Looting and destruction of Aldi shop in Dublin.

[the 12 th man]

Won't put footage of it here as I'm sure we are all tired of looking at it but how thick can you be to rob and destroy a shop where you and your friends and neighbours depend on for shopping?,small kids were among the looters.:(

[nigel-harps1954]

Lidl.

[osarusan]

Thankfully these were so dumb that they posted themselves doing it on social media sites.

Hopefully all criminals will be as thick and helpful.

[the 12 th man]

Lidl.

I stand corrected.

[nigel-harps1954]

I stand corrected.

It's an easy mistake to make. There's very Lidl differences between both shops in the grand scheme of things.

[pineapple stu]

Yeah, Aldis shops look the same nowadays.

Seriously though, 24 hours of snow and this is what happens. I know it's a tiny minority, but **** me, it's braindead stuff to be up to. A jail sentence for the main idiots is a must, but there's underlying issues there that won't be addressed by locking a few loo-lahs away.

Though not sure if there's the political appetite to try address that problem. Or, to be honest, where to start with it. Fewer people let go with a warning after 20+ prior convictions? Reduce welfare to make work more financially appealing?

[DannyInvincible]

Or increase wages to make work more financially appealing. And make sure that there is a well-educated work-force with work to go to while you're at it.

The sort of opportunistic crime that occurred at the Lidl store is symptomatic of social inequality (https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/whether-we-like-it-or-not-tallaght-looting-lifted-the-lid-on-a-class-torn-ireland-831037.html) and those involved most likely engaged in it because they feel they have very little to lose on account of their material circumstances. Reducing welfare would only increase relative poverty, thus widening that material inequality and the sense of social alienation.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/The_Antipoverty_Effect_of_Government_Spending_Vect or_Graph.svg/1024px-The_Antipoverty_Effect_of_Government_Spending_Vect or_Graph.svg.png

Your proposal would be counter-productive in that it would only serve to cause even greater resentment and desperation within disadvantaged or impoverished communities, such as that where the looting occurred. People from such communities already have little stake in wider society, but such a policy would only lead to greater social problems and lack of cohesion than already exists. The concept of the welfare state was conceived by ruling classes in order to pacify the potentially restless working classes and lumpenproletariat, after all.

It is no surprise that Scandinavian social democracies, for example, have such low crime rates; they provide progressive welfare systems, ensure greater levels of equality and enjoy a much more homogenised sense of community without significant internal class tension or conflict as a result. They also tend to favour rehabilitation (https://ideas.ted.com/prison_rehab_from_the_inside/) over punitive justice, which helps. These sorts of investments in society as a whole evidently pay off for the greater good, well-being and welfare of all.

When you refer to the underlying issues, are you referring to social inequality or are you referring to something else? I'm not convinced there is a political appetite to try address the problem either, particularly given some of the negative and condescending opinions the Taoiseach clearly harbours in respect of working class people (https://www.joe.ie/life-style/irelands-first-openly-gay-taoiseach-headlines-miss-point-bit-dont-590492).

[backstothewall]

But can Scandinavian governments make those sort of systems work for them because they are dealing with Scandinavian society. I just can't imagine a branch of lidl being pulled apart by locals with heavy plant machinery in Stockholm.

It's a chicken and egg situation in many ways. The legal system here will hammer them, and correctly so imho. In our society it is important that an example is made of these morons.

[DannyInvincible]

But can Scandinavian governments make those sort of systems work for them because they are dealing with Scandinavian society. I just can't imagine a branch of lidl being pulled apart by locals with heavy plant machinery in Stockholm.

I would suggest that this is because Scandinavian society is more egalitarian and has fewer internal or class tensions than we do. Obviously the differences are rooted in differing histories, but I'd like to believe it is possible to create greater equality and raise living conditions for all in Irish society. I would be surprised if this happened and incidents like the Lidl looting still occurred. It is no surprise that the looting occurred in Jobstown, one of the country's poorer or so-called "dodgiest" areas.

Incidents like this don't necessarily have to be indicative of "Irish traits"; I think they have more to do with material and structural conditions rather than some innate Irish culture or moral failing. I mean, you wouldn't get Irish people living across the city in D4 doing that, not necessarily because I think they're a better calibre of person with greater moral fibre or whatever, but because they live in a totally different set of socio-economic conditions - stable, secure, included and invested in society - that are far removed from the relative poverty, financial difficulty and sense of societal exclusion or alienation experienced by many others elsewhere in much poorer parts of the country.

I always thought it interesting that Iceland was a country with high gun-ownership rates, yet violent crime-rates are very low there and gun-crime virtually non-existent. One big difference between it and, say, the US, where gun-crime is off-the-scale, is that Iceland is one of the most equal societies on earth. The US happens to be one of the most unequal.


It's a chicken and egg situation in many ways. The legal system here will hammer them, and correctly so imho. In our society it is important that an example is made of these morons.

I'm not justifying the looting, nor advocating anarchy, but I do think there are more effective and imaginative ways of dealing with these issues so that people don't feel driven or attracted to doing things like this. It might involve a bit more work and foresight than cutting benefits and dispensing traditional retributive justice, but we can and should strive to do better as a society because the vindictive approach clearly doesn't work if this sort of crime still happens. It's also easy to just dub the culprits "thugs" and "scumbags", but the issue is a bit more complex than that. (I'm not accusing you of simplifying it, by the way. I'm just speaking generally.)

[pineapple stu]

Or increase wages to make work more financially appealing. And make sure that there is a well-educated work-force with work to go to while you're at it.
Well this is true.

I don't know if the reducing welfare idea would be as negative as you put it. I get the points you're making, but let's be honest here - Ireland has a very good welfare system. Yes, there are countries which have a different model - welfare as a factor of full salary for short-term unemployed for example - but we're still quite good. €188 a week isn't a huge amount to live off (speaking from experience), but then there's other factors such as social housing (gone extreme here to be honest), medical card, fuel allowance, child benefit, back to school allowance, household benefits, free travel pass, etc. OK, you can't get them all, but they add up. It's quite high compared to England (£73 a week I believe?) And then there's the travel savings of not going to work, and the possibility of some, shall we say, extra-curricular earnings. Compared to, say, going to work for 35 hours and getting €350/week gross, it's quite reasonable.

Can we compromise and agree that welfare is too close to minimum wage?

I agree you could increase basic wages and aim for a more equal society, and that this would be beneficial. It does seem that the State is going the opposite direction though, with cheap labour coming in from abroad creating a bit of a race to the bottom situation. Take Musgaves as an example; two years ago, they went to Poland (https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/irish-store-looking-for-polish-workers-after-they-struggle-to-fill-warehouse-posts-35052346.html) to fill jobs because they couldn't fill them here; these are likely a subset of the kind of people who are living 45 to a flat (https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/exclusive-45-people-1-shower-up-to-10-in-a-room-the-harsh-reality-of-life-in-a-dublin-flat-35137036.html).

So a flip side of looking at that situation is that Musgraves weren't paying enough to fill the roles. Musgraves aren't short of cash - €73m pre-tax profit last year - and they can surely afford to pay a more equitable wage. If it leads to slightly higher prices (across the whole sector), that's something we as a society should accept, I think. If there was a more limited pool of potential employees to choose from, I think you'd find a more equitable wage structure. (Yes, Musgraves isn't the State, but the State are certainly facilitating the idea of importing cheap labour). I agree the US has huge inequity - hard to argue otherwise - and it does seem as if we (and Europe, by a kind of reverse extension) are going the same way unfortunately.

Also, let's not go putting Scandinavia up on such a pedestal relative to us. Yes, they're generally very safe societies - but they way you've written about it makes Ireland out to be much worse. In fact, we have it quite good here too. The EU reports (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Crime_and_criminal_justice_statistics#Source_data_ for_tables_and_figures_.28MS_Excel.29) our theft rate to be far better than all of Scandinavia, Iceland excepted; in fact, Sweden and Denmark were the top two in terms of thefts reported per capita in 2015. Burglaries - similar story. Drugs - similar story. Robbery - we're not so good, but still ahead of Sweden (But then of course, how does Sweden define a theft being reported? How do we define it? And do such differences mean the conclusion you imply - that Scandinavian countries have a lower crime rate than here - can't actually be implied?)

Similarly, let's not also start thinking that social inequality is a peculiarly Irish problem. In fact, Ireland has a relatively flat social structure - certainly compared to, say, England.

I agree that -


It's also easy to just dub the culprits "thugs" and "scumbags", but the issue is a bit more complex than that.

- but I think it's proper to note that these guys are thugs and scumbags. Yes, there's issues there which the State and the community need to address, but equally people need to take responsibility for their own actions too. There's been a serious dearth of that here in recent years, the furore any time a repossession order is issued being the nadir I think, though that's a different thread.

What's the conclusion of all that, in terms of solid recommendations? Dunno really.

[Eminence Grise]

I just can't imagine a branch of lidl being pulled apart by locals with heavy plant machinery in Stockholm.

True. They're more likely to form a co-operative with a gender balanced ruling council, then vote on how best to disassemble the store, remove the goods and put it all back together again, having sorted the loot into recyclable/non-recylable piles. Probably leave it looking better than before into the bargain.

[Charlie Darwin]

Can we compromise and agree that welfare is too close to minimum wage?
Having lived on both, no. The difference is quite substantial, and living on minimum wage is crap enough.

[backstothewall]

I'm not justifying the looting, nor advocating anarchy, but I do think there are more effective and imaginative ways of dealing with these issues so that people don't feel driven or attracted to doing things like this. It might involve a bit more work and foresight than cutting benefits and dispensing traditional retributive justice, but we can and should strive to do better as a society because the vindictive approach clearly doesn't work if this sort of crime still happens. It's also easy to just dub the culprits "thugs" and "scumbags", but the issue is a bit more complex than that. (I'm not accusing you of simplifying it, by the way. I'm just speaking generally.)

I'm quoting this bit because we more or less agree on everything else you've said. Clearly we need to do more for those communities who need most help. There are a million examples of things we don't do nearly enough (north or south) to give people the tools to improve their lot in life. Lack of Childcare, Mental Health services, Adult Literacy programs and Vocational Training for school leavers all jump immediately to mind as issues which make it impossible for people to fulfil their potential.

But. 2 buts actually.

But 1: You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. None of the examples i've given can work well work unless people participate enthusiastically. Very often people can be stuck in a vicious cycle. After years/decades/generations of existing on state benefits the near impossibility of breaking that cycle can make any effort to improves ones lot in life seem like a pointless waste of effort. You can require participation as a condition of receiving state help but people simply show up to mark time if you do that. There are obviously jobs out there if people can be trained to do them, but how can you convince somebody drained of self worth by a lifetime of hopeless unemployment that they can have a future where they are somebody who "gets up early in the morning"? Because if you can't do that all the adult literacy courses in the world will make no difference at all. I have no idea what the answer is to this unfortunately. I suspect the botom line is that anything that might be successful would be a lot more expensive than the potential benefit to the rest of society. Or to put it another way it's easier for the taxpayer to hand them a few quid every week and leave them to get on with it.

But 2: All everyone has said about this being true, you still can't tolerate people brazenly knocking down supermarkets. This was a crime of opportunity rather than desperation. If it hadn't snowed it would never have happened. Society just can't tolerate this, not least because they have hurt their own community who already have it tough enough. They will rightly have the book thrown at them by the courts.

[pineapple stu]

Having lived on both, no. The difference is quite substantial, and living on minimum wage is crap enough.
You're not supposed to live on the dole though. It's intended as a temporary support while you look for new work; you're supposed to have some manner of savings to support yourself during that time as well.

[Charlie Darwin]

You're not supposed to live on the dole though. It's intended as a temporary support while you look for new work; you're supposed to have some manner of savings to support yourself during that time as well.
You really don't have a clue about how difficult life can be for other people, do you?

[pineapple stu]

I've been on the dole for far more than I'd have liked, so have some idea, yes.

It still doesn't follow that you're meant to live off the dole alone.

[NeverFeltBetter]

I'm sure you're not meant to. A lot of people have to. Or at least had to, over the last decade.

My own experience with the dole was fairly crushing for a lot of reasons. At one point I spent around six months of temp work earning less on than I would have if I had not been working at all (worked out in the long run). The bureaucracy when trying to transfer to the temp work system was beyond irritating, where I ended up being overpaid at one point. And the Department itself is full of holes: on two separate meetings years apart, I discovered my name, work history, qualifications and gender were incorrect on DSP records. And that second meeting was to try and sign me up for a training scheme I wasn't actually eligible for, on account of said qualifications (though the officer I spoke to had the good grace to be mortified when he realised what happened).

But yet, to get back to the topic at hand, at no point during that experience did I ever feel the need to engage in any kind of illegal activity to get by, whether planned or via sudden opportunity. I have degrees, prior experience, a support network, and things worked out long term. I think that dependence on dole is only part of the problem: some of the people who would have ransacked that store just don't have access to the same opportunities for education and advancement that I did.

[DannyInvincible]

Similarly, let's not also start thinking that social inequality is a peculiarly Irish problem. In fact, Ireland has a relatively flat social structure - certainly compared to, say, England.

I'm not saying Ireland is the worst. It isn't and often features highly - higher than the UK, in fact, which is an incredibly unequal society - in average quality-of-life and general equality indexes. We still have real poverty here though - Jobstown is a particularly deprived area - and, so long as we have that, it's something that needs to be tackled. The main point I'm making is that there are models elsewhere in the world from which we can perhaps take inspiration in order to more effectively tackle it.

Just on the UK, you're right that the dole is £73 a week. For what it's worth, it is also the only country in the so-called developed world where workers are getting poorer whilst the country is getting richer.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DN2nq8tX4AEb2R3.jpg


but I think it's proper to note that these guys are thugs and scumbags. Yes, there's issues there which the State and the community need to address, but equally people need to take responsibility for their own actions too. There's been a serious dearth of that here in recent years, the furore any time a repossession order is issued being the nadir I think, though that's a different thread.

I guess we're free to use whatever labels we want to demonise and "other" people. I just don't see a huge deal of fundamental value or worth in those particular ones. What do they actually tell us? It's simplistic to just dub them "thugs", as if they were born with some inherent moral defect and aren't a product of a particular set of social and material conditions. Would one find many "thugs" across the city in D4? If not, why not? If on the extraordinary off-chance the same thing actually happened in an affluent area, would the term "thugs" even be used or would it just be a case of "youngsters messing about" or of "eejits having a laugh"?

It's not necessarily about absolving people of responsibility. By pointing out the causal connection between poverty, inequality or social alienation and looting or crime, one is not denying criminals agency or a portion of responsibility, nor is one claiming they are "forced" by their circumstances to react by looting or criminality, nor is one infantilising them. To recognise the causation is to do exactly the opposite. It is to point out that some human beings will decide - through the use of their rational and reasoning faculties and adult decision-making capabilities - that looting or crime is justified as a crude way of redressing the inequality and frustration they experience, as a means of attacking the unjust system that they perceive excludes them or to give them the sort of life that they see others from more privileged backgrounds living and enjoying.

The Italian and Irish mafia emerged in the US, for example, because they were two prominent social groups who were systematically excluded by the dominant WASP society at the time, so they made it their business to set up sort of parallel societies and make a living out of dealing with whatever the dominant society didn't deal with, or illegal things, in other words; things like racketeering, smuggling, fraud, counterfeiting, robbery, bribery, money laundering, gambling, loan-sharking, weapons trafficking, drug trafficking, extortion, prostitution, pornography and theft.

Rather than absolving people of responsibility, it's really about recognising the causal factors behind crime, unrest and dysfunction (often poverty, inequality, exclusion, alienation, neglect, vulnerability, criminalisation, classism, pathologisation, etc.) and, based on that, properly tackling those causes by engineering a social policy that will diminish the likelihood of these types of dysfunctional behaviours manifesting themselves. Dysfunctional behaviour - and all humans are capable of it in the "optimal" conditions - is usually a sign of a dysfunctional society or set of social circumstances.

I often repeat this quote by Noam Chomsky on the key task of social policy as it's a good one: "The task for social policy is to design the ways we live and the institutional and cultural structure of our lives so as to favor the benign and to suppress the harsh and destructive aspects of our fundamental nature."


I suspect the botom line is that anything that might be successful would be a lot more expensive than the potential benefit to the rest of society. Or to put it another way it's easier for the taxpayer to hand them a few quid every week and leave them to get on with it.

I'd say you're probably correct in your suspicion that maintaining the status quo is the easiest and cheapest way for taxpayers and members of the propertied or moneyed classes of "dealing with it". In reality, it doesn't really deal with it at all, of course. It just lets it continue to exist or stagnate and sort of pretends it isn't there. And these communities have next to no real political representation, so their voice can be very easily ignored.

Doesn't acknowledging that the rest of society takes the lazy way out indict the rest of society and factor us into the causes too though? If there is something we can do that is within our power to help the situation but we continually and knowingly choose not to take that course of action because we're simply not bothered or aren't prepared to make the necessary sacrifice, it's a bit rich for us to then point the finger and dub more helpless and less privileged people "scumbags" when they engage in the sort of conduct we dislike that is a direct symptom or manifestation of the social problems that we're content to let exist because we just couldn't be arsed properly dealing with them. That's a terrible dereliction of social responsibility by and a terrible indictment of "respectable" society.

Some ways of potentially helping the situation or things to strive for perhaps: funding university attendance (students are paid to go to uni in Denmark, AFAIK); better subsidising childcare and providing greater assistance for single mothers especially; greater public funding in healthcare, including mental health (I believe Ireland spends proportionally less on healthcare than other developed countries); investment in communal groups, activities and socio-cultural outlets; decriminalise drugs (like Portugal has done to great success) and make abuse a health matter rather than a criminal matter; stop pathologising, criminalising or forbidding perfectly valid forms of working-class youth culture, expression and recreation that are just as personally and socially harmful or harmless as many other commonly accepted recreational activities.


But 2: All everyone has said about this being true, you still can't tolerate people brazenly knocking down supermarkets. This was a crime of opportunity rather than desperation. If it hadn't snowed it would never have happened. Society just can't tolerate this, not least because they have hurt their own community who already have it tough enough. They will rightly have the book thrown at them by the courts.

I wasn't suggesting tolerating it. I was suggesting the exact opposite, in fact; that being dealing with it properly and effectively. I also accept it was a crime of opportunity, but this opportunism happened in Jobstown and not in, say, D4 for a reason. And it has nothing to do with some inherent superior morality or with the calibre or stock of people living in these respective areas. It has everything to do with structural conditions and material circumstances experienced by those who perpetrated the demolition and looting. That's not to "let them off the hook", but it is to say that they very likely would not have done it had only they existed in a different set of circumstances. I'm suggesting there are better ways of dealing with this than by taking a "hard line" through a moralistic, punitive and ultimately counter-productive penal system.

A friend of mine from Derry who's a senior criminology lecturer at John Moore's University in Liverpool recently happened to give an interview (now on YouTube) about the UK's penal system (amongst other related and mainly female-focused penal matters) and succinctly demolished the case for taking a "hard line" stance (from 15m59s):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJGckwXWRTA&feature=youtu.be&t=15m59s

Throwing people into prison is often "justified" on the basis that it "protects the public", "deters crime", "rehabilitates the offender" and "serves as a punishment". Prison doesn't actually do any of the first three things effectively (and she points to stats and research to demonstrate that), so its only "effective" function really is to act as a means of punishing and morally shaming people - by inflicting pain and causing further harm - but what's the ultimate point in that? Is it just to massage the egos of the rest of us so we can reassure ourselves how "morally superior" we are to these "undesirables", many of whom are victims themselves who may even suffer from mental health problems and other issues in their lives that many of the rest of us couldn't even imagine? The traditional tack is hardly conducive to ridding society of crime or dysfunction.


You're not supposed to live on the dole though. It's intended as a temporary support while you look for new work; you're supposed to have some manner of savings to support yourself during that time as well.

Whether you're supposed to have savings or not, that doesn't really deal with reality; there are plenty of people who simply don't have the luxury of savings as some sort of back-up or safety net, through no real fault of their own. What should they do?

[osarusan]

It's not necessarily about absolving people of responsibility. By pointing out the causal connection between poverty, inequality or social alienation and looting or crime, one is not denying criminals agency or a portion of responsibility, nor is one claiming they are "forced" by their circumstances to react by looting or criminality, nor is one infantilising them. To recognise the causation is to do exactly the opposite. It is to point out that some human beings will decide - through the use of their rational and reasoning faculties and adult decision-making capabilities - that looting or crime is justified as a crude way of redressing the inequality and frustration they experience, as a means of attacking the unjust system that they perceive excludes them or to give them the sort of life that they see others from more privileged backgrounds living and enjoying.

How do you know, or why do you assume, that this is their motivation for doing what they did?

Also, we have had serious social deprivation in different areas of Irish cities for years, decades. And I think we can all agree that with social deprivation there is going to be a rise in some kinds of crimes and social problems, certainly.

Yet, to the best of my knowledge, we haven't ever seen an act of looting or destruction like this before, not anywhere in this country (or indeed in many other countries in Western Europe). Even by the standards of a socially deprived area like Jobstown, this is completely off the scale in terms of wanton destruction. So I am not convinced that the people carrying out an act so rare, so different from the norm, can be described as being a product of their environment.

Finally, given the nature and circumstances of the crime itself (how long it would take, how obvious it would be to the public that it was taking place, etc), and the fact that the people involved made posts on social media sites definitively proving their involvement, I would not give too much credence to the notion that the people involved made much use of "their rational and reasoning faculties and adult decision-making capabilities".

[DannyInvincible]

How do you know, or why do you assume, that this is their motivation for doing what they did?

That shouldn't be an exhaustive list of possibilities, but they are just suggestions (that I believe to be plausible) as to why people might engage in looting or crime of this nature.


Yet, to the best of my knowledge, we haven't ever seen an act of looting or destruction like this before, not anywhere in this country (or indeed in many other countries in Western Europe). Even by the standards of a socially deprived area like Jobstown, this is completely off the scale in terms of wanton destruction. So I am not convinced that the people carrying out an act so rare, so different from the norm, can be described as being a product of their environment.

Just off the top of my head (because I was living in Manchester at the time), there was widespread rioting and looting in major cities throughout England (including Manchester) during the summer of 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots

Similarly, it was people from materially underprivileged backgrounds who were engaged in that unrest. They may not have been guided by a particular ideology, but you can be sure their anger and sense of social injustice and alienation was very much political. I had a friend studying the reasons for that unrest and the reasons given for involvement by those engaged in it were similar to those I outlined above. Of course I don't know exactly what was going on in those people's heads at the time, but I think we can make educated guesses based on situation, actions and environment.

What do you think they're a product of if not their environment?


Finally, given the nature and circumstances of the crime itself (how long it would take, how obvious it would be to the public that it was taking place, etc), and the fact that the people involved made posts on social media sites definitively proving their involvement, I would not give too much credence to the notion that the people involved made much use of "their rational and reasoning faculties and adult decision-making capabilities".

Is that to imply that they were non-thinking automatons, that it just happened by chance for no real reason and that they are not capable of responsibility?

[osarusan]

Just off the top of my head (because I was living in Manchester at the time), there was widespread rioting and looting in major cities throughout England (including Manchester) during the summer of 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots

You are misunderstanding my argument - yes we have seen looting before, and various acts of wanton vandalism and so on. But I cannot recall anybody ripping a shop apart with a stolen digger before, then trying to open the safe in the street. It does seem to me to be an act of a nature that we have rarely if ever seen before, which brings me to my second point:



What do you think they're a product of if not their environment?

I can go along with the idea that people involved in certain crimes, involved in social problems etc, are a product of their environment. Yet, despite all the areas in Ireland that suffer from serious social deprivation, if there is no environment in Ireland that has ever seen this kind of act before, then how are they a product of it? All of the other people who are living in such areas, and have lived in such areas in the past, have managed to avoid carrying out such an act.



Is that to imply that they were non-thinking automatons, that it just happened by chance for no real reason and that they are not capable of responsibility?
I think they are thick as sh!t, without the brains to realise that practically everything they did guaranteed their discovery and arrest. And, hopefully, their successful prosecution.

EDIT: You could probably factor in a degree of contempt for a sentencing culture which allows people to remain free even after amassing dozens, if not hundreds, of convictions.

[DannyInvincible]

You are misunderstanding my argument - yes we have seen looting before, and various acts of wanton vandalism and so on. But I cannot recall anybody ripping a shop apart with a stolen digger before, then trying to open the safe in the street. It does seem to me to be an act of a nature that we have rarely if ever seen before, which brings me to my second point:

I can go along with the idea that people involved in certain crimes, involved in social problems etc, are a product of their environment. Yet, despite all the areas in Ireland that suffer from serious social deprivation, if there is no environment in Ireland that has ever seen this kind of act before, then how are they a product of it? All of the other people who are living in such areas, and have lived in such areas in the past, have managed to avoid carrying out such an act.

Was it really that unprecedented though? Stolen diggers and other heavy machinery have often been used to tear ATMs out of walls. You'll find lots of examples of it happening across Ireland and the UK on Google. Obviously what happened with the Lidl store was on a grander scale but I would argue that it was a case of circumstances (socio-economic conditions) and opportunity (exceptionally bad weather conditions, meaning ample time without authorities interupting) aligning.

[Charlie Darwin]

I've been on the dole for far more than I'd have liked, so have some idea, yes.

It still doesn't follow that you're meant to live off the dole alone.
Right and, as you intimated, you had savings. You presumably had a university education, a supportive family background and strong prospects. Not everyone is in so fortunate a position, which you haven't really demonstrated you have an appreciation for.

[osarusan]

Was it really that unprecedented though? Stolen diggers and other heavy machinery have often been used to tear ATMs out of walls. You'll find lots of examples of it happening across Ireland and the UK on Google. Obviously what happened with the Lidl store was on a grander scale but I would argue that it was a case of circumstances (socio-economic conditions) and opportunity (exceptionally bad weather conditions, meaning ample time without authorities interupting) aligning.

I'd describe this as vandalism more than theft (the Lidl had already been looted through a broken door - the tearing down of the roof happened later). In that sense, the scale and manner of destruction is pretty much unprecedented I would say.

I suppose my main point is this - at what kind of behaviour/crime, does the 'product of a deprived environment' argument cease to be valid? Or does it ever cease to be valid? Is everything that somebody from a particular environment does inevitably a product of that environment?

This isn't the kind of behaviour that is relatively common in deprived areas, which can be normalised to a certain degree. It was something far beyond that, something we have not seen before from that particular environment or any other similarly deprived area in Ireland - it is something that these environments have not produced before.

And as I said, if the people and the act are simply a product of the environment, why are we not seeing things on a similar scale more often, by others who are part of the same environment?

[pineapple stu]

Right and, as you intimated, you had savings. You presumably had a university education, a supportive family background and strong prospects. Not everyone is in so fortunate a position, which you haven't really demonstrated you have an appreciation for.
I find that a bit ignorant to be honest. I'm an accountant. I worked for five years in an industry which subsequently collapsed. You evidently would be surprised how a lack of transferability can hit job prospects in that instance (which is easily the key item you listed).

Are others worse off than me? Of course. But I don't think that allows you blithely dismiss the point I've made. If social welfare were, say, 80% of minimum wage, why would you work the minimum wage, or even a small bit above? And it's a decent chunk; maybe 5% of the workforce.



I guess we're free to use whatever labels we want to demonise and "other" people. I just don't see a huge deal of fundamental value or worth in those particular ones. What do they actually tell us? It's simplistic to just dub them "thugs", as if they were born with some inherent moral defect and aren't a product of a particular set of social and material conditions.
I think you're overanalysing here. I don't agree with your definition of thugs for starters. Yes, social issues are highly relevant, and it is a job for both government and community to address that, but you can't use that to absolve robbing a JCB and knocking down a building. And reading your posts, I can't help get the feeling you do think they deserve absolution.

No-one made them steal the JCB, knock down the shop and loot it. As someone else said here, this was absolutely a crime of opportunity, not desperation. They should be held responsible for that in an appropriate court of law. That's not to take away from the social issues; merely to put them in context. This absolutely was an act of thuggery.

[DannyInvincible]

I suppose my main point is this - at what kind of behaviour/crime, does the 'product of a deprived environment' argument cease to be valid? Or does it ever cease to be valid? Is everything that somebody from a particular environment does inevitably a product of that environment?

I would say so, yes. Nobody lives in a vacuum. I don't think people are born "thugs", for example. Nor would I say people are born "angels/saints". As humans, we're naturally capable of all sorts of things perceived both good and bad. There are certain environments or circumstances which may amplify certain traits. There are others which may suppress or quell them. Certain systems or structures of living and operating may enable abuses of power, whilst certain conditions may heighten the likelihood of violent disorder, for example, because humans have the capability to respond in such ways when the "optimal" conditions present themselves.

The key, as I was saying and as I quoted Chomsky saying, is to design a social policy that makes it less likely that our negative and dysfunctional traits will be manifested. That's not remotely to suggest that designing such a policy is easy either, but that doesn't mean not striving towards it. It will require sacrifice by wider society. As BTTW wondered, are we as a collective really prepared to foot that cost? It seems maybe not. If we're content to let these conditions exist, we can hardly play dumb when they bubble over and we experience blowback.


This isn't the kind of behaviour that is relatively common in deprived areas, which can be normalised to a certain degree. It was something far beyond that, something we have not seen before from that particular environment or any other similarly deprived area in Ireland - it is something that these environments have not produced before.

Theft and vandalism are very common in deprived areas. Cars are burnt out. Shops and properties are broken into. ATMs are ripped out of walls. Only three decades ago (in the north here), people were blowing things up on a regular basis (albeit with a more advanced or developed ideological motive).

The Lidl incident was on a grander scale than the usual petty crime you might expect in deprived areas, I agree, but then the weather was exceptional and undoubtedly gave the perpetrators a necessary level of confidence or a sense of reassurance that the authorities would have difficulty getting to the scene once the alarm was raised. They were living in a temporary state of anarchy and evidently or duly exploited that.


And as I said, if the people and the act are simply a product of the environment, why are we not seeing things on a similar scale more often, by others who are part of the same environment?

I would suggest that it is possibly because we rarely get weather so extreme that the authorities are essentially left incapacitated for the night.

If it wasn't environmental, what do you think might have caused it or primarily contributed to it? If they were mindless, brainless, numbskull thugs, why haven't they been doing this (audacious) sort of thing without any regard for the consequences their whole lives? To me, it would seem they made a (crude) risk-benefit analysis in their heads and decided that this was a risk worth taking (possibly because they don't really have a huge deal to risk or lose anyway on account of their circumstances). If you give people a stake in society, they'll be far less likely to respond to situations in manners such as this.

[DannyInvincible]

I think you're overanalysing here. I don't agree with your definition of thugs for starters. Yes, social issues are highly relevant, and it is a job for both government and community to address that, but you can't use that to absolve robbing a JCB and knocking down a building. And reading your posts, I can't help get the feeling you do think they deserve absolution.

...

They should be held responsible for that in an appropriate court of law. That's not to take away from the social issues; merely to put them in context. This absolutely was an act of thuggery.

What do you mean by the term "thugs" then?

Where did I attempt to absolve anyone? I tried to diagnose a problem and explain why I think this incident might have happened. I'm not necessarily right - I'm theorising - but I haven't tried to justify or condone it. It's dysfunctional behaviour that is socially destructive and therefore undesirable. If we want to make sure this sort of thing (theft, vandalism, crime or whatever) doesn't happen again or happens less in future, then we need to understand it properly so we can apply the correct and most effective remedy, that is if we as a society are bothered to fix it.

Just because I think the "zero tolerance" approach to justice is a counter-productive one, it doesn't mean I'm absolving anyone. Even if empathy for the sake of empathy was to be removed from the equation, I would still advocate the application of less "hard-line" methods that I think might be more effective and beneficial for both society and (potential) offender if we truly wish to protect society, deter crime and rehabilitate offenders so that they can be contributing, functioning members of a happy, healthy and peaceful society instead of eternally causing expense, disruption or misery for others.


No-one made them steal the JCB, knock down the shop and loot it.

That's exactly what I said when I wrote this:


It's not necessarily about absolving people of responsibility. By pointing out the causal connection between poverty, inequality or social alienation and looting or crime, one is not denying criminals agency or a portion of responsibility, nor is one claiming they are "forced" by their circumstances to react by looting or criminality, nor is one infantilising them. To recognise the causation is to do exactly the opposite. It is to point out that some human beings will decide - through the use of their rational and reasoning faculties and adult decision-making capabilities - that looting or crime is justified as a crude way of redressing the inequality and frustration they experience, as a means of attacking the unjust system that they perceive excludes them or to give them the sort of life that they see others from more privileged backgrounds living and enjoying.

They made a decision to do what they did. It was actually osarusan who disputed this and, in my view, attempted to infantilise them.


As someone else said here, this was absolutely a crime of opportunity, not desperation.

I agree it was a crime of opportunity, but pre-existing conditions (poverty and inequality) obviously also contributed. As I said above, I feel it was "a case of circumstances (socio-economic conditions) and opportunity (exceptionally bad weather conditions, meaning ample time without authorities interrupting) aligning".

What do you think it was an opportunity to do? Why do you think they took this opportunity to do that? Why do you think not one person in, say, D4 took the opportunity to do something similar in their area? There were obviously other factors underpinning the decision to take the opportunity that had presented itself.

(By the way, I'm aware I never responded to you yet in relation to our discussion from a while back on Muslims, the burqa and related matters in another thread. I've had a response half-written for a good while, but just never got round to adding the finishing touches due to other distractions and obligations arising in the meantime, so apologies for the delay on that. I will get back to it at some point as I feel you misconstrued my last post there featuring an apology.)

[pineapple stu]

For the record, you brought the term "thugs" into the thread. I called them idiots.

I also haven't mentioned anything about zero tolerance.

Let's throw a question back at you here - do you think these people deserve jail time? Let's keep it at just the guys who stole and/or used the JCB. Because my reading of things still is that you're being far too forgiving based on social surroundings.


(On the Muslim thread btw - if it takes 4/5 months to type your reply, that's probably a sign you shouldn't bother...)

[osarusan]

They made a decision to do what they did. It was actually osarusan who disputed this and, in my view, attempted to infantilise them.

Eh, what?

I never disputed at all that they made a decision to do what they did. I disputed your claim for the reasons behind the decision - that they did so as a crude lashing out at a society which has deprived and excluded them.

[Fizzer]

Why do we have to ‘give’ these people a stake in society Danny?,Should we not suggest to them that they might seek to work for their stake? Perhaps if life was less comfortable for those without a stake they might be inclined towards greater effort in seeking it.

[The Fly]

(on the muslim thread btw - if it takes 4/5 months to type your reply, that's probably a sign you shouldn't bother...)

...burn!

[backstothewall]

Thugs. Idiots. Does it have to be one or the other?

As i mused above the welfare system we have exists to keep things ticking along and to prevent the worst excesses of social and financial inequality one typically encounters in what would have been called the 2nd world when i was a kid. The benefit trap is real. It is difficult to break the vicious circle, but not impossible. People do make it out of the ghetto in Ireland, and are much more likely to do so than in other countries. We don't provide as much help as Scandinavia, but we do provide a lot more than North America.

I think they absolutely deserve to face a long stretch in prison. Coming from trying circumstances is not the only reason why this happened. There is no doubt that the vast majority in this area were watching on in horror at what these thugs/idiots were doing. The people who were watching through their windows, who phoned AGS because they were powerless to do anything else, come from that same environment. To suggest that environment is nothing to do with this crime happening is nonsensical, but to suggest it has only happened because of that environment is equally so. People have choices. People in Jobstown don't have the same choices as people in Booterstown, but they still have choices.

Also, who are the victims here? Is it the multinational German retailer who have their losses covered by insurance? Is it the insurance company who rely on this sort of incident happening from time to time to make their products viable? Is it the deprived community who have lost their cheapest retailer of staple goods? Is it the staff who have lost their wage, and their families who relied on that income? I'd suggest that I've listed those groups in order of the hardship they will endure.

The law can recognise that committing a crime against a particularly vulnerable victim can be an aggravating factor. It might need a change in the law but i would suggest that a crime such as this where the true victims are a deprived community, and people doing an honest days work for not great money in an effort to get by should carry a particularly stiff penalty.

And if that results in crime being committed up the road against middle class communities, perhaps it might result in those in power doing more to make work pay better than crime.

[DannyInvincible]

For the record, you brought the term "thugs" into the thread. I called them idiots.

BTTW dubbed them "morons" and, in response, I referred to other terms that I'd seen used (such as "thugs" and "scumbags"), which I feel are simplistic and don't really add a huge deal of worth to a serious discussion about causes and future prevention. You then went on to opine unequivocally that the words "thugs", "scumbags" and "thuggery" should, in fact, be applied to the perpetrators and their actions, so you must have some definition in your head, especially seeing as you took issue with my interpretation.


I also haven't mentioned anything about zero tolerance.

Posters were talking about "throwing the book at them" and "making an example of them", which I took to be alternative ways of endorsing a traditional "hard-line" response. You thanked a post by BTTW (https://foot.ie/threads/228935-Looting-and-destruction-of-Aldi-shop-in-Dublin?p=1953941&viewfull=1#post1953941) where he appeared to be advocating a "zero tolerance" approach. People are entitled to favour that approach, but it's ultimately counter-productive (unless punishment for the sake of punishment is your only desire).


Let's throw a question back at you here - do you think these people deserve jail time? Let's keep it at just the guys who stole and/or used the JCB. Because my reading of things still is that you're being far too forgiving based on social surroundings.

It's not necessarily about being "forgiving" or "lenient" or whatever for the mere sake of it. It's about finding a solution that will prove effective for society, victim and offender (or that's what the point of the criminal justice system is for me anyway). I don't feel justice should be about moralistic shaming or punishment for the sake of it. That is counter-productive and proven so, so, even if you removed empathy for empathy's sake from the equation, I don't really see the functional worth in a retributive approach. You could express absolute loathing for these people and dub them "thugs", but if you seek a productive response, you'd still have to acknowledge the statistical merits of what you might call a more "empathetic" or "compassionate" approach. Prison is a profitable industry, however.

Supervised release or probation can help ensure the offender maintains some sort of stake in or connection to his or her community and society. Developing and maintaining any already-existing community bonds (through work and education programmes) are more effective and cheaper for society in the long run than isolating offenders away from the community and institutionalising them through incarceration. The conditions in prisons are very much conducive to increasing the likelihood of re-offending as they only serve to further marginalise people who are already marginalised. I feel restitutive and restorative processes of justice are also more constructive than the punitive approach. What do you want a prison to do? If you simply want to vindictively punish and shame people for the sake of it, then sure, prisons are great for that, but they're not great for much else as they don't protect the public (see re-offending rates), they certainly don't deter crime (crime has abounded in spite of the existence of prisons) and they aren't great for rehabilitating offenders either.

The main aim, of course, remains, as far as I'm concerned: to create a set of social and material conditions or preventative measures where things like this are less likely to happen in the first place because they're obviously undesirable in a healthy and functioning society. As BTTW suggests, the idea is to make activities we wish to see these people engaged in pay better than crime.


(On the Muslim thread btw - if it takes 4/5 months to type your reply, that's probably a sign you shouldn't bother...)

I didn't say it has taken me 4/5 months to type a reply. I just said I had something written a while back and never got back to adding the finishing touches because other things came up. Anyway, I'm not sure why it would mean I shouldn't bother posting it, considering there was still a fair amount with which I took issue in that thread. I'm free to reply when I wish, no?


Eh, what?

I never disputed at all that they made a decision to do what they did. I disputed your claim for the reasons behind the decision - that they did so as a crude lashing out at a society which has deprived and excluded them.

I was referring to the fact that you had said you "would not give too much credence to the notion that the people involved made much use of 'their rational and reasoning faculties and adult decision-making capabilities'". The logical conclusion of that and other comments you have made would be to see the act as "mindless" or possible even "random".


Why do we have to ‘give’ these people a stake in society Danny?,Should we not suggest to them that they might seek to work for their stake? Perhaps if life was less comfortable for those without a stake they might be inclined towards greater effort in seeking it.

Well, I guess we don't have to if we really don't want to, but then we can hardly act all surprised or enraged when our neglect and disregard comes back to bite us. I feel we should ensure that every citizen has a stake in society for the betterment of society as a whole; it is in everyone's interest that a greater number of people feel involved and part of a society. Alienation only leads to social problems.

The evidence does not suggest that making life more difficult for people would incentivise the formation out of thin air of connections between the alienated or marginalised and the rest of society. If anything, it would only exacerbate problems.

How do you suggest we suggest to people to work for their stake in a society that they perceive cares very little for them? Why would they bother just because we've suggested it? We're the ones complaining about the situation and this Lidl incident, so presumably we want to find solutions. If that is so and we wish to ensure these people have a stake, society has a responsibility to make itself more inclusive. Things aren't going to change by themselves; we are the ones with the powers and privileges to effect the reform our complaints would suggest we want (although our actions might suggest otherwise).

[Charlie Darwin]

I find that a bit ignorant to be honest. I'm an accountant. I worked for five years in an industry which subsequently collapsed. You evidently would be surprised how a lack of transferability can hit job prospects in that instance (which is easily the key item you listed).

Are others worse off than me? Of course. But I don't think that allows you blithely dismiss the point I've made. If social welfare were, say, 80% of minimum wage, why would you work the minimum wage, or even a small bit above? And it's a decent chunk; maybe 5% of the workforce.
As I said, you haven't demonstrated that you appreciate the circumstances that other people commonly find themselves in, and you still haven't.

[Eminence Grise]

Come on, lads, own up. Whichever one of you is responsible for this, you're going to tip Danny over the edge -

https://cdn-02.independent.ie/incoming/article36719274.ece/6a4c9/AUTOCROP/h342/Lidl%20Spiddal%20float.jpg

'Lidl looting' parade floats condemned as 'tasteless' (https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/lidl-looting-parade-floats-condemned-as-tasteless-36719275.html)

[Fizzer]

I work with the people you describe as underprivileged Danny most days, people who have never worked and have no intention of working.everything they have has been presented to them by the state and you’d struggle to find a less grateful bunch.My suggestion is to make it less comfortable on the margins, make it impossible to live life on the couch/offie/bookies.
It is well accepted that prison is not about reform or deterrence here, it’s punishment or retribution and that’s it.of course they should be locked up they are a menace to our citizens.its a little concerning that you think probation is the way to go in the face of such wanton destruction by these mindless fools.
Btw that float is hilarious!

[Fizzer]

Actually,what about this as an alternative to jail Danny,stop €20 a week from their dole for the rest of their life to pay towards the damage.They’ll choose jail over that every day of the week Danny and that’s what makes them different to you and I,they don’t want a stake in society,with a stake comes responsibilities like paying for things and getting out of bed on time.It suits these people to be where they are.

[DannyInvincible]

I work with the people you describe as underprivileged Danny most days, people who have never worked and have no intention of working.everything they have has been presented to them by the state and you’d struggle to find a less grateful bunch.My suggestion is to make it less comfortable on the margins, make it impossible to live life on the couch/offie/bookies.

In what capacity do you work with the underprivileged? Of course I may be wrong but, from the tone of your post, I would get the impression that a more hostile (rather than empathetic) approach may be mandated by your position or may be in the interests of you fulfilling your professional role. Might this influence your view?

I understand what you're suggesting. I'm simply pointing out that impoverishing people further would only make the general social situation worse (and all the evidence points this way). What evidence have you to suggest that increasing hardship would help? If people find it impossible to survive, they'll resort to other means they feel are viable, convenient and appropriate; for many, that resort will be crime.


It is well accepted that prison is not about reform or deterrence here, it’s punishment or retribution and that’s it.of course they should be locked up they are a menace to our citizens.its a little concerning that you think probation is the way to go in the face of such wanton destruction by these mindless fools.

Well accepted by whom? What is the point in punishment for the sake of punishment? How does that help exactly? Who does it help? Prison doesn't protect the wider public (see re-offending rates) unless you wish to lock people up for life for petty crime (which would be an outrageously disproportionate and draconian response that would only lead to greater monetary cost for society in the long run). Do you not see merit in looking at types of reform that might actually deter crime, rehabilitate offenders and protect the wider public?


Actually,what about this as an alternative to jail Danny,stop €20 a week from their dole for the rest of their life to pay towards the damage.They’ll choose jail over that every day of the week Danny and that’s what makes them different to you and I,they don’t want a stake in society,with a stake comes responsibilities like paying for things and getting out of bed on time.It suits these people to be where they are.

If that is true for some people from underprivileged backgrounds, why do you think that is? They're not a different species with a different genetic make-up; they've just happened to be born into very different circumstances from those we might have been born into. Do you think they're hard-wired differently or something? If you were born into the same conditions and circumstances they were, chances are you'd be engaging in similar.

If you wish to make their situation worse - a peculiarly vindictive desire to punish people who are already victims of social injustice and blame them for the metaphorical cage in which they find themselves and which confines or weighs heavily upon every choice they make in their lives - that's your call, but you forfeit the right to then complain and pontificate when the consequences of your vindictiveness come back to encroach upon your more comfortable existence.

[osarusan]

I was referring to the fact that you had said you "would not give too much credence to the notion that the people involved made much use of 'their rational and reasoning faculties and adult decision-making capabilities'". The logical conclusion of that and other comments you have made would be to see the act as "mindless" or possible even "random"..

Of course, they made a decision to do it, I never suggested otherwise. It was not by any means a reasoned or rational decision, it was not an intelligent decision, but it was a decision, it was their decision.

I would guess that the decision was borne out of a combination of being thick as **** and not giving a ****, but that would just be speculation.

[DannyInvincible]

Of course, they made a decision to do it, I never suggested otherwise. It was not by any means a reasoned or rational decision, it was not an intelligent decision, but it was a decision, it was their decision.

I would guess that the decision was borne out of a combination of being thick as **** and not giving a ****, but that would just be speculation.

Are you suggesting the decision was entirely to do with what you perceive to be their own stupidity, moral failure or lack of social conscience and had nothing to do with their environment or wider socio-economic conditions?

[osarusan]

Are you suggesting the decision was entirely to do with what you perceive to be their own stupidity, moral failure or lack of social conscience and had nothing to do with their environment or wider socio-economic conditions?

No, it would be going to far to say that it had nothing to do with their socio-economic environment, particularly with regard to them not giving a **** in the first place. But on a spectrum that ranges from the former to the latter, I'd place it much closer to the former.

But I think it is easy to say, and to think, that because they are from a particular environment, whatever they do is because they are from that environment. You seem to extend that argument without any limit really. I disagree

In this case, I particularly disagree because the crime committed was out of character and extreme even by the standards of life in that socio-economic environment.

You made this question in another post:

If you were born into the same conditions and circumstances they were, chances are you'd be engaging in similar.
And again, I completely disagree. Many thousands of people have been born into the same conditions and circumstances that they were, many thousands are living in those circumstances as we speak, but they are not engaging in similar. So far, they have all managed to avoid engaging in activity of a nature or scale anywhere near what happened with this handful of individuals.


Perhaps we simply disagree on the extent to which this crime stands out in comparison with the kind of activity we can expect in deprived areas. Certainly, we cannot pretend to be surprised that anti-social behaviour, petty crime, vandalism, etc, are more likely to occur in such areas. It's pretty much an inevitability. But wantonly ripping apart a roof with a digger? In no way is this an inevitable outcome of life in such circumstances, in my opinion.

[DannyInvincible]

In this case, I particularly disagree because the crime committed was out of character and extreme even by the standards of life in that socio-economic environment.

...

Perhaps we simply disagree on the extent to which this crime stands out in comparison with the kind of activity we can expect in deprived areas. Certainly, we cannot pretend to be surprised that anti-social behaviour, petty crime, vandalism, etc, are more likely to occur in such areas. It's pretty much an inevitability. But wantonly ripping apart a roof with a digger? In no way is this an inevitable outcome of life in such circumstances, in my opinion.

I've suggested that the extreme and unprecedented weather may have contributed in the sense that it would have been obvious to those involved that they would be out of reach of the authorities and would therefore not have been interrupted. That might have been a differentiating factor in terms of the sort of petty crime, theft or vandalism one might ordinarily expect.

I haven't said it was inevitable either. I suggested that environment can heighten the likelihood of people deciding to react to their circumstances in such ways. I mean, I don't think it was a huge surprise that it happened in one of the most deprived areas in Ireland as opposed to somewhere more affluent.

[jbyrne]

I haven't said it was inevitable either. I suggested that environment can heighten the likelihood of people deciding to react to their circumstances in such ways. I mean, I don't think it was a huge surprise that it happened in one of the most deprived areas in Ireland as opposed to somewhere more affluent.

Didn't some / most of the gang travel from another area of Dublin?

[pineapple stu]

As I said, you haven't demonstrated that you appreciate the circumstances that other people commonly find themselves in, and you still haven't.
I'm going to leave this point after this as it's obviously cutting close to the bone on both sides. You're free to disagree with my view, but as I've been there, done that, not been able to afford the t-shirt, I don't think your counter-argument can consist solely of painting a utopian graduate world where jobs grow on trees and we all have silver spoons in our mouths. It's particularly ironic that you complain that I don't appreciate others' circumstances while you resolutely ignore my own similar enough experience.

On Danny's post, it's a bit hard to reply because I've honestly never seen someone use so many words to say so little. I think ", I don't really see the functional worth in a retributive approach" indicates an aversion to jail, and certainly there's an argument that "jail" is an easy fall-back response. But the alternative suggested - "Supervised release or probation can help ensure the offender maintains some sort of stake in or connection to his or her community and society" can't really be taken too seriously in light of people who are appearing in court with 50+ prior convictions. Evidently nothing is happening there. Of course, a court case - or 5 or 10 - won't speak for how many people probation works for, but I'd argue that a single case of 50+ convictions indicates a major problem somewhere.

And these cases then indicate a lack of deterrent. 50 convictions and you can still walk free? It's like Flanders' parents while young Flanders runs amok - "You gotta help us doc; we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas". It's no use. Some deterrent is needed. Prison is the obvious solution still, albeit that as a progress, it may well need to be revamped. But you cannot have people knocking down buildings and thinking that effectively nothing will happen.

And you cannot have them hiding behind societal issues; everyone seems to have some issue these days, partly concocted by defence lawyers I'm sure. Yes, address the societal issues - I've suggested that we need to be slower to replace a section of the workforce with cheaper foreign labour happy to live a life none of us would remotely expect to - but that is a distant second to the people here taking personal responsibility for their own actions. I don't think you've really given any adequate reason why you're relegating this factor so far.

Benno (I think) listed a selection of victims in all this, but I think he forgot one. Me. You. The general public. Where does the insurance money come from? Us, ultimately. (Companies too, but they'll have to pass the cost on). Not the highest-level victim, but definitely one to consider.

[DannyInvincible]

Didn't some / most of the gang travel from another area of Dublin?

I'm open to correction, but were most not from in and around the local area? I'm pretty certain a few were on social welfare as well. I'm not aware that any came from affluent backgrounds or areas of the city.


On Danny's post, it's a bit hard to reply because I've honestly never seen someone use so many words to say so little. I think ", I don't really see the functional worth in a retributive approach" indicates an aversion to jail, and certainly there's an argument that "jail" is an easy fall-back response. But the alternative suggested - "Supervised release or probation can help ensure the offender maintains some sort of stake in or connection to his or her community and society" can't really be taken too seriously in light of people who are appearing in court with 50+ prior convictions. Evidently nothing is happening there. Of course, a court case - or 5 or 10 - won't speak for how many people probation works for, but I'd argue that a single case of 50+ convictions indicates a major problem somewhere.

And these cases then indicate a lack of deterrent. 50 convictions and you can still walk free? It's like Flanders' parents while young Flanders runs amok - "You gotta help us doc; we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas". It's no use. Some deterrent is needed. Prison is the obvious solution still, albeit that as a progress, it may well need to be revamped. But you cannot have people knocking down buildings and thinking that effectively nothing will happen.

We clearly have very different outlooks on life and people generally. That is fine, although what can be a bit annoying is that you have a real habit of being haughtily dismissive of the (substantiated) opinions of others (not just my own) - despite completely misunderstanding/misrepresenting them - whilst assuming that your own possess some sort of special self-evident or infallible status. Your opinions aren't as obvious and self-explanatory to others as they might seem to you.

Why is prison the "obvious solution"? The concept of overhaul or even abolition of the prison system (and particularly what has been referred to in other jurisdictions as the prison-industrial complex) is certainly a radical view, but it is still a credible one with substantive evidence-based grounding. I've supplied evidence that prison doesn't actually safeguard the public, doesn't deter crime and doesn't rehabilitate offenders, so what are you basing your rather presumptuous statement on? Just because the prison is a traditional aspect of our society doesn't automatically mean it makes sense to maintain it, especially in its present form. I think the evidence demonstrates that carrots (incentives) are better than sticks (coercion), so to speak. Think about why you don't commit crime for a second. Why is that?

I'm the one suggesting reform. You appear to wish to continue doing that same thing, oddly despite having flagged up the failures of the current system. And I presented a list of solutions to work towards that would hopefully help in combination rather than isolation, so I don't think it's fair to cherry-pick.

No-one is talking about letting people "walk free" or suggesting that "effectively nothing [should] happen". My suggestions would still entail legal, communal and societal obligations; ones that I feel would be more effective in the long run than what you favour.


And you cannot have them hiding behind societal issues; everyone seems to have some issue these days, partly concocted by defence lawyers I'm sure. Yes, address the societal issues - I've suggested that we need to be slower to replace a section of the workforce with cheaper foreign labour happy to live a life none of us would remotely expect to - but that is a distant second to the people here taking personal responsibility for their own actions. I don't think you've really given any adequate reason why you're relegating this factor so far.

What sort of issues are you "sure" are "partly concocted by defence lawyers"? Who is "everyone"?

You should read what I wrote again about responsibility and agency. I already clarified it and even re-posted it for you once. I don't think there's anything ambiguous in what I wrote, so feel free to actually deal with that - what I actually wrote - if you have n issue with it rather than what you want to think I wrote.

It's actually another poster who has been suggesting that the offenders were so stupid and lacking in the capacity for mature or adult thought that you'd have to wonder how he could see them as being fully responsible for their actions. Take that argument up with him if you're genuinely worried about people not attributing responsibility.


Benno (I think) listed a selection of victims in all this, but I think he forgot one. Me. You. The general public. Where does the insurance money come from? Us, ultimately. (Companies too, but they'll have to pass the cost on). Not the highest-level victim, but definitely one to consider.

If we don't want to be victims of the consequences of social injustice (and I know I don't), that's an argument for reform surely.

By the way, you never clarified what you meant by the term "thugs".

[osarusan]

It's actually another poster who has been suggesting that the offenders were so stupid and lacking in the capacity for mature or adult thought that you'd have to wonder how he could see them as being fully responsible for their actions.
That's the third time now, that you've attributed something to me, that I didn't even come close to saying.

And you've done it in the same post as you criticise somebody else for misrepresenting you.

[Charlie Darwin]

I'm going to leave this point after this as it's obviously cutting close to the bone on both sides. You're free to disagree with my view, but as I've been there, done that, not been able to afford the t-shirt, I don't think your counter-argument can consist solely of painting a utopian graduate world where jobs grow on trees and we all have silver spoons in our mouths. It's particularly ironic that you complain that I don't appreciate others' circumstances while you resolutely ignore my own similar enough experience.
I'm not being funny here but I expressed exactly none of those sentiments. All I said was you're still not getting my point, and instead of trying to grasp it you're just saying "I had problems too."

[pineapple stu]

We clearly have very different outlooks on life and people generally. That is fine, although what can be a bit annoying is that you have a real habit of being haughtily dismissive of the (substantiated) opinions of others (not just my own) - despite completely misunderstanding/misrepresenting them - whilst assuming that your own possess some sort of special self-evident or infallible status.
Sorry Danny - I'm at least going to have to bring out the pot and kettle argument here. Your dismissal of Fizzer's post about their work experience based on the tone of their post bordered on the arrogant - the rest of the post was back to your own arguments, without any real reference to Fizzer's experience - and then there's your dismissal of views as "paternalistic ignorance" and similar on other threads. On this thread, you've three times ignored a poster saying you're misinterpreting their comments. Maybe you just can't see this; I don't know. But it's there, and makes your complaint above more than ironic.

And on the subject of misrepresenting posts, I think this deserves comment -


You thanked a post by BTTW where he appeared to be advocating a "zero tolerance" approach.
This has to be the flimsiest argument seen here in a long while. BTTW, for the record, said that "you still can't tolerate people brazenly knocking down supermarkets". Agreeing with this is not to show support for some sort of US "three strikes and you're out" system, which is what I would think of as proper zero tolerance, and which I absolutely acknowledge appears to ultimately be counter-productive because of the disproportionate penalties it can dish out. But knocking down a supermarket should be treated as someone knocking down a supermarket. Anything extra you read into that is your own issue.

I also think that people who commit murder should go to jail; would you criticise this as a "zero tolerance approach"?

It makes it hard to maintain a debate on a subject when what is actually being said is being so wilfully twisted (or mis-read, to give the benefit of the doubt)


Why is prison the "obvious solution"?
Because it's the primary social punishment in a wide range of places across the world, and has been for a long long time. That clearly makes it the obvious solution to consider.

It's certainly to be considered ahead of reinventing the wheel, as you appear to be trying to do. Now that's not to say the wheel can't be improved, but the "obvious solution" is rarely to go for a radical system redesign. Prison mayn't be perfect, but I think it's better than the alternative. I think the cases of people appearing in front of the courts with an absurdly high number of prior convictions to their name puts prison, at worst, better than the alternative you're suggesting, with its wishy-washy, ill-defined stuff about imposing "legal, communal and societal obligations" (this sounds akin to community service, which we already have for lesser crimes, of which this simply was not an example).

You mention reoffending stats - but you make no reference to the fact that keeping people out of prison also has high recidivism - much higher, in fact. Here's an admittedly extreme example from January - up in court after 326 prior convictions (https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/drinkdriver-living-in-car-led-garda-on-chase-in-meltdown-36460583.html). A quick google will throw up plenty of other examples. Your idea may be nice in theory, but in practice, at best the support networks are clearly not there to have any sort of impact. You've not made any sort of allowance for this in simply deeming your idea to be better.


By the way, you never clarified what you meant by the term "thugs".
I don't need to. You brought it into the thread, not me (and here I'll have to acknowledge that I missed you putting words in my mouth), so as such, the definition should come from you.

But let's overlook that. Yes, they're thugs. What does that term mean? It means they're thugs. The great thing about language is that words have meanings, and we don't need to define every bloody word we use, because they already have reasonably clear definitions. This micro-analysis is a habit of yours, and to be frank, it's tedious and distracts from the main points in the debate.

It's genuinely commendable that you want to work with these people and improve their social surrounds (or at least, have someone do that), but ultimately, they knocked down a ****ing supermarket here. They potentially put people's lives at risk - knocking down a building with bystanders close by is seriously dangerous. They've caused a significant amount of commercial damage. They've presumably caused significant social unease in the area. You talk about acknowledging some manner of personal responsibility, but nothing in your posts suggest you actually want to take that into account. There's only so far that just cuddling these guys and saying they're the victims and that there's someone here for them will go.m

[peadar1987]

There are *******s in every socio-economic group. The difference is that those from wealthier groups can channel it into, say, being dirty on the rugby field, or being the middle manager from hell at Daddy's company.

The vast majority of disadvantaged people will never mug anyone, stab anyone, or rip apart a supermarket with a digger, but that doesn't mean that the environment isn't to a large degree responsible. And there's no reason why rich *******s should have any more right to have their *******liness channeled into something less destructive than poor *******s do.