Concurrent Sentencing

gibo_ie

Hey All,
This is something which really bothers me a lot, today again i read in the paper that:
QUOTE
But yesterday, following an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the three judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal sentenced Dar to 10 years imprisonment for the first attack, 12 years for the second attack and to 15 years imprisonment for the third rape.

They ordered that all sentences were to run concurrently from June 8, 2004.
/QUOTE

This means that he only serves 15 years for three rapes. Why bother sentencing someone three times if they are all going to run at the same time. It basically says to me "If you are going to commit a horrible crime, you might as well do a few as if you are caught it will be pretty much the same punishment"

So what do you think? Is our criminal system (and that of other countries) seriously flawed in this aspect? Is it right that sentances run concurrently?

Rant over (for now).

skywalker

Ive often thought the same thing, I dont see the logic in concurrent sentences at all.

Angels

our criminal system is a joke!! I maybe wrong in my facts so please don't give out but i think Ireland is the only country where you can kill someone & literally get away with only serving about 3 or 4 years ( can't think of any case in particular) but i know this has happened. People 4 - 15 years for killing someone is not enough. If you take a life your life should be taken too, it's the only way 3 people were murdered over the weekend. Whats this country coming too????

Merrick

Yep, that makes absolutely no sense at all...

Kingmaker

The only crimes that carry big sentences are for fraud and tax evasion- anyone else noticed that?
Crimes against the person- minimal sentencing
Crimes against property- big sentencing.

What does that say about us?

Angels

Kingmaker wrote:

The only crimes that carry big sentences are for fraud and tax evasion- anyone else noticed that?
Crimes against the person- minimal sentencing
Crimes against property- big sentencing.

What does that say about us?

I agree with ya totally on that. Tis a ****in disgrace!!!

hepcat

Yes, I'd be interested to know the reasoning behind concurrent sentencing. Its not like you can get away with only paying the bigger of two fines. Why does the judiciary think it right to impose concurrent sentences? Surely the fact that someone has been found guilty more than once, means s/he is not remorseful and fully intended his/her crime and should not be shown leniency?

impr0v

15 years is a very long time to spend behind bars, considering the average life sentence is 10-12 years, though he will likely get some remission for good behavior, etc.

Sentences are not intended to be compensation for the losses suffered by a victim of violent crime, as obviously no amount of time can equate to the value of a life, or be said to account for the pain and suffering endured by three separate rape victims. Any justice system which attempted to do this would be misappropriating resources which could be better used in other ways, seeing as with consecutive and more substantive sentences a large proportion of offenders would be behind bars for the majority of their lives.

The idea of a sentence is, rather than a retributive and punitive measure, is that it is a measure of the amount of time it takes to rehabilitate the offender and enable him to rejoin society. This obviously turns out to be a somewhat idealistic argument when a prisoner receives little or no treatment or help when serving his or her sentence, but it is the argument for concurrent rather than consecutive sentencing.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Yea, we need a serious judicial overhaul, ASAP
Not gonna happen though sadly

Stephen

A life sentence is only 10-12 years? What a crock of sh1t. Life should be no less than 30 years. Concurrent sentences are a load of ****.

Do three crimes, only pay for one! Its a justice BLOWOUT!! We're just giving this stuff away, its criminal! Call now!

MorningStar

Logic of concurrent crimes is along the lines of if you steall a bag with ten jellies in them you aren't sentenced for a year per jelly but a year for the crime. There is also an acknowledge that the state has a duty to catch you.

You catch a junkie and charge him for each theft he did keeping in prison for the rest of his life, no point. As mentioned rehabilitation is generally our goal. Punishment and justice are not are main goals.

astrofool

do they go for parole three times then? one for each crime? How do you determine if someone is regretful over killing A, but not killing B?

In this country, the solicitors have the rule over the courts, and every decision is weighed in the direction of increasing their pay. Its what we get for creating a regulated system like that. Pharmacists, taxis(till recently), pubs and i'm sure alot more have their own regulated systems.

astrofool

do they go for parole three times then? one for each crime? How do you determine if someone is regretful over killing A, but not killing B?

In this country, the solicitors have the rule over the courts, and every decision is weighed in the direction of increasing their pay. Its what we get for creating a regulated system like that. Pharmacists, taxis(till recently), pubs and i'm sure alot more have their own regulated systems.

MorningStar

astrofool wrote:

do they go for parole three times then? one for each crime? How do you determine if someone is regretful over killing A, but not killing B?

In this country, the solicitors have the rule over the courts, and every decision is weighed in the direction of increasing their pay. Its what we get for creating a regulated system like that. Pharmacists, taxis(till recently), pubs and i'm sure alot more have their own regulated systems.

Well obviously the same way you can tell that they aren't remorseful and should be put in a black hole and tortured. You don't! :rolleyes:

I have no idea what point you are trying to make about solicitors. I am guessing you don't know anything about it as I think you might find barristers might be the people you mean and that is forgetting the controling power in a court in the Judge.

Note I am neither defending nor attacking the system just pointing out why and what or the point made.

I would point out that the only way to truely reduce crime is to take care of your fellow citizens

Canis Lupus

I think we should do away with concurrent sentences.

It would be fun to see the logistical nightmare that would become the prison system.......

phantom_lord

Canis Lupus wrote:

I think we should do away with concurrent sentences.

It would be fun to see the logistical nightmare that would become the prison system.......

*prision guard A* "Eh does anybody know how to do long tots...?"

seamus

I don't mind concurrent sentences for charges which all arise out of the same incident - e.g. Handling stolen property and withholding evidence if say your brother robbed a shop. But concurrent sentences for different incidents (particularly when it's the same charge, multiple times, as in this case), is completely ridiculous.

I reckon they should legislate to prohibit concurrent sentences for certain types of crime (iviolent crime, rape, murder, GBH, etc).

hepcat

impr0v wrote:

15 years is a very long time to spend behind bars, considering the average life sentence is 10-12 years, though he will likely get some remission for good behavior, etc.

Sentences are not intended to be compensation for the losses suffered by a victim of violent crime, as obviously no amount of time can equate to the value of a life, or be said to account for the pain and suffering endured by three separate rape victims. Any justice system which attempted to do this would be misappropriating resources which could be better used in other ways, seeing as with consecutive and more substantive sentences a large proportion of offenders would be behind bars for the majority of their lives.

The idea of a sentence is, rather than a retributive and punitive measure, is that it is a measure of the amount of time it takes to rehabilitate the offender and enable him to rejoin society. This obviously turns out to be a somewhat idealistic argument when a prisoner receives little or no treatment or help when serving his or her sentence, but it is the argument for concurrent rather than consecutive sentencing.

Cheers, good explanation.

I can see where victims and victim's family feel sort of "cheated" though. As has been said, perhaps the natuer of the crime should be looked at when impposing concurrent sentencing.

Kojak

seamus wrote:

I don't mind concurrent sentences for charges which all arise out of the same incident - e.g. Handling stolen property and withholding evidence if say your brother robbed a shop. But concurrent sentences for different incidents (particularly when it's the same charge, multiple times, as in this case), is completely ridiculous.

I reckon they should legislate to prohibit concurrent sentences for certain types of crime (iviolent crime, rape, murder, GBH, etc).

I agree with what you said there, seamus. Concurrent sentencing is a joke - especially in cases such as multiple rape/murder etc.

If someone commits a crime they should be punished for that crime, not have it put under another crime that they did.

Gurgle

the three judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal sentenced Dar to 10 years imprisonment for the first attack, 12 years for the second attack and to 15 years imprisonment for the third rape.

Did he not rape the first and second victims as badly as the third ?

This is kinda sending the message that if you rape one person you might as well go for as many as possible before you're caught, you'll only be sentenced for one anyway.

Calibos

I think concurrent affects chances of parole. So while the criminal will only in actuallity only serve the longest sentence, his/her chances of early release /parole will be greatly reduced because the parole board must take account of the concurrent sentances when reaching their decision. In effect concurrent sentences in most cases serve the purpose of ensuring the full ''longest'' sentence is served.

Assuming our system is the same as NZ
http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/cumulative.htm

Its not as if we are the crime capital of the world.

Is this about crime rates or people getting their pound of flesh?

Kernel

seamus wrote:

I don't mind concurrent sentences for charges which all arise out of the same incident - e.g. Handling stolen property and withholding evidence if say your brother robbed a shop. But concurrent sentences for different incidents (particularly when it's the same charge, multiple times, as in this case), is completely ridiculous.

I reckon they should legislate to prohibit concurrent sentences for certain types of crime (iviolent crime, rape, murder, GBH, etc).

You're spot on there seamus. Morningstar's analogy of the ten jellies should obviously not apply to three seperate crimes.

The judiciary is letting down the whole justice system in this country, by handing out ridiculously light sentences. Imprisonment is not only about rehabilitation, it is also about providing a deterrant against such crimes and locking the criminal away for the protection of society. There are many cases of multiple serial offenders in all types of crimes, and society should be protected from these people by ensuring they are locked away from us for long periods depending on the recurrence of their criminal acts. ie. 3 strike rule or something similar.

The_B_Man

they should do the concurrent sentences in different prisons. maybe his testicles in the joy, his knob in laois and the rest of his body in some other prison. rapin fecker!

Jimi-Spandex

I have never seen so many idiots on one thread.

Firstly, the DPP asked for concurrent sentances, not the defendant. Secondly, do you really think it makes much of a difference whether you are in prison for 15 years or 37 years? Is there some substantial gain in rehabilitation(whether from internal or external factors) from the extra 22 years? Do you think that some theoretical potential criminal out there is going to see this and think " Well, I wouldn't mind being in prison for 15 years, but 37 is a bit much. I think I'll stay inside and obey the law instead of going for a spot of rape tonight"? I for one seriously doubt that 22 extra years is going to have anything more than a nominal effect on deterrence.

It's all well and good to fly off the handle at some unconfirmed "quote"/soundbite the op posts from some unknown source but no one on this thread knows if there are other factors at play.

The fact is that concurrent sentencing is fair in cases involving crimes resulting from a single act or period of aberrant behaviour. And besides, it's judicial discretion whether or not to sentance concurrently and if three judges from the Court of Criminal Appeals decide to grant this, seeing as they have more facts about the case than anyone on this board, there's a good chance that they are right in doing so.

Kernel

Jimi-Spandex wrote:

The fact is that concurrent sentencing is fair in cases involving crimes resulting from a single act or period of aberrant behaviour. And besides, it's judicial discretion whether or not to sentance concurrently and if three judges from the Court of Criminal Appeals decide to grant this, seeing as they have more facts about the case than anyone on this board, there's a good chance that they are right in doing so.

No, it's not fair, and just because you state it as being a factual matter doesn't mean it is - as has clearly been demonstrated by the majority of people in this thread complaining that concurrent sentancing is not a good idea.

If people disagree with your view, it doesn't make them idiots either.
:rolleyes:

The judiciary are too lenient in this state.

slipss

I could be wrong about this but I think concurrent sentencing is there for when the maximum sentence for a particular crime is applied. For instance if the maximum sentence for burglary was 3 years then you would recieve 5 concurent 3 year sentences for 5 burglaries. I think the logic behind this is to insure that someone deosn't end up spending 15 years in jail for 5 burglaries, when someone
else would only recieve the same 15 year sentence for the much more serious crime of murder. It is apparently a flawed system but at least it means someone won't end up being locked away for 30 years for a string of minor crimes.

astrofool

it can basically mean that if you commit one crime, you may as well commit as many as possible (chances of being caught going up not withstanding).

It's like trailer park boys saying that what they've been doing wrong is commiting too big a crime, so instead they should commit many small crimes.

jimmycrackcorm

Theory is that serving 45 years will make no more difference than serving 15. But each crime must have a sentence.

It's difficult to know what is right. People need sentencing to reflect their crimes but we are not a Saudi Arabian society goes to town ona n eye for an eye either.

Some googling....

http://www.lawreform.ie/publications/data/lrc74/lrc_74.html

1.152

When the offences arise out of the same transaction the sentencer should pronounce sentence individually for each offence and not merely take them all into consideration in determining the sentence for one. In The People (AG) v Higgins,264 the accused was charged on a number of counts arising out of the same incident but varying in seriousness. The trial judge imposed sentence on him in respect of one count, taking the others into consideration. In delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court, Finlay CJ said obiter:

“Having regard to the possibility that always exists of a court of appeal setting aside on some technical or other ground the conviction an a particular count, but leaving undisturbed the convictions reached on other counts on the same indictment, even though they arise out of the same incident, this would appear to be an undesirable and unsatisfactory procedure. Appropriate sentence should, in my view, be imposed on all counts in respect of which an accused person is convicted by a jury.”


1.153

Where, however, the offences do not arise out of the same transaction the court has a discretion as to whether the sentences should be consecutive or concurrent. Where the offender is convicted of a subsequent offence whilst serving a sentence of imprisonment or penal servitude, he may be sentenced to a consecutive term of imprisonment or penal servitude to commence on the
expiry of an existing term,265 even though the aggregate may exceed the maximum which may be imposed for either offence. A consecutive sentence is mandatory for offences committed while on bail.266

1.154

On the issue of concurrent and consecutive sentences, the English Court of Appeal has developed a principle known as the Totality Principle. The effect of the totality principle is to require a sentencer who has passed a series of sentences, each properly calculated in relation to the offence for which it is imposed and each properly made consecutive or concurrent in accordance with the “single transaction” rule, to review the aggregate sentence and consider whether it is just and appropriate.267 In R v French,268 Lane LCJ gave the following guidance:

“We would emphasise that in the end, whether the sentences are made consecutive or concurrent, the sentencing judge should try to ensure that the totality of the sentences is correct in the light of all the circumstances of the case.”

gibo_ie

Jimi-Spandex wrote:

I have never seen so many idiots on one thread.

Firstly, the DPP asked for concurrent sentances, not the defendant. Secondly, do you really think it makes much of a difference whether you are in prison for 15 years or 37 years? Is there some substantial gain in rehabilitation(whether from internal or external factors) from the extra 22 years? Do you think that some theoretical potential criminal out there is going to see this and think " Well, I wouldn't mind being in prison for 15 years, but 37 is a bit much. I think I'll stay inside and obey the law instead of going for a spot of rape tonight"? I for one seriously doubt that 22 extra years is going to have anything more than a nominal effect on deterrence.

Who ever said that the defendant requested this sentance or who here said this was ok that it was the dpp and not the defendant that sugegsted it. I still believe it is completely wrong and apart from you , everyone else replying also seems to think so. As Seamus said, concurrent sentances for smaller crimes is understandable, 5 shoplifting offences wuld not constitute 5 years in jail or whatever it would be. However murderers/rapists/serial killers etc know well that killy once you might as well killy more than once. If they knew that if they killed twice or more, they would not see the light of day again, maybe just maybe they would reconsider? If you knew someone personally who had been raped/murdered by someone who had done this before whould you not be annoyed? A lot of convicts are getting released "early" from their sentances and coming out and doing the same crimes again. I dont believe ehabilitation is working in our system, long sentances is my answer.

Jimi-Spandex wrote:

It's all well and good to fly off the handle at some unconfirmed "quote"/soundbite the op posts from some unknown source but no one on this thread knows if there are other factors at play.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1561705&issue_id=13678
Consider confirmed...

Jimi-Spandex wrote:

The fact is that concurrent sentencing is fair in cases involving crimes resulting from a single act or period of aberrant behaviour.

Agreed!

Jimi-Spandex wrote:

And besides, it's judicial discretion whether or not to sentance concurrently and if three judges from the Court of Criminal Appeals decide to grant this, seeing as they have more facts about the case than anyone on this board, there's a good chance that they are right in doing so.

they are probably only thinking of how much it will cost to put the person away for long times. How overcrowded the jails are and are probably going on advice from DPP and other bodies. If judges could make decisions themselves without being swayed by DPP etc, maybe we would need more jails, but maybe there would be less voilence and crime on our streets....