Two judges were forced to resign when Bertie used his influence to help Joe Burkes pal get out of prison. You would have thought lessons would have been learned from that blatant abuse of power.

What do agree with exactly, Paul? Elaborate please. Thank you.

@Paul Doyle. Well, it’s the various concepts and their methods…. Ah, whatever. Looked your previous posts and prefer to not waste my time.Thank you for your time…

Why should it be? I have never understood this ridiculous argument. Nothing you do to the convicted person will ever change the fact that the victim suffered a criminal act. Most people tend not to feel very benevolent towards criminals when they suffer crime. Nor should they – justice is not about taking revenge in anger.

Whether a person is released early should depend on a variety of factors including progress made in rehabilitation, efforts to cooperate and address the anti-social behaviour by the convicted person, severity of the crime itself and others.

The fact that “the victim won’t like it” should have no bearing on whether the offender is granted early release or not.

The victim informed the police, the criminal was prosecuted and a sentence imposed. The victim has had their justice. There’s simply no more to it than that.

I always feel that such arguments are false dichotomies. Just because you advocate in favour of a reduced use of imprisonment, doesn’t mean you’re against the victim. In fact many argue that the criminal justice system at present fails victims even when the accused is convict on the grounds that the harm the victim has suffered has not been rectified. E.g. if a person has their TV stolen, how does imprisoning someone help the victim? Surely it’d be better to make the person who stole it replace the TV and perhaps pay damages on top of this? A model of restorative justice there is not anti-victim even if it does reduce the possibility of a person going to prison.

Prisoners get early release to incentivise good behaviour whilst in prison.

They also get early release very often because our prisons are run down, unfit for purpose and ridiculously over crowded. If you want to put a murderer in prison you have to let a drug user or burglar out of prison – that’s how it works.

The irony is that if you suggest building a bigger, better, more capable facility most people on here will say things like “they dont deserve it” and “let them rot!” and other garbage of that sort. But when they read that prisoners are getting early release they lose their minds about it. So basically they refuse to allow that a new prison should be built and ALSO fail to understand why they get early release.

You have a simple choice people – New Prison? or Early Release? One or the other. You have to choose.

Nonsense. Good behaviour has to be incentivised in a controlled environment such as that. Stick and carrot. Behave yourself and you can get out early. Are you seriously suggesting that good behaviour should just be expected from many of these people as a matter of course? You’re living in cloud cuckoo land.

“Centrally heated cells with televisions, pool tables and food a plenty”
Have you ever actually BEEN inside Mountjoy? I don’t know what planet you’re living on pal but you can barely fit three people in those cells, let alone a TV and a pool table. They don’t even have toilets for gods sake.

As for requiring compensation to be paid so that “they understand what its like to have something taken from them” – you’re already taking their liberty from for a start. You assume these people have money to give – are you suggesting we take it out of their social welfare? Are you forgetting (or are you simply unaware) that a great many of these crimes are committed because people have no money in the first place? You think making them even poorer will stop them committing crimes somehow?

Rapists & paedophiles – I don’t know if they can be cured. Have you any evidence to support that sweeping statement?

Civic pride starts at home and at school. Just like respect for alcohol.

@ Felix. I wasn’t suggesting the cells have pool tables in them.

And no toilet, oh dear the poor things. My mother had no toilet in her house either so what’s your point.

Rapists and paedos. It’s a chemical imbalance. It’s not curable. And are you prepared to have them in society with the chance of a reoffend?

Yes I am advocating their social welfare or heaven forbid their wages if they worked by garnisheed. Yes their liberty is taken but with the laughable sentences its no deterrent. To claim that being poor is a reason for crime as you have done is a huge misrepresentation and insult to the thousands who are poor but who choose not to vomit crime. And you ask what planet I am on, that’s rich.

@Felix many studies have shown that recidivism is a real problem especially when it comes to habitual sex offenders especially paedophiles. Some studies show that these behaviours can only be cured by extreme measures. I am sure you are well aware of these studies even though they may not suit your argument.

@Stephen Gill, what studies are these? You’ve presented no evidence whatsoever but hearsay.
A study by Ian O’Donnell, Eric P. Baumer and Nicola Hughes in (2008) Criminology and Criminal Justice shows that sex-offenders actually have the lowest recidivism rates in Ireland. This finding is in line with that of other countries. Of course this could be due to the difficulty in detecting such offences, but nevertheless, it is not correct to say that “many studies have shown that recidivism is a real problem especially when it comes to habitual sex offenders especially paedophiles.”

@IgnoreIreland I will just quote on line from a report by Groth, Longo & McFadin 1982 “Although recidivism among dangerous sexual offenders is generally reported to be low, clinical experience suggests otherwise”
Recidivism of sexual offenders – rates, risk factors and treatment efficacy Lievore 2004.
There goes your hearsay argument; and there are many more studies that have found that when these offenders decide to re-offend they often take extreme measures to ensure they are not detected and caught again. The problem is defining the different type of offenders as there are so many types and when the overall figure is looked at in these reports recidivism is low. However the problem that is highlighted in these reports is that among the most dangerous type of offender the recidivism rate is high 48% and these are only the ones detected. A Canadian report by Hanson
Sex Offender Recidivism – A Simple Question (2004-03) found that recidivism rates among offenders who had a previous conviction for a similar offense increased over time.
5yrs- 25% 10yrs -32% 15 yrs 37%
As for the Irish report I have not read it however I will say our history of ignoring these types of crimes would make me skeptical of drawing any conclusions from it.

@ Stephen Gill

Oh For Gods Sake. I never said anywhere that Paedophiles can be cured to a certainty. Nor did I say – as the OP did – that they CANNOT be cured to a certainty. In all likelihood I suspect that in some cases they can be and in others they cant. I have no evidence to support that suggestion though. Just as the OP has no evidence to support his claim that all Paedophiles/Rapists are totally incurable.

Read what’s written. Asking for evidence which supports a questionable theory is not the same thing as condemning the theory and certainly no the same thing as advocating a diametrically opposed theory.

I also have to say that Ignoreland’s “Hearsay” argument is not gone. He responded to your original post in which you relied on nothing but hearsay. The fact that you later came back with reference to a report doesnt change the fact you originally relied on nothing.

But none of that is the point. The point is that the OP – Simon Blake – is just making sweeping generalisations to support the idea that some people should be locked up forever and ever. What is he basing this on? Nothing – just his own uneducated opinion.

Before I would deem it necessary to lock ANYONE up for the rest of their natural days I would want conclusive evidence that this person is, and will remain indefinitely, a threat to society – with absolutely no hope of rehabilitation.

Felix I think you have a problem with caps lock on your keyboard.

@Stephen

So, I went and had a read of these papers of yours.

Groth, Longo & McFadin 1982 – sampled sex offenders in prison, of course they reported a higher than usual recidivism rate, those who were convicted once and didn’t reoffend were excluded from the sample. Also, appeals to the “dark figure” of crime generally amount to a dark fantasy – we don’t have any data to support the model we’ve constructed of the evil, irredeemable sex offender, so we’re just going to make believe rather than engage with reality.

Hansen – your reading of the figures doesn’t seem to be accurate per the graphs at the end, seems that you’ve cherry picked the figures for the most high risk offenders. Also, please see the last paragraph, you obviously didn’t get that far:

“Rather than considering all sexual offenders as continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better served when legislation and policies consider the cost/benefit break point after which resources spent tracking and supervising low-risk sexual offenders are better re-directed toward the management of high-risk sexual offenders, crime prevention, and victim services.”

Lievore 2004: the figures (pg. 29) don’t bear out your conclusion. Recidivism rates across all classes of sex offenders were somewhere between 6% and 15% on average, with higher rates for offenders against children who didn’t engage with treatment.

You can get the O’Donnell article here, free access ’till the end of the month, and probably the best evidence going about the reality of the phenomenon in Ireland: http://crj.sagepub.com/content/8/2/123.abstract

The international consensus is that in general recidivism rates are lower for sex offenders, a fact acknowledged by the Irish Prison Service: http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf/Files/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

The Document notes that:
• research both in Ireland and internationally indicates that the rate of recidivism for sex offenders is actually lower than the average for offenders who receive custodial sentences;
• sex offenders are not a homogeneous group, they have different characteristics and pose different levels of risk

The latter point is an important one, there is a marked stratification in the risk factors across the various behaviours encompassed in sexual offending, there’s a good, nuanced study here: http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/47/3/309.abstract

But, in general it seems that treatment works, so long as offenders engage with it, and that it’s available in some meaningful way.

So, first up I think you should google “hearsay argument”, because if Felix was making one, then so were you. Also, if you’re going to cite studies to back up your argument (you’ll be doing well in this instance, there are basically none), do us the courtesy of actually reading them.

@Stephen

So, I went and had a read of these papers of yours.

Groth, Longo & McFadin 1982 – sampled sex offenders in prison, of course they reported a higher than usual recidivism rate, those who were convicted once and didn’t reoffend were excluded from the sample. Also, appeals to the “dark figure” of crime generally amount to a dark fantasy – we don’t have any data to support the model we’ve constructed of the evil, irredeemable sex offender, so we’re just going to make believe rather than engage with reality.

Hansen – your reading of the figures doesn’t seem to be accurate per the graphs at the end, seems that you’ve cherry picked the figures for the most high risk offenders. Also, please see the last paragraph, you obviously didn’t get that far:

“Rather than considering all sexual offenders as continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better served when legislation and policies consider the cost/benefit break point after which resources spent tracking and supervising low-risk sexual offenders are better re-directed toward the management of high-risk sexual offenders, crime prevention, and victim services.”

Lievore 2004: the figures (pg. 29) don’t bear out your conclusion. Recidivism rates across all classes of sex offenders were somewhere between 6% and 15% on average, with higher rates for offenders against children who didn’t engage with treatment.

You can get the O’Donnell article on Sage Criminology – free access ’till the end of the month, it’s probably the best evidence going about the reality of the phenomenon in Ireland – thejournal doesn’t seem to like links being added, so you’ll have to go and google them for yourself.

The international consensus is that in general recidivism rates are lower for sex offenders, a fact acknowledged by the Irish Prison Service Discussion Document on The Management of Sex Offenders:pdf

The Document notes that:
• research both in Ireland and internationally indicates that the rate of recidivism for sex offenders is actually lower than the average for offenders who receive custodial sentences;
• sex offenders are not a homogeneous group, they have different characteristics and pose different levels of risk

The latter point is an important one, there is a marked stratification in the risk factors across the various behaviours encompassed in sexual offending, there’s a good, nuanced study see, Scalora & Garbin – A Multivariate Analysis of Sex Offender Recidivism (2003). In general it seems that treatment works, so long as offenders engage with it, and that it’s available in some meaningful way.

So, first up I think you should google “hearsay argument”, because if Felix was making one, then so were you. Also, if you’re going to cite studies to back up your argument (you’ll be doing well in this instance, there are basically none), do us the courtesy of actually reading them.

@Voodoo- Stop trying to cloud the debate by including studies that wash out the percentages of violent sex offenders and child abusers by including crimes of a lesser nature and throwing in irrelevancies. All the studies highlight the problem with the secretive dangerous serial offender and the problems with the data this causes. The trouble is you and your friends have an agenda to prove that there is no problem, you use the data in these reports to state your case ignoring the figures that do not suit.
Because the sample groups used to assess sex offender are so wide and use so many minor offences this of course skews the data in favour of a much lower rate of recidivism. If you extract the data that only relates to the dangerous offender they show the figures I quoted. So in future when you read papers be honest and do not use the data selectively and dishonestly.
The prosecution of sexual offences present great difficulties as many serial offenders are not detected for many years and one prosecution may result from years of abuse some are never prosecuted (Jimmy Saville) as their crimes are undetected for various reasons. So there seems to be a problem with using the usual studies to give a true picture of recidivism rates among sex offenders. Take a look at this Canadian psychiatric study of sex offender recidivism Lifetime Sex Offender Recidivism A 25 Year Follow Up Study it can be found at. http://ccoso.org/Canadianstudy.pdf (no papers to support my argument I think you said).
I think you will find the methodology interesting and the results do not show the low rates of recidivism reflected in other studies. I will not quote any figures here as they show very high rates of recidivism among sex offenders, see for yourself. This report reflects the real world in which I live where the safety of women and children is paramount. Keep your irrelevant arguments for your friends with their misplaced compassion. As for the Irish report I am sure you can find a good use for that.

Not to put too fine a point on it, you’re bullsh!tting here, champ.

“you use the data in these reports to state your case ignoring the figures that do not suit.”

Bit rich, seeing as you cited studies that actually didn’t support your argument in the slightest, and you didn’t even acknowledge the conclusions that the researchers themselves had arrived at, because they didn’t suit you. Of course, it’s a given that it’s me who’s not living in the “real world”, seeing as I studied and worked in the criminal justice system. I bow to your ability to use google and to misquote research.

On the plus side, I’m glad to see that you’ve at least paid attention to the content of your latest piece of cherry-picking. But still, if you find one minor study that expanded the definition of recidivism to a point at which it’s essentially meaningless in order to fit their conclusion to their premises more persuasive than a mass analysis of 118 studies which came out with an average recidivism rate of 11.5% ( http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/hansonandm-b2009riskassessment.pdf ), along the overwhelming majority of the literature on sexual offender recidivism, that’s up to you.

By the same token, if you want to believe that there’s monsters under your bed who come out when you go to sleep, then have at it, just don’t try to pretend that there’s any weight of empirical validity to your opinion.

Just to be clear, what the overwhelming weight of evidence shows is that most sexual offenders pose a relatively low risk of reoffending, particularly sexual reoffending, but that a small minority are decidedly more dangerous. Notably, one of the key predictors of this is whether they engage with treatment programs. That’s the reality.

Btw, I have no vested interest in my “friends” position, I just want to see criminal justice policy that’s founded on evidence and reality, rather than dark fantasies passing as “common sense” in the “real world”, feeding into mindless posturing.

I’d suggest, also, if you’re so deeply concerned by community safety, having a look, for example, at the work Shadd Maruna at Queens has done on offender rehabilitation and reintegration and having a think about what’s really effective in tackling criminal behaviour, rather than prosecuting keyboard war against an fantasy vision of the characteristics of a tiny segment of offenders, as if that’s a representative sample.

Even if everything you’re saying is true, which it isn’t, and sexual offenders are all incurable recidivist degenerates, this accounts for one hundredth of one percent of recorded crime by 2010 figures. More realistically, if we’re to take the internationally accepted recidivism figure of 15%, it’s 1.5 thousandth of one percent of offenders that we’re talking about here.

@Voodoo The truth is “champ” you are the one bullshitting, not me; twisting what I said. The figures I reported did support my conclusions, the fact that they were then laundered with other offences of a minor nature suited you. You have studied criminology well done, but that does not excuse the biased view you are expressing hiding behind a study that uses 91 low risk cases out of the 118 then of course the rates are going to reflect the recidivism rates of the 91 not the 26 serious sexual offenders the ones we should be concerned with. This is a selective study at best using unrealistic data sets that do not reflect real world, risk, or experience, it does seem to suit the academic orthodoxy, better not speak out against that then. The report I highlighted to you does reflect a real world 25 year study; you can ignore it, because it does not suit your neo liberal reformist agenda.
Regrettably as we know from real life experience in this country the vast majority of sex offenders escape prosecution for most of their offending and are only caught after committing a catalogue (recidivism) of offences. These monsters were and still are very real in our sorry land (not hiding under beds) for so very long they preyed on the weak and defenceless so forgive my scepticism of your neo liberal “let them all out early” agenda. You say that they are a tiny segment of offenders, maybe so, they are also the most dangerous as they prey on the very young and the weak. The more serious do not admit their crimes or engage in any form of treatment yet there is no system to incentivise their engagement.
What does concern me is that there is too much interference in the lenient system of justice we have from all the vested interests. We have a revolving door system in our penal institutions with little or no incentivised engagement with proper realistic rehabilitation programmes. I am not advocating a lock them up and throw away the key mentality but what I would like to see is real incentivised reforms in the system with time off for real good behaviour and not an automatic right, as is. It is good to see examples of people taking control and making changes in their lives that takes them away from crime. I think we will just have to agree to disagree on the matter of the dangerous sex offenders. I do have a passing interest in criminology and if I get a chance I will look up the work of Shadd Maruna.

Our legislature don’t have unlimited power, we thankfully have a system of balances and checks with the judiciary, the constitution and the president and I would argue that it’s much more apt to call the constitution our voice than politicians. Taking such decisions away from people who have to be populous enough to get re elected and have to appease the people who pay for their campaign.

Can only be a good thing.