Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sentencing in Ireland.

Options
  • 11-05-2015 8:57pm
    #1
    El Guapo!
    Registered Users Posts: 12,433 ✭✭✭✭


    What's your opinion on sentencing, or more specifically, mandatory sentencing?

    We're all familiar with scenarios in this country that baffle us all one way or another. Situations like the infamous garlic importer who got 6 years while other people with convictions as long as your arm who commit despicable crimes routinely get a slap on the wrist.
    But if you had it your way, what would you do? And I don't mean burn them all!! Do we go the way a lot of U.S States have lengthy mandatory minimums for certain crimes? Or follow their 3 strikes rule? (Which can be incredibly harsh in certain situations.)

    The reason I ask is I was watching a documentary on tv last night and it followed young offenders facing long stretches in prison. One young guy got involved with a gang and ended up facing 130 years in prison.

    The one that stood out for me though was a 17 year old kid and his 2 friends decided to break into a house. When they did, the owner shot them; killing one of the teenagers. But what shocked me was the other 2 teens were held responsible and were charged with the murder, even though it was the homeowner who fired at them. They were sentenced to 55 years in prison.

    Now, even though they were totally in the wrong, and breaking into the house was a scumbag thing to do, I think charging them with the murder and giving them 55 years was extremely OTT. They're not killers. They made a stupid choice but I don't think the punishment fits the crime.

    So do you think that was fair? Should we go down the same route with sentencing in this country?


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    mynamejeff
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭mynamejeff


    how about the sentence fitting the crime.
    or the sentence decided by the amount of damage it did to the victim (tempered by a informed and rational and socially sane judge)


  • Options
    #3
    pmy.murphy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,584 ✭✭✭pmy.murphy


    Should reintroduce the hanging,drawing and quartering of offenders


  • Options
    #4
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    A good start would be a life sentence actually meaning someone spends the rest of their life behind bars.


  • Options
    #5
    DrGreenthumb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 720 ✭✭✭DrGreenthumb


    thekeytosentenceningisspacingifyoudontspacethingswellanduseproperpunctuationitcanbedifficulttoreadfailuretousethesecanresultinamessthatisutterlyincomprehensiblesonexttimeyouaregoingtoformasentencedontforgetthesetips


  • Options
    #6
    kneemos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,417 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    Do ye ever get tired of this same auld sho1te?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    El Guapo!
    Registered Users Posts: 12,433 ✭✭✭✭El Guapo!


    kneemos wrote: »
    Do ye ever get tired of this same auld sho1te?

    Do you ever get tired of complaining?


  • Options
    #8
    moc moc a moc
    Registered Users Posts: 1,299 ✭✭✭moc moc a moc


    Mandatory sentences to live in somewhere like Darndale for any judge who gives out more than three suspended "sentences". The problem will swiftly solve itself.


  • Options
    #9
    Tombi!
    Registered Users Posts: 6,689 ✭✭✭Tombi!


    I think it's a bad idea but given how the judges tend to give light sentences in the case of many convictions because the little scumbag criminal beat up an aul granny and faked a smile in court, they're practically a necessity. If only they were put to use for violent criminals.


  • Options
    #10
    For Forks Sake
    Registered Users Posts: 11,570 ✭✭✭✭For Forks Sake


    kneemos wrote: »
    Do ye ever get tired of this same auld sho1te?

    You probably need more or less fibre in your diet.


  • Options
    #11
    Flood
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 560 ✭✭✭Flood


    Its worth doing a crime here for the little sentence one gets.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    kneemos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,417 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    El Guapo! wrote: »
    Do you ever get tired of complaining?

    You'll be the first to know son.


  • Options
    #13
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    Concurrent sentencing should be done away with as well.

    As it stands the crim is only really getting punished for the "worst" offense committed in these situations. They are getting away completely free with the rest.


  • Options
    #14
    Agent Coulson
    Registered Users Posts: 60,500 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    Get rid of concurrent sentencing for multiple crimes and let them serve a consecutive sentences for all there crimes.


  • Options
    #15
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,647 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    kneemos wrote: »
    Do ye ever get tired of this same auld sho1te?
    Maybe you should start a Feedback thread about it.


  • Options
    #16
    kneemos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,417 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    Maybe you should start a Feedback thread about it.

    I did ages ago .


  • Options
    #17
    SummerSummit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 103 ✭✭SummerSummit


    Agent Coulson wrote: »
    Get rid of concurrent sentencing for multiple crimes and let them serve a consecutive sentences for all there crimes.

    Yeah the current system is ridiculous. Basically a 2(or more)for1 deal. Rob 20 houses and get sentenced for 1 with the rest all concurrent. Stupid.


  • Options
    #18
    Eutow
    Registered Users Posts: 1,197 ✭✭✭Eutow


    Stop letting people out early for good behaviour. If you get 20 years, you serve 20 years. No getting out for Christmas and christenings etc.

    Tougher bail. If you have previous serious convictions no bail allowed.

    Consective sentencing instead of concurrent.

    Life means life until the day you die.

    Actually try and rehabilitate prisioners so when they are released they can become productive members of the public on the outside.


  • Options
    #19
    Hans Bricks
    Registered Users Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Hans Bricks


    When you reach x number of convictions, automatic long sentence. If repeat offenders on release, out on probation appear again in court and are found not to be seeking either education and/or employment, this should be taken into consideration upon sentencing. We live in a basic welfare state. Take advantage of it if you're that vulnerable in terms of employment opportunities, stuck for money. There really is no excuse to be thieving, robbing or selling dope to "get by". In fact it's laughable really.


  • Options
    #20
    RonanP77
    Registered Users Posts: 1,182 ✭✭✭RonanP77


    Bring back the death penalty. It cost a fortune to keep the scumbags inside.


  • Options
    #21
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,870 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    El Guapo! wrote: »
    What's your opinion on sentencing, or more specifically, mandatory sentencing?

    We're all familiar with scenarios in this country that baffle us all one way or another. Situations like the infamous garlic importer who got 6 years

    I'm familiar with the fact the it was reduced to 2 years on appeal. Light enough (in my opinion) for multiple crimes over 4 years which netted him €1.6 million. Another gentleman who set out with equal deliberation to defraud the State, but only got away with €248,000, was sentenced to twelve and a half years. No claims by anyone to be baffled by that and no public campaigns on his behalf.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0721/304028-murrayp/

    The court of public opinion is not the place to decide these matters.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    cloud493
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭cloud493


    RonanP77 wrote: »
    Bring back the death penalty. It cost a fortune to keep the scumbags inside.

    Sure its expensive executing them as well. Plus the EU would probably never stand for it.


  • Options
    #23
    RonanP77
    Registered Users Posts: 1,182 ✭✭✭RonanP77


    cloud493 wrote:
    Sure its expensive executing them as well. Plus the EU would probably never stand for it.


    Only if you use these new fancy methods, a length of rope is cheap enough.


  • Options
    #24
    Pedro K
    Registered Users Posts: 1,197 ✭✭✭Pedro K


    mickydoomsux wrote: »
    Concurrent sentencing should be done away with as well.

    As it stands the crim is only really getting punished for the "worst" offense committed in these situations. They are getting away completely free with the rest.
    I've said it before on other threads. It incentivises crime. May as well commit a few more while awaiting trial...


  • Options
    #25
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,870 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    I was going to ask where will we get all the jail space for these recividists and those who get consecutive sentences.

    But of course now that the martyrs (I will go to jail before I will pay any fine) no longer have that option, there will be loads of space.


  • Options
    #26
    Mint Aero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,570 ✭✭✭Mint Aero


    We badly need a three strikes rule in this country.


  • Options
    #27
    VisibleGorilla
    Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭VisibleGorilla


    Eutow wrote: »
    Stop letting people out early for good behaviour. If you get 20 years, you serve 20 years. No getting out for Christmas and christenings etc.

    Tougher bail. If you have previous serious convictions no bail allowed.

    Consective sentencing instead of concurrent.

    Life means life until the day you die.

    Actually try and rehabilitate prisioners so when they are released they can become productive members of the public on the outside.
    Your last point pretty much goes against all the others?


  • Options
    #28
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Eutow wrote: »
    Stop letting people out early for good behaviour. If you get 20 years, you serve 20 years. No getting out for Christmas and christenings etc.
    ...
    ...
    Actually try and rehabilitate prisioners so when they are released they can become productive members of the public on the outside.

    Why would a prisoner engage in rehabilitation if there was no prospect of getting out early for good behaviour? There is no incentive.


  • Options
    #29
    the groutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,096 ✭✭✭✭the groutch


    any system that allows people with 50+ convictions to walk free is completely broken.

    I'm not saying have something as extreme as the American 3 strike rules, but maybe something along the lines of only first ever conviction can have a supended sentence, and from the 5th one onwards any conviction is a manditory one year with no early release, regardless of the offence.


  • Options
    #30
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    El Guapo! wrote: »
    What's your opinion on sentencing, or more specifically, mandatory sentencing?

    We're all familiar with scenarios in this country that baffle us all one way or another. Situations like the infamous garlic importer who got 6 years while other people with convictions as long as your arm who commit despicable crimes routinely get a slap on the wrist.
    But if you had it your way, what would you do? And I don't mean burn them all!! Do we go the way a lot of U.S States have lengthy mandatory minimums for certain crimes? Or follow their 3 strikes rule? (Which can be incredibly harsh in certain situations.)

    The reason I ask is I was watching a documentary on tv last night and it followed young offenders facing long stretches in prison. One young guy got involved with a gang and ended up facing 130 years in prison.

    The one that stood out for me though was a 17 year old kid and his 2 friends decided to break into a house. When they did, the owner shot them; killing one of the teenagers. But what shocked me was the other 2 teens were held responsible and were charged with the murder, even though it was the homeowner who fired at them. They were sentenced to 55 years in prison.

    Now, even though they were totally in the wrong, and breaking into the house was a scumbag thing to do, I think charging them with the murder and giving them 55 years was extremely OTT. They're not killers. They made a stupid choice but I don't think the punishment fits the crime.

    So do you think that was fair? Should we go down the same route with sentencing in this country?

    The sentencing in the US is like something crossed between Alice-in-wonderland and Orwell. It is sick and cretinous and completely bereft of logic. I read about one guy who was at a house party. Somebody asked to borrow his car to go on a beer run. He gave him the keys and went back to his partying. The guy who borrowed the car got into some kind of altercation at the convenience store and somebody was killed. Car owner was done for accessory to murder and banged up for life.

    And there are people who actually say "yeah well it's his fault for letting the guy borrow his car!"

    It's one thing to driving a guy to the scene whereby you know he's going to commit a crime. That at least is accessory.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    VisibleGorilla
    Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭VisibleGorilla


    the groutch wrote: »
    any system that allows people with 50+ convictions to walk free is completely broken.

    I'm not saying have something as extreme as the American 3 strike rules, but maybe something along the lines of only first ever conviction can have a supended sentence, and from the 5th one onwards any conviction is a manditory one year with no early release, regardless of the offence.
    That is just as extreme as 3 strikes.....


Advertisement