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
Sentencing of serious crimes
-
01-02-2010 6:14pm#1
Less than 5 yrs includes suspended sentences, fines, community service, and (obviously) sentences less than 5 yrs (i.e. less than 2 and 2-5). Sentences above 5 years are collated from 5-10 and 10+ in length.
Figures collated from http://www.courts.ie/courts.ie/library3.nsf/WebPageCurrentWeb/5017c38ceeb19934802575f20038270d?OpenDocument&Start=1&Count=1000&Collapse=2
I understand that there may be large variability in the seriousness of the crimes that fall under the umbrella 'assault' or 'drugs' but whats the deal with the short sentences for gun crimes?? If you look at the locations of these crimes they are mostly Dublin and Limerick.
Anyone have any more figures on this that maybe separates out the types of drug offences, assaults or gun crimes??0
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Do you have prison capacity statistics?
anyone watch Charlie Bird in USA before Frontline last night ?
remember that scene with the poor immigrants being made wear pink underwear and being put in tents in middle of the desert, their crime? trying to improve their families lives
that made me think
why are these people suffering while the serious offenders here who commit robbery, murder or deal in drugs get nice pampered treatment in expensive to run prisons
put up a few tents in any of the uninhabited islands out the west, and put any:
* rapists
* murderers
* burglars
* drug dealers
and make them wear pink underwear
while they soak in the Irish weather 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
johnnyskeleton wrote: »So you're saying we shouldn't sentence people who commit serious crimes to jail? Let them walk free and unhindered because you have a dislike for law and order and are sick of trials and evidence.
I love made up statistics. 73% of people would disagree with you.
Would you care to elaborate on this? Please first explain the system we have here, then explain why it is crazy, and then tell us what your alternative is. If your answer is "we should hang em all without a trial based on who I (as in you) think is guilty" then fair enough, but otherwise I fail to see how you can make a sustainable argument that the system we have is crazy.
Who said hang them?
I said that the sentences for serious crime in this country is an absolute disgrace. Do you 10-12-14-16-18 years or murder is okay?
You a judge or defence lawyer by any chance?
Also, where did I say that we shouldn't jail people for serious crime?
Made up statistics? There are instances of murderes being released from jail after 10 years. The law as far as I know allows a murderer to apply for parole after 7 years.If this doesn't strike you as disgusting, then good luck.
Average time spent in jail in Ireland or the most heinous of crimes, murder, is 17 years.
Crazy? You better ****ing believe it.
Though, as to specifics, it's those who let the filth of society out who are
the problem. The initial sentence, say LIFE is okay, but in practice it
never really means life.
How about the mandatory sentencing for those caught with drugs up
to a certai amount. Wasn't it supposed to be ten years? How many times was
this implemented? I am guessing lmost never0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 13707
Who said hang them?
Well what's your alternative, since you appear to think that prison is not sufficient punishment?I said that the sentences for serious crime in this country is an absolute disgrace. Do you 10-12-14-16-18 years or murder is okay?
Not 10 or 12, but 14, 16, 18 depending on the circumstances yes. But the amount of time they serve first time round is not the full story - life means that the Minister for justice can keep them imprisoned for life if he or she wishes, and if they are released after a certain amount of time they can be put back in at a moments notice.You a judge or defence lawyer by any chance?
You still don't seem to understand the pretty simple concept that the amount of time actually spent in prison for convicted murders has nothing to do with the judicial system or lawyers, but is an executive function conferred on the Minister for Justice (and the President on consultation with the ministers, but that's a different story) which is usually exercised by the parole board. When a judge sentences someone to life, as far as he is concerned that person will serve life in prison unless there is intervention by the Minister for Justice.
How difficult is this to understand? If you took some time to actually understand how the Irish criminal justice system worked (instead of simply decrying it on any scrap of evidence) then you would realise that this is true and the whole premise of your post, that trials, evidence and sentencing (and by implication, the whole judicial process) are crazy does not stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.
And while you're entitled to your views, in a democratic society it is vital that we have fair trials for all. If you don't recognise this that is your democratic right to free expression, but it is a very short sighted view in my opinion.Also, where did I say that we shouldn't jail people for serious crime?
You said that the only thing worse than trials and evidence was sentencing. I'm not sure that you're actually going so far as to say that we should do away with trials and sentencing, but if you are then the two alternatives are to not punish people for committing crimes, or to punish people on capricious perceptions held by those who are in power. Neither in my view is particularly attractive.
Is that a fair synopsis of your view? If not, tell me, what's your alternative, the absence of which is a fairly significant flaw in your entire diatribe against the current judicial system.Made up statistics? There are instances of murderes being released from jail after 10 years.
If these are not made up statistics, let's see your numbers then.The law as far as I know allows a murderer to apply for parole after 7 years.If this doesn't strike you as disgusting, then good luck.
A right to apply? That strikes you as disgusting? They are perfectly entitled to apply, can you name a single instance of someone being granted parole after 7 years when serving a life sentence for murder?Average time spent in jail in Ireland or the most heinous of crimes, murder, is 17 years.
Crazy? You better ****ing believe it.
Not that crazy. Someone commits murder aged 21 gets out aged 38 after 17 harrowing years of living in a cell. If you have no particular political axe to grind, that's a good mix between punishment, rehabilitation and reducing the overall cost to the country.Though, as to specifics, it's those who let the filth of society out who are
the problem. The initial sentence, say LIFE is okay, but in practice it
never really means life.
You're almost, but not quite, starting to see my point. What you have yet to realise is that the person responsible for letting people out when serving a life sentence are politicans, not judges or lawyers.How about the mandatory sentencing for those caught with drugs up
to a certai amount. Wasn't it supposed to be ten years? How many times was
this implemented? I am guessing lmost never
After calling you up for making up statistics I'm not going to make up some of my own. It is not mandatory but presumptive for a first offence. Sometimes it is imposed, other times it is not. I don't think we would disagree that it is not imposed more often than it is. But I would disagree that it is almost never imposed.
Furthermore, it's all very well to sit on the sidelines and say this should be mandatory across the board, but the reality in the specific instance of s.15A is that a lot of the people who are convicted of it are not drug dealers but down and out drug addicts, people with large debts and no legitimate way to pay it, and foreigners, some of whom are trafficed into the country as mules. So it's all very well to take a black and white view of it, but it's another to actually look at the reality of the sitution.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Ah here you are:
http://www.kilkennypeople.ie/news/Four-year-sentence-for-Curry.6015410.jp
Poor man was lonely and did say sorry, so I guess that makes it not too bad
So, here's another alternative for you. The judge who handed down this sentence should be made
explain to the public why he handed down such a lenient sentence and IF the reason doesn't cut it, which
is likely, then he should be removed from office.
Oh, and another alternative to this sentence? How about the rest of the mans life behind
bars as some sort of justice to the many lives he ruined. 21 years he was ruining lives. That's
a hell of a long time to be so heinous. The judge in this case had a chance to get justice for the
many people devastated by Curry; the judge failed them miserably.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 13707
Hey, chill out. You want an alternative from me as regards sentencing. Okay, here's one example I would give. Murderers cannot under any circumstances (unless proven later as innocent) be released before 40 years behind bars.
What part of that's a matter for the minister for justice not for sentencing judges do you not understand? If you are arguing for judges to be allowed to set a minimum tarif of years to be served (like in the UK) then that would be a matter for sentencing.
If you are advocating a strict approach of mandatory sentencing then, while I would welcome that development on one level, I don't think it is a very fair system. When imposing sentence, a trial judge has to take into account the nature and seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the accused. If there was a mandatory sentence of 40 years for murder, juries might bring in verdicts of manslaughter not because they didn't think it was murder, but because they feel sympathy for the accused (or indeed the family) involved. Irish juries are like that, and it would be very difficult to secure murder convictions if there was a mandatory sentence of 40 years.
Furthermore, while mandatory sentencing is fine for certain types of offences such as murder i.e. where the offence is always very serious and the convicted person must of necessity intended to commit such a serious offence, there is such a different range of severity and personal circumstances that mandatory sentencing would result in unfair decisions in all but a very few cases (i.e. the most serious offences would be underpunished and the least serious would be overly punished).There's one alternative, although seeing as you see no problem with a measly 17 years, I reckon this will fall on deaf ears.
That's not an alternative, that's just one suggestion, and it doesn't even relate to sentencing. You said that sentencing in the country was crazy, but you haven't suggested how it should be done better as a system.
Equally, the fact that you think 17 years in chokey is measly suggests that you won't listen to reason either.As for the person who received a four ****ing years sentence very recently for 189 sex crimes against children, forget links, if you don't know about it, that's not my problem.
Ah here you are:
http://www.kilkennypeople.ie/news/Four-year-sentence-for-Curry.6015410.jp
Poor man was lonely and did say sorry, so I guess that makes it not too bad
So, here's another alternative for you. The judge who handed down this sentence should be made
explain to the public why he handed down such a lenient sentence and IF the reason doesn't cut it, which
is likely, then he should be removed from office.
Oh, and another alternative to this sentence? How about the rest of the mans life behind
bars as some sort of justice to the many lives he ruined. 21 years he was ruining lives. That's
a hell of a long time to be so heinous. The judge in this case had a chance to get justice for the
many people devastated by Curry; the judge failed them miserably.
Apart from anything else, the maximum sentence for indecent assault prior to 1981 was 5 years imprisonment.Laminations wrote: »Johnnyskeleton, can you enlighten us as to the thinking behind giving ten 18 year sentences and three 3 year sentences to run concurrently. I never said reduction, I said compression. Technically it is 189 yrs. He got 18. Whats the justification for that?
I don't know, I wasn't there. But as to the issue of having sentences run concurrently, the idea is that the overall sentence should reflect the severity of the offence and the circumstances of the accused. If he was sentenced individually for each offence they might have been lower amounts. The judge must have been of the view that 18 years was the appropriate setence overall in the case.Laminations wrote: »You may think that saying the government is crap because we are in a recession is not useful but it doesnt make it untrue. The idea that you must first have a solution before you point out a problem is ridiculous.
Saying the government is crap can not be true (unless they are physically composed entirely of faces) or false. It is a matter of opinion. If you are criticising something without reference to why it is wrong it is mere baseless opinion. In order to have some validity or persuasiveness to that opinion, you have to show what the system is lacking. To do that, you have to point to an alternative, one way or another.Laminations wrote: »You quote the value of qualifications at one stage but then common sense at another.
Ha. What I said about common sense is that it is a moveable feast i.e. it can be whatever you say it means.Laminations wrote: »If people do not think that sentences are fitting then it is up to the judiciary to explain the criminal justice system.
No, it's up to society as a whole to decide this surely? But as with everything, political decisions must be rational, practical and transparent. It is futile suggesting longer prison sentences for all if you are not prepared to pay for it. Likewise, it is merely rhetoric to take an absolute stance on the percieved deterrent aspect of sentencing without regard to any of the other factors involved. Apart from anything else, there is little proof that increased sentences alone have much of a deterrent effect on serious and violent offences.Laminations wrote: »Walshb is not suggesting an alternative to prison, he like myself is suggesting sentences that fit the crime.
I agree that sentences should fit the crime, but throwing out a few random examples does not amount to an argument that sentences overall do not fit the crime. There are approximately 3,000 crimes tried on indictment each year in Ireland. To select a handful as being unduly lenient does not amount to a criticism of the system as a whole.0 -
-
Advertisement