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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Are Irish Judges getting worse
-
10-06-2008 8:46pm#1Anyone else go WTF :mad: when they heard that a drugs dealer who having been caught red handed still pleaded not guilty when charged. Now by him pleading not guilty the state had all the expense of a trial, yet his driver who saved the state i.e you and me money by pleading guilty, got a two year longer sentence
then the drug dealer who was found guilty by a jury.
Now I may have watched too many 'Law and Orders' on TV but surely the whole idea of pleading guilty and saving us all the expence of a trial was that you got a reduced sentence.
But no! another Irish Judge sends out the message, Plead not guilty and when even if you are found guilty guess what, you'll get a reduced sentence.0
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Anyone else go WTF :mad: when they heard that a drugs dealer who having been caught red handed still pleaded not guilty when charged. Now by him pleading not guilty the state had all the expense of a trial, yet his driver who saved the state i.e you and me money by pleading guilty, got a two year longer sentence then the drug dealer who was found guilty by a jury.
Now I may have watched too many 'Law and Orders' on TV but surely the whole idea of pleading guilty and saving us all the expence of a trial was that you got a reduced sentence.
But no! another Irish Judge sends out the message, Plead not guilty and when even if you are found guilty guess what, you'll get a reduced sentence.
Two questions:
1) DO you know more abotu this or less about this than the jedge?
2) Are you sticking to the facts or are you letting emotion get involved?Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Johnny, I didn't think you were talking down to me
but in general in threads like this one the men of
law do tend to adopt a superior tone to talk to
community members. In general I think this is bound
to communicate an 'us Vs. them' attitude to people
who might already be very wary of 'the law'.
With regard to the 'loop-the-loop' statement, I
meant to say that if a negative opinion arises in the
general public as a result of incommensurate
punishment, or of the perception of it -- that it
still creates an atmosphere conducive to dischord
and damages the community's sense of safety (as
well as providing criminal minds with the illusion of
greater freedom).
For this reason I'd look on the general opinions
expressed as signs of community feeling.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Oh thanks Johnny for the seasons vet remark
Perception or not, the relative of the victim in the driving case(other thread) knew exactly how that case progressed and that persons reaction to the changing of the sentence from a suspended one to a cummunity service one for killing a pedestrian is justified reactionary anger i believe.
I do read up on the most serious cases every week and the sentencing in some does be unreal. If it was the UK or US, the offender would be almost guaranteed to get the appropiate unlenient sentence.
There was a case earlier where a South African man killed his wife in Meath and only committed the act in this jurisdiction as he would get a lenier sentence(he admitted this in his trial)
There are also cases out there where people(especially the thugs) are granted bail for serious offences and alot do commit more crimes while on bail despite the public voting to restrict the bail laws(remember that one?) and yet the judges do not reflect public opinion on these matters.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13716
Intothesea wrote: »Johnny, I didn't think you were talking down to me
but in general in threads like this one the men of
law do tend to adopt a superior tone to talk to
community members. In general I think this is bound
to communicate an 'us Vs. them' attitude to people
who might already be very wary of 'the law'.
If you think men of the law are bad you should see the ladyfolk!Intothesea wrote: »With regard to the 'loop-the-loop' statement, I
meant to say that if a negative opinion arises in the
general public as a result of incommensurate
punishment, or of the perception of it -- that it
still creates an atmosphere conducive to dischord
and damages the community's sense of safety (as
well as providing criminal minds with the illusion of
greater freedom).
But increasing sentences to appease public sentiment is not going to solve the issue. What is perhaps needed are:
1) sentencing guidelines like they have in the UK. For example, in the UK the basic sentence for a rape is 5 years, depending on the severity of the offence this can be reduced or increased. Any other aggravating factors will increase the sentence (e.g. intimidation of the victim subsequent to the offence) and any mitigating factors (e.g. guilty plea, remorse, etc) will decrease it. Finally the offenders circumstances will be viewed (e.g. does the person require treatment/rehabilitation, do they have family responsibilities, do they suffer from a psychological condition etc) before the just penalty is applied. If judges were to go through this step by step process (which has been rejected by the Court of Criminal Appeal) the public could follow more easily the reasons for what seem like incorrect decisions and would perhaps then agree with them.
2) public awareness of the basic principles of sentencing and of the consequences of a prison sentence. If public sentiment dictates that someone should be imprisoned for a long time, and the judge sentences them to a shorter period of time, instead of assuming the judge was wrong, people should instead try to understand why the judge reached that decision. Instead of accusing judges of incompetence, conspiracy, or judges being out of touch, why not try to understand their reasons.
3) better media standards - if you read the Irish Times you will get a number of brief sentencing reports with nothing other than the basic facts e.g. "man gets 5 years for robbery" etc. Most of these are very boring and are examples of the justice system at work. However, some of the other newspapers will only print stories that will enrage their readers. As I said earlier, there are 3,000 indictable offences prosecuted each year in Ireland, and of those only a handful make up these "incompetent judge gets it wrong" type stories. Public awareness of cases where judges get it right (or where they are quite severe) is necessary to provide balance to this public sentiment.Intothesea wrote: »For this reason I'd look on the general opinions
expressed as signs of community feeling.
For those reasons, I think it is inadequate to simply state that because people feel sentences are too lenient (based on a few carefully selected newspaper stories) that judges should impose harsher sentences, or that mandatory sentences should be imposed.0 -
-
If you think men of the law are bad you should see
the ladyfolk!
Cheap shots for the win! :pac:
But increasing sentences to appease public sentiment is
not going to solve the issue.
True, but that wasn't what I was hoping to infer,
though I do agree with the rest of your points.
Lawmaking must relate not-so-systematically to
public feeling, in that general/continued outrage
serves as a barometer for either change-requirement
levels (this would relate to violent changes in
community makeup I believe: aka Ireland in past
ten years) or for increased need for judicial systems'
transparency. A good system isn't closed nor is a
mutual dictatorship.
One way I can think around the issue of growing
discontentment with court measures is greater
public awareness. Ultimately my point here was
to look at the general problem associated with
identifiable lawyers being disparaging of negative
public views, in public.For those reasons, I think it is inadequate to simply
state that because people feel sentences are too lenient.
I think it's a mistake for lawyers to seek to quell
negative public opinion on a public forum. By 'looking
on it as an expression of feeling' - I meant taking it
on academically, to use as extra lighting on the road
to critical evaluation. Positive education doesn't read
anything like the first two pages of this thread afaik
Anyway fair play Johnny, your answers are very
informative.0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 13716
Intothesea wrote: »Cheap shots for the win! :pac:
I wasn't kidding.Intothesea wrote: »Lawmaking must relate not-so-systematically to
public feeling, in that general/continued outrage
serves as a barometer for either change-requirement
levels (this would relate to violent changes in
community makeup I believe: aka Ireland in past
ten years) or for increased need for judicial systems'
transparency. A good system isn't closed nor is a
mutual dictatorship.
I would add to this (or to extend your point about increased transparency) that we need impartial reporting of criminal sentences. If members of the public were to sit in a criminal court all day every day for a week, I think they would agree with 90% of the sentences. Of the remaining 10% they might say that 5% were too lenient, but that the remaining 5% was too severe. A correct sentence is not newsworthy, and unfortunately an unduly heavy sentence is rarely seen as judges responding to public demand for higher sentences. But whenever there is an unduly lenient (or even just lenient) sentence the papers will latch onto it and generate antipathy towards the judge or to the judicial system.Intothesea wrote: »One way I can think around the issue of growing
discontentment with court measures is greater
public awareness. Ultimately my point here was
to look at the general problem associated with
identifiable lawyers being disparaging of negative
public views, in public.
Is not the undue disparaging of judges not a much more dangerous thing? Granted there are times when it is deserved, and there are also times when a judge will simply make an error of judgement (they are human after all).
Also, I really can't stand people who use the victims of crime to further their criticisms of judges. While I can at times understand the frustration felt by the victims of crime, I can only feel that this is compounded by the people who make arguments like "The victim must feel that her whole life is ruined, that she cannot feel safe or live a normal life" etc. The reason I can't stand this type of comment is because it can often cause the damage it claims to highlight.Intothesea wrote: »I think it's a mistake for lawyers to seek to quell
negative public opinion on a public forum. By 'looking
on it as an expression of feeling' - I meant taking it
on academically, to use as extra lighting on the road
to critical evaluation. Positive education doesn't read
anything like the first two pages of this thread afaik
Well I think everyone has the right to express their views, even lawyers. I'm sure there are a lot of non-lawyers who know a lot more about sentencing than lawyers, especially because to really understand the issues you need to understand:
1) what it is like to be the victim of crime
2) what it is like to spend time in prison
3) why some people commit offences
4) the costs of sending someone to prison (an unpopular but important consideration)
5) the benefits of rehabilitation
6) the principles of forgiveness and retribution that have shaped our society
7) the fact that human justice is imperfect
8) the need for people to be safe
9) the need for people to feel safe
10) the need to discourage people from a life of crime thus having more able bodied people to work and pay taxes (this is the original reason for our system of criminal law - to have enough able bodied men to fight for the king).
Very few of these considerations are particular to lawyers, and have been discussed by political theorists such as Montesqueu, Bentham etc. There are some factors that make little sense at first glance but have proved over the centuries to be very important (e.g. a reduced sentence for a guilty plea because, among other things, if everybody ran their trials only a tiny fraction of cases would ever be heard by the courts). On the other hand, there are factors for which familiarity breeds contempt (e.g. someone who has lived a relatively sheltered life might be horrified by an assault that doesn't result in harm, whereas a judge or a lawyer might consider it to be "minor assault" or the like). What is interesting about the news report here is that there is no indication given for the reason for the difference in the sentence, but no doubt the judge did state his reason (otherwise the driver would have a clear right of appeal).0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement