[wmpdd3]

He sentenced Lynch to 13 years on the manslaughter charge, eight years for causing serious harm to Richard Connolly and eight years for arson, with all three sentences to run concurrent, backdated to October 13th last year.

What do you have to do to serve your sentence non-concurrently?? Be a terrorist? I agree with most sentences for most crimes, but getting a 60% reduction for being guilty of 2 crimes!!

[mathepac]

OK I need to strike some kind of balance here after my earlier outburst.

I was listening to part of the Joe-Show today and heard some of the story where a woman and her children had to move to Carlow from Clondalikn apparently because they gave evidence in the State’s case against four individuals who assaulted them in their own home. The offenders are now out of prison and back in their own original home while the victim and her family have been uprooted and now live surrounded by cattle and sheep away from all her siblings, nieces and nephews, friends, schools and extended family.

Where is the justice in that? The offenders have long criminal histories for violence and I think one was out on licence. I also think that before we start discussing how the criminal justice system is failing offenders by not reducing the appalling recidivism rate, we need to figure out where is the justice for this family assaulted in their own home and uprooted from all they grew up with and love, for fear of reprisals from the convicts. Where is the justice for victims? This poor woman is paying for counselling for herself and her children out of her own pocket - there is no source of funding for them.

Where is the justice for the man who crippled himself trying to save his family from the arson attack, the subject of this thread - he has a life-sentence with no remission from the physical injuries he suffered that night, that’s before I even mention the trauma he and his family suffered through losing their child and sister in the most horrific circumstances imaginable. No more Santa or birthdays, no First Communion, no Confirmation, no debs, no graduation just an empty bed, an empty seat at the dinner-table and an aching emptiness inside.

I think there is man-slaughter and child-slaughter and the crimes need to be differentiated. A savage who beats a helpless pensioner to death or who burns an innocent child to death in her bed has already descended to a level of depravity there is no way back from IMHO. Lock them up for life or hang them.

The most advanced restorative justice system in the world cannot make amends for the suffering of that little innocent as she died and the on-going agony her parents and siblings still face daily.

Who speaks for these people, who protects them. How can any system of justice make their lives one whit better while still treating the convicts as the disadvantaged and deprived?

I can’t speak for them, help them or protect them; I’m only an ordinary Joe Soap typing away here, blinded by tears because I have some notion of the suffering these people have gone through. Has anyone got any ideas how we go about controlling this rampant savagery in our society?

BTW I was an early advocate of the system of restorative justice championed several years ago by a prominent judge but I think we need to introduce a level of positive discrimination in favour of victims before we go all hippy beads and sandals in favour of criminals, so to speak.

Sorry for the long post that turned into just another tirade.

[mcmoustache]

Just curious here but what is the rationale behind concurrent sentencing?

I understand lower sentencing for guilty pleas, good behaviour, genuine remorse etc but I don't understand why the sentence for one crime should run concurrently with that of another.

I looked online and it seems to boil down to "mitigating factors". Does anyone here have a better explanation?

[NoQuarter]

Originally Posted by mcmoustache

Just curious here but what is the rationale behind concurrent sentencing?

I understand lower sentencing for guilty pleas, good behaviour, genuine remorse etc but I don't understand why the sentence for one crime should run concurrently with that of another.

I looked online and it seems to boil down to "mitigating factors". Does anyone here have a better explanation?

Covered it here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2056584559

Basic answer is to do with the "totality principle".

[mcmoustache]

Originally Posted by NoQuarter

Covered it here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2056584559

Basic answer is to do with the "totality principle".

Thanks for that. To summarise by means of example for others here, the totality principle allows a judge to view several crimes as several aspects of a single criminal endeavour and sentence accordingly.

For example, a person could be found guilty of conspiracy, criminal trespass, driving a stolen car, being in possession of stolen goods, burglary, manslaughter, driving with no tax/insurance etc when the crime was effectively a single act of burglary.

Adding up the individual sentences could result in 100 years in some jurisdictions so a judge can suspend some sentences or have some run concurrently with each other so that the criminal might end up with a 20 year sentence instead.

Another example would be a person being found guilty of 50 acts of rape against 1 person. Each act might earn 20 years years and 50 acts would result in a ludicrous 100 year sentence and the 50 rapes could be viewed as a single sustained act of sexual abuse so judges would again have the sentences run concurrently. A man being sentenced for raping two different people independently of each other would be sentenced for two rapes consecutively because the crimes were not two parts of a single criminal enterprise.

I have to admit that it does make some sense but I really don't like it. It effectively puts a cap on the length of a sentence and creates an incentive to commit more crime since there are diminishing returns on the price paid for each crime.

[Eyepatch]

The fact that little Mari was fully conscious and went back into the room, makes you realize how dreadful her passing must have been, both mentally and physically. Hopefully she was rendered unconscious by the fumes before she could experience too much pain.


Thanks, mcmoustache, for your last post. Well explained!

[Farcear]

50 acts of rape against 1 person. Each act might earn 20 years years and 50 acts would result in a ludicrous 100 year sentence

Math is a little off, should be 1,000 year sentence or only 5 incidents of rape.

[Victor]

Would a life sentence have been possible?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/...1/sec0002.html

Damaging property.

2.—(1) A person who without lawful excuse damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person who without lawful excuse damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another—

(a) intending to damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be damaged, and

(b) intending by the damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered,

shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) A person who damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another, with intent to defraud shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) An offence committed under this section by damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, and

(b) on conviction on indictment—

(i) in case the person is guilty of arson under subsection (1) or (3) or of an offence under subsection (2) (whether arson or not), to a fine or imprisonment for life or both, and

(ii) in case the person is guilty of any other offence under this section, to a fine not exceeding £10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.

(6) For the purposes of this section a person is reckless if he has foreseen that the particular kind of damage that in fact was done might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk of it.

Originally Posted by January

And he gets to serve his sentence in a minimum security prison too. Probably a walk in the park for people like him.

I thought Castlerea was an ordinary committal prison with some step down facilities.

[mathepac]

Originally Posted by Victor

Would a life sentence have been possible? ...

Sorry I don't understand your question.

[RandolphEsq]

Originally Posted by Victor

Would a life sentence have been possible?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/...1/sec0002.html

I thought Castlerea was an ordinary committal prison with some step down facilities.

Same. Some fairly broken down ***** in it though, hardly possible to view it as such a place!