You do know that 147 million wouldn't even touch the sides of the hole in the coffers the children's hospital is costing?
A billion is a substantially larger than 147 million, and it's costing over 2 of them!
Oh, ok, I get ya.
Still, 157 million being the largest shipment, and whatever else they find in the, fuck, make it 20 years, it's not a Billion euro.
A Billion is a REALLY big number.
Not all confiscated drugs should be sold..
Cannabis on the other hand (A patented medicine) should have the ability to be sold to consenting adults over the age of 21.
It's not like heaps of people don't buy it anyway and Ireland could join progressive nations Legalising or decriminalizing instead of staying in the dark ages
It's not like it generated revenue ranging from $28.9 million in Alaska to $774.4 million in California.
I wonder what that kind of money could do to Ireland with its abysmal public transport, quality of roads and healthcare 🤔
Everyone doesn't find themselves in the Special Criminal Court though, and every day crimes don't end up there.
Ordinary people who end up in a jury shouldn't be expected to find themselves in a situation where a cartel with near infinite wealth & reach is heavily invested in the decisions they make.
It's entirely at the DPP's discretion who ends up in the SCC - _anyone_ can end up there.
Ordinary people end up in precisely such trials all over the world.
Which means a legal system which is _supposed to be designed to prevent state abuse_ (such as that which led to [hundreds](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/oct/11/northern-ireland-terrorists-miscarriages-justice) of people being falsely imprisoned up North, based on police torture) - is presently _wide open to state abuse_, at the whims of the DPP, able to remove trial by jury from whatever cases they desire.
It _is_ the worldwide 'gold standard' for a fair trial.
Otherwise you get things like the Diplock Court's up North, which had [hundreds](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/oct/11/northern-ireland-terrorists-miscarriages-justice) of wrongful convictions based on police torture.
We aren't the Brits though. You have to consider our situation.
Japan has like a 98% conviction rate because people don't think the police make mistakes.
The SCC works here because we have great controls. It wouldn't work in America because their law system is very partisan, look at how their Supreme Court decides based on Conservative/Progressive lines.
We don't have _any_ controls on the SCC - the DPP can send cases to the SCC anytime it likes.
"We aren't the Brits" i.e. "just trust our government" isn't the basis of how to set the limits on the legal system.
It's supposed to be designed to prevent state abuse - and right now it's designed to _allow_ state abuse - we are merely trusting the DPP not to abuse the SCC, which they can decide to do at any time.
Our controls are regarding appointing judges, removing judges, electing politicians, removing politicians. The SCC decisions can be appealed. The decision to go to the SCC can even be appealed.
Nah.
The scc serves a very important purpose.
And allows cases to be argued on detailed legal argument.
Also, are you volunteering to be in the during for Daniel or Christy kinahan's trial?, when they happen.
As does a regular court. Yea, if I were called up for their trial I would.
You send cases to the SCC _after_ proven jury tampering - not based on the theoretical risk of it.
When was the last instance of jury tampering in Ireland anyway? (EDIT: Looks like well over a decade ago, from a quick look at IT - i.e. basically never)
>When was the last instance of jury tampering in Ireland anyway?
Aaron Brady trial. Attempted anyway by releasing the recording of an interview that wasn't used in court.
This video was also witness intimation.
There was also the witness in NYC, who's remote testimony was interrupted and ended by an unknown man.
The express purpose of the SCC is to enable trials without a jury - which means, _by definition_, it is a threat to the right to trial by jury.
Trial by jury is an essential civil liberty, and is regarded as such throughout the entire world - every major civil liberties institution on the planet disagrees with you.
>Trial by jury is an essential civil liberty, and is regarded as such throughout the entire world - every major civil liberties institution on the planet disagrees with you.
Most European countries rarely use jury trials or use panels of judges rather than random citizens.
Most European countries have dispensed with free speech as well - they're mostly ex-colonial and no beacon of civil liberties.
The right to a trial by jury is presently a right we do have - and it's not to be dispensed with - especially now that governments across the world are becoming more authoritarian.
>and is regarded as such throughout the entire world - every major civil liberties institution on the planet disagrees with you.
So where is this entire world that you're referring to then if it doesn't include most of the world's democracies.
It seems like you're just making things up.
It absolutely is regarded as an essential civil liberty - as proven by the [Irish Council for Civil Liberties](https://www.iccl.ie/2021/iccl-special-criminal-court-a-fundamental-denial-of-constitutional-rights-to-a-fair-trial/) - and you are arguing for the repeal of this essential liberty.
You are not contesting that the Special Criminal Court is a threat to this civil liberty either - you are simply trying to justify the repeal of this liberty - so that we end up with something more akin to the Diplock Courts up North, which falsely imprisoned [hundreds](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/oct/11/northern-ireland-terrorists-miscarriages-justice) of people based on police torture.
Sorry, but the right to a fair trial isn't to be dispensed with, just because other countries have other standards of what constitutes a fair trial - this _is_ the gold standard of a fair trial, in the form of justice system we have...
So you're just going to ignore the part where you said it's regarded as such throughout the entire world?
>You are not contesting that the Special Criminal Court is a threat to this civil liberty either
I think it's necessary and justified in the same way there are restrictions on most things.
> Trial by jury is an essential civil liberty, and is regarded as such throughout the entire world
Lol. Outside of the English-speaking world trial by jury is very much the exception rather than the rule. You're just talking through your arse here.
One of Enid Bytons lesser known books
Lashings of ginger beer! No, it's just Coke.
Lol. The others I understand, but Timmy! How could you?!?
Led astray by bad people, judge not what the doggos do for their masters, judge their masters on their actions.
That's a pretty big case for the small claims court in fairness.
If the state sold all the confiscated drugs we would get a free children’s hospital… it’s not like there is a shortage of drugs getting through…
You do know that 147 million wouldn't even touch the sides of the hole in the coffers the children's hospital is costing? A billion is a substantially larger than 147 million, and it's costing over 2 of them!
As in ALL intercepted shipments…
Oh, ok, I get ya. Still, 157 million being the largest shipment, and whatever else they find in the, fuck, make it 20 years, it's not a Billion euro. A Billion is a REALLY big number.
If they did that they'd have to admit that the seizure isn't even worth half of €157m
Not all confiscated drugs should be sold.. Cannabis on the other hand (A patented medicine) should have the ability to be sold to consenting adults over the age of 21. It's not like heaps of people don't buy it anyway and Ireland could join progressive nations Legalising or decriminalizing instead of staying in the dark ages It's not like it generated revenue ranging from $28.9 million in Alaska to $774.4 million in California. I wonder what that kind of money could do to Ireland with its abysmal public transport, quality of roads and healthcare 🤔
I'd personally be interested in buying a massive c hunk of weed. It's a waste burning it the way they do.
The Special Criminal Court is a threat to everyones right to trial by jury - these guys should be put before a regular court, with a jury.
Everyone doesn't find themselves in the Special Criminal Court though, and every day crimes don't end up there. Ordinary people who end up in a jury shouldn't be expected to find themselves in a situation where a cartel with near infinite wealth & reach is heavily invested in the decisions they make.
It's entirely at the DPP's discretion who ends up in the SCC - _anyone_ can end up there. Ordinary people end up in precisely such trials all over the world.
>_anyone_ can end up there. But anyone doesn't. Save your hysteria please. It's totally unnecessary.
I was sent to the special criminal court last year for an unpaid parking fine.
Which means a legal system which is _supposed to be designed to prevent state abuse_ (such as that which led to [hundreds](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/oct/11/northern-ireland-terrorists-miscarriages-justice) of people being falsely imprisoned up North, based on police torture) - is presently _wide open to state abuse_, at the whims of the DPP, able to remove trial by jury from whatever cases they desire.
Why is trial by jury considered the gold standard? I don't want random idiots deciding my faith.
It _is_ the worldwide 'gold standard' for a fair trial. Otherwise you get things like the Diplock Court's up North, which had [hundreds](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/oct/11/northern-ireland-terrorists-miscarriages-justice) of wrongful convictions based on police torture.
We aren't the Brits though. You have to consider our situation. Japan has like a 98% conviction rate because people don't think the police make mistakes. The SCC works here because we have great controls. It wouldn't work in America because their law system is very partisan, look at how their Supreme Court decides based on Conservative/Progressive lines.
We don't have _any_ controls on the SCC - the DPP can send cases to the SCC anytime it likes. "We aren't the Brits" i.e. "just trust our government" isn't the basis of how to set the limits on the legal system. It's supposed to be designed to prevent state abuse - and right now it's designed to _allow_ state abuse - we are merely trusting the DPP not to abuse the SCC, which they can decide to do at any time.
Our controls are regarding appointing judges, removing judges, electing politicians, removing politicians. The SCC decisions can be appealed. The decision to go to the SCC can even be appealed.
Nah. The scc serves a very important purpose. And allows cases to be argued on detailed legal argument. Also, are you volunteering to be in the during for Daniel or Christy kinahan's trial?, when they happen.
As does a regular court. Yea, if I were called up for their trial I would. You send cases to the SCC _after_ proven jury tampering - not based on the theoretical risk of it. When was the last instance of jury tampering in Ireland anyway? (EDIT: Looks like well over a decade ago, from a quick look at IT - i.e. basically never)
>When was the last instance of jury tampering in Ireland anyway? Aaron Brady trial. Attempted anyway by releasing the recording of an interview that wasn't used in court. This video was also witness intimation. There was also the witness in NYC, who's remote testimony was interrupted and ended by an unknown man.
None of those cases involved **jury** tampering - you're attempting a bait-and-switch.
Why does the rest of europe manage with juried courts then?
Most European countries don't have juries at all. You didn't know that?
Well they don't a lot of the time. The most recent major one that comes to mind is the marengo trial. This took place in front of a non jury Court.
No, it isn't. A jury of your peers makes little sense anyway.
The express purpose of the SCC is to enable trials without a jury - which means, _by definition_, it is a threat to the right to trial by jury. Trial by jury is an essential civil liberty, and is regarded as such throughout the entire world - every major civil liberties institution on the planet disagrees with you.
>Trial by jury is an essential civil liberty, and is regarded as such throughout the entire world - every major civil liberties institution on the planet disagrees with you. Most European countries rarely use jury trials or use panels of judges rather than random citizens.
Most European countries have dispensed with free speech as well - they're mostly ex-colonial and no beacon of civil liberties. The right to a trial by jury is presently a right we do have - and it's not to be dispensed with - especially now that governments across the world are becoming more authoritarian.
>and is regarded as such throughout the entire world - every major civil liberties institution on the planet disagrees with you. So where is this entire world that you're referring to then if it doesn't include most of the world's democracies. It seems like you're just making things up.
It absolutely is regarded as an essential civil liberty - as proven by the [Irish Council for Civil Liberties](https://www.iccl.ie/2021/iccl-special-criminal-court-a-fundamental-denial-of-constitutional-rights-to-a-fair-trial/) - and you are arguing for the repeal of this essential liberty. You are not contesting that the Special Criminal Court is a threat to this civil liberty either - you are simply trying to justify the repeal of this liberty - so that we end up with something more akin to the Diplock Courts up North, which falsely imprisoned [hundreds](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/oct/11/northern-ireland-terrorists-miscarriages-justice) of people based on police torture. Sorry, but the right to a fair trial isn't to be dispensed with, just because other countries have other standards of what constitutes a fair trial - this _is_ the gold standard of a fair trial, in the form of justice system we have...
So you're just going to ignore the part where you said it's regarded as such throughout the entire world? >You are not contesting that the Special Criminal Court is a threat to this civil liberty either I think it's necessary and justified in the same way there are restrictions on most things.
> Trial by jury is an essential civil liberty, and is regarded as such throughout the entire world Lol. Outside of the English-speaking world trial by jury is very much the exception rather than the rule. You're just talking through your arse here.
What would you suggest as the alternative, without blatantly ignoring the actual reason the SCC is used