Mandatory Sentencing: Are you in favour

censuspro

My observation is that public is in favour but the profession is not. Apart from those who work in criminal defense, why should we not have mandatory sentencing?

JohnK

I'm not in the legal profession and I strongly disagree with mandatory sentencing because it takes away the ability of a judge to decide exactly what sentence a particular case merits. Frankly a judge whos hearing a case is in a far better position to decide what sentence a particular case merits than anyone else.

KamiKazi

I agree with you in principle JohnK but after seeing some ridiculous sentences from judges in the last few years I think mandatory minimum sentences are the only way to go.

skyhighflyer

No. The American experience of this has been an unmitigated disaster. People getting 25 to life for PWID (possession with intent to distribute) and other non-violent crimes introduced as part of Reagan's war on drugs has led to the US having the highest incarceration rate in the developed world, destroyed the social fabric of the black working class and hasn't significantly reduced crime rates.

censuspro

skyhighflyer wrote: »

No. The American experience of this has been an unmitigated disaster. People getting 25 to life for PWID (possession with intent to distribute) and other non-violent crimes introduced as part of Reagan's war on drugs has led to the US having the highest incarceration rate in the developed world, destroyed the social fabric of the black working class and hasn't significantly reduced crime rates.

They have reduced crime rates among repeat offenders because they're in prison.

I'm in favour of mandatory sentencing and keeping repeat offenders off the streets and in prison where they belong. In this country, the minority of people commit the majority of crime.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

With regard to mandatory 'life sentences' handed down by the judiciary, I have read in columns in the past that judges have said (unofficialy) that the feel like monkeys handing down a life sentence which can often amount to a relatively small amount of time spent in jail and that in such cases that they would like to be able to pass a minimum sentence.
I would be strongly in favour of this, that a judges vast experience and observations should be recognised enabling them to pass minimum sentences coupled with madatory sentences.

But would this be a breach of the separation of powers?

Dandelion6

censuspro wrote: »

They have reduced crime rates among repeat offenders because they're in prison.

There's no crime in prisons?

censuspro

censuspro wrote: »

They have reduced crime rates among repeat offenders because they're in prison.

This is not a counter argument to the post you quote. If anything it underlines the failure of the policy. Crime rates remain steady in spite of the mandatory sentences for repeat offenders because they are replaced by new offenders. That stems from a systemic failure in addressing the causes of crime.

I cannot find a source so please do not attach too much weight to this but I am pretty sure that the USA now imprisons a higher proportion of its population than Soviet Russia placed in the gulags.

Besides that, mandatory minimums in the US are racist with a historic 100:1 disparity (now 18:1 I think) between sentences for crack and powder cocaine. Anyone who uses the US sentencing guidelines as a model needs to seriously consider the huge problems within that system.

censuspro

Deleted User wrote: »

This is not a counter argument to the post you quote. If anything it underlines the failure of the policy. Crime rates remain steady in spite of the mandatory sentences for repeat offenders because they are replaced by new offenders. That stems from a systemic failure in addressing the causes of crime.

I cannot find a source so please do not attach too much weight to this but I am pretty sure that the USA now imprisons a higher proportion of its population than Soviet Russia placed in the gulags.

Besides that, mandatory minimums in the US are racist with a historic 100:1 disparity (now 18:1 I think) between sentences for crack and powder cocaine. Anyone who uses the US sentencing guidelines as a model needs to seriously consider the huge problems within that system.

Well violent crime in Ireland has been increasing and I don't think crime rates in Ireland have been falling, so based on your arguement our current policy on non mandatory sentencing is a systemic failure.

Also, who said that crime rates are the yard stick that we measure whether mandatory sentencing is a success or failure. Where else should we put people who have proven that they cannot and will not function in this society by persistently breaking the law if not in prison. In Ireland we have people who have over 80 convictions, who have clearly proven that they cannot funtion in this society despite being given numerous chances and who no sign or willingness to rehabilitate and clearly pose a threat to society and yet we refuse to send them to prison for any considerable lenght of time.

censuspro

Dandelion6 wrote: »

There's no crime in prisons?

Would you rather they committed crime in your house or in prison?

censuspro

Ember Panicky Pulp wrote: »

With regard to mandatory 'life sentences' handed down by the judiciary, I have read in columns in the past that judges have said (unofficialy) that the feel like monkeys handing down a life sentence which can often amount to a relatively small amount of time spent in jail and that in such cases that they would like to be able to pass a minimum sentence.
I would be strongly in favour of this, that a judges vast experience and observations should be recognised enabling them to pass minimum sentences coupled with madatory sentences.

But would this be a breach of the separation of powers?

I think that the complaint by those in favour are that judges are not giving tougher sentences hence the reason for mandatory sentencing.

My understanding is that majority of judges and legal eagles are against mandatory sentencing for reasons outlined in other posts. However, my own opinion is that the real reason Judges are againt mandatory sentencing is because they will have reduced power meaning reduced status and also a loss in fees for the profession that do legal defense work.

MrPudding

censuspro wrote: »

I think that the complaint by those in favour are that judges are not giving tougher sentences hence the reason for mandatory sentencing.

With respect, I think it is likely that those complaining may not necessarily understand exactly what is going on. I do not doubt that in some cases mistakes are made in sentencing, but in most cases I would expect that the judge believes he has good reason to impose the sentence he does.

censuspro wrote: »

My understanding is that majority of judges and legal eagles are against mandatory sentencing for reasons outlined in other posts.

I think there are other reasons as well. Forgive me if I am talking rubbish… Does mandatory sentences not make life general more difficult in law enforcement? If you have a criminal who is looking at a mandatory sentence what incentive is there for him to co-operate with the police or to plead guilty for a reduced sentence without having to go to the expense of having a trial?

censuspro wrote: »

However, my own opinion is that the real reason Judges are againt mandatory sentencing is because they will have reduced power meaning reduced status and also a loss in fees for the profession that do legal defense work.

There may be an element of this, but I don’t think it would be the only or most significant reason.

MrP

MrPudding

Not quite related to mandatory sentencing, but an interesting article on short sentences.

MrP

CharlieCroker

I said yes, If it's got to the stage where you've gotten a charge sheet, it means you've gone through the adult cautioning scheme to no avail or your offence is of a more serious nature.

I would be in favour of mandatory sentencing. imo, too many serial offenders are found guilty and bound to the peace, or given suspended sentances that rarely get activated.

I'd also have a 3 strikes and your out in relation to free legal aid. If you continue to be a scumbag, why should the state help you get off!

johnnyskeleton

censuspro wrote: »

My observation is that public is in favour but the profession is not. Apart from those who work in criminal defense, why should we not have mandatory sentencing?

Yeah, why not.

What should the mandatory sentence be for the following:

1)Rape
2)Assault
3)Theft
4)Drink driving*?



*Yes, I realise there already is a mandatory sentence of sorts for dd.

randomchild

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yeah, why not.

What should the mandatory sentence be for the following:

1)Rape
2)Assault
3)Theft
4)Drink driving*?



*Yes, I realise there already is a mandatory sentence of sorts for dd.

Precisely, variable sentences are needed for what are essentially infinitely variable crimes...

AlekSmart

Oddly enough,although I share Censuspro`s sense of abandonment,indignation and perhaps bafflement as to the sentencing conundrum regarding violent crime,I would be loathe to vote yes to mandatory sentencing.

I do,however,feel that general sentencing policy in regard to Violent and/or Recidivist offenders needs a thorough and rapid review.

Any judge who is involved in the sentencing phase of a particularly violent crime should not necessarily be bound to "have regard" to any other sentencing precedent and in doing so that Judge`s sentence should not be automatically open to challenge on those ground alone.

It would seem that in some cases,individual Judges have been minded to hand-down sentences which they felt were appropriate for the case-at-hand.

However,and I have seen references to Judges addressing their courts to the effect that they had to adhere to sentencing precedents.

Those precedents and their ability to assist in diluting punishments tend to be well known to the recidivist criminal fraternity,who will of course make full use of the procedures.

It was a surprise to me when I first came upon a scene in the District Court of accused persons literally wagging-their-fingers at their allocated Legal Representative as they provided the brief with VERY fortright instructions on how they wished their defence to be progressed.

Since that first occasion I have watched and listened to this type of scenario at many other courts in the Dublin area.

Perhaps understandably,it`s never the staid,conformist,placid non-careerist defendant who will dominate their solicitor/barrister in this manner,this group tends to have confidence that their legal representative will do their best,whereas the old pro crim`s will make fcuxxkin certain he/she does !

The likes of Rossi Walsh,John Gilligan,Martin Cahill and others did not accquire their legal knowledge overnight,and one can well imagine that an individual with multiple convictions has had probably more direct courtroom experience than many qualified Barristers....;)

Sentencing policy for those convicted of violent offences needs a review and a refocusing exercise to call a halt to the merry-go-round that throws evil intentioned criminals back out amongst their fertile victim-fields.

pirelli

randomchild wrote: »

Precisely, variable sentences are needed for what are essentially infinitely variable crimes...

DD is a traffic offence. It is too general and encompasses many variables. It is foolish to put it up there with rape etc. While some people view it as a past time that has to stamped out, we also have to stamp out reckless and dangerous driving and speeding but despite them being the cause of many accidents they are only viewed as offences. I think dangerous and reckless driving and speeding and drink driving combining to put peoples life in danger is criminal as would anyone; but specifically on its own DD is to wide encompassing to curse it on everyone involved as criminals.

They will be an increase in DD when the alcohol level is reduced and the people caught up in it, well these people are not criminals. They are just regular people that care about people. However you can be prosecutreed for drink driving fo sitting in your car FFS so call it by what it is an offence.

It is an offence.

johnnyskeleton

AlekSmart wrote: »

Any judge who is involved in the sentencing phase of a particularly violent crime should not necessarily be bound to "have regard" to any other sentencing precedent and in doing so that Judge`s sentence should not be automatically open to challenge on those ground alone.

They are not bound to follow another judge's level of sentence e.g. number of years, but they are bound to follow the principles as set by the court of criminal appeal. The fact that one judge gives a higher or lower sentence than another for a similar offence does not automatically open it to challenge as you assert.

Obviously, however, where the same judge is sentencing co-accused there will be a proportionality between the two sentences depending on culpability, involvement, mitigating factors etc.

AlekSmart wrote: »

It would seem that in some cases,individual Judges have been minded to hand-down sentences which they felt were appropriate for the case-at-hand.

That is what a judge does in every case, or at least it is what they are supposed to do. I don't know where you get the idea that there is some sort of tariff fixed by previous cases, but it's not true of Ireland.

AlekSmart wrote: »

However,and I have seen references to Judges addressing their courts to the effect that they had to adhere to sentencing precedents.

Are you sure the judge didn't say "adhere to sentencing principles"?

AlekSmart wrote: »

Sentencing policy for those convicted of violent offences needs a review and a refocusing exercise to call a halt to the merry-go-round that throws evil intentioned criminals back out amongst their fertile victim-fields.

It's all very fine to say it needs a review, but you have to follow up with some suggestions as to what should be changed. The above issue of sentencing precedent is not correct, and equally your points in the other thread were based on a misunderstanding of the law.

I don't doubt that you feel that sentences are too lenient and that you have gone to great lengths to see what happens in court, but if you want to call for a review of sentencing principles, you need to understand how, as a matter of law, they operate.

AlekSmart

I don't doubt that you feel that sentences are too lenient and that you have gone to great lengths to see what happens in court, but if you want to call for a review of sentencing principles, you need to understand how, as a matter of law, they operate.

You are indeed correct regarding leniency of sentence Mr Skeleton,however I cannot claim to have gone to great-lengths,other than attending and observing some individual cases.

As I have to work at a day-job to pay the bills,I simply don`t have enough time to allocate to carrying out an in-depth study,as may be performed by those who are involved,on both sides,with the system

I feel however,that as a non-legally inclined layperson surely I am as enitled to put forward an opinion as to how this "Sentencing Policy" is devised and operated ?

You and others may well find that opinion flawed or worded in such a manner as to cause distaste but does this indicate that only those with a predisposition towards the Legal proffession can bring forward their levels of discomfort with the system ?

It's all very fine to say it needs a review, but you have to follow up with some suggestions as to what should be changed. The above issue of sentencing precedent is not correct, and equally your points in the other thread were based on a misunderstanding of the law.

Yes I do say that full and comprehensive review of sentencing procedures is required,particularly in the area of violent criminality.

My suggestions,simplistic as they may be,tend to revolve around harsher sentencing and one with far less avenues of remission as are currently seen to be available.

However,as you say,given that I dont have a complete "understanding" of our legal system,my suggestions and opinions regarding what I read,see and hear must remain just that,the opinion of an individual observing from without and ones which sadly I see no improvement on in the foreseeable future.

johnnyskeleton

AlekSmart wrote: »

You are indeed correct regarding leniency of sentence Mr Skeleton,however I cannot claim to have gone to great-lengths,other than attending and observing some individual cases.

As I have to work at a day-job to pay the bills,I simply don`t have enough time to allocate to carrying out an in-depth study,as may be performed by those who are involved,on both sides,with the system

I feel however,that as a non-legally inclined layperson surely I am as enitled to put forward an opinion as to how this "Sentencing Policy" is devised and operated ?

You and others may well find that opinion flawed or worded in such a manner as to cause distaste but does this indicate that only those with a predisposition towards the Legal proffession can bring forward their levels of discomfort with the system ?



Yes I do say that full and comprehensive review of sentencing procedures is required,particularly in the area of violent criminality.

My suggestions,simplistic as they may be,tend to revolve around harsher sentencing and one with far less avenues of remission as are currently seen to be available.

However,as you say,given that I dont have a complete "understanding" of our legal system,my suggestions and opinions regarding what I read,see and hear must remain just that,the opinion of an individual observing from without and ones which sadly I see no improvement on in the foreseeable future.

Saying "I want harsher sentences" is not advocating a particular "sentencing policy" anymore than what you perceive to be unduly lenient sentences at the moment is a "sentencing policy". For all your circumlocution, you haven't put forward any argument other than "I demand harsher sentences". This makes it very hard to discuss the matter with you, although I'd like to think that if you come away from these threads with just one thing, it is that the sentence for section 3 assault should be increased*

*or better still, divide assaults into common assault (no injury, max 1 year), assault causing minor harm (e.g. cuts, bruises, up to 5 years), assault causing harm (e.g. broken arm etc up to 10 years) and causing serious harm (i.e. life threatening or seriously debilitating harm with life).

AlekSmart

Saying "I want harsher sentences" is not advocating a particular "sentencing policy" anymore than what you perceive to be unduly lenient sentences at the moment is a "sentencing policy". For all your circumlocution, you haven't put forward any argument other than "I demand harsher sentences". This makes it very hard to discuss the matter with you, although I'd like to think that if you come away from these threads with just one thing, it is that the sentence for section 3 assault should be increased*

Well,thankfully Mr Skeleton you are doing a top-job of discussing it so far,and very enlightening it is too.
Granted it may appear circumlocuitive to your good self,but I`m happy enough that my opinions are held by at least a couple of accquaintances.

I don`t really see it as an "argumentative" topic,we have two differing perceptions on the issue,mine a lay outsiders and yours a more involved insider perhaps and that`s where the hare sits.

I would indeed like to see sentences handed down which could be deemed appropriate to the individual crime.
I`m not planning on "going away" from the thread,voluntarily at any rate.

*or better still, divide assaults into common assault (no injury, max 1 year), assault causing minor harm (e.g. cuts, bruises, up to 5 years), assault causing harm (e.g. broken arm etc up to 10 years) and causing serious harm (i.e. life threatening or seriously debilitating harm with life).

I`d certainly buy-into that as an initial step towards establishing a "Policy" or whatever description you deem appropriate.