I see Rose West is launching an appeal against her 'life means life' sentence. A few have been overturned before and given the judicial system we have, it wouldn't surprise me if she was victorious. How do we have/accept a society where most murderers eventually get their freedom, with the average sentence probably in and around 14 years. How is it bot as simple as murder equals jail until you die?
Because it costs too much to keep them in
Quote from: BennyCake on December 30, 2018, 07:49:23 PM
Because it costs too much to keep them in
Always felt that was the case! The judicial system in America must cost billions
I wouldn't be so sure since the Hutchinson decision of the European Court it's become clear that whole life sentences are lawful provided they are subject to review and to the possibility of release in certain circumstances. I would think it would be difficult to get released unless under a very specific set of circumstances. That said I suppose an argument could be made that if you were no longer assessed as Dangerous (I.e posed a significant risk to life or limb) then you might be discriminated against vis a vis a life sentence prisoner with a tariff. Two issues though would arise with that. Firstly Rose would have to show she is no longer dangerous which is very difficult in the prison environment for someone with her record. Secondly even if she has been discriminated against that discrimination may be justified given her record. All in all I would think this would be a very difficult challenge for her to win.
There are so many different penalties available...tagging; slap on the wrist; probation - oh dear, you had a hard upbringing; you didn't mean it; suspended sentence; community service. Nobody deserves a life sentence...even for murder. It's just unfair & infringes upon the perpetrator's rights.
I know one thing - it's complex !
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 30, 2018, 08:49:29 PM
There are so many different penalties available...tagging; slap on the wrist; probation - oh dear, you had a hard upbringing; you didn't mean it; suspended sentence; community service. Nobody deserves a life sentence...even for murder. It's just unfair & infringes upon the perpetrator's rights.
I think it really depends on what you are looking for in any sentence. There are five competiting aims really in any sentence. 1. Punishment, any sentence has to be some form of punishment for the crime. 2. Rehabilitation, sentences particularly lengthy custodial ones have to seek to rehabilitate the offender back into the community other wise they are likely to find themselves in a rolving door system which does no one any good. 3. Reduce recidivism, linked to rehabilitation is a need to reduce reoffending both for the benefit of the community and for the individuals future prospect. 4. Protection for the public. Ultimately sentences particularly for more serious offences need to protect the public from certain perpetrators. 5. Detterance, sentences need to act as a deterrent to others.
In the north sentences range from absolute discharges to life imprisonment each with their own advantages and disadvantages when considered against those four criteria. For example probation is very good at rehabilitation and reducing recidivism but not as punishing as prison or as good for protection of the public or acting as a deterrent. Similarly short custodial sentences are great as punishment etc but provide little rehabilitation or reduction in recidivism.
When faced with a sentencing exercise a judge has to consider and balance these competiting considerations when arriving at the appropriate sentence.
What drives me mad is how badly reported sentences are the media. For example anyone convicted of murder receives a life sentence with a tariff. The tariff is the minimum sentence to be spent in prison before the individual can APPLY FOR PAROLE. It is not as is commonly reported the length of the sentence. Even in the unlikely event the life sentence prisoner is able to convince the Parole Commissioners that they are no longer dangerous (the test for release) at the end of that tariff they will still remain subject to licence conditions for life and can be recalled without a hearing if the Department of Justice adjudges their risk of serious harm is unmanageable in the community.
Quote from: nrico2006 on December 30, 2018, 07:32:12 PM
I see Rose West is launching an appeal against her 'life means life' sentence. A few have been overturned before and given the judicial system we have, it wouldn't surprise me if she was victorious. How do we have/accept a society where most murderers eventually get their freedom, with the average sentence probably in and around 14 years. How is it bot as simple as murder equals jail until you die?
It comes back every year, at this time. The Sun on Fred West -"happy noose year".
I read somewhere last week that a fella who raped a wee boy and girl was released after 3 weeks, of a year sentence, as he was too vulnerable. One year is far too lenient but 3 weeks is as bad a punishment as I've heard. As for murder, in the simplest terms you should never be released surely? The punishment should be life and thats still a far better fate than the murder victim got. Too much of the sentences are focused on rehabilitation (no longer a danger to society etc etc), but the main objective of a sentence should be to punish.
Quote from: nrico2006 on December 30, 2018, 10:13:12 PM
I read somewhere last week that a fella who raped a wee boy and girl was released after 3 weeks, of a year sentence, as he was too vulnerable. One year is far too lenient but 3 weeks is as bad a punishment as I've heard. As for murder, in the simplest terms you should never be released surely? The punishment should be life and thats still a far better fate than the murder victim got. Too much of the sentences are focused on rehabilitation (no longer a danger to society etc etc), but the main objective of a sentence should be to punish.
The problem with that though is there's no incentive for the offender to engage at all which in turn would make prisons much more dangerous and difficult to manage. As I say it's a balancing exercise and a difficult one at that.
I don't see any deterrent.....bar conjugal rights what does a prisoner not have? They have access to medical/dental treatment, education, gyms, tv, mobile phones, 3 meals a day, no worries about heat....many pensioners/people don't have that. Some deterrent 😡
Can't go out for a pint, can't go home at night, can't go to Limerick or Dublin games...
Quote from: David McKeown on December 30, 2018, 10:22:42 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on December 30, 2018, 10:13:12 PM
I read somewhere last week that a fella who raped a wee boy and girl was released after 3 weeks, of a year sentence, as he was too vulnerable. One year is far too lenient but 3 weeks is as bad a punishment as I've heard. As for murder, in the simplest terms you should never be released surely? The punishment should be life and thats still a far better fate than the murder victim got. Too much of the sentences are focused on rehabilitation (no longer a danger to society etc etc), but the main objective of a sentence should be to punish.
The problem with that though is there's no incentive for the offender to engage at all which in turn would make prisons much more dangerous and difficult to manage. As I say it's a balancing exercise and a difficult one at that.
But surely there being no incentive to engage and therefore having prisons that are difficult to manage shouldnt be a reason not to put murderers away until they die. Why even call a sentence a life sentence when its really a lock of years.
Sentencing is a very contentious thing among people who don't know what it is like. A lot of prisoners that I deal with are in 23 hour lock up in a cell 3.5m by 2m were they had to until recently 'slop out' and piss and shit in a pot. It's not much better now. Diseases like Hepatitis, TB and HIV are very prevalent. Beatings, stabbing sand suicide attempts are very high. The level of sexual abuse within prisons is increasing and the physical abuse by staff is still an issue at times. Despite what some think it is not a holiday camp and there is a limited level of rehabilitation. More work needs to be done with younger offenders to improve the restorative justice programs and education programs but the likes of the youth justice agency etc are consistently having their funding cut in the north and the youth justice service in the south. The majority of crime is caused as a result of inter generational poverty and abuse and a lack of proper education. There needs to be more done at youth court level to pull young kids out of this system but it's not happening.
When you see teachers complaining that kids are being sent to school not even having been toilet trained, then it's difficult to see how that type of 'parent' will be able to hand on the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Recidivism is probably in the gene pool nowadays.
Prisons are a way for society to deal with people who break the law. Stop people breaking the law deal with the prison issue. You're all looking at this the wrong way round.
Quote from: trailer on December 31, 2018, 01:15:15 PM
Prisons are a way for society to deal with people who break the law. Stop people breaking the law deal with the prison issue. You're all looking at this the wrong way round.
Most people choose to abide by the law. Everyone knows what is lawful and what is not. You will never have a society of law abiding citizens.
Quote from: nrico2006 on December 31, 2018, 11:25:07 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on December 30, 2018, 10:22:42 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on December 30, 2018, 10:13:12 PM
I read somewhere last week that a fella who raped a wee boy and girl was released after 3 weeks, of a year sentence, as he was too vulnerable. One year is far too lenient but 3 weeks is as bad a punishment as I've heard. As for murder, in the simplest terms you should never be released surely? The punishment should be life and thats still a far better fate than the murder victim got. Too much of the sentences are focused on rehabilitation (no longer a danger to society etc etc), but the main objective of a sentence should be to punish.
The problem with that though is there's no incentive for the offender to engage at all which in turn would make prisons much more dangerous and difficult to manage. As I say it's a balancing exercise and a difficult one at that.
But surely there being no incentive to engage and therefore having prisons that are difficult to manage shouldnt be a reason not to put murderers away until they die. Why even call a sentence a life sentence when its really a lock of years.
Well that's what I mean it depends what you are looking for in a sentence. If it's purely to punish in a humane eye for an eye kind of way then yes whole life tariff sentences are the way to go. There are though drawbacks to those namely costs, unmanageable/unsafe prison. It does little to benefit society and are of little deterrent effect etc.
Personally I feel whole life tariffs are not a great idea but I can understand why people may think they are merited particularly when our tariffs are lower than they are in England/Wales. I though think people should be given an opportunity to change and atone for what they did but at the same time they should be subject to monitoring for sustained periods to ensure that change is genuine. The opportunity only coming after they have been sufficiently punished.
Difficult to see how these guys can "atone" for, say, killing someone. Usually starts off as murder, then we go for manslaughter. Bargain a bit & it's reduced to affray / assault. By the time it gets to court, it was entirely the deceased's fault & the perpetrators can then walk free.
I also cant understand how any murderer should be given another chance. Its the most serious crime and has ended a life. The rest of your life should be in a cell.
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 31, 2018, 07:33:51 PM
Difficult to see how these guys can "atone" for, say, killing someone. Usually starts off as murder, then we go for manslaughter. Bargain a bit & it's reduced to affray / assault. By the time it gets to court, it was entirely the deceased's fault & the perpetrators can then walk free.
I've never seen that happen in reality. Yes there are media portrails of that kind of thing happening and no doubt there are cases that ultimately proceed as manslaughter when they were clearly murder because murder is so hard to prove but I've yet to come across a clear case of murder from which perpetrators walk free due to bargains or blaming the accused. To suggest it's the usual way these things happen would certainly not be my experience.
Quote from: Insane Bolt on December 31, 2018, 09:45:32 AM
I don't see any deterrent.....bar conjugal rights what does a prisoner not have? They have access to medical/dental treatment, education, gyms, tv, mobile phones, 3 meals a day, no worries about heat....many pensioners/people don't have that. Some deterrent 😡
I know people think that alright but it isnt really as easy as you make out.
I've been in prison and alot of shit goes on. You would have to have a very bad life on the outside (which alot of prisoners do) to think prison was a good place to be.
Looking back I have t say that I deserved the punishment I got. My last sentence was for 2 years. In some ways it was the best thing to happen to me as if I had continued on the way I was I could have ended up in a much worse situation.
I remember thinking after a few weeks what the F*** am I doing with my life to end up back in here. I think it was a mix of growing up, knowing all the crap I had put my family through and dealing with the shit that you see in prison. I wanted to change things but you do need support to do that.
I had done a short sentence before but that diidnt really do me any good. It was only a few months and I was there with a few lads I knew from home. I dont think short sentences really work. It was when I got 2 years that it hit me.
Pretty much everybody will get out of prison eventually so you want to "improve" people for when they get out. You can keep people locked up 23 hours a day in filthy overcrowded cells with nothing to do if you want but is that going to do anything for them?
I was in Mountjoy and that has changed over the years. Slopping out is gone and I had a single cell which is so much better as when you are locked up in the evening you can get away from all the other shit that is going on and dont have to keep up your "prison face". The previous time I was there I was sharing a cell and had to slop out so was very different. There is also more work and education than there used to be.
The main thing though I think is what happens after you get released, You have no idea how good it feels walking out those prison gates and back into the free world. I was lucky in that I had my family to go back to, no drugs problem etc but for some lads they end up going straight back to drugs or on the street and end up back in trouble again. I dont know what the answer is to that as they do get offered help in prison but addiction or temptation is too much when they get out.
Things are much better for me now. Ive gone back to college about 10 years after dropping out and am working part time.
Quote from: Tover28 on January 01, 2019, 12:38:32 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on December 31, 2018, 09:45:32 AM
I don't see any deterrent.....bar conjugal rights what does a prisoner not have? They have access to medical/dental treatment, education, gyms, tv, mobile phones, 3 meals a day, no worries about heat....many pensioners/people don't have that. Some deterrent 😡
I know people think that alright but it isnt really as easy as you make out.
I've been in prison and alot of shit goes on. You would have to have a very bad life on the outside (which alot of prisoners do) to think prison was a good place to be.
Looking back I have t say that I deserved the punishment I got. My last sentence was for 2 years. In some ways it was the best thing to happen to me as if I had continued on the way I was I could have ended up in a much worse situation.
I remember thinking after a few weeks what the F*** am I doing with my life to end up back in here. I think it was a mix of growing up, knowing all the crap I had put my family through and dealing with the shit that you see in prison. I wanted to change things but you do need support to do that.
I had done a short sentence before but that diidnt really do me any good. It was only a few months and I was there with a few lads I knew from home. I dont think short sentences really work. It was when I got 2 years that it hit me.
Pretty much everybody will get out of prison eventually so you want to "improve" people for when they get out. You can keep people locked up 23 hours a day in filthy overcrowded cells with nothing to do if you want but is that going to do anything for them?
I was in Mountjoy and that has changed over the years. Slopping out is gone and I had a single cell which is so much better as when you are locked up in the evening you can get away from all the other shit that is going on and dont have to keep up your "prison face". The previous time I was there I was sharing a cell and had to slop out so was very different. There is also more work and education than there used to be.
The main thing though I think is what happens after you get released, You have no idea how good it feels walking out those prison gates and back into the free world. I was lucky in that I had my family to go back to, no drugs problem etc but for some lads they end up going straight back to drugs or on the street and end up back in trouble again. I dont know what the answer is to that as they do get offered help in prison but addiction or temptation is too much when they get out.
Things are much better for me now. Ive gone back to college about 10 years after dropping out and am working part time.
Fair play, and the best of luck to you. I've seen kids from school end up serving sentences, usually drugs-related. Only one or two were what I would have considered bad eggs, but mostly they were naive or easily led- basically decent kids that fell in with a bad crowd.
Environment has a huge impact- many times I've seen kids in first year who are bright, intelligent and ambitious or competitive in class gradually fall by the wayside. You hear stories a couple of years after they leave school, and think what might have been.
It's a very complex concept. I grew up in a stable, relatively comfortable home environment where there was a heavy emphasis on right and wrong, and I was for a long time along the lines of do the crime, do the time, and that that punishment should be harsh and a deterrent.
Gradually I've come to realize it's not so black and white. I don't know a whole pile about the law, sentencing and prison. I think for a lot of people, the view of prison life and prisoners ranges from a sympathetic notion of the nobility of Andy Dufrense and Red in the Shawshank Redemption to outrage over sensationalist exposes in the Sunday World.
Again I wish you the very best. I'm not making assumptions about what you are studying or your plans in life, but I do think that someone with your experience would have a huge role to play in helping young offenders, potential young offenders or people already in prison.
As Red said: 'Rehabilitated? Well now, let me see. You know, I don't have any idea what that means...'
Quote from: Tover28 on January 01, 2019, 12:38:32 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on December 31, 2018, 09:45:32 AM
I don't see any deterrent.....bar conjugal rights what does a prisoner not have? They have access to medical/dental treatment, education, gyms, tv, mobile phones, 3 meals a day, no worries about heat....many pensioners/people don't have that. Some deterrent 😡
I know people think that alright but it isnt really as easy as you make out.
I've been in prison and alot of shit goes on. You would have to have a very bad life on the outside (which alot of prisoners do) to think prison was a good place to be.
Looking back I have t say that I deserved the punishment I got. My last sentence was for 2 years. In some ways it was the best thing to happen to me as if I had continued on the way I was I could have ended up in a much worse situation.
I remember thinking after a few weeks what the F*** am I doing with my life to end up back in here. I think it was a mix of growing up, knowing all the crap I had put my family through and dealing with the shit that you see in prison. I wanted to change things but you do need support to do that.
I had done a short sentence before but that diidnt really do me any good. It was only a few months and I was there with a few lads I knew from home. I dont think short sentences really work. It was when I got 2 years that it hit me.
Pretty much everybody will get out of prison eventually so you want to "improve" people for when they get out. You can keep people locked up 23 hours a day in filthy overcrowded cells with nothing to do if you want but is that going to do anything for them?
I was in Mountjoy and that has changed over the years. Slopping out is gone and I had a single cell which is so much better as when you are locked up in the evening you can get away from all the other shit that is going on and dont have to keep up your "prison face". The previous time I was there I was sharing a cell and had to slop out so was very different. There is also more work and education than there used to be.
The main thing though I think is what happens after you get released, You have no idea how good it feels walking out those prison gates and back into the free world. I was lucky in that I had my family to go back to, no drugs problem etc but for some lads they end up going straight back to drugs or on the street and end up back in trouble again. I dont know what the answer is to that as they do get offered help in prison but addiction or temptation is too much when they get out.
Things are much better for me now. Ive gone back to college about 10 years after dropping out and am working part time.
Fair play to you lad. I know how shitty it is in some of those places and the whole slopping out. business that went in was degrading to say the least. I am taking a number of cases against the prison authorities in respect of some of the stuff that has happened and continues to happen in the prisons. The big thing is that there is no real effort to rehabilitate. The Penal reform groups that have been banging on about this for years are not getting any real hearing. There has been incremental change but it is very slow and the IPS do not want to give ground on anything. Prison is needed but there needs to be an overhaul of how it is done.
Quote from: Tover28 on January 01, 2019, 12:38:32 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on December 31, 2018, 09:45:32 AM
I don't see any deterrent.....bar conjugal rights what does a prisoner not have? They have access to medical/dental treatment, education, gyms, tv, mobile phones, 3 meals a day, no worries about heat....many pensioners/people don't have that. Some deterrent 😡
I know people think that alright but it isnt really as easy as you make out.
I've been in prison and alot of shit goes on. You would have to have a very bad life on the outside (which alot of prisoners do) to think prison was a good place to be.
Looking back I have t say that I deserved the punishment I got. My last sentence was for 2 years. In some ways it was the best thing to happen to me as if I had continued on the way I was I could have ended up in a much worse situation.
I remember thinking after a few weeks what the F*** am I doing with my life to end up back in here. I think it was a mix of growing up, knowing all the crap I had put my family through and dealing with the shit that you see in prison. I wanted to change things but you do need support to do that.
I had done a short sentence before but that diidnt really do me any good. It was only a few months and I was there with a few lads I knew from home. I dont think short sentences really work. It was when I got 2 years that it hit me.
Pretty much everybody will get out of prison eventually so you want to "improve" people for when they get out. You can keep people locked up 23 hours a day in filthy overcrowded cells with nothing to do if you want but is that going to do anything for them?
I was in Mountjoy and that has changed over the years. Slopping out is gone and I had a single cell which is so much better as when you are locked up in the evening you can get away from all the other shit that is going on and dont have to keep up your "prison face". The previous time I was there I was sharing a cell and had to slop out so was very different. There is also more work and education than there used to be.
The main thing though I think is what happens after you get released, You have no idea how good it feels walking out those prison gates and back into the free world. I was lucky in that I had my family to go back to, no drugs problem etc but for some lads they end up going straight back to drugs or on the street and end up back in trouble again. I dont know what the answer is to that as they do get offered help in prison but addiction or temptation is too much when they get out.
Things are much better for me now. Ive gone back to college about 10 years after dropping out and am working part time.
Prison isn't supposed to be easy....it's supposed to be a deterrent. By your own admission it took you 2 prison terms before you decided to change....good that you have changed things around, but the choices you have made now in relation to college were available before. Life is about choices.....and the subsequent consequences.
Quote from: Insane Bolt on January 01, 2019, 02:54:48 PM
Quote from: Tover28 on January 01, 2019, 12:38:32 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on December 31, 2018, 09:45:32 AM
I don't see any deterrent.....bar conjugal rights what does a prisoner not have? They have access to medical/dental treatment, education, gyms, tv, mobile phones, 3 meals a day, no worries about heat....many pensioners/people don't have that. Some deterrent 😡
I know people think that alright but it isnt really as easy as you make out.
I've been in prison and alot of shit goes on. You would have to have a very bad life on the outside (which alot of prisoners do) to think prison was a good place to be.
Looking back I have t say that I deserved the punishment I got. My last sentence was for 2 years. In some ways it was the best thing to happen to me as if I had continued on the way I was I could have ended up in a much worse situation.
I remember thinking after a few weeks what the F*** am I doing with my life to end up back in here. I think it was a mix of growing up, knowing all the crap I had put my family through and dealing with the shit that you see in prison. I wanted to change things but you do need support to do that.
I had done a short sentence before but that diidnt really do me any good. It was only a few months and I was there with a few lads I knew from home. I dont think short sentences really work. It was when I got 2 years that it hit me.
Pretty much everybody will get out of prison eventually so you want to "improve" people for when they get out. You can keep people locked up 23 hours a day in filthy overcrowded cells with nothing to do if you want but is that going to do anything for them?
I was in Mountjoy and that has changed over the years. Slopping out is gone and I had a single cell which is so much better as when you are locked up in the evening you can get away from all the other shit that is going on and dont have to keep up your "prison face". The previous time I was there I was sharing a cell and had to slop out so was very different. There is also more work and education than there used to be.
The main thing though I think is what happens after you get released, You have no idea how good it feels walking out those prison gates and back into the free world. I was lucky in that I had my family to go back to, no drugs problem etc but for some lads they end up going straight back to drugs or on the street and end up back in trouble again. I dont know what the answer is to that as they do get offered help in prison but addiction or temptation is too much when they get out.
Things are much better for me now. Ive gone back to college about 10 years after dropping out and am working part time.
Prison isn't supposed to be easy....it's supposed to be a deterrent. By your own admission it took you 2 prison terms before you decided to change....good that you have changed things around, but the choices you have made now in relation to college were available before. Life is about choices.....and the subsequent consequences.
Life is about choices but what if you are born into a set of circumstances where your choices are effectively pre-determined for you? I'm not saying it's the case with this poster but if you're born into a set of social and economic circumstances that you have no control over then by the time you are 11-12 you know nothing apart from poverty, abuse and cimimnal behaviour....what is your choice? Crime is a completely inter-generational thing and if you stand round the district courts you see the same beaten down faces from family to family and they have no way out. Prison is inevitable and by the time most are 15-16 they are hardened to the world and will not change. This is the said reality of the society we live in and I don't see it changing soon
The question was asked before (I think) what's the best deterrent for prison or breaking the law?
Few factors:
Poor upbringing including, dysfunctional family, lack of leadership, bad decision making, no moral compass, generations of unemployment and lack of support with their kids on schooling..
You are then left with poor mental health care support, or a better understanding of people suffering with mental issues which can prove dangerous to others..
Drug/drink/gambling addition have an impact with crime also
Creating environments that will reduce the above would be a start. There are many more, too many to recount
Better education, supporting families, better paid jobs, successful addiction programs, improved support for mental issues.. fixing the problem at the source would be far better than sticking them in a cell 23 hours a day!
I would prefer that those sent to prison are 'employed' in something constructive rather than locked in a cell for 23 hours.....but again I say as it stands prison is no deterrent.
Quote from: Insane Bolt on January 01, 2019, 03:57:43 PM
I would prefer that those sent to prison are 'employed' in something constructive rather than locked in a cell for 23 hours.....but again I say as it stands prison is no deterrent.
In some cases they are. There are open prison systems for certain offences where the inmates work on a daily basis in a job and are not kept in the cells. That can't be done with every type of offence but is adopted.
Quote from: Insane Bolt on January 01, 2019, 03:57:43 PM
I would prefer that those sent to prison are 'employed' in something constructive rather than locked in a cell for 23 hours.....but again I say as it stands prison is no deterrent.
No you are quite right however criminologists will tell you that no prison system in the world is a particularly good deterrent.
Quote from: David McKeown on January 01, 2019, 05:50:59 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on January 01, 2019, 03:57:43 PM
I would prefer that those sent to prison are 'employed' in something constructive rather than locked in a cell for 23 hours.....but again I say as it stands prison is no deterrent.
No you are quite right however criminologists will tell you that no prison system in the world is a particularly good deterrent.
True, the death penalty hasn't stopped America having the largest prison population rate.
Quote from: Insane Bolt on January 01, 2019, 06:19:25 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on January 01, 2019, 05:50:59 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on January 01, 2019, 03:57:43 PM
I would prefer that those sent to prison are 'employed' in something constructive rather than locked in a cell for 23 hours.....but again I say as it stands prison is no deterrent.
No you are quite right however criminologists will tell you that no prison system in the world is a particularly good deterrent.
True, the death penalty hasn't stopped America having the largest prison population rate.
People will commit crime irrelevant of the deterrent. In my opinion prisons should be places of punishment and nothing else.
Quote from: David McKeown on December 31, 2018, 08:21:04 PM
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 31, 2018, 07:33:51 PM
Difficult to see how these guys can "atone" for, say, killing someone. Usually starts off as murder, then we go for manslaughter. Bargain a bit & it's reduced to affray / assault. By the time it gets to court, it was entirely the deceased's fault & the perpetrators can then walk free.
I've never seen that happen in reality. Yes there are media portrails of that kind of thing happening and no doubt there are cases that ultimately proceed as manslaughter when they were clearly murder because murder is so hard to prove but I've yet to come across a clear case of murder from which perpetrators walk free due to bargains or blaming the accused. To suggest it's the usual way these things happen would certainly not be my experience.
There was a case in Keady circa 1995 where three cousins were charged with the murder of a young barman. From memory the deceased may have owed the older of the three a small amount of money for rent, but it ended up with him lying dead at the bottom of a railway bridge. An open and shut case as far as the locals were concerned, witnessess, cctv etc but they eventually ended up being charged with affray and received community service even though all three had originally been charged with murder. Maybe one or other branch of the security services needed to keep one of them out, who knows, but these things do happen.
Quote from: Substandard on January 01, 2019, 02:00:13 PM
Fair play, and the best of luck to you. I've seen kids from school end up serving sentences, usually drugs-related. Only one or two were what I would have considered bad eggs, but mostly they were naive or easily led- basically decent kids that fell in with a bad crowd.
Environment has a huge impact- many times I've seen kids in first year who are bright, intelligent and ambitious or competitive in class gradually fall by the wayside. You hear stories a couple of years after they leave school, and think what might have been.
It's a very complex concept. I grew up in a stable, relatively comfortable home environment where there was a heavy emphasis on right and wrong, and I was for a long time along the lines of do the crime, do the time, and that that punishment should be harsh and a deterrent.
Gradually I've come to realize it's not so black and white. I don't know a whole pile about the law, sentencing and prison. I think for a lot of people, the view of prison life and prisoners ranges from a sympathetic notion of the nobility of Andy Dufrense and Red in the Shawshank Redemption to outrage over sensationalist exposes in the Sunday World.
Again I wish you the very best. I'm not making assumptions about what you are studying or your plans in life, but I do think that someone with your experience would have a huge role to play in helping young offenders, potential young offenders or people already in prison.
As Red said: 'Rehabilitated? Well now, let me see. You know, I don't have any idea what that means...'
Thanks. I am from a tough enough area in Dublin. Growing up I would have known people who had Dads in prison and then people starting to go inside themselves. It wasnt that unusual.
My family though were good and hardworking. My 2 older brothers were never really in any trouble. They left school and one joined the Army and the other did an apprenticeship.
I actually did the best of us at school and was one of about 6 or 7 in my year to go to college and my family were real proud of me. I didnt know anybody else where I went and struiggled a bit. I scraped through first year and stopped going about halfway during second year. I had been in trouble for minor things but after dropping out I was drinking alot and gambling and things got worse.
When I was in school I was pretty good - had the odd scrap and got caught smoking a few times but that was it. When I was looking at prison the first time I went back to school to get references I could tell that the principal was surprised. We had got that speech one day about by the time you are 30 half of you will either be dead or in prison but didnt think it would happen tome.
I didnt really think about prison when I was doing what I did but once I thought I was going I admit I was shitting it. I was 21 so still pretty young and had heard plenty of stories about The Joy and what it was like but there were lads around who knew lads in there at the time and I got told they would keep an eye out for me and that was what happened.
Thats the thing with prison. You are all going through the same and if you have something in common like being from the same area you stick together unless there is some fighting going on between different groups but I stayed away from all that.
It was good getting out after that first sentence but looking back that changed me. I still had a part suspended sentence hanging over me ad obviously had no job. I tried to join the Army like my brother as they thought that would be good for me but got rejected because of my ciminal record andit was impossible to get any type of decent job but managed to stay out of trouble while I still had the suspended sentence.
In some ways I found I got more respect around because I had been in prison. I hanged around with some of the lads I had been in there with when they got out and that got me into bother later on and part of the reason I ended up back in there with a longer sentence.
Last time was different though. It was my 3rd time going inside (twice here and once for 10 days in America when on the J1) and I wanted to change. Seeing my Mam crt when she visited me, getting told my Dad had had a heart attack and not being allowed visit him, missing my first nephew being born all got to me and seeing things like a lad try to hang himself in his cell all made me decide things wer going to change and since getting out 2 years ago lucky they have and have kept out of trouble.
I hope I never do anything to end up back inside but never can be sure and with my record I know if I do anything anyway serious thats what will happen.
I know I went on but thought Id give my view on this for what its worth
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on January 01, 2019, 02:19:29 PM
Fair play to you lad. I know how shitty it is in some of those places and the whole slopping out. business that went in was degrading to say the least. I am taking a number of cases against the prison authorities in respect of some of the stuff that has happened and continues to happen in the prisons. The big thing is that there is no real effort to rehabilitate. The Penal reform groups that have been banging on about this for years are not getting any real hearing. There has been incremental change but it is very slow and the IPS do not want to give ground on anything. Prison is needed but there needs to be an overhaul of how it is done.
Again agree with most of that. First time I was in Muntjoy it was an absolute kip - my wing anyway. And the slopping out was disgusting for everybody even the screws.
People give out about jail in America but the time I was there it was clean and had toilets in the cell which was not the way it was in Mountjoy then
Quote from: Insane Bolt on January 01, 2019, 02:54:48 PM
Prison isn't supposed to be easy....it's supposed to be a deterrent. By your own admission it took you 2 prison terms before you decided to change....good that you have changed things around, but the choices you have made now in relation to college were available before. Life is about choices.....and the subsequent consequences.
Not saying it should be easy but its note as easy as peopple who have never been there make out.
If I could go back 10 years and change things I would believe me. I made plrnty of mistakes and hurt people but am older and more mature now and thinking about the future. I am going to be a Dad in 3 months now and thats a huge thing for me. I never want my son to have to deal with having me in prison and hope he never makes the same mistakes as me.
Quote from: nrico2006 on January 01, 2019, 06:49:43 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on January 01, 2019, 06:19:25 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on January 01, 2019, 05:50:59 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on January 01, 2019, 03:57:43 PM
I would prefer that those sent to prison are 'employed' in something constructive rather than locked in a cell for 23 hours.....but again I say as it stands prison is no deterrent.
No you are quite right however criminologists will tell you that no prison system in the world is a particularly good deterrent.
True, the death penalty hasn't stopped America having the largest prison population rate.
People will commit crime irrelevant of the deterrent. In my opinion prisons should be places of punishment and nothing else.
Prison is already place of punishment. Deprivation of liberty is the punishment. Inflicting further punishment on the imprisoned as a means of retribution is patently unproductive on every level. Prisons where prisoners work, take responsibility for their wing, have access to education and skills learning, have private contact with family or friends one full day weekly, those prisons have the lowest recidivism rates by a country mile.
Quote from: Tover28 on January 01, 2019, 08:31:14 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on January 01, 2019, 02:54:48 PM
Prison isn't supposed to be easy....it's supposed to be a deterrent. By your own admission it took you 2 prison terms before you decided to change....good that you have changed things around, but the choices you have made now in relation to college were available before. Life is about choices.....and the subsequent consequences.
Not saying it should be easy but its note as easy as peopple who have never been there make out.
If I could go back 10 years and change things I would believe me. I made plrnty of mistakes and hurt people but am older and more mature now and thinking about the future. I am going to be a Dad in 3 months now and thats a huge thing for me. I never want my son to have to deal with having me in prison and hope he never makes the same mistakes as me.
Again I repeat it's not supposed to be easy. It obviously didn't put you off given you were in jail 3 times. Tell me if jail time meant hard labour and one meal a day would you still have done what you did? I'm glad you have matured and wish you all the best with the birth of your son.....nothing like it for making one wise up.
Quote from: Insane Bolt on January 01, 2019, 09:32:12 PM
Again I repeat it's not supposed to be easy. It obviously didn't put you off given you were in jail 3 times. Tell me if jail time meant hard labour and one meal a day would you still have done what you did? I'm glad you have matured and wish you all the best with the birth of your son.....nothing like it for making one wise up.
On the question about hard labour etc. would have to say less likely but it wasnt if I was planning to do what I did and was weighing up what if I got caught. I didnt plan on going back to prison because it wasnt that bad or anything like that.
Thanks about becoming A Dad. Agree with you totally on that anyway
Really good to get your perspective and story Tover - best of luck in the future.
Tover your story is very interesting cheers for that.
One thing to pick you up on... You have repeated a few times now about not planning to go back to prison but it wasn't that bad or anything like that. It isn't my business what you did but most peoples definition of "wasn't that bad or anything like that" wouldn't be something which would get you put in prison...
(P.S. Sorry not trying to have a go it's just the lingo gets me a wee bit as someone wanting to /having turned themselves around.)
The older 3 strike policy in California didn't seem to work as a deterrent, where if you had been caught on a third time for even a misdemeanour you would get a life sentence.
25 years for stealing a bike seems like it should have been a strong deterrent, as a society we're better off trying to solve why these people are turning to crime than paying for them to sit in cells for the rest of their lives, both cost money but I know which is my preferred option.
Quote from: MoChara on January 02, 2019, 04:34:15 PM
The older 3 strike policy in California didn't seem to work as a deterrent, where if you had been caught on a third time for even a misdemeanour you would get a life sentence.
25 years for stealing a bike seems like it should have been a strong deterrent, as a society we're better off trying to solve why these people are turning to crime than paying for them to sit in cells for the rest of their lives, both cost money but I know which is my preferred option.
That has always been my argument with people when discussing the criminal law system. It is an industry in itself anyway and governments have created a 'security' sectors which absolves them of any real responsibility. The breakdown of the social system at a very base level is the biggest contributor to crime than anything and if more money was invested in the ground level
I'm deprived areas then there would be a significant drop in crime in my very humble opinion
It's societies way of dealing with the problem. But you need to solve it. However that's really difficult when you are looking at 3rd and 4th generation unemployed, drug abuse, low income etc etc. Definitely encouraging these people not to bring children into the world they cannot support or look after is a pretty good place to start.
Quote from: trailer on January 02, 2019, 05:08:26 PM
It's societies way of dealing with the problem. But you need to solve it. However that's really difficult when you are looking at 3rd and 4th generation unemployed, drug abuse, low income etc etc. Definitely encouraging these people not to bring children into the world they cannot support or look after is a pretty good place to start.
"These people" ::)
I read today where a man charged with manslaughter of a woman who was on a boat with him on the Thames when it crashed, was charged, fled the country, yet is appealing the 5 year sentence he was given in his absence 😡.....and his legal aid bill currently stands at £100,000. The law is truly an ass.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/footballer-who-killed-pair-while-speeding-handed-road-ban-for-drink-driving/ar-BBRIGQ5?li=BBoPRmx
Another great sentence😡
What's the issue with it. A combination order and extended ban for drink driving seems appropriate to me from what's described in the article.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on January 02, 2019, 04:56:16 PM
Quote from: MoChara on January 02, 2019, 04:34:15 PM
The older 3 strike policy in California didn't seem to work as a deterrent, where if you had been caught on a third time for even a misdemeanour you would get a life sentence.
25 years for stealing a bike seems like it should have been a strong deterrent, as a society we're better off trying to solve why these people are turning to crime than paying for them to sit in cells for the rest of their lives, both cost money but I know which is my preferred option.
That has always been my argument with people when discussing the criminal law system. It is an industry in itself anyway and governments have created a 'security' sectors which absolves them of any real responsibility. The breakdown of the social system at a very base level is the biggest contributor to crime than anything and if more money was invested in the ground level
I'm deprived areas then there would be a significant drop in crime in my very humble opinion
You may be surprised to learn that John Lonergan, the ex-governor of Mountjoy shares your opinion.
You probably know him, given your line of work and I imagine Tover does also.
Many years ago, when drug abuse was starting to make headlines, I got in touch with him.
I taught in Finglas and I could see the potential for problems of all sorts and I was afraid some of my pupils could well wind up in trouble with the law and with life in general. Something would have to be done to make them aware of the dangers of giving in to peer pressure.
I knew damn well that holding awareness lectures and getting reformed characters to arrive in a school to wag the finger and tell kids to keep away from drugs was a
complete load of bollix waste of time. I had a primary sixth class of boys at the time and I had an excellent relationship with all of them so after one such visit, I asked the kids for their first, initial impression of the presentation, with flip charts and infographics and the likes.
Some told me they hadn't a clue because they lost attention as soon as it became obvious that they were going to be lectured about something or other- they had enough of the same from me.
Others were just waiting for the show to end so they could have the game of football I had promised them if they behaved themselves but the decider for me was when one kid said what struck him most was that if you took drugs and then stopped taking them you'd get a new suit of clobber and a pair of real leather shoes and all get to drive about in somebody else's car!
Every boy in the room put his hand up at that.
Desperate measures were called for in a manner of speaking. So, I got in touch with John Lonergan, through a mutual friend, and asked him if he'd let my little pets find out where they were likely to wind up if they started messing with drugs. Luckily enough, all parents without exception were in favour me taking their children to the prison.
He was all in favour of the idea and he allowed me bring them into Mountjoy and let them have a taste of what being deprived of one's liberty felt like. A few warders and a couple of prisoners in A wing co-operated and I was shit scared myself before I was five minutes in the place. The smell of shite was overpowering, and the warders acted as if they were serious and frisked each little bugger and pretended to fingerprint him and assigned him to a cell for a couple of minutes, just to see what being locked up was like.
We were all glad to get out of the place and no one of us even turned around until we got to McDonalds. When their fright had subsided somewhat, all my beloved little bunnies agreed on one thing; they'd never be returning and as far as I know, none ever has.
Any time after that, whenever I taught a sixth class, I made the same request to John Lonergan and got the same reply. The practice of slopping out must have been discontinued after my first visit as the pong about the place was absent after that but the result was still the same. Talk about shock therapy!
The object of my exercise here is to say that for any drug counselling or any other form of anti-social behaviour therapy to be effective, it must be presented in terms that the children are familiar with. Every school and youth club in the land should have access to a video showing what life without liberty can be like. Slick presentations and pious aspirations are no bloody use to any one, especially the intended target audience.
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 02, 2019, 12:39:12 PM
Tover your story is very interesting cheers for that.
One thing to pick you up on... You have repeated a few times now about not planning to go back to prison but it wasn't that bad or anything like that. It isn't my business what you did but most peoples definition of "wasn't that bad or anything like that" wouldn't be something which would get you put in prison...
(P.S. Sorry not trying to have a go it's just the lingo gets me a wee bit as someone wanting to /having turned themselves around.)
Np bother. Think you picked me up wrong actually. I was answering the question about would I have been less likely to do what I did to go back to prison if prison meant hard labour and one meal a day. I was trying to say I wasnt thinking about the consequences when I did it like thinking prison wasnt that bad so I dont care if I end up back there. Thats what I meant.
I think I said it before but looking back I realise I deserved to go to prison for what I did,
Ah ok. Mea culpa. As you were :D
Quote from: David McKeown on January 02, 2019, 06:52:15 PM
What's the issue with it. A combination order and extended ban for drink driving seems appropriate to me from what's described in the article.
16 months for killing two people.....you think that's appropriate?
Lar, I know who lonergan is and have listened to him several times on the radio and I met him once at a residential course. He had a very progressive approach to 'punishment' and definitely wasn't a 'one shape fits all' type.
Your approach to the school kids was excellent and probably more effective given the nature of their upbringing. I remember once when I was getting passport photos signed I had the Sergeant put myneldest in a cell For 5 minutes. Scared the life out of him! There's a very big task and I honestly don't know if the authorities have the will to really take the risk on it
Quote from: magpie seanie on January 02, 2019, 05:35:11 PM
Quote from: trailer on January 02, 2019, 05:08:26 PM
It's societies way of dealing with the problem. But you need to solve it. However that's really difficult when you are looking at 3rd and 4th generation unemployed, drug abuse, low income etc etc. Definitely encouraging these people not to bring children into the world they cannot support or look after is a pretty good place to start.
"These people" ::)
Those people? Them people? M people?
You are deliberately going out of your way to be offended.
Quote from: Insane Bolt on January 02, 2019, 08:11:32 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on January 02, 2019, 06:52:15 PM
What's the issue with it. A combination order and extended ban for drink driving seems appropriate to me from what's described in the article.
16 months for killing two people.....you think that's appropriate?
Oh sorry I thought you were referring to the subsequent drink drive sentence 6 years later. That's what I was referring to. In so far as the sentence you were talking about there's a few things that strike me about that. Firstly it was death by careless driving which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years and in fact has only carried prison at all for the last ten years. With a starting point of a non custodial sentence after trial for a first time offender. That will obviously depend on the culpability of the driver. In that regard therefore the sentence he got would have been on the harsher end of the usual sentence for such an offence. That said the article seems to suggest that the driving was very poor and possibly should have been dangerous driving which would have carried a likely sentence of 7-8 years.
So before I could really comment I'd need to know a bit more about the original case in terms of why careless, was it a plea or a jury decision etc
Quote from: Insane Bolt on December 31, 2018, 09:45:32 AM
I don't see any deterrent.....bar conjugal rights what does a prisoner not have? They have access to medical/dental treatment, education, gyms, tv, mobile phones, 3 meals a day, no worries about heat....many pensioners/people don't have that. Some deterrent 😡
If it's such a holiday camp, why don't more people go and rob a bank and get themselves fixed up with such cushy accommodation?
Quote from: David McKeown on January 02, 2019, 09:36:44 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on January 02, 2019, 08:11:32 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on January 02, 2019, 06:52:15 PM
What's the issue with it. A combination order and extended ban for drink driving seems appropriate to me from what's described in the article.
16 months for killing two people.....you think that's appropriate?
Oh sorry I thought you were referring to the subsequent drink drive sentence 6 years later. That's what I was referring to. In so far as the sentence you were talking about there's a few things that strike me about that. Firstly it was death by careless driving which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years and in fact has only carried prison at all for the last ten years. With a starting point of a non custodial sentence after trial for a first time offender. That will obviously depend on the culpability of the driver. In that regard therefore the sentence he got would have been on the harsher end of the usual sentence for such an offence. That said the article seems to suggest that the driving was very poor and possibly should have been dangerous driving which would have carried a likely sentence of 7-8 years.
So before I could really comment I'd need to know a bit more about the original case in terms of why careless, was it a plea or a jury decision etc
A girl I knew was one of two girls killed as a result of a drunk driver going down the wrong way on the M1. The drunk driver only served 2 years. Incredible really.
Rico everyone knows the death by dangerous driving sentences are a farce. In my opinion death by dangerous is the same as manslaughter and should be treated as such. Sentencing in NI generally seems to be lower than the rest of the UK for some strange reason.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on January 02, 2019, 04:56:16 PM
Quote from: MoChara on January 02, 2019, 04:34:15 PM
The older 3 strike policy in California didn't seem to work as a deterrent, where if you had been caught on a third time for even a misdemeanour you would get a life sentence.
25 years for stealing a bike seems like it should have been a strong deterrent, as a society we're better off trying to solve why these people are turning to crime than paying for them to sit in cells for the rest of their lives, both cost money but I know which is my preferred option.
That has always been my argument with people when discussing the criminal law system. It is an industry in itself anyway and governments have created a 'security' sectors which absolves them of any real responsibility. The breakdown of the social system at a very base level is the biggest contributor to crime than anything and if more money was invested in the ground level
I'm deprived areas then there would be a significant drop in crime in my very humble opinion
The profit-making prison system here in the states is an abomination. Private corporations make money from warehousing human beings like cattle, there's no incentive to rehabilitate them, and they get paid more according to how many people they lock up and for how long. So off they go lobbying their friendly politicians who are happy to ramp up longer and longer mandatory minimum sentences for lesser and lesser offenses, and before you know it the prison population is the biggest in the world.
If I had my way the system in the US would have the following features:
1 - Private prisons should be illegal, the state is well able to take care of this service.
2 - Prison wardens and staff should be given performance-related pay based on how low their recidivism rates are. If you're running a place that cranks out safer citizens, you get paid more. If you're running a "tough on crime" hell-hole that works as a crime academy and just churns out more hardened criminals, you get paid less or better still you get eliminated. Prisons are supposed to improve public safety, not undermine it.
3 - Mandatory minimums should be abolished. Let the judges decide, not politicians or voters.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on January 02, 2019, 10:19:38 PM
Rico everyone knows the death by dangerous driving sentences are a farce. In my opinion death by dangerous is the same as manslaughter and should be treated as such. Sentencing in NI generally seems to be lower than the rest of the UK for some strange reason.
Sentences for Dangerous Driving here are on a par with England and Wales and have increased significantly in recent years. I'd say the average starting point is about 7.5 years for a first time offender convicted after trial with the more serious culpability cases having a starting point of anything up to 14 years which is the maximum sentence allowed by parliament.
It's very hard to compare it to manslaughter where the range is sentences is just so wide because the degree of culpability is so wide.
Also it really depends on the offence whether or not sentences are lower here. For example supply of drugs cases carry higher sentences here than in England and Wales. We also have to factor in the effect the troubles had on prison sentences.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 02, 2019, 10:14:38 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on December 31, 2018, 09:45:32 AM
I don't see any deterrent.....bar conjugal rights what does a prisoner not have? They have access to medical/dental treatment, education, gyms, tv, mobile phones, 3 meals a day, no worries about heat....many pensioners/people don't have that. Some deterrent 😡
If it's such a holiday camp, why don't more people go and rob a bank and get themselves fixed up with such cushy accommodation?
I give up....tell us the answer oh wise one🤡
Quote from: David McKeown on January 02, 2019, 09:36:44 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on January 02, 2019, 08:11:32 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on January 02, 2019, 06:52:15 PM
What's the issue with it. A combination order and extended ban for drink driving seems appropriate to me from what's described in the article.
16 months for killing two people.....you think that's appropriate?
Oh sorry I thought you were referring to the subsequent drink drive sentence 6 years later. That's what I was referring to. In so far as the sentence you were talking about there's a few things that strike me about that. Firstly it was death by careless driving which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years and in fact has only carried prison at all for the last ten years. With a starting point of a non custodial sentence after trial for a first time offender. That will obviously depend on the culpability of the driver. In that regard therefore the sentence he got would have been on the harsher end of the usual sentence for such an offence. That said the article seems to suggest that the driving was very poor and possibly should have been dangerous driving which would have carried a likely sentence of 7-8 years.
So before I could really comment I'd need to know a bit more about the original case in terms of why careless, was it a plea or a jury decision etc
Incredible that these are the sentences handed out for causing death. I dread to think how the families of the deceased feel.
Quote from: Insane Bolt on January 03, 2019, 07:01:52 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on January 02, 2019, 09:36:44 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on January 02, 2019, 08:11:32 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on January 02, 2019, 06:52:15 PM
What's the issue with it. A combination order and extended ban for drink driving seems appropriate to me from what's described in the article.
16 months for killing two people.....you think that's appropriate?
Oh sorry I thought you were referring to the subsequent drink drive sentence 6 years later. That's what I was referring to. In so far as the sentence you were talking about there's a few things that strike me about that. Firstly it was death by careless driving which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years and in fact has only carried prison at all for the last ten years. With a starting point of a non custodial sentence after trial for a first time offender. That will obviously depend on the culpability of the driver. In that regard therefore the sentence he got would have been on the harsher end of the usual sentence for such an offence. That said the article seems to suggest that the driving was very poor and possibly should have been dangerous driving which would have carried a likely sentence of 7-8 years.
So before I could really comment I'd need to know a bit more about the original case in terms of why careless, was it a plea or a jury decision etc
Incredible that these are the sentences handed out for causing death. I dread to think how the families of the deceased feel.
That's the way our politicians have decided it is to be. For careless driving it's a maximum sentence on indictment of 5 years and a maximum if prosecuted in the Magistrates Court (where a lot are) of 6 months. 11 years ago the offence didn't even carry custody.
There has been some crazy sentences handed out over the years. As mentioned previously though, the one last week where a fella who raped two children was freed from jail after just 3 weeks because he's too 'vulnerable' in prison. He only got 1 year too.
Or cases like someone on here mentioned the other day where sentences are downgraded for some reason. I remember one in Lurgan years ago where a few known hoods savagely beat and threw a schoolboy (on his way home) off the top of a block of flats and got manslaughter and was released after just 3 years I think.
Quote from: nrico2006 on January 03, 2019, 10:52:01 AM
There has been some crazy sentences handed out over the years. As mentioned previously though, the one last week where a fella who raped two children was freed from jail after just 3 weeks because he's too 'vulnerable' in prison. He only got 1 year too.
Or cases like someone on here mentioned the other day where sentences are downgraded for some reason. I remember one in Lurgan years ago where a few known hoods savagely beat and threw a schoolboy (on his way home) off the top of a block of flats and got manslaughter and was released after just 3 years I think.
The thing is when you say that someone got our in 3 years that means they likely got a 6 year sentence. There is an entitlement to get 50 % remission on all sentences apart from Life sentences but if someone commits a crime within the period of the sentence they will generally have to serve the rest of the sentence in jail. Also any time spent of remand in the prison is taken off any sentence. So for example the case you refer to they assailants could have spent 18 months to 2 years in prison waiting on their trial. This is then taken into account when they are sentenced and knocked off their original sentence. So for example, 2 years on remand. Person gets 10 years. They then spend 3 more years as a sentenced prisoner and that accounts for the 10 year sentence.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 02, 2019, 10:30:42 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on January 02, 2019, 04:56:16 PM
Quote from: MoChara on January 02, 2019, 04:34:15 PM
The older 3 strike policy in California didn't seem to work as a deterrent, where if you had been caught on a third time for even a misdemeanour you would get a life sentence.
25 years for stealing a bike seems like it should have been a strong deterrent, as a society we're better off trying to solve why these people are turning to crime than paying for them to sit in cells for the rest of their lives, both cost money but I know which is my preferred option.
That has always been my argument with people when discussing the criminal law system. It is an industry in itself anyway and governments have created a 'security' sectors which absolves them of any real responsibility. The breakdown of the social system at a very base level is the biggest contributor to crime than anything and if more money was invested in the ground level
I'm deprived areas then there would be a significant drop in crime in my very humble opinion
The profit-making prison system here in the states is an abomination. Private corporations make money from warehousing human beings like cattle, there's no incentive to rehabilitate them, and they get paid more according to how many people they lock up and for how long. So off they go lobbying their friendly politicians who are happy to ramp up longer and longer mandatory minimum sentences for lesser and lesser offenses, and before you know it the prison population is the biggest in the world.
If I had my way the system in the US would have the following features:
1 - Private prisons should be illegal, the state is well able to take care of this service.
2 - Prison wardens and staff should be given performance-related pay based on how low their recidivism rates are. If you're running a place that cranks out safer citizens, you get paid more. If you're running a "tough on crime" hell-hole that works as a crime academy and just churns out more hardened criminals, you get paid less or better still you get eliminated. Prisons are supposed to improve public safety, not undermine it.
3 - Mandatory minimums should be abolished. Let the judges decide, not politicians or voters.
The Corrections Corporation of America, the biggest private prison corporation, effectively WRITES MANY OF THE LAWS in many states to ensure a continuing (and growing - corporations must grow or die) supply of prison fodder for their operation. They do this through ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, which is a forum ostensibly to allow businesses to make representations to state politicians, but effectively results in corporations overwhelming local legislative inputs and writing the laws for state politicians to rubber stamp.
This is a pretty good exposition of how profoundly undemocratic American "democracy" has become:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyTU9RbOEJo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyTU9RbOEJo)
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on January 03, 2019, 11:34:12 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on January 03, 2019, 10:52:01 AM
There has been some crazy sentences handed out over the years. As mentioned previously though, the one last week where a fella who raped two children was freed from jail after just 3 weeks because he's too 'vulnerable' in prison. He only got 1 year too.
Or cases like someone on here mentioned the other day where sentences are downgraded for some reason. I remember one in Lurgan years ago where a few known hoods savagely beat and threw a schoolboy (on his way home) off the top of a block of flats and got manslaughter and was released after just 3 years I think.
The thing is when you say that someone got our in 3 years that means they likely got a 6 year sentence. There is an entitlement to get 50 % remission on all sentences apart from Life sentences but if someone commits a crime within the period of the sentence they will generally have to serve the rest of the sentence in jail. Also any time spent of remand in the prison is taken off any sentence. So for example the case you refer to they assailants could have spent 18 months to 2 years in prison waiting on their trial. This is then taken into account when they are sentenced and knocked off their original sentence. So for example, 2 years on remand. Person gets 10 years. They then spend 3 more years as a sentenced prisoner and that accounts for the 10 year sentence.
50% remission now only applies to sentences shorter than 12 months. Since 2008 if the sentence is longer the Judge sets the length of the custodial period and the length of the licence period. Unless the offender is assessed as dangerous (ie poses a significant risk of serious harm) the custodial period can not exceed the licence period and most of the time the split is 50/50 unless there's a good reason for a different split. There's no remission on any part of the sentence and the offender is liable to be recalled at any point during the licence period if their risk becomes unmanageable. I think it's about 30% of non dangerous and 80+% of dangerous prisoners are recalled at least once.
Quote from: David McKeown on January 03, 2019, 04:11:20 PM
50% remission now only applies to sentences shorter than 12 months. Since 2008 if the sentence is longer the Judge sets the length of the custodial period and the length of the licence period. Unless the offender is assessed as dangerous (ie poses a significant risk of serious harm) the custodial period can not exceed the licence period and most of the time the split is 50/50 unless there's a good reason for a different split. There's no remission on any part of the sentence and the offender is liable to be recalled at any point during the licence period if their risk becomes unmanageable. I think it's about 30% of non dangerous and 80+% of dangerous prisoners are recalled at least once.
Is that the way it is in the North? A bit different to how it is down here. Normally you do 75% of the sentence but the last 25% is time off for good behaviour.remission and dont think people get recalled like that unless they get arrested for some new offence and then go through the court again for that but dont have to serve the rest of the old sentence,
I remember being in jail in Boston and alot of the inmates there were in for parole violations so that is probably more like the being on license set up.
Nobody knows how it works up here. Inconsistent, lenient sentences are the norm. You even get a chance to skip jail if you are fat. Even those out on license are confusing; I remember a few years ago Torrens knight battered two sisters while out on licence, however his licence wasnt revoked and he did a lock of weeks. Yet there are others who get their license revoked for a lot less.
Quote from: nrico2006 on January 03, 2019, 09:58:01 PM
Nobody knows how it works up here. Inconsistent, lenient sentences are the norm. You even get a chance to skip jail if you are fat. Even those out on license are confusing; I remember a few years ago Torrens knight battered two sisters while out on licence, however his licence wasnt revoked and he did a lock of weeks. Yet there are others who get their license revoked for a lot less.
Yeah you aren't too far wrong to be fair. The system we have here is at times inconsistent. It strikes me as a very bad attempt to copy the system in England. There recalls are time limited to 28 days and you are automatically rereleased inside 28 days unless you are dangerous. Here you can be recalled and may not have you case considered for months. Also it's harder to be recalled and easier to be released if you are a more dangerous offender. I don't agree that lenient sentences are the norm though.
Quote from: David McKeown on January 03, 2019, 04:11:20 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on January 03, 2019, 11:34:12 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on January 03, 2019, 10:52:01 AM
There has been some crazy sentences handed out over the years. As mentioned previously though, the one last week where a fella who raped two children was freed from jail after just 3 weeks because he's too 'vulnerable' in prison. He only got 1 year too.
Or cases like someone on here mentioned the other day where sentences are downgraded for some reason. I remember one in Lurgan years ago where a few known hoods savagely beat and threw a schoolboy (on his way home) off the top of a block of flats and got manslaughter and was released after just 3 years I think.
The thing is when you say that someone got our in 3 years that means they likely got a 6 year sentence. There is an entitlement to get 50 % remission on all sentences apart from Life sentences but if someone commits a crime within the period of the sentence they will generally have to serve the rest of the sentence in jail. Also any time spent of remand in the prison is taken off any sentence. So for example the case you refer to they assailants could have spent 18 months to 2 years in prison waiting on their trial. This is then taken into account when they are sentenced and knocked off their original sentence. So for example, 2 years on remand. Person gets 10 years. They then spend 3 more years as a sentenced prisoner and that accounts for the 10 year sentence.
50% remission now only applies to sentences shorter than 12 months. Since 2008 if the sentence is longer the Judge sets the length of the custodial period and the length of the licence period. Unless the offender is assessed as dangerous (ie poses a significant risk of serious harm) the custodial period can not exceed the licence period and most of the time the split is 50/50 unless there's a good reason for a different split. There's no remission on any part of the sentence and the offender is liable to be recalled at any point during the licence period if their risk becomes unmanageable. I think it's about 30% of non dangerous and 80+% of dangerous prisoners are recalled at least once.
Is this what was going on with the Tony Taylor case? or is it different because he was let out as art of the GFA?
I know he was returned to jail by the office of the secretary of state is this just the terms/words used for everyone on license getting brought back in?
Quote from: MoChara on January 04, 2019, 08:35:39 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on January 03, 2019, 04:11:20 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on January 03, 2019, 11:34:12 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on January 03, 2019, 10:52:01 AM
There has been some crazy sentences handed out over the years. As mentioned previously though, the one last week where a fella who raped two children was freed from jail after just 3 weeks because he's too 'vulnerable' in prison. He only got 1 year too.
Or cases like someone on here mentioned the other day where sentences are downgraded for some reason. I remember one in Lurgan years ago where a few known hoods savagely beat and threw a schoolboy (on his way home) off the top of a block of flats and got manslaughter and was released after just 3 years I think.
The thing is when you say that someone got our in 3 years that means they likely got a 6 year sentence. There is an entitlement to get 50 % remission on all sentences apart from Life sentences but if someone commits a crime within the period of the sentence they will generally have to serve the rest of the sentence in jail. Also any time spent of remand in the prison is taken off any sentence. So for example the case you refer to they assailants could have spent 18 months to 2 years in prison waiting on their trial. This is then taken into account when they are sentenced and knocked off their original sentence. So for example, 2 years on remand. Person gets 10 years. They then spend 3 more years as a sentenced prisoner and that accounts for the 10 year sentence.
50% remission now only applies to sentences shorter than 12 months. Since 2008 if the sentence is longer the Judge sets the length of the custodial period and the length of the licence period. Unless the offender is assessed as dangerous (ie poses a significant risk of serious harm) the custodial period can not exceed the licence period and most of the time the split is 50/50 unless there's a good reason for a different split. There's no remission on any part of the sentence and the offender is liable to be recalled at any point during the licence period if their risk becomes unmanageable. I think it's about 30% of non dangerous and 80+% of dangerous prisoners are recalled at least once.
Is this what was going on with the Tony Taylor case? or is it different because he was let out as art of the GFA?
I know he was returned to jail by the office of the secretary of state is this just the terms/words used for everyone on license getting brought back in?
I don't know enough about it to comment specifically but generally the proceedure is as follows: if on licence then you can be recalled if your risk of harm increases and can no longer be managed in the community (if a DCS prisoner ie not a dangerous prisoner) or if your risk of serious harm in all other cases. The recall decision is ultimately made by the Offender Recall Unit which is a part of the DOJ. I've often seen that be described as the Secretary of State. If recall your case is then sent to the Parole Commissioners who are independent and will periodically review the case. If the individuals risk can be managed the Parole Commissioners will direct release.
There shouldn't be 50 remission full stop! IOnly there cause they don't want to pay for holding them behind bars!
Hard to disagree but prison sentences recognise its existence. So if it went you'd probably see shorter sentences.
Great posts Dover28, good luck with going back to college
Thanks. In 2nd year now and going OK. Glad to get the chance to go back as a "mature" student. It was probably the best thing about getting a longer sentence that I had time to get back into studying.
Timely article on the BBC this morning.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46847162
Indeed...use the money saved to give them a cuddle & a grant of some kind, sending them cheerily on their way. Surely it's against their human rights to bang them up at all?
No but short prison sentences achieve absolutely nothing and cost the tax payer a huge amount. So why keep locking people up for a short time?
So......you end up with a situation that you just get the same people, committing the same crimes, over & over again, just because there is no real sanction any longer.
That's exactly what you get with short prison sentences. Community disposals and restorative justice programs are much better at reducing recidivism.
"The idea of government as protector requires taxes to fund, train and equip an army and a police force; to build courts and jails; and to elect or appoint the officials to pass and implement the laws citizens must not break".
We seem to be moving significantly away from that principle. It's probably just an "aspiration" nowadays. The citizenry does as it likes & 'government' watches on. It's becoming a free for all....all rights & no obligations.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/07/downing-street-intervenes-jack-shepherd-case-urging-fugitive/
The law is truly an ass. How can someone who fled the country before trial/sentence be allowed to appeal the sentence.....paid for by legal aid.
A good question, indeed.