"Leading lawyers call for Bill on gangs to be withdrawn"- Irish Times

[drkpower]

But we're NOT doing all of the above. If we did so, I am certain that immediately there would be a difference. If wealth were equalised then these people would not have to compete in drugs wars to have the std of living the rest of us have and so would not be murdering.

They're not murdering for the craic - they're doing it for a reason.

Take away that reason and it should limit (or stop completely) the murders.

Sarah, please tell me that you do noit believe that these guys are involved in drug wars in order to improve their standard of living to that of the rest of us?

If that was the case, they would all stop once they had gottten enough cash to live on; they dont.

On your substantive point, your suggestions would not result in an 'immediate' result. And you also appear to be getting very close to a communism style redistribution of wealth which has even more problems that are better discussed on a seperate thread.

[Left sceptical]

You are falling into the realm of farcical now.

There is no point in me continuing when seemingly good people make statements like that.

So address my post and stop making your own farcical statements.

[Hewson]

I value my civil and human rights. Because I value them for myself, I then wish to see that they are not compromised for others, because if I do, then someday they may be compromised for me. "First they came for the jews etc. etc..."

I, too, agree that those involved in crime ought to be punished and removed from society. Ideally, I would like to see some kind of effort made while they are in prison to reform/educate/skill them etc. I think that in general the length of prison sentences in Ireland is too short. I also think that people should have to serve the entirety of their sentences, with time added on for any criminal acts engaged in while inside.

What I will not agree to though, is the erosion of civil liberties in order simply to make it easier to lock up people, because no matter how well intended, as I'm sure this bill is, such powers will end up being abused.

Finally, and this will really get up your nose, if you really want to tackle crime than you should campaign and support moves towards a more equal distribution of wealth within society.

I actually agree with all of your sentiments. The difficulty is that long-term solutions are not going to solve our immediate problem: a gang-crime problem that is getting out of hand. The suggestion of an annual review is a good one and should be considered.

I also realise that the link between poverty/deprivation and crime is well proven, but lack of wealth is not a licence to murder.

[sarahj]

Sarah, please tell me that you do noit believe that these guys are involved in drug wars in order to improve their standard of living to that of the rest of us?

If that was the case, they would all stop once they had gottten enough cash to live on; they dont.

On your substantive point, your suggestions would not result in an 'immediate' result. And you also appear to be getting very close to a communism style redistribution of wealth which has even more problems that are better discussed on a seperate thread.

Yes I am saying that. Obviously they won't stop as soon as they have enough cash to live on - people don't stop working when they have enough cash to live on. They have to keep going because they need a constant income.

No, I am not "coming close to communism". I am talking about the [SIZE="3"][SIZE="6"]evidence[/SIZE][/SIZE] from the Spirit Level which proves that more equal societies have lower social problems and health problems, including drug abuse and murder. This is evidence and is completely relevant to a thread talking about our "solution" to murder and drug dealing.

I do believe there would be an immediate drop - of course there would, why wouldn't they? Not in a day but in 6 months or so. You think these measures are gonna stop these crimes??? Not a hope. If you arrest all of these criminals, there will be more to take their places unless the root cause is taken away.

[futurefastfoodworker]

The opinion of the Garda is the only evidence needed if no ther evidecne is adduced (and even then the judge can reject it).

You dont have to prove a negative; merely provide your own evidence which is more credible than the Garda opinion.

That is proving a negative. Even if it is, in effect, on the balance of probabilities. I direct you to the part of my post that you edited out - how would this be done beyond giving your own evidence? What if you not particularly articulate or maybe just have the wrong 'look'? Equally, forcing the Defendant to give evidence does away with another important protection that Defendants have.

Judges are what we have; and jurys have many many of their own flaws - the system isnt perfect, partly because of the way we designed it, partly because it is operated by humans, who are not perfect.

The system is flawed; the erosion of the protections for the Defendant will only served to exacerbate the flaws already present.

[sarahj]

I think it's pretty obvious from the poll results what the general feeling on this issue is. Approx 3 times as many people think they are too harsh than those who think they are enough or not enough.

[Hewson]

EVERYONE has impinged on someone else's rights at a time in their lives. Huge numbers of people have been assaulted, attacked, raped, stolen from, etc, etc and I doubt there is one person who can say they've never impinged on someone else's rights - even if that right is the right to free speech and you try to shut someone up.

THAT IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON TO TAKE SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS AWAY.

I may have played my rock music too loud when I was 18, but I've never stolen, raped, killed or run over anybody in my car. I appreciate that you feel passionately about 'rights' and I concur up to a point. But 'rights' are the flip-side of the coin and 'responsibilities' are stamped on the other side. If I ignre the latter I diminish the former.

And that law applies across the board, mental illness excepting.

[Hewson]

I think it's pretty obvious from the poll results what the general feeling on this issue is. Approx 3 times as many people think they are too harsh than those who think they are enough or not enough.

Sarah, sums please! It's 60:40.

[sarahj]

I may have played my rock music too loud when I was 18, but I've never stolen, raped, killed or run over anybody in my car. I appreciate that you feel passionately about 'rights' and I concur up to a point. But 'rights' are the flip-side of the coin and 'responsibilities' are stamped on the other side. If I ignre the latter I diminish the former.

And that law applies across the board, mental illness excepting.

Obviously responsibilities are equally important.

But an eye for an eye is ot a mature or effective way to deal with problems - it's more rooted in spite than in trying to find a solution.

People who support this measure are angry and want to blame someone and have them punished. Fair enough - but that's not going to solve the problem. That's the crux of the issue.

You show me proof that this will work - the burden of proof is on you as you support this destruction of civil liberties.

[drkpower]

I do believe there would be an immediate drop - of course there would, why wouldn't they? Not in a day but in 6 months or so. You think these measures are gonna stop these crimes??? Not a hope. If you arrest all of these criminals, there will be more to take their places unless the root cause is taken away.

Sarah, I dont know where else I can go on this one; these criminals are not involved in gang wars to 'make a living'; if you disagree, thats fine, we disagree.

And while societal changes surely have an impact on crime levels, there is no prospect of a significant change in crime levels within 6 months of any redistribution of wealth; if you disagree, thats fine, we disagree.