrendous breach of confidentiality. If a member of your family was at the centre of such a case, you would be outraged at any such detail coming into the public domain.


----------



## orka (12 Dec 2011)

Complainer said:


> For a Garda to reveal any details of any case that they are working, regardless of how coy or vague they are, is most certainly a leak. For a Garda to reveal gossipy tittle-tattle about the reactions of neighbours is a horrendous breach of confidentiality. If a member of your family was at the centre of such a case, you would be outraged at any such detail coming into the public domain.


Hardly a horrendous breach of confidentiality (melodramatic much?) when the neighbour was probably giving his opinion on the accused to anyone who would listen - it's not like the garda gave out a piece of info that couldn't be in the public domain that could be used - hercule poirot-like - to finally ensnare the guilty party!
Most people share tittle-tattle from their workplaces - funny/unusual anecdotes and as long as the people aren't readily identifiable and/or there's no prejudice to an ongoing investigation, what's the harm?  Do you know any doctors?  I know quite a few and it's very usual to hear the weird and wacky things they come across in training and in the workplace - probably helps them get through the day.  Bit of human interest, sometimes a bit of a giggle but really it takes quite a holier-than-thou atitude to find real harm there.  You've never been interested in a doctor's funny anecdote you've read somewhere?  Horrendous breach of confidentiality?


----------



## Complainer (12 Dec 2011)

orka said:


> Most people share tittle-tattle from their workplaces -


Most people aren't Gardai, dealing with abuse of children by their father.


orka said:


> You've never been interested in a doctor's funny anecdote you've read somewhere?


It's hard to find anything funny in a story about a father raping his daughters.


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2011)

Complainer said:


> It's hard to find anything funny in a story about a father raping his daughters.


 Who said there was?


----------



## truthseeker (13 Dec 2011)

Complainer said:


> For a Garda to reveal any details of any case that they are working, regardless of how coy or vague they are, is most certainly a leak. For a Garda to reveal gossipy tittle-tattle about the reactions of neighbours is a horrendous breach of confidentiality. If a member of your family was at the centre of such a case, you would be outraged at any such detail coming into the public domain.


 
Pure rubbish and Im done wasting my time.


----------

