The Offences against the State Act for Criminal Gangs?

[patslatt]

The low level of convictions for gangland crime and murder is threatening the rule of law in Ireland. Even when witnesses to crimes are identified,many are justifiably afraid to give evidence. While the government can offer them a witness protection programme,few witnesses would want to abandon their homes and native village or town to go and live off the beaten track in some remote part of Ireland.

Why should the rights of witnesses be worth any less than those of criminal gangsters? Wouldn't it be better to use the powerful Offences against the State Act to smash criminal gangs than to have witnesses abandon their normal lives forever?

The problem is that this Act could be abused in what Americans call mission creep. At first, the Act might be applied sparingly but over the years,prosecutors would come to rely on it for easy convictions in ordinary criminal cases,instead of gathering proper evidence.According to news reports,the somewhat similar American RICO (racketeering and corrupt organisations) act against gangs was effective but was so loosely defined that lawyers began using it in divorce cases!

So how could the Offences against the State Act be used against criminal gangs without undermining civil liberties? Maybe the Act should be amended to state that it can only be used against criminal gangs when they resort to murder and violent assault. So if a garda officers and two witnesses testified that a defendant was a member of a criminal gang of say four or more people,whether associated closely or loosely,the Act could be used against the defendant. It would be important to prevent mission creep by setting a strict limit on the use of the Act on the presumption that there are only a dozen or so such violent gangs.

[Seán E. Ryan]

The low level of convictions for gangland crime and murder is threatening the rule of law in Ireland. Even when witnesses to crimes are identified,many are justifiably afraid to give evidence. While the government can offer them a witness protection programme,few witnesses would want to abandon their homes and native village or town to go and live off the beaten track in some remote part of Ireland.

Why should the rights of witnesses be worth any less than those of criminal gangsters? Wouldn't it be better to use the powerful Offences against the State Act to smash criminal gangs than to have witnesses abandon their normal lives forever?

The problem is that this Act could be abused in what Americans call mission creep. At first, the Act might be applied sparingly but over the years,prosecutors would come to rely on it for easy convictions in ordinary criminal cases,instead of gathering proper evidence.According to news reports,the somewhat similar American RICO (racketeering and corrupt organisations) act against gangs was effective but was so loosely defined that lawyers began using it in divorce cases!

So how could the Offences against the State Act be used against criminal gangs without undermining civil liberties? Maybe the Act should be amended to state that it can only be used against criminal gangs when they resort to murder and violent assault. So if a garda officers and two witnesses testified that a defendant was a member of a criminal gang of say four or more people,whether associated closely or loosely,the Act could be used against the defendant. It would be important to prevent mission creep by setting a strict limit on the use of the Act on the presumption that there are only a dozen or so such violent gangs.

I don't agree.

The Offences Against the State Act is an abomination. Moreso, it can hardly be shown to have had an effect (with regard to Republican activities or their will to act).

The Gardaí have plenty of powers and resources. They should use them and stop whining about their total lack of response to violence (not just 'gangland').

My heart goes out to any witness these days. If, by choosing not to put their lives and the lives of their loved ones at risk, they choose not to testify, the bloody courts will victimise them instead.

In short, our justice system will never be able to clean the slime off our streets until they clean the slime from themselves first. Tis too hard to differentiate one piece of slime from the next.

[merle haggard]

I don't agree.

The Offences Against the State Act is an abomination. Moreso, it can hardly be shown to have had an effect (with regard to Republican activities or their will to act).

The Gardaí have plenty of powers and resources. They should use them and stop whining about their total lack of response to violence (not just 'gangland').

My heart goes out to any witness these days. If, by choosing not to put their lives and the lives of their loved ones at risk, they choose not to testify, the bloody courts will victimise them instead.

In short, our justice system will never be able to clean the slime off our streets until they clean the slime from themselves first. Tis too hard to differentiate one piece of slime from the next.

the fact is that since Irish peoples civil liberities were tossed out the window after the British governemnt started putting car bombs in dublin in order to have such laws passed, garda special branch have not only used the OASA act against republicans but very often used these criminals also , acting as eyes and ears within the working class districts for the detective unit and for a long time having their own special relationship . As occured north of the border too .
Over the years their positon within society solidified to the extent today were they are completely embedded like a cancer , while millions upon millions in garda detective overtime was accrued hauling in or monitoring a teenager who put up a poster or sold an easter lily . Not to mention monitoring , harraasing and jailing anti drugs activists . And even monitoring and harassing the dublin monaghan families for some bizarre reason known only to garda detectives .
The garda have no shortage of resources , they know who these people are and like any police force in the world they should simply be what their job is supposed to be , detectives . If theyre no use then sack the tramps but thers no need to toss any more of our peoples civil liberties out the window to do so . If anything we should be having our civil liberites further restored to us , not taken away .

[merle haggard]

[corelli]

Of course the OATSA should be used against criminal gangs.

And let's not be surprised when the biggest opposition to any such measure comes from our old "friends" in Sinn Fein/IRA.

The scumbag are running riot and it's time for decisive action. And yes, it wasn't as bad when they were killing each other. Last week a real person was killed and the people of Ireland are outraged. Internment for gang members and stricter sentencing are a must. And this "right to silence" abomination needs to be looked at. Who the hell avails for the right to silence if they're innocent? If I was pulled in for an offence I didn't commit I'd be only to happy to cooperate. A refusal to speak should be considered as suspicious.

You can't use the OATSA against non-subversive crime as a general principle. The Minister for Justice admitted it in the Dail on Thursday. It would be unconstitutional and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.

There is no point talking this one to death. It is NOT going to happen.

[jcdf]

You are bang on the nail patslatt.

Of course the OATSA should be used against criminal gangs.

And let's not be surprised when the biggest opposition to any such measure comes from our old "friends" in Sinn Fein/IRA.

The scumbag are running riot and it's time for decisive action. And yes, it wasn't as bad when they were killing each other. Last week a real person was killed and the people of Ireland are outraged. Internment for gang members and stricter sentencing are a must. And this "right to silence" abomination needs to be looked at. Who the hell avails for the right to silence if they're innocent? If I was pulled in for an offence I didn't commit I'd be only to happy to cooperate. A refusal to speak should be considered as suspicious.

What if you had commit another lesser offence? This would give you reason to be silent without being guilty of said offence.

[merle haggard]

the right to silence believe it or not was not invented by do gooders intent on protecting criminals

[stringjack]

You can't use the OATSA against non-subversive crime as a general principle. The Minister for Justice admitted it in the Dail on Thursday. It would be unconstitutional and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Under which provisions of the Constitution and the Convention?

[michael1965]

You can't use the OATSA against non-subversive crime as a general principle. The Minister for Justice admitted it in the Dail on Thursday. It would be unconstitutional and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.

There is no point talking this one to death. It is NOT going to happen.

I agree. Gangland crime does not constitute an offense against the state. It is a different beast altogether. If legislation is needed, it should be a specific act related to gangs.

[corelli]

Under which provisions of the Constitution and the Convention?

It's very simple. Ordinary crime is prosecuted in the ordinary courts using a jury. If you then say only gangland crime to be prosecuted before the Special Criminal Court then you have arbitrary discrimination which is unconstitutional and in breach of the Convention. The only was you could do it is on a case by case basis where there is a rational and objectively justified decision by the DPP that the ordinary courts CANNOT, not might not, secure a conviction. It is very simple. Don't you think they would have done it years ago if they could?