40% of crime cases never see Court.

[hiker]

I'm back on my favourite hobby horse again. the Law Lepers

DPP dont go to court on 40% of the case files received due to lack of evidence.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1122/dpp.html

Is there a case for introducing a lower level of evidence to criminal cases as there is in civil cases?

[agora]

Absolutely. And lets get rid of those ridiculous notions of "innocent until proven guilty" and habeus corpus. Clearly if someone is from a dodgy neighbourhood or looks a bit foreign they're almost certainly guilty of whatever the Gardai say they are. In fact, why bother having courts at all? I mean, if we can't trust the Gardai who can we trust? Oh, and bring back hanging too!

[hiker]

Look agora getting all huffy and in a tizzy does not help the debate.

Its perfectly obvious that crime pays. the money is brilliant, the risk of apprehension low and the chance of actually doing time minimal.

These are just the facts.

Given these facts would'nt it make sense to introduce a little risk:reward ratio into the equation?

Mandatory sentancing on certain crimes and a lower level of evidence required on certain crimes.

Does that sound like a major invasion of your civil liberties :

[hivemind]

Its perfectly obvious that crime pays. the money is brilliant, the risk of apprehension low and the chance of actually doing time minimal.

These are just the facts.

No they are assertions. False and hysterical assertions at that.

[agora]

The presumption of evidence and the requirement of the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt are things which mark our justice system out as being that of a civilised state. Any threat to that should be viewed with extreme apprehension.

If it is true that 40% of crimes are not being brought to court, perhaps it's because the Gardai are simply not being given the resources to tackle crime. McDowell promised 2000 gardai at the last election - where are they now? Mandatory sentencing will have no effect if there's not enough gardai to enforce the law.

In light of the revelations in Donegal, perhaps it's just as well that a higher standard of evidence is required of Gardai. If you have a problem with that, advocate giving greater resources to Gardai and people working at community level to steer young people away from crime. Simply taking the attitude that "well, you don't have enough evidence to convince a jury, but we need to convict somebody, so we'll go ahead anyway" will only lead to cases being thrown out of court.

[hiker]

Its perfectly obvious that crime pays. the money is brilliant, the risk of apprehension low and the chance of actually doing time minimal.

These are just the facts.

No they are assertions. False and hysterical assertions at that.

Not so.

A government report showed that 70% of crimes go unreported.

Of the balance only 60% actually go to court and of the 60% that go to court there are a number that are released due to technicalities.

So risk is minimal.

As for the money, well if there were no money in it there would be no Criminal Assets Bureau, correct :

[hiker]

The presumption of evidence and the requirement of the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt are things which mark our justice system out as being that of a civilised state. Any threat to that should be viewed with extreme apprehension.

If it is true that 40% of crimes are not being brought to court, perhaps it's because the Gardai are simply not being given the resources to tackle crime. McDowell promised 2000 gardai at the last election - where are they now? Mandatory sentencing will have no effect if there's not enough gardai to enforce the law.

In light of the revelations in Donegal, perhaps it's just as well that a higher standard of evidence is required of Gardai. If you have a problem with that, advocate giving greater resources to Gardai and people working at community level to steer young people away from crime. Simply taking the attitude that "well, you don't have enough evidence to convince a jury, but we need to convict somebody, so we'll go ahead anyway" will only lead to cases being thrown out of court.

Point taken and I dont disagree with you on the extra garda issiu but the garda themselves are using 19th century laws on evidence to try and convict 21st century gangsters.
Jury and Garda intimidation by gangsters is now used by criminals yet when they walk into that court room they are given a massive amount of protection from the state.

As for the garda in Donegal, yes they were wrong and stupid and they wrecked the good name of the force but did it ever occur to you that maybe the did what they did because there was just no way of getting convictions thru the DPP and the Courts.
Were they forced into manufacturing convictions because, lets face it, the courts dont do convictions

[agora]

.

As for the garda in Donegal, yes they were wrong and stupid and they wrecked the good name of the force but did it ever occur to you that maybe the did what they did because there was just no way of getting convictions thru the DPP and the Courts.
Were they forced into manufacturing convictions because, lets face it, the courts dont do convictions

So you're saying that they shouldn't have had to plant guns on those travellers, that the court should have just convicted them anyway. "Ah sure, they're travellers, they're probably guilty of something or other".

[32]

But sure the courts aren't legitimate anyway are they agora?

Judge O'Brádaigh and his wigs are the REAL law!

[The OD]

Its perfectly obvious that crime pays. the money is brilliant, the risk of apprehension low and the chance of actually doing time minimal.

These are just the facts.

No they are assertions. False and hysterical assertions at that.

Not so.

A government report showed that 70% of crimes go unreported.

Of the balance only 60% actually go to court and of the 60% that go to court there are a number that are released due to technicalities.

So risk is minimal.

As for the money, well if there were no money in it there would be no Criminal Assets Bureau, correct :

Why is this?

I had a break in a few years ago - I called the plods and after sitting there for 6 hours whilst missing work, two very ignorant and unhelpful gardai turned up took a 'statement' (I wuz robbed) and left without taking fingerprints or anything.

The Gardai have always acted like I was inconvneiencing them whenever I had need to call on them so now, unless its a prerequisite for insurance, I just dont bother.