# More reasons for mandatory sentencing



## censuspro (20 May 2010)

Within one week we had the following sentences handed down:

Former county councillor receives 2 year suspended sentencing for the sexual assault of a 16 yo in a hotel room. i.e. no prison time.

[broken link removed]

Mother murders her 3yo child resulting in 70 seperate injuries and the childs death a few days later gets 4 years.

[broken link removed]


Sean Keogh get's 4 years for kicking Pawel Kalite in the head while he lay dying on the ground. Despite the fact that Keogh had 75 priors and was out on bail when he committed the offence.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0519/drimnagh.html

Its obvious that Irish judges are incapable for handing down harsh prison sentences. When will we start to protect Irish citizens by inroducing mandatory sentencing? Repeat and serious offenders belong in prison where they are not a threat to society.


----------



## mathepac (20 May 2010)

censuspro said:


> ... Mother murders her 3yo child ...


Factually incorrect  - "... A charge of manslaughter was withdrawn by the State ..." and the mother plead guilty to " ... the wilful ill-treatment of her daughter ..." according to the report you linked to; the judge sentenced accordingly.


----------



## censuspro (20 May 2010)

The outcome is the same. Dead baby and a lenient sentence.

It still highlights the need for mandatory sentencing.


----------



## suemoo1 (20 May 2010)

+1


----------



## mathepac (20 May 2010)

censuspro said:


> ... It still highlights the need for mandatory sentencing.


Mandatory sentencing in line with what - the crime the accused is found guilty of or what you imagine they should have been charged with in the first place?


----------



## censuspro (20 May 2010)

In line with beating a baby to death.

Does anyone know why was the manslaughter charge withdrawn?


----------



## censuspro (20 May 2010)

mathepac said:


> Mandatory sentencing in line with what - the crime the accused is found guilty of or what you imagine they should have been charged with in the first place?


 
I've also given other examples of lenient sentences being handed down for violent crimes and repeat offenders yet it appears that the only people who are against mandatory sentencing are those in the legal profession.


----------



## Firefly (20 May 2010)

I'm always amused when having this discussion with certain people who insist that the way to prevent these crimes is through preventative measures such as education and addressing the social issues involved. All pretty wishy-washy to me and not easily measured. I think a "serious" list of offences should be drawn up with mandatory sentencing of life (not 20 years, but the actual remainder of the criminal's life). I think the message would get through to these people fairly quickly if a few of their contemporaries went down...call it education if you will


----------



## Sunny (20 May 2010)

Firefly said:


> I'm always amused when having this discussion with certain people who insist that the way to prevent these crimes is through preventative measures such as education and addressing the social issues involved. All pretty wishy-washy to me and not easily measured. I think a "serious" list of offences should be drawn up with mandatory sentencing of life (not 20 years, but the actual remainder of the criminal's life). I think the message would get through to these people fairly quickly if a few of their contemporaries went down...call it education if you will


 
Would it though? Not as if the death penalty has stopped people murdering and raping. 

I am all for tougher sentances and the bail laws are a joke but we are not going to solve the problem by building bigger jails and filling them with people for the rest of their living days.

Have no idea what the solution is though.......


----------



## redbhoy (20 May 2010)

Anyone who believes the judiciary in this country is there to implement the Law is fooling themselves. Real criminals get the softly softly approach as you can guarantee they'll keep helping to perpetuate the corrupt system we have in place. More crime = maintenance of the status quo. Jobs for Judges, Barristers, Solicitors, Gardaí, career politicians, Social workers, Prison Officers etc etc. 
Its not profitable to rehabilitate or to try nip problems in the bud.


----------



## Sunny (20 May 2010)

redbhoy said:


> Anyone who believes the judiciary in this country is there to implement the Law is fooling themselves. Real criminals get the softly softly approach as you can guarantee they'll keep helping to perpetuate the corrupt system we have in place. More crime = maintenance of the status quo. Jobs for Judges, Barristers, Solicitors, Gardaí, career politicians, Social workers, Prison Officers etc etc.
> Its not profitable to rehabilitate or to try nip problems in the bud.


 
Seriously?


----------



## Caveat (20 May 2010)

I've said it before but I strongly believe that all crime should be punished. That would be a start.

I don't see why all things being roughly equal, judges cannot then agree on realistic mandatory minimum sentences, and adhere to them.


----------



## redbhoy (20 May 2010)

Caveat said:


> I've said it before but I strongly believe that all crime should be punished. That would be a start.
> 
> I don't see why all things being roughly equal, judges cannot then agree on realistic mandatory minimum sentences, and adhere to them.


 

Mitigating circumstances?

( Sure hes from a good family so shouldnt do the same time as a workign class boy who cimmitted the same crime but couldnt afford the D4 barrister.)


----------



## Purple (20 May 2010)

We have mandatory sentencing for a number of crimes where the judge can only give a lesser sentence in exceptional circumstances. Unfortunately the judges have shown their contempt for the people who, through the Dail, have made these laws by ignoring mandatory sentences in the majority of cases. Michael McDowell, when minister for Justice, pointed this out and was greeted by a wall of self-righteous bluster from the  judges who took umbrage at anyone questioning them. 
Details


----------



## Caveat (20 May 2010)

redbhoy said:


> Mitigating circumstances?


 
The only mitigating circumstances should be those of mental impairment IMO.

But I know what you are saying.


----------



## censuspro (20 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> Would it though? Not as if the death penalty has stopped people murdering and raping.


 
Prison is where we send people who murder and rape, prison sentences are not there to guage crime rates? If someone murders or rapes they belong in prison where they can't do it again.


----------



## mathepac (20 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> ...  Have no idea what the solution is though.......


What about a new "Celebrity Kill a Criminal" phone-in TV show?

Each week a 5 or 6 criminals (in less enlightened times these might have been referred to as "suspects", "accused persons" or "defendants") appear on the show and a panel of experts presents the evidence against them. This panel of experts could be drawn from the editorial or speaking staff (most of them can't write so they have to speak and / or appear on the telly or radio) of the most illustrious organs of the 4th estate. I'd suggest limiting this to the staff of those publications renowned for their honesty, decency, accuracy, fairness, absence of biased hysterical xenophobic headlines and with a demonstrable  focus on public-spiritedness, for example The "Oirish" Daily Mail / Male of a Sunday, The Sun, The Star, The Sindo, Sunday's Worst, NOTW.

Nominations for the show could be published (on page 2 to try to guarantee they are seen) and voted on via nomination phone-ins / txts / tweets. The evidence of criminality presented on the show will consist of unedited newspaper articles, headlines, pictures, ramblings from internet blogs, twitterings, radio phone-in programmes and other unsubstantiated nonsense. Rebuttal evidence will be presented solely by the criminals and a lack of ability to communicate in semi-literate, almost-understandable English like the "meeja types" will be used as additional evidence of criminality.

After each show the drones, sorry I meant the viewing public, phone the premium lines advertised and vote for :


Criminal of the Week
Death Method of the Week
Venue of the Week.
The Criminal of the Week will then be killed using the Death Method of the Week at the Venue of the Week with the switch / injection / trigger / rope being activated by the winning drone voter, selected "randomly" (yeah, right).

The government can dispose of the Gardai, the judiciary, prisons, criminal lawyers, prison officers, probation officers and make huge revenues from the phone-lines and by selling tickets to events at the Venue of the Week.


----------



## Sunny (20 May 2010)

censuspro said:


> Prison is where we send people who murder and rape, why do people compare prison sentences with crime rates? If someone murders or rapes they belong in prison where they can't do it again.


 
I was replying to someone who said that tougher sentences would lead to lower crime rates. There is no evidence of that.

Britain tried getting tough with mandatory sentencing and taking away judges descretion a few years ago. They had to reverse that within a couple of years due to the amount of life sentences given and prison overcrowding.


----------



## Sunny (20 May 2010)

mathepac said:


> What about a new "Celebrity Kill a Criminal" phone-in TV show?
> 
> Each week a 5 or 6 criminals (in less enlightened times these might have been referred to as "suspects", "accused persons" or "defendants") appear on the show and a panel of experts presents the evidence against them. This panel of experts could be drawn from the editorial or speaking staff (most of them can't write so they have to speak and / or appear on the telly or radio) of the most illustrious organs of the 4th estate. I'd suggest limiting this to the staff of those publications renowned for their honesty, decency, accuracy, fairness, absence of biased hysterical xenophobic headlines and with a demonstrable focus on public-spiritedness, for example The "Oirish" Daily Mail / Male of a Sunday, The Sun, The Star, The Sindo, Sunday's Worst, NOTW.
> 
> ...


 
You have working on that idea for awhile!


----------



## censuspro (20 May 2010)

mathepac said:


> What about a new "Celebrity Kill a Criminal" phone-in TV show?
> 
> Each week a 5 or 6 criminals (in less enlightened times these might have been referred to as "suspects", "accused persons" or "defendants") appear on the show and a panel of experts presents the evidence against them. This panel of experts could be drawn from the editorial or speaking staff (most of them can't write so they have to speak and / or appear on the telly or radio) of the most illustrious organs of the 4th estate. I'd suggest limiting this to the staff of those publications renowned for their honesty, decency, accuracy, fairness, absence of biased hysterical xenophobic headlines and with a demonstrable focus on public-spiritedness, for example The "Oirish" Daily Mail / Male of a Sunday, The Sun, The Star, The Sindo, Sunday's Worst, NOTW.
> 
> ...


 
Or we could just continue with the current system where people who read the Irish Times can give lenient prison sentences to violent criminals who beat their 3 yo children to death, sexually assault children and kick a dying man in the head while out on bail for 75 priors. God forbid we send them to prison for any considerable lenght of time.


----------



## mathepac (20 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> You have working on that idea for awhile!


No, it required very little work; in all honesty it was inspired by this and another similar thread, which was in turn I believe inspired by potential chip-wrapping / attic-insulation material.


----------



## z104 (20 May 2010)

....


----------



## z104 (20 May 2010)

The courts, Judges, solicitors, Barristers are just looking after their customers like any other business would. If all their customers(criminals) were given long sentences then their business would dry up. You need to have repeat business in order to survive. What's the point of giving somebody a 10 year sentence when you could give them 10 one year sentences. You get paid 10 times one way and only once the other..


----------



## censuspro (20 May 2010)

mathepac said:


> No, it required very little work; in all honesty it was inspired by this and another similar thread, which was in turn I believe inspired by potential chip-wrapping / attic-insulation material.


 
But you've yet to come up with an alternative arguement other than insuate that those in favour of mandatory sentencing are working class stiffs who read tabloid papers, watch reality TV shows and don't really know what they're talking about.

Why don't you tell us why minimum mandatory sentencing would be a bad thing without referring to "mitigating circumstances" or "discretion"?


----------



## z104 (20 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> I was replying to someone who said that tougher sentences would lead to lower crime rates. There is no evidence of that.
> 
> Britain tried getting tough with mandatory sentencing and taking away judges descretion a few years ago. They had to reverse that within a couple of years due to the amount of life sentences given and prison overcrowding.


 
I'd prefer if they didn't have the oppurtunity to rack up 60 or 70 convictions. If criminals have 60 or 70 previous convictions how many crimes have they committed. Even if they got caught half the time it's still too much.

Nobody should be allowed to rack up more than 10 convictions.

Prison overcrowding is no excuse. If we need more prisons we should build them. Plenty of builders out there.


----------



## Purple (20 May 2010)

If there was a simple answer then someone would have come up with it and we’d all be doing it but there isn’t.
There are three issues here and they are all being rolled into one.

Prevention
 Since the vast majority of criminals come from the same socio-economic group (i.e. a few Dublin postal areas) it is clear that particular environments breed and/or perpetuate criminals. The solution to this is early educational intervention and massive social supports for parents. It might seem like a waste of money but spending an extra €10’000 per year per child for 10 years is cheaper than spending €150’000 per year keeping them in prison as adults. When you add to this the chance of breaking the culture of criminality and producing future generations of productive members of society it’s a no-brainer. 
Good policing which results in a belief that there is a probability of being caught for your criminal act is more of a deterrent than draconian sentences which the perpetrator believes he/she will never face. That doesn’t mean that reasonable sentencing policies should not be in place.

Rehabilitation.
It is better that someone who has served their sentence, upon release from prison, has a changed (improved) attitude to society. This will be helped if they have acquired skills while in prison which they can use to gainfully and legally provide for themselves.  


Punishment.
Part of the reason for putting people in prison is to punish them for the crimes they have committed. This is the key issue being discussed in this thread. Talking about prevention or rehabilitation are off topic and cloud the issue. The key question is are the judges giving sentences which adequately punish offenders for the crimes the commit, especially in cases where the offender has a long criminal record.


----------



## Sunny (20 May 2010)

Ok, let's use the disgusting example of child abuse. At the moment, the Judge can reduce the sentence if I plead guilty and spare the child having to testify. Remove that discretion from the judge and alot more victims will have to relive their experiences in a court room because there would be no reason to plead guilty. Might as well take your chances in trial. 

That's just one example of why descretion is important.


----------



## mathepac (20 May 2010)

censuspro said:


> But you've yet to come up with an alternative arguement other than insuate that those in favour of mandatory sentencing are working class stiffs who read tabloid papers, watch reality TV shows and don't really know what they're talking about.
> 
> Why don't you tell us why minimum mandatory sentencing would be a bad thing without referring to "mitigating circumstances" or "discretion"?


I'm not arguing _*for*_ anything, just against a  poorly thought-out solution to a perceived problem.

The real problem IMHO is multi-faceted;


sentencing policy
minor transgressions (fines !!) that carry an incarceration tariff
our wholesale adoption of the infamous US plea-bargaining system in criminal matters
a judiciary insulated and removed from the reality of 21st century life in Ireland
poverty
ghettoisation of certain areas / people
etc.
  You might want to re-read my posts; I haven't used most of the words or concepts you quote and attribute to me in your post above.


----------



## Purple (20 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> Ok, let's use the disgusting example of child abuse. At the moment, the Judge can reduce the sentence if I plead guilty and spare the child having to testify. Remove that discretion from the judge and alot more victims will have to relive their experiences in a court room because there would be no reason to plead guilty. Might as well take your chances in trial.
> 
> That's just one example of why descretion is important.



But should child rapists ever get a suspended sentence?


----------



## Sunny (20 May 2010)

Purple said:


> But should child rapists ever get a suspended sentence?


 
God no. 

I was on a jury for a child abuse case where the guy pleaded not guilty. Seeing what the child (young woman by then) went through on the stand was the most disturbing and upsetting thing I have ever had to endure.


----------



## Complainer (20 May 2010)

censuspro said:


> If someone murders or rapes they belong in prison where they can't do it again.


So you reckon that murders and rapes don't happen in prison?


----------



## censuspro (20 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> So you reckon that murders and rapes don't happen in prison?


 
Where would you rather they happen, in or out of prison?


----------



## mathepac (20 May 2010)

Purple said:


> ... The key question is are the judges giving sentences which adequately punish offenders for the crimes the commit ...


I disagree and would phrase the issue as "Are judges giving sentences which adequately punish offenders for  *the crimes they are found guilty of*?"

There seems to be confusion about the differences between what the  rabble-rousing Star (for example) prints, what appears to happen in court-cases in  *Coronation St Land* or *CSI: Belmullet* and what actually happens in an Irish  court of law.


----------



## Complainer (20 May 2010)

censuspro said:


> Where would you rather they happen, in or out of prison?


Ah I see now - the life of a prisoner (or prison officer, or prison visitor, or prison teacher) is worth less than other lives - is that your position?


----------



## Firefly (20 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> So you reckon that murders and rapes don't happen in prison?


 
If murderers and rapists were segregated from other prisioners then I wouldn't lose any sleep


----------



## Purple (20 May 2010)

mathepac said:


> I disagree and would phrase the issue as "Are judges giving sentences which adequately punish offenders for  *the crimes they are found guilty of*?"
> 
> There seems to be confusion about the differences between what the  rabble-rousing Star (for example) prints, what appears to happen in court-cases in  *Coronation St Land* or *CSI: Belmullet* and what actually happens in an Irish  court of law.



I don't understand your point.


----------



## censuspro (20 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> Ah I see now - the life of a prisoner (or prison officer, or prison visitor, or prison teacher) is worth less than other lives - is that your position?


 
This is draging  the debate off topic. But I'll answer your question with a question; do you see the life of a law abiding citizen to be worth less than the life of a con? 

Point is that violent and repeat offenders belong in prison!


----------



## mathepac (20 May 2010)

Purple said:


> I don't understand your point.


In some people's eyes the woman killed her child and in their view she  seems to be guilty of murder. In court she was convicted of "wilful  ill-treatment of her daughter" after entering a guilty plea; the state  dropped the manslaughter charge.

She stands convicted of "wilful  ill-treatment of her daughter" and the judge sentenced accordingly; despite all his rhetoric in reviewing the evidence, he can only impose a sentence based on the crime she was found (pleaded) guilty of, not people's perception of what crime she actually committed or the crime she was originally charged with.

Is that any clearer?


----------



## censuspro (20 May 2010)

I thought the judge had discretion over sentences they impose?


----------



## Purple (20 May 2010)

mathepac said:


> In some people's eyes the woman killed her child and in their view she  seems to be guilty of murder. In court she was convicted of "wilful  ill-treatment of her daughter" after entering a guilty plea; the state  dropped the manslaughter charge.
> 
> She stands convicted of "wilful  ill-treatment of her daughter" and the judge sentenced accordingly; despite all his rhetoric in reviewing the evidence, he can only impose a sentence based on the crime she was found (pleaded) guilty of, not people's perception of what crime she actually committed or the crime she was originally charged with.
> 
> Is that any clearer?



I agree with you completely. I wasn't talking about that case but as it has come up she is only guilty of the crime which she was convicted of.


----------



## Pique318 (20 May 2010)

So as far as I see it, and taking the reasonable yet wishful post of Purple earlier into account, the issue is this:

The DPP would rather aim for a 'quick win' of a lesser charge uncontested than pursue a more serious charge which the evidence points to. Judicial discretion further lowers the sentence because they pled guilty. 
Why is this? Is it a matter that the criminal (and I don't mean suspect, I mean criminal. They are definitely guilty of doing something bad, and the rest is symantics) now has to be seen with pity rather than contempt ? 

Human Rights lawyers have jumped the fence from arguing for correct treatment of prisoners, to asking for favourable sentences (because he's a nice lad, Judge, and shure he's awful sorry for what he done) for those guilty of the death/stabbing/shooting or rape of another person, and not by accident.

Also, I do believe that (to paraphrase Billy Connolly) young scumbags invariably grow up to be adult scumbags. Unfortunately, there is no fear of the Guards giving you a thump any more, as the cop would be suspended and the little scumbag could probably sue them too. I'm not advocating free rein but a little more clouts given to young scumbags might make them a little less likely to try it again in case they're caught. Related to this is the social issue of the family defending their child in the face of evidence. My parents would have shook the hand of a cop if he caught me doing something and gave me a thump. I certainly wouldn't be going to sue him. This is 20 years ago, not 50)

Concurrent sentencing by judges must also stop as it really is worth "getting hung for a sheep as a lamb" now.
As for the murders and rapes committed in prison ? Well, if you're in a block with murderers and rapists, then you take your chances with your peers. Obviously, I don't include non-cons in this.


----------



## Latrade (21 May 2010)

Pique318 said:


> So as far as I see it, and taking the reasonable yet wishful post of Purple earlier into account, the issue is this:
> 
> The DPP would rather aim for a 'quick win' of a lesser charge uncontested than pursue a more serious charge which the evidence points to. Judicial discretion further lowers the sentence because they pled guilty.
> Why is this? Is it a matter that the criminal (and I don't mean suspect, I mean criminal. They are definitely guilty of doing something bad, and the rest is symantics) now has to be seen with pity rather than contempt?


 
You could see it like that or it could be that the DPP feel there is reasonable doubt or insufficient evidence for the more serious charge and to guarantee a conviction take up the offer. Unless those who judge a person's guilt based on media reports are happy for a person to be charged with the higher offence, a massive and expensive trial, but then they're found not guilty and are free?


----------



## Complainer (21 May 2010)

I'm always amused (or even bemused) to see the 'armchair experts' here on AAM coming up with back-of-the-envelope solutions. There are indeed serious problems in our criminal justice system, but I have this strange feeling that those who know most about this system are best positioned to come up with effective solutions, not those who read a few newspaper articles on the topic.


----------



## Complainer (21 May 2010)

censuspro said:


> This is draging the debate off topic. But I'll answer your question with a question; do you see the life of a law abiding citizen to be worth less than the life of a con?


No, I don't.


censuspro said:


> Point is that violent and repeat offenders belong in prison!


The theory is fine. Are we as a society prepared for the increased taxes arising from locking people up and throwing away the key?



Firefly said:


> If murderers and rapists were segregated from other prisioners then I wouldn't lose any sleep


They tried that approach when the Dublin & Limerick gangs were picking each other off. Ah sure as long as they are shooting each other, it doesn't really matter. It didn't work out too well for [broken link removed]and Shane Geoghan.


----------



## Purple (21 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> I'm always amused (or even bemused) to see the 'armchair experts' here on AAM coming up with back-of-the-envelope solutions. There are indeed serious problems in our criminal justice system, but I have this strange feeling that those who know most about this system are best positioned to come up with effective solutions, not those who read a few newspaper articles on the topic.



I’m always amused by people who come on to discussion forums and express bemusement that people are discussing things and offering opinions, arguments and counter-arguments. Part of what we do as a species to inform and develop our views is to talk about them. We offer an opinion and listen to counter opinions and, if we are smart enough, we listen to those counter opinions and use them to learn more about the topic at hand and change or hone out own views. 
What adds nothing to the discussion are those who offer no opinion or counter-argument beyond questioning the intellect or right of others to air their views. 

We all have a right to air our views, even those of us who are not members of the leftwing intelligentsia.


----------



## redbhoy (21 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> but I have this strange feeling that those who know most about this system are best positioned to come up with effective solutions,


 
Ha ha ha ha!! Get over yourself will you! Has crime increased or decreased over the years? The people at the top know how to deal with it! Good one!


----------



## csirl (21 May 2010)

As I've said on another thread, the jury should do the sentencing. Trial by jury is the core of our justice system. The jury, after having considered all the facts, decide if someone is guilty. They are also best placed to decide the sentence - they know what factors they took into account when reaching the verdict. It seems a big disconnected to have the people reaching the verdict not deciding on the sentence. Sentences imposed by juries would also more closely reflect societies view of a fair sentence for the crime. Judges could tell a jury that a particular crime carries a sentence of e.g. 2-5 years if there are sentences specified in legislation, but the jury should decide the punishment within this range.


----------



## redbhoy (21 May 2010)

Trial by Jury and sentencing by Jury? Sure that would give an element of power back to the people. 
Never going to happen!


----------



## Complainer (21 May 2010)

redbhoy said:


> Has crime increased or decreased over the years? The people at the top know how to deal with it! Good one!


Reductions in 13 of the 14 crime categories at the latest count - see [broken link removed]

And just for the record, I didn't refer to 'people at the top'.


----------



## DB74 (21 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> They tried that approach when the Dublin & Limerick gangs were picking each other off. Ah sure as long as they are shooting each other, it doesn't really matter. It didn't work out too well for [broken link removed]and Shane Geoghan.


 
The separation of criminals inside a prison is a completely separate issue to ignoring their activities outside of prison.


----------



## DB74 (21 May 2010)

I'm sure the relatives of Pawel Kalite and Marius Swajkos are delighted with those statistics.


----------



## redbhoy (21 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> Reductions in 13 of the 14 crime categories at the latest count - see http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Ahern%20welcomes%20reductions%20in%2013%20of%2014%20crime%20groups
> 
> And just for the record, I didn't refer to 'people at the top'.


 
Apologies, I would have thought that the people who know most about the system are the people at the top. But you're probably right. They woudlnt have a clue stuck in their Ivory Towers somewhere. Local Judges and Juries should be used to try criminals. 

Statistics by the CSO for the Dept of Just us? I reckon they might be true? 
If theres been such a reduction then why are we getting extra Gardaí?


----------



## MrMan (21 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> I'm always amused (or even bemused) to see the 'armchair experts' here on AAM coming up with back-of-the-envelope solutions. There are indeed serious problems in our criminal justice system, but I have this strange feeling that those who know most about this system are best positioned to come up with effective solutions, not those who read a few newspaper articles on the topic.



Those who know most about the system could in turn be a part of the problem if the system is flawed. When it boils down to it, we are all affected therefore we should all be listened to.


----------



## Complainer (21 May 2010)

DB74 said:


> The separation of criminals inside a prison is a completely separate issue to ignoring their activities outside of prison.



So how do you seperate criminals from prison staff inside a prison?



MrMan said:


> Those who know most about the system could in turn be a part of the problem if the system is flawed. When it boils down to it, we are all affected therefore we should all be listened to.



Indeed, many of those in the system may well be part of problem. But do have a think about the value of interested amatuers in any profession. For your own job, would you get many useful proposals from random posters on bulletin boards?


----------



## Sunny (21 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> Indeed, many of those in the system may well be part of problem. But do have a think about the value of interested amatuers in any profession. For your own job, would you get many useful proposals from random posters on bulletin boards?


 

I obviously mis-understood the whole point of the letting off steam forum on askaboutmoney. I thought it was where people could go vent about various topics However, it seems like it is where Government policy is formulated so I would ask anyone who is not an expert on the topic being discussed to refrain from offering any sort of opinion as it might be taken seriously and entered into law.


----------



## DB74 (21 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> So how do you seperate criminals from prison staff inside a prison?


 
That's not the point.

The original poster stated that he wouldn't care if murderers and rapists were segregated from other prisoners and you replied that this didn't work because Anthony Campbell & Shane Geoghegan were murdered on the outside.

As regards prison staff, when was the last time an Irish prison officer was murdered inside one of our prisons.


The problem is 3-fold as I see it

1. The DPP is too keen to accept plea-bargains for a lesser crime rather than pursue what would appear to be the correct conviction for the type of crime committed. The case of the death of the 3yo girl already given is one example while the death of an Estonian man dragged from his car and kicked to death is another (DPP accepted a manslaughter plea in this case rather than pursue the murder conviction)

The DPP should place more trust in the jury system of this country because the vast vast majority of people are sick of the crime rate in this country and will convict as they see fit. The case of the Mayo farmer is a testament to this. People want criminals convicted and ordinary people left along to live their lives.


2. The judiciary in this country are so far removed from reality it beggars belief. Concurrent and suspended sentences are the norm now in the courts (even Sean Keogh had 6 months of his 54-month sentence suspended for God's sake) and Judges rarely if ever hand down the "mandatory" sentences in drug cases.

IMO we need a new system for appointing judges. It should not be a job for life and the judiciary should be answerable to the Dail or even the people on a regular basis. They are there to serve the people.


3. The legal system seems more interested in ensuring that the rights of the suspect are not infringed rather than ensuring that justice is done.

The Judge Brian Curtin case is an example. The Gardai were one-day late with their warrant and so the seizure of the computer was deemed illegal and the case was thrown out.

Why can we not have a system whereby the case can still go to trial and, if a conviction is acquired, then this illegality can result in a reduced sentence


----------



## Sunny (21 May 2010)

DB74 said:


> The DPP should place more trust in the jury system of this country because the vast vast majority of people are sick of the crime rate in this country and will convict as they see fit. The case of the Mayo farmer is a testament to this. People want criminals convicted and ordinary people left along to live their lives.


 
I presume you mean that they will convict once they are 100% sure of the persons guilt?

Elected judges are a terrible idea.


----------



## censuspro (21 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> No, I don't.
> 
> The theory is fine. Are we as a society prepared for the increased taxes arising from locking people up and throwing away the key?.


 
Complete misrepresentation to say that locking people up for longer will lead to an increase in taxes. Plus, you're not taking into account the money that will be saved from processing repaet offenders through the judicial system and cost that criminal activity causes businesses and individuals i.e. robbery, vandalism, public order etc.




Complainer said:


> They tried that approach when the Dublin & Limerick gangs were picking each other off. Ah sure as long as they are shooting each other, it doesn't really matter. It didn't work out too well for [broken link removed]and Shane Geoghan.


 
Again, a completely unrelated incident. How is the murder of Shane Geoghan related to increased mandatory prison sentences. On the contrary, it is more likely that if we had mandatory sentencing Shane Geoghan would still be alive.


----------



## Purple (21 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> Elected judges are a terrible idea.



I used to agree but now I'm [broken link removed].


----------



## DB74 (21 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> I presume you mean that they will convict once they are 100% sure of the persons guilt?


 
You don't have to be 100% - just beyond reasonable doubt AFAIK.

I mean that the DPP should have the courage to go with the greater charge if he/she thinks that it may stick.

I would have been surprised if a jury didn't convict Sean Keogh of murder, but we'll never know.


----------



## Sunny (21 May 2010)

DB74 said:


> You don't have to be 100% - just beyond reasonable doubt AFAIK.
> 
> I mean that the DPP should have the courage to go with the greater charge if he/she thinks that it may stick.
> 
> I would have been surprised if a jury didn't convict Sean Keogh of murder, but we'll never know.


 
Recent case law in the UK would suggest that this pretty much means you have to be sure of someone's guilt. To be honest, I wouldn't convict someone unless I was 100% sure.

I agree that it seems like the DPP takes the easy road but he knows more than I know and understands how he is more likely to get a conviction. 

Sean Keogh was found not guilty of murder by the Jury as far as I know. Could be wrong on that though.


----------



## mathepac (21 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> ... Sean Keogh was found not guilty of murder by the Jury as far as I know. Could be wrong on that though.


Correct and he was then tried on the assault charges, so it seems the jury did its very difficult job. No-one has explained yet how mandatory sentencing would have changed any of these outcomes.


----------



## DB74 (21 May 2010)

Fair enough so - I stand corrected.

I presumed the DPP bottled the murder charge - never realised the jury did!


----------



## censuspro (21 May 2010)

mathepac said:


> Correct and he was then tried on the assault charges, so it seems the jury did its very difficult job. No-one has explained yet how mandatory sentencing would have changed any of these outcomes.


 
I'll explain it again. If we had mandatory sentencing for repeat and serious offenders. Sean Keogh would have been in prison at the time of the murder on the basis of his 75 prior convictions. This is why I advocate mandatory sentencing, because if a repeat offender with 75 prior convictions is in prison where they belong they are not in a position to commit crime against innocent members of society.


----------



## Complainer (21 May 2010)

censuspro said:


> Complete misrepresentation to say that locking people up for longer will lead to an increase in taxes. Plus, you're not taking into account the money that will be saved from processing repaet offenders through the judicial system and cost that criminal activity causes businesses and individuals i.e. robbery, vandalism, public order etc.


Is this a Charlie McCreevy-type back-of-the-envelope cost benefit analysis? Please let's not base public policy on this kind of stuff any more. It has got is into serious messes in the past. If you want to make an arguement about cost/benefits, let's see some real serious data.



DB74 said:


> That's not the point.
> 
> The original poster stated that he wouldn't care if murderers and rapists were segregated from other prisoners and you replied that this didn't work because Anthony Campbell & Shane Geoghegan were murdered on the outside.
> 
> As regards prison staff, when was the last time an Irish prison officer was murdered inside one of our prisons.


Prison officers are assuaulted on a regular basis, about three assaults each week last year. It mightened get much press coverage, but it does still hapen.

I just wanted to point out that the flawed thinking of 'sure they're only killing each other' doesn't work, inside or outside prison. Somebody else is going to hurt or gets killed.


censuspro said:


> Again, a completely unrelated incident. How is the murder of Shane Geoghan related to increased mandatory prison sentences. On the contrary, it is more likely that if we had mandatory sentencing Shane Geoghan would still be alive.






Sunny said:


> I obviously mis-understood the whole point of the letting off steam forum on askaboutmoney. I thought it was where people could go vent about various topics However, it seems like it is where Government policy is formulated so I would ask anyone who is not an expert on the topic being discussed to refrain from offering any sort of opinion as it might be taken seriously and entered into law.



I've never tried to prevent discussion here on AAM. I just want to challenge the view that seems to think the country should be ruled by the bar-stool experts here on AAM. Let's face it, posters here don't have the basic facts right on the cases they are argueing. They weren't in court to hear everything that the jury heard. But they still feel empowered to pronounce their verdict based on the couple of press reports that they read. By all means, let the discussion continue, but let's not kid ourselves that it is anything more than pub talk.


----------



## mathepac (21 May 2010)

censuspro said:


> ...  Sean Keogh would have been in prison at the time of the murder on the basis of his 75 prior convictions. ...


As the man in question was found not guilty, it would have made no difference whether he was locked up or not.  The finding of the jury, who heard all the evidence formally presented in court and who listened to the judge's input, was that he didn't do it.


----------



## DB74 (21 May 2010)

That's it - ignore the main issues and points put across


----------



## censuspro (21 May 2010)

mathepac said:


> As the man in question was found not guilty, it would have made no difference whether he was locked up or not. The finding of the jury, who heard all the evidence formally presented in court and who listened to the judge's input, was that he didn't do it.


 
It does make a difference because he would have been in prison and Pawel Kalite may still be alive, same goes for David Curran.


----------



## censuspro (21 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> Is this a Charlie McCreevy-type back-of-the-envelope cost benefit analysis? Please let's not base public policy on this kind of stuff any more. It has got is into serious messes in the past. If you want to make an arguement about cost/benefits, let's see some real serious data.




Hang on a second complainer, it was you who raised the issue of cost and increased taxes...



Complainer said:


> The theory is fine. *Are we as a society prepared for the increased taxes arising from locking people up and throwing away the key?*
> 
> They tried that approach when the Dublin & Limerick gangs were picking each other off. Ah sure as long as they are shooting each other, it doesn't really matter. It didn't work out too well for Anthony Campbell and Shane Geoghan.


----------



## censuspro (21 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> I've never tried to prevent discussion here on AAM. I just want to challenge the view that seems to think the country should be ruled by the bar-stool experts here on AAM. Let's face it, posters here don't have the basic facts right on the cases they are argueing. They weren't in court to hear everything that the jury heard. But they still feel empowered to pronounce their verdict based on the couple of press reports that they read. By all means, let the discussion continue, but let's not kid ourselves that it is anything more than pub talk.


 
It is also uniformed imply that people who's opinion is different to yours is based upon ignorance, as unless we are employed by the courts service or the law enforcement , we can only base our opinions upon what the courts actually decide. The actual means of reportage are irrelevant.


----------



## mathepac (21 May 2010)

censuspro said:


> It does make a difference because he would have been in prison and Pawel Kalite may still be alive ...


It seems you have additional information that wasn't available to the Guards or the DPP and that wasn't presented to the jury in order to guide their decision-making. Maybe you could post it here in order to clarify how you conclude that the prior incarceration of someone found not guilty of a crime could have prevented the crime in question.


----------



## Complainer (21 May 2010)

censuspro said:


> The actual means of reportage are irrelevant.


 Smart guys like O'Reilly, O'Brien, Maxwell and Murdoch pay out large sums of money because they know that the means of reportage are very, very important. These guys are more powerful that most politicians, because they control the means of reportage.



censuspro said:


> [/FONT][/COLOR]
> 
> Hang on a second complainer, it was you who raised the issue of cost and increased taxes...



It's a fair cop.



censuspro said:


> It is also uniformed imply that people who's opinion is different to yours is based upon ignorance, as unless we are employed by the courts service or the law enforcement , we can only base our opinions upon what the courts actually decide.



I presume that this should read 'uninformed to imply'. For the record, it is nothing to do with whether your opinions differ to mine or not. I'm first to admin that my own opinions on these matters are based largely on ignorance.


----------



## DB74 (21 May 2010)

mathepac said:


> It seems you have additional information that wasn't available to the Guards or the DPP and that wasn't presented to the jury in order to guide their decision-making. Maybe you could post it here in order to clarify how you conclude that the prior incarceration of someone found not guilty of a crime could have prevented the crime in question.


 
The judge is quoted as saying

“A decision was made, which I’m convinced was to the effect in Seán Keogh’s mind to get the men involved,”


which seems to imply that Keogh was a major factor in getting Curran involved in the incident

http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives...th-assault-on-murdered-polish-men-458262.html​


----------



## censuspro (21 May 2010)

mathepac said:


> It seems you have additional information that wasn't available to the Guards or the DPP and that wasn't presented to the jury in order to guide their decision-making. Maybe you could post it here in order to clarify how you conclude that the prior incarceration of someone found not guilty of a crime could have prevented the crime in question.


 
If Keogh was incarcerated for his 75 prior convictions he would have been unable to participate in the murder as he could not be in two places at the one time.

Remeber that this debate is about mandatory sentencing and not the details of Sean Keogh's trial. The point that I'm making in relation to this particular case is that if we had a form of mandatory sentencing for repeat offenders people like Sean Keogh and David Curran would be in prison where they would belong and would be unable to commit crime against innocent members of society and the murder of Pawel Kalite could have possibly been avoided. 

Throughout this entire thread you have not given one reason as to why we should not introduce mandatory sentencing other than trying to pick apart individual posts.


----------



## mathepac (21 May 2010)

DB74 said:


> ... “A decision was made, which I’m  convinced was to the effect in Seán Keogh’s mind to get the men  involved,”
> 
> 
> which seems to imply that Keogh was a major factor  in getting Curran involved in the incident ...​


I'm not a lawyer, but I don't  think the judge's opinion and commentary  after the jury had delivered its verdict constitutes evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable  doubt and your "which seems to imply" rider is  hardly good enough as evidence either.


censuspro said:


> ... he would have been unable to participate in the murder as he could not be in two places at the one time.


The jury decided he didn't participate in murder, hence its verdict. You seem to know better so as I asked before, what additional information do you have?


----------



## censuspro (21 May 2010)

mathepac said:


> I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think the judge's opinion and commentary after the jury had delivered its verdict constitutes evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and your "which seems to imply" rider is hardly good enough as evidence either.
> The jury decided he didn't participate in murder, hence its verdict. You seem to know better so as I asked before, what additional information do you have?


 
What additional information do you have?


----------



## UptheDeise (21 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> Have no idea what the solution is though.......


 
Building bigger jails and filling them with criminals for the rest of the living days.

Prisons are there to protect the law abiding public from criminals.


----------



## censuspro (25 May 2010)

Looks like it's not just readers of red top tabloids who feel there is something wrong with the penal system.

[broken link removed]


----------



## Complainer (25 May 2010)

UptheDeise said:


> Building bigger jails and filling them with criminals for the rest of the living days.
> 
> Prisons are there to protect the law abiding public from criminals.


Has that worked anywhere else? Presumably the vacuum in criminal circles just gets filled up by younger (and more reckless, more violent) up and coming criminas.


----------



## censuspro (25 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> Has that worked anywhere else? Presumably the vacuum in criminal circles just gets filled up by younger (and more reckless, more violent) up and coming criminas.


 
Yes it has worked. It has worked in the sense that career criminals are safely locked away where they cannot ply their trade on the rest of society.


----------



## mathepac (25 May 2010)

It's a pity you don't appear to have taken the time to read and understand the subject of the Irish Times poll you linked to.

The question posed in the poll is  "Does the high rate of reoffending by former prisoners indicate the  penal system is failing?" which as I'm sure posters will appreciate is different to proposing that the solution to the problem is mandatory sentencing.

Interestingly, the first poster listed after the poll results includes this comment : "The question asked is so populist and inflammatory as to do an injustice  to this particular newspaer [sic] and is more fitting of the garbage that  garnishes the front page of comics like the Star and the Mirror"

Maybe Ms. Kennedy is listening, but I suspect she isn't, having effectively turned the Irish Times Magazine into a girl's Saturday comic. As a consequence I no longer take the Irish Times on Saturdays.


----------



## censuspro (25 May 2010)

mathepac said:


> It's a pity you don't appear to have taken the time to read and understand the subject of the Irish Times poll you linked to.
> 
> The question posed in the poll is "Does the high rate of reoffending by former prisoners indicate the penal system is failing?" which as I'm sure posters will appreciate is different to proposing that the solution to the problem is mandatory sentencing.
> 
> ...


 
Just on saturdays?


----------



## censuspro (25 May 2010)

mathepac said:


> It's a pity you don't appear to have taken the time to read and understand the subject of the Irish Times poll you linked to.
> 
> The question posed in the poll is "Does the high rate of reoffending by former prisoners indicate the penal system is failing?" which as I'm sure posters will appreciate is different to proposing that the solution to the problem is mandatory sentencing.
> 
> ...


 
FYI. Previous posters who raised the issue of the penal system.


----------



## Complainer (25 May 2010)

censuspro said:


> Yes it has worked. It has worked in the sense that career criminals are safely locked away where they cannot ply their trade on the rest of society.


Where has this worked?


----------



## Sunny (25 May 2010)

censuspro said:


> Yes it has worked. It has worked in the sense that career criminals are safely locked away where they cannot ply their trade on the rest of society.


 
Yes because there is no-one that is going to take their place....


----------



## censuspro (25 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> Yes because there is no-one that is going to take their place....


 
I don't understand what you're trying to say?


----------



## Complainer (25 May 2010)

mathepac said:


> As a consequence I no longer take the Irish Times on Saturdays.


Me too. Not since that incident with the shop security guys.



censuspro said:


> I don't understand what you're trying to say?


He's going back to the point that I made here.


----------



## censuspro (25 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> Me too. Not since that incident with the shop security guys.
> 
> 
> He's going back to the point that I made here.


 
So what you're saying is that there's no point in putiing people in prison because they'll just be replaced by more criminals...


----------



## Complainer (25 May 2010)

censuspro said:


> So what you're saying is that there's no point in putiing people in prison because they'll just be replaced by more criminals...



As I think you know, what I'm saying is putting more people in prison for longer sentances is unlikely to be effective in reducing crime rates, as other younger (more violent, more reckless) criminals will rise up to fill the vacuum. But seriously, you told us that 'it has worked'. Where did this happen?


----------



## censuspro (25 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> As I think you know, what I'm saying is putting more people in prison for longer sentances is unlikely to be effective in reducing crime rates, as other younger (more violent, more reckless) criminals will rise up to fill the vacuum. But seriously, you told us that 'it has worked'. Where did this happen?


 
Prisons are not designed to stop people from committing crime or re-offending, they are designed to house people who commit crime.

There is no evidence that shows any link between crime rates and rates of imprisonment. Why do we constantly refer to crime rates as an indicator for prison sentencing when there is no link between the two.


----------



## censuspro (25 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> But seriously, you told us that 'it has worked'. Where did this happen?


 
It has "worked" in keeping people locked up. Read my previous posts, prison are not designed to prevent people from re-offending.

Where has it not "worked"?


----------



## Complainer (25 May 2010)

censuspro said:


> It has "worked" in keeping people locked up. Read my previous posts, prison are not designed to prevent people from re-offending.


When you said 'it has worked', I understood you were referring to a '3 strikes' policy or 'mandatory sentancing' policy that had succeeded in reducing crime rates. For the 3rd time, I'll ask you where were you talking about when you said 'it has worked' (assuming this is not all in your mind).

From the stuff I've read over the years about the '3 strikes' policy in parts of the US, it has been generally ineffective in reducing crime rates. Unless you know different?


----------



## censuspro (26 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> When you said 'it has worked', I understood you were referring to a '3 strikes' policy or 'mandatory sentancing' policy that had succeeded in reducing crime rates. For the 3rd time, I'll ask you where were you talking about when you said 'it has worked' (assuming this is not all in your mind).
> 
> From the stuff I've read over the years about the '3 strikes' policy in parts of the US, it has been generally ineffective in reducing crime rates. Unless you know different?


 
Read my last post.




censuspro said:


> Prisons are not designed to stop people from committing crime or re-offending, they are designed to house people who commit crime.





censuspro said:


> There is no evidence that shows any link between crime rates and rates of imprisonment. Why do we constantly refer to crime rates as an indicator for prison sentencing when there is no link between the two.


----------



## Sunny (26 May 2010)

So your solution is to ignore the causes of crime and just lock everyone up.


----------



## censuspro (26 May 2010)

Sunny said:


> So your solution is to ignore the causes of crime and just lock everyone up.


 
The causes of crime has nothing to do with sentencing. If you want to discuss the causes of crime start another thread.

Although there is no link betwenn crimes rates and prison sentences, it is my opinion that if a recidivist is in prison and not roaming the streets they are not in position to re-offend against innocent members of society.

As a law abiding, tax paying citizen I want to know that if someone has 75 or 150 previous convictions that they will go to prison and not roam the streets where they are a threat to me, my family and the rest of society.

If someone has 150 previous convictions, they have obviously proved and made the choice that they cannot function in ordinary society.

We can try to address the causes of crime and we can build more prison with better facilities but the bottom line is that these should not be taken into account when we talk about sentencing. If you do the crime you do the time!


----------



## shnaek (26 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> as other younger (more violent, more reckless) criminals will rise up to fill the vacuum



So there are younger more reckless and violent criminals out there who are just waiting for their chance, and are being held back by the criminals that are out there at the moment? 

Been watching any gangster movies lately?


----------



## Latrade (26 May 2010)

censuspro said:


> The causes of crime has nothing to do with sentencing. If you want to discuss the causes of crime start another thread.


 
I'd agree at a basic level. It isn't once the crime(s) have been committed. But the issue does come back to those crimes that get prison sentences, those crimes that are suggested are should be subject to mandatory sentences. These are the crimes committed in disadvantaged areas by and large by disadvantaged young men. Does it serve us as a society to just begin a programme of removing these people from the streets into jail without a serious effort to reduce crime running along side?

So in effect both sides are right, yes the crimes should be punished so long as the punishment fits the crime, but there has to be a concerted effort to look at what can be done to prevent the crime in the first place.

Unfortunately the emphasis on punishment hasn't worked and neither has the more liberal approach to offenders.


----------



## Complainer (26 May 2010)

shnaek said:


> So there are younger more reckless and violent criminals out there who are just waiting for their chance, and are being held back by the criminals that are out there at the moment?
> 
> Been watching any gangster movies lately?


Nope - just reading the court reports in the Irish Times and the odd bit of TV news. Do you really, really think that if you lock up the current generation of drug dealers that all sales of illegal drugs will just stop?


----------



## MANTO (26 May 2010)

shnaek said:


> So there are younger more reckless and violent criminals out there who are just waiting for their chance, and are being held back by the criminals that are out there at the moment?
> 
> Been watching any gangster movies lately?


 
You just need to look at the escalating violence in our society and news reports to see the shift in age vs level of violence. 

There ARE more younger & more violent criminals out there, and its very scary.


----------



## Purple (26 May 2010)

I’m not sure what the answer is. I’m not sure if  3 strikes and you are out is too much of a blunt instrument but I definitely think that previous convictions should weigh far more heavily when sentencing is being determined. 
The state does have a responsibility to provide security, indeed is it its primary function. Therefore while it’s not an easy fix and there is a balance to be struck between the rights of the individual and the needs of society what we have at the moment is not working.


----------



## shnaek (26 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> Nope - just reading the court reports in the Irish Times and the odd bit of TV news. Do you really, really think that if you lock up the current generation of drug dealers that all sales of illegal drugs will just stop?



Thanks for putting words into my mouth there, brother.  Where did I mention anything about drugs? 

Let me put it plainly. You said:

"as other younger (more violent, more reckless) criminals will rise up to fill the vacuum"

Where are your sources for this?


----------



## shnaek (26 May 2010)

MANTO said:


> You just need to look at the escalating violence in our society and news reports to see the shift in age vs level of violence.


I agree with this. But to argue that locking up the current criminals will lead to even worse violence is just, frankly, nonsense! I mean, follow that arguement through with rapists, murderers etc. and see where it goes...



MANTO said:


> There ARE more younger & more violent criminals out there, and its very scary.


Indeed. So I suggest we lock them up.

Though perhaps if we keep locking them up time and time again it will end up with the Ultimate Fearless and Wreckless Criminal Of All Time...


----------



## csirl (26 May 2010)

> Originally Posted by *MANTO* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=1044447#post1044447
> _There ARE more younger & more violent criminals out there, and its very scary._


 
The logic of what you are saying is that if you lock up every single criminal, then ordinary law abiding folk will morph into younger and more violent criminals to fill the gap. Ultimately it means you are suggesting that, depending on how many people are locked up, we are all potentially dangerous criminals. I dont buy this. I dont see myself ever morphing into a dangerous criminal even if half the country is locked up.


----------



## MANTO (26 May 2010)

csirl said:


> The logic of what you are saying is that if you lock up every single criminal, then ordinary law abiding folk will morph into younger and more violent criminals to fill the gap. Ultimately it means you are suggesting that, depending on how many people are locked up, we are all potentially dangerous criminals. I dont buy this. I dont see myself ever morphing into a dangerous criminal even if half the country is locked up.



Where did i say any of that???


----------



## csirl (27 May 2010)

MANTO said:


> Where did i say any of that???


 
Then where are these "_younger & more violent criminals" _coming from?


----------



## MANTO (27 May 2010)

Complainer said:


> Nope - just reading the court reports in the Irish Times and the odd bit of TV news. Do you really, really think that if you lock up the current generation of drug dealers that all sales of illegal drugs will just stop?


 
As complainer said above. csirl, i am just stating a fact, there are younger more violent crimals out there than before. Anybody who thinks there aren't are kidding themselves. 

I have said on another thread, we need better Education & Policing. I have said anything about locking up every criminal. We would need an offshore Island for that......


[broken link removed] (have a look at page 54 - its not age related but shows the clear trend of homicide alone in this country, there are some other interesting graphs)

[broken link removed] 

According to figures from the Central Statistics Office, Ireland has a relatively large youth population, 632,732 persons between the ages of 15- 24 (CSO). Youth Crime as an issues has over the last decade received considerable attention from the public, the Government has reacted to this concern by introducing the Children Act 2001 (O'Dwyer, 2001). 

While youth crime overall is relatively low in Ireland compared to some countries, *it is high in socially disadvantaged areas and among school dropouts* (O'Dwyer, 2001). Drug addiction and related criminal behavior are major concerns in local communities across the country.​


----------



## censuspro (13 Jul 2010)

€280,000 arsonist walks away with a suspended sentence

I guess this will also be labeled as more rabble-rousing tabloid journalism by those to the left however I thought I would raise the issue again all the same.



> In suspending the sentence, Judge Ryan said the court had taken into account Harcourt's good employment record, *his standing in the community*, his early plea of guilty and testimonials to his good character.


 
God forbid we send him to prison he had a tough life.



> She also said the court noted Harcourt's personal circumstances, in that his drug-addicted mother died in 2001, leaving his sister, who was 15 years old at the time, to raise him.


 
I can even hear the violin.


----------

