Well if they are found to be avoiding the penalties, then jail for sure. But with asset seizure and liens on earning you are recouping for the state and generating income while hurting them. There’s no value bar punishment in incarceration.
However, there is huge value in incarceration for violent criminals, as you are literally protecting society.
Yeah the family home would be a stickler though the targets of these would have other homes and assets that you could in theory focus on
Not a deterrent.
Do you think some hoodlum would risk going to jail for a few quid by armed robbery if he had the facilities and knowledge to commit crime on a larger scale, by the stroke of a pen with minimal penal consequences?
The laws are extremely lax on people who abuse offices of high power to benefit themselves. There should be minimum 10 year jail sentences for the likes of that solicitor in Roscommon.
Social welfare fraud is a little different to the likes of Quinn, Fitzpatrick and other solicitors, politicians, bankers, accountants and businessmen engage in.
It is different, but it’s all wrong doing. You don’t ignore one, because if you do, you discredit the rule of law.
If the armed robber had that opportunity, they would take it, they don’t. Its not a good analogy.
Yes the laws are very lax. That’s what I’m saying. But I’d rather see them hit in the pocket for twenty years, than sentenced to ten (where they’d be out in maximum 5)
Do you believe in rehabilitation? Because all prison is is a punishment and a way of protecting society.
So remind me again why you are saying financial crime should not carry prison sentences?
For me some chap who assaults of threatens someone during a robbery should carry a lesser sentence that someone in a professional class who commits fraud to the scale of millions.
I believe in trying to offer more facilities, supports and investment in working class areas where crime is apparent. These are societal issues in many cases, people born into horrible circumstances with little prospects in life.
I’ve already said my opinion on this about ten times so I’ll only say it once more.
In my opinion, and I’d urge you to read up on it, the ‘chap’ who assaults someone causes them way more damage than someone who swindles them.
If someone is swindled they feel angry, foolish, their trust is betrayed etc, but their bodily integrity and safety isn’t. This is crucial and it’s an idea you are absolutely unwilling to listen to. Someone seriously assaulted, especially in their own home is devastated, maybe forever, destroyed, maybe never feels safe again, maybe never considers it their home again, nightmares, PTSD, flashbacks for years perhaps.
You don’t get flashbacks and years of insomnia and a completely changed personality from being caught in a pyramid scheme.
You don’t accept this, you don’t understand it. So I can’t keep repeating it.
I’d take a punch to the face or a weapon being pulled on me than being robbed off my life savings personally.
You wouldn’t, you just don’t know it yet. And I’m obviously not talking about just a punch.
I’ve been punched before would you believe?
Sure who hasn’t. That’s why I wasn’t referencing that.
Have you ever been swindled of your life savings?
No but I know people who have.
That’s because they all scratch each others backs so there is no way the politicians will look to bring in tough laws on one of their own, however the rest of us are fair game.
So your view is highly subjective.
No it’s not. I don’t think you understand the meaning of subjective.
I don’t think you understand the word subjective because that is certainly what your view is.
I’d imagine being taken of all your life savings is one of those things that can happen anyone other than dying.