https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46371201

Woman sent to prison for criminal damage to a packet of crisps! I know she had previous but she actually wanted to pay for them and consdiering some of the extremely leniant sentencing for drivers taking the lives of other road users this just seems to be in the opposite direction.

Wow.

[The judge] said that it was difficult to see her actions as anything but “smart Alec behaviour”.

Is that illegal now?

Irish courts seem to want to make ours look like beacons of sanity.

reading that page gives you no insight into her previous actions, convictions or why she was banned in the first place.  You can’t make any sort of judgment of the sentence.

The judge was told that McDonagh had a series of previous convictions, including a number for theft or criminal damage.

The crisp damage in question took place nearly two years ago, on 27 December 2016, at the Mahon Point shopping centre in Cork, near McDonagh’s home in Inchera Close.

In court, police said McDonagh had been banned from the store and was known to its staff when she took the tin of Pringles and headed to the self-checkout area.

Security staff approached her to order her to leave the store when she popped the Pringles top and opened the foil seal.

An inspector told the court that she said: “I opened it so you have to leave me pay for it”.

The crisp damage seems to be the legal basis the court needed to deal with the woman’s obviously repeated criminal behaviour.  The value isn’t of it’s self important.

Is that illegal now?

that’ll be most STWers **** then 😃

She should have run over the crisps in her car and claimed the sun got in her eyes.

She should have run over the crisps in her car and claimed the sun got in her eyes.

Maybe they just appeared out of nowhere.

Irish courts seem to want to make ours look like beacons of sanity.

Perhaps, but I wonder if your view would be altered knowing:

1. She had 12 previous convictions for theft

2. She had 2 previous convictions for criminal damage.

3. She had previously been given suspended sentences, but clearly they haven’t prevented further offending.

4. She misled the court about her employment status (as an argument against imprisonment).

[that was all from a different press report]

I’m not saying even then the sentence is right or wrong, the appeal court will decide that.

I reckon she’ll Walkers. If not I expect she’ll Skips bail. She’s got the police jumping through Hula-Hoops and refuses to Dori-to’s the line.

This thread could divide opinion.  I’ll stick the Kettle Chips on.

Too right! Food is scarce in prison she’s going to have to transform-a-snack routine. On top of that it can also get pretty crowded and she’ll hsve to get used to Space Raiders. It won’t be like on the outside with all the Discos.

Woman sentenced for repeated criminal damage.

Woman sentenced for repeated criminal damage.

Yeah, I’m in awe of the optimism from the people who think giving her a 13th chance would have paid off.

As a cynic I think maybe they should have locked her up after the first 8 or 9 offences.

I’m in awe of the optimism of people that think a 33rd conviction and a prison sentence is going to stop her offending.

It costs 70 thousand euro a year to keep someone in a normal Irish prison

More sensationsalism.

Is that illegal now?

Its unlikely to help. Particularly if the judge thinks she was trying to take the piss out of the legal system.

As per poly counter I think more details would help here. She seems to be a repeat offender and whilst that report is worded like it was some sort of accident there may have been enough evidence to convince the judge that wasnt really accurate.

I’m in awe of the optimism of people that think a 33rd conviction and a prison sentence is going to stop her offending.

Did anyone actually suggest that it would?  Out of interest, given what you know, and the options actually available to the Judge what sentence would you have imposed?  The judge may have been trying to send a message to others that the court wouldn’t tolerate repeat offences as much as expecting some change for this individual.

It costs 70 thousand euro a year to keep someone in a normal Irish prison

I’m sure that the Judge would be perfectly aware of that.  Community orders incur high costs too, even higher if she doesn’t cooperate (and that might ultimately still result in jail time on top of the costs) and even fines often cost more to collect and enforce than their actual value.  The ultimate sanction for failing to pay fines, is jail time too. The cost of “investigating”, prosecuting and testing a case like this in court is already likely hundreds of times the cost of the Pringles.  If people believe they’ll never get an enforceable penalty for seemingly trivial offences, then those who refuse to abide by society’s rules go unpunished which basically undermines justice.

But why didn’t they just make her pay the £1.50 for the Pringles then escort her out of the shop? It’s really not unusual for people, and especially children, to open a packet of some sort of snack and start eating it while wandering round the store, and then have to pay for it at the till, so what’s the difference?

But why didn’t they just make her pay the £1.50 for the Pringles then escort her out of the shop?

Perhaps because they thought that was just an excuse and didnt want her coming in randomly opening and eating out of packets until caught?

She should have carried a blade with her and would have got less of a sentence.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-46370271

Poly: when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Dealing with security guards or angry people, having the cops called on you, being arrested, being charged, being bailed, appearing in court, being convicted, being sentenced and all the rest are all very unpleasant experiences. No normal person would go through that for low stakes bullshit, yet this person has gone through it dozens of times. Does anyone think that increasing the pain-o-meter one notch more by imprisoning her is going to make her “snap out of it”?

Thats all very true hopeforthebest. But what would you do with someone who’s pushed the criminal justice system to the end of the line ??????  Ultimately it’s a prison sentence, which might very well be pointless. But the alternative is just nothing. A fine that isn’t paid, community service that isn’t attended ect,ect,ect. If you’ve got an answer share it.

I’m in awe of the optimism of people that think a 33rd conviction and a prison sentence is going to stop her offending.

I don’t think it’s unduly optimistic to think that her offending will be curtailed to some degree while she’s in prison. The range of crimes she will able to commit and the choice of victims will both be significantly limited.

Does anyone think that increasing the pain-o-meter one notch more by imprisoning her is going to make her “snap out of it”?

I’m not aware of any way to make someone “snap out of it”. What prison does is protect society for the period the person is in prison. I don’t think being incarcerated will make (say) John Worboys ‘snap out of it’, but I bet it’s saved some women from a very unpleasant and dangerous experience.

Can’t say she gets any sympathy from me, she’s had more than enough chances and was fully aware she was going into a store she was banned from but chose to do so then, in trying to be clever to force the store to serve her, she ended up committing an act that allowed her to be charged. Prison might not stop her criminal and anti-social behaviour but warnings etc. don’t seem to have worked so worth a try…

What prison does is protect society for the period the person is in prison.

Among other things. It acts as a deterrent to other people (obvs not this person), and it gives the law abiding a sense that something is being done to enforce the law.

Among other things.

Yes.