Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Crime in Ireland

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts



    Originally posted by McCloud
    Was listening to the news at 1 thanks to the cuts in the budget the DPP office expects the number of cases they can process to drop.

    Has anyone introduced the concept of "a false economy" to the Government?
    "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven into an age of unreason if we dig deep into our history and remember we are not descended from fearful men" Edward R Murrow

    "Little by little, we have been brought into the present condition in which we are able neither to tolerate the evils from which we suffer, nor the remedies we need to cure them." - Livy


    "I think that progress has been made by two flames that have always been burning in the human heart. The flame of anger against injustice and the flame of hope that you can build a better world" - Tony Benn

    Comment



      [QUOTE=Balla Boy]

      I agree Dermot, and generally I think the solution is to "throw more money at it".


      We need more police on the beat.


      We need a faster turnaround for minor offences and a mechanism to prevent the situation where people avoid punishment despite having numerous convictions simply because their offences are relatively small scale.


      We need more effective prosecution, ideally based around a RICO equivalent I think.


      We need a reduction in the market for drugs, with stiffer penalties for "personal use" possession.


      We need to seriously re-address the nature of the prison system. I have no problem with things being "tough" in the sense of imposed austerity, denial of freedoms etc etc. I think though that many people equate "toughness" with a sort of degradation and squalor that is ultimately counterproductive. There is no doubt that people in prisons should not have access to mobile phones, for instance. But access to a flushing toilet does not constitute "cushy".


      We need a serious look at programmes of rehabilitation- looking broadly and empirically at what has been shown to work in relevant cultures and implementing it here, regardless of how politically unpopular it might be.


      Finally, and probably in a more reactionary bracket than you might expect from me, we need a line in the sand at which point we decide that repeated incarceration, post-prison support and rehabilitation have not worked at which point we introduce a system of indefinite detention for those who have proved themselves to be incapable living in the sort of society we want to live in.


      That needs to be allied with intensive work on dealing with the sociological drivers of crime.


      In the very short term, and while I keep banging on about it, RICO is the way to go. :


      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rackete...ced_and_Corrup t_Organizations_Act


      Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering</font>. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages</font>.


      When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order</font> or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.


      In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense attorney. Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.<sup id="cite_ref-Time_1-0">

      Comment


        On your point about the bad guys moving around here's an interesting read
        Excellence is hard to keep quite - Sherrie Coale

        Comment




          Originally posted by Dermot G

          p.s. On an aside I cannot see how demand for drugs could be reduced. It's simply beyond the control of the authorities.


          It has to be though. What we're largely dealing with here are the byproducts of the drug industry and attempts to control supply.


          In a situation where you cannot control supply- and it's evident that we can't - I think you have to move to control demand. A lot of casual users could be scared off by stiffer penalties I think.


          I've yet to see a convincing model for legalisation that deals with the issues of supply chain and black market potential so it's our only option.


          At the very least, there has to be a social adjustment that says it's no longer acceptable to consume something that is causing so much misery.


          If we could wean ourselves of South African fruit on the basis of an international human rights cause then surely it's possible to get that message home?
          "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven into an age of unreason if we dig deep into our history and remember we are not descended from fearful men" Edward R Murrow

          "Little by little, we have been brought into the present condition in which we are able neither to tolerate the evils from which we suffer, nor the remedies we need to cure them." - Livy


          "I think that progress has been made by two flames that have always been burning in the human heart. The flame of anger against injustice and the flame of hope that you can build a better world" - Tony Benn

          Comment



            Originally posted by McCloud
            On your point about the bad guys moving around here's an interesting read
            Woudn't it be interesting if someone in say Kilteragh took an action against the HSE for ruining their neighbourhood?

            Comment




              IIRC there are something like 3 sniffer dogs in Ireland? (Maybe that was customs?).


              I'm currently working in the East Midlands(ish) of the UK, and the local area is well served by sniffer dogs. Every pub has a sign saying they don't tolerate drugs, and random searches are carried out by the police with sniffer dogs. They also target railway stations,general walkabouts in the major towns etcetc. It's not just about saying "we will", though, it''s about backing up your actions and doing the searches. In the 3 months I've been here, I've seen been through about 4 searches.


              It's a pretty effective deterrent imho.
              Please support Milford Hospice. Click here to donate.

              Comment




                surely CAB needs to be stepped up.you have lads living in decent suburban houses,with expensive cars or jeeps out the front,and no more to support themselves than a cheque from the dole.


                CAB can be a very effective tool in these cases,take away the finnacial gain from criminality,and you'll get some people off it.





                g\'wan bruff!!

                ``The answer is not heavy- handed regulations that crush the entrepreneurial spirit and risk- taking of American capitalism. That\'s what\'s made our economy great.\"
                -Barack Obama


                \"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics\"
                -thomas sowell

                Comment



                  Originally posted by bruffian

                  surely CAB needs to be stepped up.you have lads living in decent suburban houses,with expensive cars or jeeps out the front,and no more to support themselves than a cheque from the dole.




                  CAB can be a very effective tool in these cases,take away the finnacial gain from criminality,and you'll get some people off it.
                  CAB have already been active in the area. No real sign of results, although I heard they took a house of one bloke.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Balla Boy

                    At the very least, there has to be a social adjustment that says it's no longer
                    acceptable to consume something that is causing so much misery.
                    Because it's not the drugs themselves causing the misery you mention. It's the criminals who have latched
                    onto the extremely lucrative opportunity that the prohibition of drugs creates.

                    It was the same with alcohol prohibition in the US. Once proscribed, it created a lucrative opportunity for
                    violent gang criminals in smuggling & bootlegging. Was alcohol evil? Were those who drank back then, to
                    blame for the violence and deaths? Was it an "evil" substance then, and a "good" substance now?

                    Ditto with prostitution, smuggling.. I think it's fanciful in the extreme to suggest you can make a dent in
                    violent crime by people voluntarily desisting from taking drugs.
                    Munster - Incessant Perfervidity
                    "Ireland Will Choke" - Jeremy Guscott

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by who?
                      Originally posted by Balla Boy


                      At the very least, there has to be a social adjustment that says it's no longer
                      acceptable to consume something that is causing so much misery.

                      Because it's not the drugs themselves causing the misery you mention. It's the criminals who have latched
                      onto the extremely lucrative opportunity that the prohibition of drugs creates.

                      It was the same with alcohol prohibition in the US. Once proscribed, it created a lucrative opportunity for
                      violent gang criminals in smuggling &amp; bootlegging. Was alcohol evil? Were those who drank back then, to
                      blame for the violence and deaths? Was it an "evil" substance then, and a "good" substance now?

                      Ditto with prostitution, smuggling.. I think it's fanciful in the extreme to suggest you can make a dent in
                      violent crime by people voluntarily desisting from taking drugs.

                      well drugs in of themselves do cause misery,and if we're being honest so does alcohol.more lives have been ruined by alcohol that by other illegal narcotics.


                      the fact is do we benefit more from their legalisation than from their being kept illegal?.its an interesting argument.


                      make them legal,then at least you stop people shooting each other over trying to control its distribution,and you take money out of the pockets of immoral scumbags.


                      on the other hand,drug use itself would probably proliferate actual drug use,which can destroy lives by itself quite easily.


                      i think youcan make an argument certainly for legalising some drugs.i mean if cigarettes and alcohol are ilegal,why not hash?


                      sure,its bad for you and prolonged use makes you thick,but the same can be said of alcohol.it damages your lungs,but the same can be said of cigarettes.


                      i dont have the answers,but it should be an topic of discussion
                      g\'wan bruff!!

                      ``The answer is not heavy- handed regulations that crush the entrepreneurial spirit and risk- taking of American capitalism. That\'s what\'s made our economy great.\"
                      -Barack Obama


                      \"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics\"
                      -thomas sowell

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by who?
                        Originally posted by Balla Boy


                        At the very least, there has to be a social adjustment that says it's no longer
                        acceptable to consume something that is causing so much misery.

                        Because it's not the drugs themselves causing the misery you mention. It's the criminals who have latched
                        onto the extremely lucrative opportunity that the prohibition of drugs creates.

                        It was the same with alcohol prohibition in the US. Once proscribed, it created a lucrative opportunity for
                        violent gang criminals in smuggling &amp; bootlegging. Was alcohol evil? Were those who drank back then, to
                        blame for the violence and deaths? Was it an "evil" substance then, and a "good" substance now?

                        Ditto with prostitution, smuggling.. I think it's fanciful in the extreme to suggest you can make a dent in
                        violent crime by people voluntarily desisting from taking drugs.

                        I think it's fanciful to try to detach drugs from the supply chain that surrounds them.


                        If you can create a mechanism for spontaneously generating banned substances that doesn't involve murder, bonded labour and organised crime then you'll have a point.


                        Until then, that argument is on a level with "guns don't kill people, people do".


                        I don't think it's fanciful to suggest that people might desist from taking drugs if they were looking at 36 months for possession.
                        "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven into an age of unreason if we dig deep into our history and remember we are not descended from fearful men" Edward R Murrow

                        "Little by little, we have been brought into the present condition in which we are able neither to tolerate the evils from which we suffer, nor the remedies we need to cure them." - Livy


                        "I think that progress has been made by two flames that have always been burning in the human heart. The flame of anger against injustice and the flame of hope that you can build a better world" - Tony Benn

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by who?
                          Originally posted by Balla Boy


                          At the very least, there has to be a social adjustment that says it's no longer
                          acceptable to consume something that is causing so much misery.

                          Because it's not the drugs themselves causing the misery you mention. It's the criminals who have latched
                          onto the extremely lucrative opportunity that the prohibition of drugs creates.

                          It was the same with alcohol prohibition in the US. Once proscribed, it created a lucrative opportunity for
                          violent gang criminals in smuggling &amp; bootlegging. Was alcohol evil? Were those who drank back then, to
                          blame for the violence and deaths? Was it an "evil" substance then, and a "good" substance now?

                          Ditto with prostitution, smuggling.. I think it's fanciful in the extreme to suggest you can make a dent in
                          violent crime by people voluntarily desisting from taking drugs.

                          I have to agree in part with Who, and it is the profit involved with illegal activities that brings out the greed in society. There are plenty of scum living in the more well off parts of our community that profit from drugs, but in Limerick the scum are increasing their web into what were once safe areas, and with them comes their own brand of evil.


                          CAB worked very well 10 or so years ago, but the rules for the criminal have changed, they employ the smarts, who are also profiting from the crimes of their paymasters, to cover the tracks, to defend them in court. The powers and procedures of CAB need to be reviewed and they need to get these criminals, I can not understand the non-action from government on this.


                          By the way, I don't think making drugs legal will work, people need to take their heads out of their ar$*S on this, educate ourselves, christ people will not buy child labour clothes, but why then buy child labour dope. Know how it will affect you and those who produced it, then make the call.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Balla Boy


                            I think it's fanciful to try to detach drugs from the supply chain that surrounds them.


                            If you can create a mechanism for spontaneously generating banned substances that doesn't
                            involve murder, bonded labour and organised crime then you'll have a point.


                            Until then, that argument is on a level with "guns don't kill people, people do".


                            I don't think it's fanciful to suggest that people might desist from taking drugs if they were
                            looking at 36 months for possession.
                            People might desist from weekend, drunken brawls in the street too with the threat of a death
                            penalty. Does the end justify the means? 36 months for personal use is a joke. Just how many free
                            places do you think we have in our prisons?

                            Taking drugs has a social stigma only because we give it one. People are buying drugs from
                            criminals only because we are preventing them from buying legally.

                            Look at alcohol. No one can deny the damage that has done to our society, yet why isn't that
                            proscribed? And if it were, do you think that would stop people drinking? Do you think the same
                            people here clamouring for punishing drug users would just happily never touch a drink as long as
                            they live? Sure...

                            It is the act of making the production & distribution illegal that prevents regulation and creates the
                            very environment you speak of, with no rights or protections for those being abused. No number of
                            people desisting in Ireland is going to 'set them free'. The policiy of denial has failed, is failing, and
                            will always fail.

                            People wanting to take drugs are not the problem. The problem is with those who pulled the
                            trigger. The problem is with mini-ghettos appearing in our cities where people can grow up pre-
                            rejected from society because of their accent, their address, or their surname. Where the prevalent
                            social pressure on them is rejection of the authority of the system that has rejected them. Where
                            the only role models & peer pressure they experience is negative, from day one; and crime (petty
                            or serious) is often the only hope of gaining any respect, any sense of worth.
                            Munster - Incessant Perfervidity
                            "Ireland Will Choke" - Jeremy Guscott

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by bruffian


                              well drugs in of themselves do cause misery,and if we're being honest so does alcohol.more lives have been
                              ruined by alcohol that by other illegal narcotics.


                              the fact is do we benefit more from their legalisation than from their being kept illegal.its an interesting
                              argument.


                              make them legal,then at least you stop people shooting each other over trying to control its distribution,and
                              you take money out of the pockets of immoral scumbagss.


                              on the other hand,drug use itself would probably proliferate actualy drug use,which can destroy lives by itself
                              quite easily.


                              i think youcan make an argument certainly for legalising some drugs.i mean if cigareetes and alcohol are
                              ilegal,why not hash?


                              sure,its bad for you and prolonged use makes you thick,but the same can be said of alcohol.it damages your
                              lungs,but the samw can be said of cigarettes.


                              i dont have the answers,but it should be an topic of discussion
                              I don't think it's anything like an easy solution - but it's something that needs to be discussed.

                              If drugs were legal - and just as importantly - if the stigma attached to drugs diminished, I have little doubt that
                              with the resources of the pharmaceutical industry they could mass produce drugs far cheaper and without the
                              most harmful effects. It would be a very lucrative industry - and most importantly it could be regulated to protect
                              the users and workers.

                              Or, we could just accept that we can never eliminate all the potential sources of income, and focus on weapon
                              possession, asset seizure where possible, and perhaps even forced relocation (where practical, & permissible
                              under EU law) to break up gangs into smaller families/individuals easier for society to deal with. Forget
                              meaningless ASBOs for petty crime, I'd see if it's possible to fine offenders by deducting from their wage bill (if
                              working) a la PAYE, or by deducting from their social welfare otherwise. No way they can avoid the fine.

                              etc..
                              Munster - Incessant Perfervidity
                              "Ireland Will Choke" - Jeremy Guscott

                              Comment



                                Originally posted by Balla Boy
                                Originally posted by who?
                                Originally posted by Balla Boy


                                At the very least, there has to be a social adjustment that says it's no longer
                                acceptable to consume something that is causing so much misery.

                                Because it's not the drugs themselves causing the misery you mention. It's the criminals who have latched
                                onto the extremely lucrative opportunity that the prohibition of drugs creates.

                                It was the same with alcohol prohibition in the US. Once proscribed, it created a lucrative opportunity for
                                violent gang criminals in smuggling &amp; bootlegging. Was alcohol evil? Were those who drank back then, to
                                blame for the violence and deaths? Was it an "evil" substance then, and a "good" substance now?

                                Ditto with prostitution, smuggling.. I think it's fanciful in the extreme to suggest you can make a dent in
                                violent crime by people voluntarily desisting from taking drugs.

                                I think it's fanciful to try to detach drugs from the supply chain that surrounds them.


                                If you can create a mechanism for spontaneously generating banned substances that doesn't involve murder, bonded labour and organised crime then you'll have a point.


                                Until then, that argument is on a level with "guns don't kill people, people do".


                                I don't think it's fanciful to suggest that people might desist from taking drugs if they were looking at 36 months for possession.
                                Right so you want to ensure scumbags from the estates dont end up in jail, are nurtured and helped to become upstanding citizens (a policy i agree with as i volunteer in a youth service in a notorious estate) but a young lad smoking a spliff or selling a bit of weed to his mates is to do 36 months?
                                Say i am a 17 year old fella trying to find my way in this world, not mad about the booze but find smoking a bit of weed is good for the soul, maybe a bit of E at the weekend (or whatever the crazy young kids are at these days), get caught, do time, chances of uni/college/etc becoming a valued member of a company/society is gone as i spent 3 years with criminals. How does that contribute to society? Instead of waking up with a fuzzy head i am looking at all my life opportunities going down the pan. Ah well, might as well put my skills and ability to becoming a prooper dealer so. And the threat of hard labour does not enter a 17 year old taking drugs in the first place. What people seem to miss here is the reason people take drugs in the first place is because they enjoy them.
                                As an aside where do you propose to put all these criminals? More jails? i know a few builders would be delighted but....

                                For 30 years we have had a "war on drugs" and in that time product has got more plentiful, product has got purer and product has got cheaper. To me this proves the "war" is lost, time to look at alternatives.
                                Having sniffer dogs on doors, great, as i dont want some monged coke head beside me either but all that happens is you drive users further underground, as i said people will still take drugs, it is human nature. Look what happened in England in the late 80's, raves in farmers fields up and down the country as the pubs did not want it (till they realised the amount of cash they were losing)

                                Ultimately, people will make choices which harm themselves, whether
                                that involves their diet, smoking, drinking, lack of exercise, sexual
                                activity or pursuit of extreme sports, for that matter. The government
                                in all these instances rightly takes the line that if these activities
                                are to be pursued, society will ensure that those who pursue them have
                                access to accurate information about the risks; can access assistance
                                to change their harmful habits should they so wish; are protected by
                                legal standards regime; are taxed accordingly; and - crucially - do not
                                harm other people. Only in the field of drugs does the government take
                                a different line, and as a direct result, society suffers truly
                                enormous consequences in terms of crime, both petty and organised, and
                                harm t

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X