More reasons for mandatory sentencing

censuspro

Within one week we had the following cases.

Former county councillor receives 2 year suspended sentencing for the sexual assault of a 16 yo in a hotel room. i.e. no prison time.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0519/1224270654581.html

Mother murders her 3yo child resulting in 70 seperate injuries and the childs death a few days later gets 4 years.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0520/1224270711450.html


Sean Keogh get's 4 years for kicking Pawel Kalite in the head while he lay dying on the ground. Despite the fact that Keogh had 75 priors and was out on bail when he committed the offence.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0519/drimnagh.html

Its obvious that Irish judges are incapable for handing down harsh prison sentences. When will we start to protect Irish citizens by inroducing mandatory sentencing? The arguement that mandatory sentencing doesn't reduce crimes rates is irrelevant as crimes rates are increasiong under the current system anyway. Repeat and serious offenders belong in prison where they are not a threat to society.

funnyname

Indeed, totally agree with you, reckon we need a total overhaul of the judicial system to make sure we capture everything that is wrong/inadequate with it. Also the DPP could do with a kick up the hole in the way they bring cases against people who break the law.

drunkmonkey

Murder should carry a mandatory sentences!

What went on this week was a national disgrace!

I don't understand how the sentances were so light, it's baffling and sends out such a bad message to any murdering loon!

To think our lives are only worth four years in jail is a terrifying thought!

johnnyskeleton

*

Sean Keogh get's 4 years for kicking Pawel Kalite in the head while he lay dying on the ground. Despite the fact that Keogh had 75 priors and was out on bail when he committed the offence.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0519/drimnagh.html

Its obvious that Irish judges are incapable for handing down harsh prison sentences. When will we start to protect Irish citizens by inroducing mandatory sentencing? The arguement that mandatory sentencing doesn't reduce crimes rates is irrelevant as crimes rates are increasiong under the current system anyway. Repeat and serious offenders belong in prison where they are not a threat to society.

he pleaded guilty to an offence that carries a maximum of 5 years. He got 4 and a half. What more do you want from the judge, to disobey the law and impose life imprisonment because it seems appropriate to you?

censuspro

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

*

he pleaded guilty to an offence that carries a maximum of 5 years. He got 4 and a half. What more do you want from the judge, to disobey the law and impose life imprisonment because it seems appropriate to you?

Yes but he had 75 priors and was out on bail at the time of the murder! If someone with 75 priors doesn't belong in prison then who does?

eagle_&_bear

censuspro wrote: »

Yes but he had 75 priors and was out on bail at the time of the murder! If someone with 75 priors doesn't belong in prison then who does?

That rationale amounts to preventative justice which, in of itself, if unconstitutional!

It may well be the case that when he was charged initially with murder that bail was denied and that certain securities were needed in the High Court bails list before bail was granted.

Baring in mind, just because someone is charged with an offence does not mean that they commited the offence. Until such time as the jury returned a verdict of guilty, that man was innocent of all charges against him. As you all know there are certain constitutional principles at play and he benefits from them as much as any other person.

I'm not, for one minute saying that what he did (now that a jury of his peers found him guilty of that particular offence wasn't reprehensible) but we do not engage in summary imprisonment just because you are charged with something. It is for the state to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

eagle_&_bear

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Murder should carry a mandatory sentences!

The penalty for the offence of murder contrary to Section 4 of the Criminal Justice act 1964 is 'life imprisonment'

unless certain factors are present (diminished responsiblity etc which are considered under the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006) among others

monkeypants

Maybe time for a three strikes rule or something similar for offences involving violence?

shaneybaby

monkeypants wrote: »

Maybe time for a three strikes rule or something similar for offences involving violence?

a three strikes and....?

Not against it mind, i think three is probably a bit low considering one incident can lead to multiple offences.

censuspro

censuspro wrote: »

Yes but he had 75 priors and was out on bail at the time of the murder! If someone with 75 priors doesn't belong in prison then who does?

My point is that Keogh was charged and convicted for 75 pervious offences. How can it be that a person with 75 convictions is still allowed to roam free after serving little or no prison time. Surely these people have proved they cannot function in society, and where else are we supposed to put convicted offenders if not in prison?

I cannot understand why it is only people within the legal profession who are against mandatory sentencing. Surely a minimum form of madatory sentencing can be agreed?

FreudianSlippers

censuspro wrote: »

My point is that Keogh was charged and convicted for 75 pervious offences. How can it be that a person with 75 convictions is still allowed to roam free after serving little or no prison time. Surely these people have proved they cannot function in society, and where else are we supposed to put convicted offenders if not in prison?

I cannot understand why it is only people within the legal profession who are against mandatory sentencing. Surely a minimum form of madatory sentencing can be agreed?

Well, do you know what his 75 previous offences were? I'm not condoning anyone having 75 priors, but it's not like we're talking about 75 murders or rapes. Probably the majority of them are public order offences or minor thefts. I think the vast majority of people get a bit sensationalised when they hear something like 75 previous offences without sitting back rationally thinking about it.

censuspro

OisinT wrote: »

Well, do you know what his 75 previous offences were? I'm not condoning anyone having 75 priors, but it's not like we're talking about 75 murders or rapes. Probably the majority of them are public order offences or minor thefts. I think the vast majority of people get a bit sensationalised when they hear something like 75 previous offences without sitting back rationally thinking about it.

Does it really matter? If someone has 75 prior convictions regardless of what it's for, it proves that they they are not capable of functioning in society despite being given dozends of chances, it also proves that punishment that we are currently using is not working because they just keep re-offending.

FreudianSlippers

censuspro wrote: »

Does it really matter? If someone has 75 prior convictions regardless of what it's for, it proves that they they are not capable of functioning in society despite being given dozends of chances, it also proves that punishment that we are currently using is not working because they just keep re-offending.

I think anyone that believes that should go visit Mountjoy and then say that. It's very easy to want to lock people up until you see the conditions they are being kept in.
Besides, it's contrary to the constitution to lock people up preventatively (as I believe has already been mentioned in the thread).

censuspro

OisinT wrote: »

I think anyone that believes that should go visit Mountjoy and then say that. It's very easy to want to lock people up until you see the conditions they are being kept in.

Why don't you go and visit the victims of the crime and then say that. Is the welfare of a criminal in an overcrowded prison cell who has dozens of convictions more important than the safety of society.

OisinT wrote: »

Besides, it's contrary to the constitution to lock people up preventatively (as I believe has already been mentioned in the thread).

If the constitution needs to be changed we can have a referendum and let people decide. The result would be a forgone conclusion.

Where do you suggest we put criminals if not in prison???

FreudianSlippers

censuspro wrote: »

Why don't you go and visit the victims of the crime and then say that. Is the welfare of a criminal in an overcrowded prison cell who has dozens of convictions more important than the safety of society.



If the constitution needs to be changed we can have a referendum and let people decide. The result would be a forgone conclusion.

Where do you suggest we put criminals if not in prison???

I believe it would fundamentally alter the fabric of our constitution to remove due process and allow preventitive incarceration.

I have seen victims of crime many times, but I still don't believe it is appropriate to either preventatively detain people or to treat them like animals.

FreudianSlippers

censuspro wrote: »

Does it really matter? If someone has 75 prior convictions regardless of what it's for, it proves that they they are not capable of functioning in society despite being given dozends of chances, it also proves that punishment that we are currently using is not working because they just keep re-offending.

I believe it means we (society) have failed that person, not the other way around. Part of my point about Mountjoy is the stark comparison between the men's prison and the women's prison. Women are being given the chance to be rehabilitated and educated whereas the men are 4 to a single cell and slopping out. The only thing to do in Mountjoy is sink or swim - so when a non-violent offender with a bunch of public order offences or possession of cannabis goes into Mountjoy, they come out a harder and more violent criminal than when they went in.

censuspro

OisinT wrote: »

I believe it means we (society) have failed that person, not the other way around. Part of my point about Mountjoy is the stark comparison between the men's prison and the women's prison. Women are being given the chance to be rehabilitated and educated whereas the men are 4 to a single cell and slopping out. The only thing to do in Mountjoy is sink or swim - so when a non-violent offender with a bunch of public order offences or possession of cannabis goes into Mountjoy, they come out a harder and more violent criminal than when they went in.

What you're doing is taking one thing and calling it something else and completely alleviating the responsibility people have for their own actions. "It's not their fault it's our fault as a society for failing them" At what point do repeat and vioent offenders become responsible for their own actions and when does it cease to be societies fault?

If the conditions in mounjoy are bad we can improve them, but the conditions of a prison however good or bad they may be should not be the used as the reason why we don't send criminals to prison. We should be more concerned about protecting the majority of law abiding citizens than comfort and welfare of convicted criminals who represent the minority of society but yet commit the majority of crime.

Del2005

OisinT wrote: »

Well, do you know what his 75 previous offences were? I'm not condoning anyone having 75 priors, but it's not like we're talking about 75 murders or rapes. Probably the majority of them are public order offences or minor thefts. I think the vast majority of people get a bit sensationalised when they hear something like 75 previous offences without sitting back rationally thinking about it.

Maybe they got 75 previous convictions because the system doesn't punish public order or minor (I doubt the victim thinks any theft is minor) thefts hard enough. It's like a child, if they get away with something once they'll do it again and push a little more but if they are stopped the 1st time they don't do it again.

monkeypants

OisinT wrote: »

I think anyone that believes that should go visit Mountjoy and then say that. It's very easy to want to lock people up until you see the conditions they are being kept in.

Not looking to bring in internment, but 75 convictions is about 70 too many. Don't really care about the conditions in prison as it's quite easy to stay out of there, I've managed it for over 30 years without really trying. If people feel like they're being treated like animals, maybe they can ask themselves if they're behaving like animals.

dats_right

A couple of sensationalist reports from the media is not justification for introduction of mandatory sentences. The reality is that these reports from the media are written by 'journalists' who are under pressure to write sensationalist articles for commercial purposes.

I for one am not one who thinks that our sentencing policy should be dictated by media moguls of the likes of Dennis O'Brien and Tony O'Reilly. Afterall Judges, unlike journalists who are trying to sell papers, are actually at the coal face of dealing with the scrotes of society on a daily basis. Despite the common misconception that judges are in some sort of ivory tower, the reality is that most of them would know the street price of a gram or 50 kilos of canabis/heroin/cocaine and would know from whom or where it can be obtained.

The point is this, the media have an agenda whereas the judiciary do not (save applying the rule of law). And despite what many of us think, Judges actually know infinitely more than most about the realities of the scumbag and criminal classes. The lazy Gardai who feed Paul Williams, or whoever mouthpiece journalist, to espouse their agenda as somehow fact rather than opinion and conjencture is noteworthy. Wouldn't the Gardai's time be better served trying to obtain hard evidence to secure convictions than feeding print to journalists?!!

It is often forgotten, that the judiciary have in most cases worked as lawyers for many years in both prosecuting and defending the underclass criminals classes prior to appointment to the Bench, and will thus have seen both sides of the coin (unlike the junior journalists trying to make a name for themselves who are sent down to report on what are mostly monotonous criminal matters- there is a definite skill in making them sound exciting and blaming a judge is always a winner).

In my opinion there is absoulutely no case whatsoever for mandatory sentencing. Why we would want to take the power from the judiciary and give it to the policiticians, the very same politicians who have crashed our economy onto the rocks, is astonishing and really beggars belief. I would urge all those knee-jerk reactionaries and those holding the populist view to pop down to the criminal courts and make their own mind up on the judiciary and criminal justice system generally.

Another inconvenient truth of the 'system' is that once these people are convicted the responsibility for sentencing passes to the Government, not that you would know that from the way politicians go on. And even if we locked away all these criminals where would we put them all... but i'll leave that for another day!

johnnyskeleton

censuspro wrote: »

Yes but he had 75 priors and was out on bail at the time of the murder! If someone with 75 priors doesn't belong in prison then who does?

1) He does belong in jail
2) He was sentenced to jail
3) He is currently in jail
4) He got 54 months out of a statutory maximum of 60 months. He is entitled to credit for a guilty plea so he effectively got the maximum that could realistically be given within the confines of the law.

What's your point exactly?

In addition to what dats_right has said, a lot of people don't even read these reports they just go from "crime" to "must be a lenient sentence by a liberal hippy judge" without, at any point in between, the matter actually passing through any grey matter.

Our man in Havana

monkeypants wrote: »

Maybe time for a three strikes rule or something similar for offences involving violence?

And what will we end up with? People getting life sentences for minor assaults?

monkeypants

Haddockman wrote: »

And what will we end up with? People getting life sentences for minor assaults?

The assault isn't minor to the victim and the offender has now done it three times at least. However, I see your point. I'm not suggesting a life sentence, but maybe a second tier of possible sentences for people who've done the crime again and again.

AlekSmart

A couple of sensationalist reports from the media is not justification for introduction of mandatory sentences. The reality is that these reports from the media are written by 'journalists' who are under pressure to write sensationalist articles for commercial purposes.

I`m sorry Dats_right but I think Dats wrong.

Apart from the "Red Top" Tabloid titles,so beloved of so many,most of the Court Reporting I read in our broadsheet newspapers tends to be factual to a fault,even the Evening Herald sticks resoutely to a dry account of whatever proceedings are being reported upon.

Few posters here are suggesting that the State`s basic sentencing policies should be altered on a media whim.

It is however a far to easy route for those involved in or on the periphery of the Legal system to use when pooh-poohing those ordinary,law abiding people who find all of this caring,considerate and reasonable sentencing to be very much skewed against the victim.

Here`s another sensationalist piece written no-doubt by a commercially pressurized Journalist seeking to influence society.....

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/thug-gets-four-years-for-assault-that-left-student-blind-in-one-eye-2188472.html

I`m sorry but I just do not buy into all this supposed concern for lofty principles and the need to be vigilant against political despots etc.

This line from the unfortunate Zimbabwean victim`s Impact Statement sums up my feelings quite succinctly....

Mr Cuidzambwa told the court that though doctors had informed him they could do nothing for him, he still hoped that he would regain sight in his eye one day. He said: "I am left to hope hopelessly, but then if I do not hope what will I do?"

pirelli

dats_right wrote: »

Despite the common misconception that judges are in some sort of ivory tower, the reality is that most of them would know the street price of a gram or 50 kilos of canabis/heroin/cocaine and would know from whom or where it can be obtained.

How would a judge know where and who to buy crack cocaine from...Is he the fella that has to get it for the private party after the courts close on friday night. Dats wrong dat is.

johnnyskeleton

AlekSmart wrote: »

Few posters here are suggesting that the State`s basic sentencing policies should be altered on a media whim.

It is however a far to easy route for those involved in or on the periphery of the Legal system to use when pooh-poohing those ordinary,law abiding people who find all of this caring,considerate and reasonable sentencing to be very much skewed against the victim.

Here`s another sensationalist piece written no-doubt by a commercially pressurized Journalist seeking to influence society.....

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/thug-gets-four-years-for-assault-that-left-student-blind-in-one-eye-2188472.html

I`m sorry but I just do not buy into all this supposed concern for lofty principles and the need to be vigilant against political despots etc.

This line from the unfortunate Zimbabwean victim`s Impact Statement sums up my feelings quite succinctly....

What exactly is the point you wish to raise in relation to that case? Am I miles off to say that you are suggesting that the judge was too lenient and that, tying it into the thread title you think a mandatory sentence would have been more appropriate?

If so, it highlights to my mind the biggest problem in relation to people's attitudes on boards (and more so on p.ie) towards sentencing, that they simply don't understand what is going on.

First, a bit of digging reveals that he pleaded guilty to section 3 assault causing harm, which carries (as stated above) a maximum of 5 years imprisonment. So, for the judge to act lawfully, the maximum she could have imposed is 5 years. Sure, the legislature could increase the penalty, or indeed the DPP could have proffered section 4 causing serious harm charges which carry life, but surely you don't blame the judge for acting on what was before her and within the confines of the law?

Then, out of 5 years, she imposes 4 years. Presumably most if not all of the reason for not imposing the full 5 was the guilty plea. Well, you might say, for such a serious offence she should have gotten the maximum. But, on the other hand, the reality is that if that was the case he probably would have fought the case, the victim may not have wanted to give evidence or he might have gotten off on a technicality. Plus, in Dublin circuit the waiting time for a trial is nearly a year. So there are obvious pragmatic reasons why a judge has to give credit for an early guilty plea.

If anything, surely that case shows that judges are imposing high sentences, or at least as high as they reasonably can in the circumstances?

Further, you have to remember as well that Irish prisons have barely enough room for people like the above, who the judge found to have a propensity for violence. This is important because, where someone else has committed a serious offence but is unlikely to reoffend, there is increased pressure on judges not to send such once-off offenders to prison.

Finally, and this is an important point, the suggestion that 4 years imprisonment is a mere slap on the wrist is a political assertion rather than an accurate assessment of the reality in my opinion. 4 years is a long time to spend in prison - maybe it is not comparable to the effect on the victim etc, but unless we go back to an eye for an eye type justice (if you'll pardon the expression), nothing will compare to the effect on the victim. The best that can be done is a pragmatic solution in the context of the existing law.

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote: »

How would a judge know where and who to buy crack cocaine from...Is he the fella that has to get it for the private party after the courts close on friday night. Dats wrong dat is.

By the sheer volume of cases that come before him or her from the same area and/or the same people.

AlekSmart

What exactly is the point you wish to raise in relation to that case? Am I miles off to say that you are suggesting that the judge was too lenient and that, tying it into the thread title you think a mandatory sentence would have been more appropriate?

Mr Skeleton,my apologies if my opinions on these cases causes you upset.
I can asssure you that is not my intention.

I must state that I am indeed unconnected with any aspect of the law,except it`s observance in the main.

This,i concede may well place me at a disadvantage when it comes to appreciating the finer nuances of Jurisprudence and of items such as sentencing "norms"...as I say...mea culpa.

If so, it highlights to my mind the biggest problem in relation to people's attitudes on boards (and more so on p.ie) towards sentencing, that they simply don't understand what is going on.

I do however,take a little exception to being highlighted as a "Problem" either on Boards.ie or in real-life for having strong reservations concerning sentencing policy in the cases we are discussing here.

Myself and many other posters here may well be guilty of "simply not understanding" what is going on but surely that need not render our opinions of no-value to those,such as yourself who do proffess such understanding ?

Indeed these "types" of cases now appear with depressing regularity which if nothing else might go to suggest that the deterrent element of our current sentencing policy requires robust re-assessment.

One thing is apparrent and that is how those of lower comprehension who do manage to obey the Laws of the land are left with a certain feeling of insecurity as they read of serial violent offenders recieving single digit incarceration for blinding an innocent man in one eye or for willingly partaking in the execution of two innocent parties in common-purpose with,it appears, a widely known gang of feral teenagers..

However Mr Skeleton,I am indeed grateful for the added information gleaned by your "digging"...

First, a bit of digging reveals that he pleaded guilty to section 3 assault causing harm, which carries (as stated above) a maximum of 5 years imprisonment. So, for the judge to act lawfully, the maximum she could have imposed is 5 years. Sure, the legislature could increase the penalty, or indeed the DPP could have proffered section 4 causing serious harm charges which carry life, but surely you don't blame the judge for acting on what was before her and within the confines of the law?

Then, out of 5 years, she imposes 4 years. Presumably most if not all of the reason for not imposing the full 5 was the guilty plea. Well, you might say, for such a serious offence she should have gotten the maximum. But, on the other hand, the reality is that if that was the case he probably would have fought the case, the victim may not have wanted to give evidence or he might have gotten off on a technicality. Plus, in Dublin circuit the waiting time for a trial is nearly a year. So there are obvious pragmatic reasons why a judge has to give credit for an early guilty plea.

You are,Mr Skeleton,absolutely correct in stating that I do not blame the individual Judge in this or the other cases.

However I firmly believe that as you point out,both the Legislature and it`s DPP are actually duty bound to take immediate cogniscance of the sheer savagery of these incidents and to amend existing or draft new leglislation as required...if that is to include a Mandatory Sentencing element then so-be-it.

The subsequent issue of a Gulity Plea somehow being regarded as deserving of reward by way of sentence mitigation is frankly offensive to myself and to the vistim/s of these attacks.

Whether or not the accused probably would have fought the case is surely a moot point and again,in this case,the unfortunate victim appears to have been a right-minded well-motivated individual of exactly the type this State now,more than ever,needs to support and include in whatever New-Ireland awaits us.

Instead,Mr Skeleton,you appear to support the Status-Quo whereby the State (On OUR Behalf) fails to adequately fund and organize it`s Courts system (Other than providing Dublins vast and suitably expensive new Courts of Justice Buildings).

Again perhaps I am failing to appreciate the bigger picture of how the system works and the need for us all to amend or suspend our more basic requirements in order to ensure the smooth operation of the thing ?

Further, you have to remember as well that Irish prisons have barely enough room for people like the above, who the judge found to have a propensity for violence. This is important because, where someone else has committed a serious offence but is unlikely to reoffend, there is increased pressure on judges not to send such once-off offenders to prison.

I do indeed Mr Skeleton,remember the issue of Prision Space and it is an issue likely to worsen as the true extent of the Depression draws ere closer.

However,in the specific case quoted and in many other recent cases the guilty party had by the time of the case already been adjudged as being of violent propensity by several other Judges,presumable each of these Judges rulings being supported by the relevant Phsychological and assorted Social Service reports.

Finally, and this is an important point, the suggestion that 4 years imprisonment is a mere slap on the wrist is a political assertion rather than an accurate assessment of the reality in my opinion. 4 years is a long time to spend in prison - maybe it is not comparable to the effect on the victim etc, but unless we go back to an eye for an eye type justice (if you'll pardon the expression), nothing will compare to the effect on the victim. The best that can be done is a pragmatic solution in the context of the existing law.

I would agree with Mr Skeleton that the last quote is an important point,quite possibly the most germane of the threads.

I do believe that 4 years is an inadequate sentence for an unprovoked attack resulting in permanent physical incapacitation.
The term Slap-on-the-Wrist does not apply as in my mind such wanton violence inflicted deliberately on another human being is deserving of a far stiffer sentence.

It`s my uneducated and thoroughly laypersons opinion that the most "Pragmatic Solution" of all is to quickly and thoroughly overhaul the Sentencing policies in respect of these violent crimes and their perpetrators.

The alternative is that we are caught,like a nation of unfortunate Hamsters,on a treadwheel which will spew these perpetrators back out well within the imposed sentence time-frame.

Each time the Perpetrator walks back out,he/she is further emboldened and buoyed by the knowledge that,yes I can do it again and that the State will simply do as it has always done....fail to support the rights of its less violent,productive and compliant citizens.

Thank you for at least indulging my somewhat base-rant.

johnnyskeleton

AlekSmart wrote: »

I do however,take a little exception to being highlighted as a "Problem" either on Boards.ie or in real-life for having strong reservations concerning sentencing policy in the cases we are discussing here.

The problem is not the person or even that person's views on the severity or otherwise of the punishment - the problem is that judges, often unfairly but occasionally deservedly, bear the brunt of nearly all the criticisms of the criminal justice system.

This is because:
1) people who support a tougher stance on crime politically see blaming the gardai and DPP as counter productive so ignore any flaws there;
2) equally, the legislation often means that there is a limit on what the judge can sentence (the best example being the roscommon house of horrors; where the statutory maximum of 7 years for a woman was compared by the judge to life if the same offence was committed by a man);
3) there is no political will to provide actual funding for prisons, more prosecutions, drug rehab etc;
4) judges are easy targets, who cannot answer back.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Myself and many other posters here may well be guilty of "simply not understanding" what is going on but surely that need not render our opinions of no-value to those,such as yourself who do proffess such understanding ?

I'm afraid that it does. An opinion based on an asserted premise (in this case the opinion that mandatory sentences are necessary because of some reports which show that judges are unduly lenient) falls down if that asserted premise is not actually true.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Indeed these "types" of cases now appear with depressing regularity which if nothing else might go to suggest that the deterrent element of our current sentencing policy requires robust re-assessment.

A far better deterrent is detection rather than sentence, in my opinion. Particularly in violent crimes, the offender is often not thinking about the consequences of their actions at all, and if they are it is rarely beyond whether they will be caught or not.

AlekSmart wrote: »

One thing is apparrent and that is how those of lower comprehension who do manage to obey the Laws of the land are left with a certain feeling of insecurity as they read of serial violent offenders recieving single digit incarceration for blinding an innocent man in one eye or for willingly partaking in the execution of two innocent parties in common-purpose with,it appears, a widely known gang of feral teenagers..

Please speak for yourself, because although you might feel that single digit sentences makes you feel insecure, others may not feel that way. Certainly some of the blame for such insecurity lies at the feet of the media, who pump these cases as shockingly lenient etc, etc. Media manipulation of people's fears is well documented.

AlekSmart wrote: »

The subsequent issue of a Gulity Plea somehow being regarded as deserving of reward by way of sentence mitigation is frankly offensive to myself and to the vistim/s of these attacks.

It is a practical solution to a difficult problem. Irish prosecutions rely primarily on witness statements and confessions. There is often very little by way of CCTV, scientific evidence etc. There is also a severe lack of judges to try every case. If no credit is given for a guilty plea then the entire system would break down, and unless the government is prepared to pump billions into the criminal justice system AND risk a higher acquittal rate AND cause more citizens to attend for jury service each week, that is the way that it has to be. So while I see the point you are making, I think it is a bit idealistic. Further, you have to consider the feelings of the victims of crime who are forced to go through with a trial because there is no incentive for the offender to plead guilty, and in particular those victims of alleged crime where there is an acquittal.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Instead,Mr Skeleton,you appear to support the Status-Quo whereby the State (On OUR Behalf) fails to adequately fund and organize it`s Courts system (Other than providing Dublins vast and suitably expensive new Courts of Justice Buildings).

Not at all. In fact the opposite is true. You argue for mandatory sentences and legislative changes as the solution. I argue for more funding as the solution. In the case you cite, the DPP took the decision to prosecute a section 3 charge rather than a section 4 charge. Why he did this we don't know, perhaps he felt a jury would not convict of section 4 and given the cuts in his budget he felt he didn't want to take the risk. I would be more than happy if there were twice as many dectectives with state of the art support services, twice as many prison places, as many judges as are needed to try all these new prosecutions and an unlimited budget for the DPP to prosecute anything he thinks should go before a jury without having to look at the bottom line. That would be great. But that's not going to happen any time soon, is it? In that context, mandatory sentencing will do little.

AlekSmart wrote: »

It`s my uneducated and thoroughly laypersons opinion that the most "Pragmatic Solution" of all is to quickly and thoroughly overhaul the Sentencing policies in respect of these violent crimes and their perpetrators.

What specifically? Change for change's sake is of no use to anyone. Nor is "Hey judges, sentence harder" to be considered a change in sentencing policy.

AlekSmart wrote: »

The alternative is that we are caught,like a nation of unfortunate Hamsters,on a treadwheel which will spew these perpetrators back out well within the imposed sentence time-frame.

Could be worse. Could be a situation like in the US where massive sentences are given by judges to curry favour with the public, only for the offender to get parole after, in some cases, 1/5th of the sentence served.

Ireland has mid to high levels of prison sentences compared to other european countries: http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2009/11/06/story104966.asp
http://www.irishexaminer.ie/ireland/100-conviction-rate-reported-for-terrorism-offences-120273.html

AlekSmart wrote: »

Each time the Perpetrator walks back out,he/she is further emboldened and buoyed by the knowledge that,yes I can do it again and that the State will simply do as it has always done....fail to support the rights of its less violent,productive and compliant citizens.

Then why do you think longer sentences will cure anything? Shouldn't you instead look at rehabilitation/monitoring for offenders and increased prevention by the gardai (all of which costs money which the FF government has not been prepared to part with)?

FreudianSlippers

monkeypants wrote: »

Not looking to bring in internment, but 75 convictions is about 70 too many. Don't really care about the conditions in prison as it's quite easy to stay out of there, I've managed it for over 30 years without really trying. If people feel like they're being treated like animals, maybe they can ask themselves if they're behaving like animals.

I've managed to do that too... I'm not saying it is hard. What I am saying is that people are too quick to jump to proposing preventative incarceration especially when the conditions in the prisons (especially mountjoy) are effectively inhuman and degrading and further that they breed more and worse criminals.
The conditions of prisons is a different topic, I understand that, but it needs to be considered alongside any call for putting more people in jails.

I also do not believe that we should have any constitutional referendum where our constitution could be so significantly altered that the very fabric of it is changed. Especially by lay people who are overeager to buy into sensationalism, fear and anger. Xfactor justice.

FreudianSlippers

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

[...] In the case you cite, the DPP took the decision to prosecute a section 3 charge rather than a section 4 charge. Why he did this we don't know, perhaps he felt a jury would not convict of section 4 and given the cuts in his budget he felt he didn't want to take the risk. I would be more than happy if there were twice as many dectectives with state of the art support services, twice as many prison places, as many judges as are needed to try all these new prosecutions and an unlimited budget for the DPP to prosecute anything he thinks should go before a jury without having to look at the bottom line. That would be great. But that's not going to happen any time soon, is it? In that context, mandatory sentencing will do little.

IMO this is one of the main points of the debate - importantly, the distinction between those who are knowledgeable as to WHY things happen the way they do in court and the practical results of the decisions of judges and the DPP and those who are reading about short sentences and convictions of manslaughter instead of murder and not understanding the practical reasons for these.
Mandatory sentencing would remove any real discretion or fairness from the justice system and in my opinion would only ensure that the DPP would effectively be handing out summary justice (by choosing whatever was easier to prove because they knew the person would get x number of years)

censuspro

dats_right wrote: »

A couple of sensationalist reports from the media is not justification for introduction of mandatory sentences. The reality is that these reports from the media are written by 'journalists' who are under pressure to write sensationalist articles for commercial purposes.

I for one am not one who thinks that our sentencing policy should be dictated by media moguls of the likes of Dennis O'Brien and Tony O'Reilly. Afterall Judges, unlike journalists who are trying to sell papers, are actually at the coal face of dealing with the scrotes of society on a daily basis. Despite the common misconception that judges are in some sort of ivory tower, the reality is that most of them would know the street price of a gram or 50 kilos of canabis/heroin/cocaine and would know from whom or where it can be obtained.

The point is this, the media have an agenda whereas the judiciary do not (save applying the rule of law). And despite what many of us think, Judges actually know infinitely more than most about the realities of the scumbag and criminal classes. The lazy Gardai who feed Paul Williams, or whoever mouthpiece journalist, to espouse their agenda as somehow fact rather than opinion and conjencture is noteworthy. Wouldn't the Gardai's time be better served trying to obtain hard evidence to secure convictions than feeding print to journalists?!!

It is often forgotten, that the judiciary have in most cases worked as lawyers for many years in both prosecuting and defending the underclass criminals classes prior to appointment to the Bench, and will thus have seen both sides of the coin (unlike the junior journalists trying to make a name for themselves who are sent down to report on what are mostly monotonous criminal matters- there is a definite skill in making them sound exciting and blaming a judge is always a winner).

In my opinion there is absoulutely no case whatsoever for mandatory sentencing. Why we would want to take the power from the judiciary and give it to the policiticians, the very same politicians who have crashed our economy onto the rocks, is astonishing and really beggars belief. I would urge all those knee-jerk reactionaries and those holding the populist view to pop down to the criminal courts and make their own mind up on the judiciary and criminal justice system generally.

Another inconvenient truth of the 'system' is that once these people are convicted the responsibility for sentencing passes to the Government, not that you would know that from the way politicians go on. And even if we locked away all these criminals where would we put them all... but i'll leave that for another day!

We can only base our opinions on what the court decides, the means or reportage is irrelevant.

AlekSmart

Johnny skeleton: Particularly in violent crimes, the offender is often not thinking about the consequences of their actions at all, and if they are it is rarely beyond whether they will be caught or not.

This is undoubtably true and in a manner illustrates my belief that the record of sentencing for such violent crimes ensures that those of a violent criminal bent don`t actually need to consider consequences at all

OsinT:IMO this is one of the main points of the debate - importantly, the distinction between those who are knowledgeable as to WHY things happen the way they do in court and the practical results of the decisions of judges and the DPP and those who are reading about short sentences and convictions of manslaughter instead of murder and not understanding the practical reasons for these.

I`m somewhat curious to discover the extent of this lack of regard,almost disdain amongst those of a Legal bent for the views of the ordinary folk.

Having been taken to task by Johnnyskeleton on this matter earlier....

Please speak for yourself, because although you might feel that single digit sentences makes you feel insecure, others may not feel that way. Certainly some of the blame for such insecurity lies at the feet of the media, who pump these cases as shockingly lenient etc, etc. Media manipulation of people's fears is well documented.

I should make it clear that I AM speaking for myself,with some reflection`s on conversations with friends and colleagues on this topic.

Those single digit sentences of themselves do not cause insecurity in me, but neither do they inspire any great confidence in the ability or enthusiasm of the State to protect it`s law abiding citizens from those of a provenly savage disposition.

There appears to be form of dancing on the head of a pin approach at work here,with much off beat dismissive commentary at any attempt to question the sentencing policy for Provenly Violent offenders.

It is a somewhat stark illustration of Irelands current social malaise that both of the cases featured in this thread involved totally innocent foreign workers who were maimed and executed by representatives of a grouping who now appear to be essentially dictating the pace of all our lives.

It is hugely depressing to read the victim impact statement read out by Pawel Kailite and Marius Swajkos`s former employer.
His obvious regard for the two mens work ethic and their beneficial role in the greater Irish society stands in stark contrast to the litany of grief,mischief,greed and downright evil intent which is contained in the courts records relating to the executioners and their sizeable group of aggressive supporters.

So too it is with the unfortunate Mapfumo Cuidzamba,one of the many non-national workers we were told this country needed if we were to progress on the world stage.

This man since 2001 had embraced every aspect of what our Elected Leaders spouted about the Knowledge Based Economy...studying Electronic Engineering at UCD...and beginning a PhD scholarship in wireless communications before his world was invaded by one-of-our-own whose only contribution was to attack Mr Cuidzamba and leave him blind in one eye.

We argue the toss endlessly over the benefits of Deterrence,Protection,Detection or Punishment and yet the steady stream of recidivist violent criminals troops daily in front of courts countrywide.

Certainly some of the blame for such insecurity lies at the feet of the media, who pump these cases as shockingly lenient etc, etc. Media manipulation of people's fears is well documented.

Although it is easier to blame the media,a group for which I hold no torch,I do not believe the reporting of these two cases has had any need to be "sexed-up".
All of the reports I`ve read have been starkly factual and all the more frightening for that.

It really is a question of agreeing to disagree on this topic as the disparate views here really do represent opposing poles.

I`m just somewhat sad to see the reluctance of people to accept the current status-quo portrayed as being due to some form of lower intelligence or capacity to comprehend complex issues.

primastar

Have worked on blarney st before. Ordinary decent folks their. There is only 1 or 2 families causing hassle in the northside. And everyone k owe who they are. Cops IMO did a good job and we should not be so quick to damn their actions as they have families and friends living in the area too.

johnnyskeleton

AlekSmart wrote: »

This is undoubtably true and in a manner illustrates my belief that the record of sentencing for such violent crimes ensures that those of a violent criminal bent don`t actually need to consider consequences at all

That's not the point and I think you know it. If you want mandatory sentencing that's fine, but please don't suggest that it will have a massive impact in deterring crime, as the primary way of deterring crime is having more and better equipped police.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Those single digit sentences of themselves do not cause insecurity in me, but neither do they inspire any great confidence in the ability or enthusiasm of the State to protect it`s law abiding citizens from those of a provenly savage disposition.

This is the nub of the problem you seem to have with the justice system - a view that any criminal justice system is capable of preventing violent crime is often held but rarely evidenced in reality. Violent crime happens in Texas, where they have the death penalty. Violent crime happens in Saudi Arabia, where you can be severely punished for a very minor offence. Violent crime happens in every country, and if you were to look at countries with high levels of violent crime (e.g. haiti, brazil, russia etc) you see that they are different to us because of 1) economic duality and unfair treatement; 2) underfunded overworked police; 3) endemic corruption and a lack of social cohesion. If you really want to reduce crime, these are the areas that need to be looked at. However, there are many other issues, and racism may also be part of it.

AlekSmart wrote: »

There appears to be form of dancing on the head of a pin approach at work here,with much off beat dismissive commentary at any attempt to question the sentencing policy for Provenly Violent offenders.

Not really, you haven't attempted to question "sentencing policy" at all, a point I made earlier. Instead, you have taken a few examples of what you think is unduly lenient and I have given responses to them. To extrapolate that the whole criminal justice system is wrong from a few cases is harly fair, but in any event does not go to "sentencing policy" but rather is just a comment on two sentences. Indeed, in both of them the problem you have seems to be the low maximum sentence for section 3 assault. If you want to debate that then fine, but please do so from a policy point of view, and not from a "how are the ordinary people of ireland supposed to feel safe etc etc" point of view.

AlekSmart wrote: »

It is a somewhat stark illustration of Irelands current social malaise that both of the cases featured in this thread involved totally innocent foreign workers who were maimed and executed by representatives of a grouping who now appear to be essentially dictating the pace of all our lives.

That's a matter best suited for humanities.

AlekSmart wrote: »

It is hugely depressing to read the victim impact statement read out by Pawel Kailite and Marius Swajkos`s former employer.
His obvious regard for the two mens work ethic and their beneficial role in the greater Irish society stands in stark contrast to the litany of grief,mischief,greed and downright evil intent which is contained in the courts records relating to the executioners and their sizeable group of aggressive supporters.

So too it is with the unfortunate Mapfumo Cuidzamba,one of the many non-national workers we were told this country needed if we were to progress on the world stage.

This man since 2001 had embraced every aspect of what our Elected Leaders spouted about the Knowledge Based Economy...studying Electronic Engineering at UCD...and beginning a PhD scholarship in wireless communications before his world was invaded by one-of-our-own whose only contribution was to attack Mr Cuidzamba and leave him blind in one eye.

Are you really telling me that these events could have been avoided if we had double digit sentences for all violent crimes? Seriously, do you believe that harsher sentencing will prevent such acts from occuring?

AlekSmart wrote: »

We argue the toss endlessly over the benefits of Deterrence,Protection,Detection or Punishment and yet the steady stream of recidivist violent criminals troops daily in front of courts countrywide.

Well what's you solution? I can't even begin to imagine a criminal justice system which prevented recidivist violent crime other than execution for all violent crime.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Although it is easier to blame the media,a group for which I hold no torch,I do not believe the reporting of these two cases has had any need to be "sexed-up".
All of the reports I`ve read have been starkly factual and all the more frightening for that.

The point about the media is that you rarely see a story about a judge who gets sentencing exactly right (occaionally in the short columns of the IT). It's only when there is a very lenient sentence or a case in the public attention that it will be reported.

But the point is not that the media are deliberately pushing an agenda, they are simply trying to sell papers. They are right to highlight what they think is a wrong sentence, but people are wrong to assume that those sentences highlighted by the media are representative samples. Yet we have endless threads on boards.ie by people who assume they are, and in these two cases by people who jump to the conclusion that it is the judges to be blamed and not, for example, the DPP, the governement or even society as a whole.

AlekSmart wrote: »

I`m just somewhat sad to see the reluctance of people to accept the current status-quo portrayed as being due to some form of lower intelligence or capacity to comprehend complex issues.

That's a straw man argument and you know it. No one here suggested that you are of a lower intelligence or capacity to comprehend complex issues. But I do maintain that you are leaping to conclusions without trying to educate yourself as to why things happen. You don't stop for a second to see why a judge did something, you presume the judge acted out of some bizzare left wing ideology. With the greatest of respect, while you may be of exceptionally high intelligence and may well have the capacity to comprehend complex issues, you must be criticised for not trying to understand them.

pirelli

censuspro wrote: »

We can only base our opinions on what the court decides, the means or reportage is irrelevant.

Perhaps a court reporter does. However it is when it gets into the hands of the mad men back in the newpaper office. I think that is where the story becomes a symbol for their egotisitical sense of morality that tries to convey that they are going out on a limb with this story but really it is just to increase circulation.

I suppose things get screwed about when you have to run a business where its attraction for advertising and and overall revenue depends heavily on circulation and sales numbers. I understand business and can appreciate some licence to be artistic.

If the courts were run more effectively like a business with some set values reflective of market sentiment then we might see a profit in the rehabilitation of criminals.

However you have to be senstive to the value of miscarriages of justice and even more senstive the existence of the travesty of justice in our court system. A travesty which is similar to a miscarriage is a mockery of the court system and is particuarly dangerous and volatile situation.

A travesty is a false or exaggerated representation of something; 2. something that imitates something else, usually in a grotesque or distorted manner, and meant as a parody. It is sickening and i have to agree with dats right, that the media are not designed to appreciate the core issue of justice.


To distort facts to such a degree to fabricate the comission of a serious crime when none has been committed runs a similar theme to the media. However i suppose one should see the difference although unfortunately the garda play the same games.

What is worse is not only do detectives and supers like their colleagues in the media office fabricate serious crimes by distorting facts but the Forensic service in ireland and the Garda technical bureau will facilitate these with false evidence creating a nasty travesty of justice mixed in with a just as nasty miscarrriages of jutice.

Bear in mind that the majority of the people who work here are honest and you will always find that their contribution and evidence to a case is often hidden in some file in the garda Headquarters that is the catalyst for getting the travesty resolved and exposed. A bit like star wars but dark vadar is very much in control.

I am not some hyprocrite making this up and i have an indepth knowledge of this area with a fully stocked library with bundles of cases. I also have a personal experience with the Forensic science labatory and technical bureau and have mind shattering examples of this, some pending.

AlekSmart

One of the benefits of expressive media outlets such as Boards.ie is the ability for it to be used by the ordinary folk who might not otherwise put forward their opinions.

Johnnyskeleton differs with my perspective and has a fair old stab at nullifying my opinions,which,of course,is his perogative.

That's not the point and I think you know it. If you want mandatory sentencing that's fine, but please don't suggest that it will have a massive impact in deterring crime, as the primary way of deterring crime is having more and better equipped police.

I`m not a particular fan of mandatory sentencing,but I remain a fan of tougher sentencing with far less opportunities for clever legal representatives to mitigate such sentences with various tried and trusted antidotes such as Alcohol or Stimulant addiction,poor Socialization or the presence of a Baby.

I`m not even suggesting that such a robust sentencing policy will have a massive deterrence factor of itself,but I do believe that it will as an integral part of a Criminal Justice Sentencing rethink at least begin to impact on the hearts and minds of those who wish to perpetrate violence on others.

I also do not necessarily agree that the primary way of deterring crime is a larger and better equipped Police Force.

No doubt but those elements will certainly aid in the detection of crime but the actual business of deterring individuals from a life of criminal intent begins much earlier and does not necessarily involve any State involvement.....that deterrence can often be down to good parenting during the early formative years of childhood.

This is the nub of the problem you seem to have with the justice system - a view that any criminal justice system is capable of preventing violent crime is often held but rarely evidenced in reality.

Again the problem I seem to have with the Judicial system is indeed that...with the System,not the individual Judge.

It`s self-evident that crime and violent crime itself is a basic human trait which is not amenable to eradication,but does need to be controlled and made far more difficult to inflict at will on others,particularly by recidivist offenders often of many years standing.
Our recent past tells us that these serial-offenders do actually go out and kill and it would seem the State and the Mechanisms of Law Enforcement remain reluctant to revise their strategy to counter these forces.

Not really, you haven't attempted to question "sentencing policy" at all, a point I made earlier. Instead, you have taken a few examples of what you think is unduly lenient and I have given responses to them. To extrapolate that the whole criminal justice system is wrong from a few cases is harly fair,

All I can say is that I do indeed "Question" sentencing policy and while those "few" examples may not represent a valid enough sample for some,they make up for that in the sheer depth and scale of their criminality.
With the system and it`s proponents all too willing to batten down it`s hatches against any real laypersons attempts to raise questions,then extrapolation from these cases is all we can do for now.

Are you really telling me that these events could have been avoided if we had double digit sentences for all violent crimes? Seriously, do you believe that harsher sentencing will prevent such acts from occuring?

In relation to the two cases in question,as well as many others in recent times,I do believe the existence of a robust sentencing policy could have helped to prevent these violent crimes.

Well what's you solution? I can't even begin to imagine a criminal justice system which prevented recidivist violent crime other than execution for all violent crime.

Solutions to problems such as we are witnessing rarely come easy and certainly not from merely a single individual like me.

I don`t have a magic key or a panacea for all our social ills,but I remain convinced that the manner in which our current Criminal Justice system operates is doing little to deter let alone actively prevent recidivist violence,whilst simultaneously alienating the great mass of law abiding citizens from engaging with the process itself on a broader scale.

In the meantime we`ll simply have to muddle along and hope we don`t catch the eye of some multiple repeat offender on the street or the luas or wherever.......

johnnyskeleton

AlekSmart wrote: »

All I can say is that I do indeed "Question" sentencing policy and while those "few" examples may not represent a valid enough sample for some,they make up for that in the sheer depth and scale of their criminality.
With the system and it`s proponents all too willing to batten down it`s hatches against any real laypersons attempts to raise questions,then extrapolation from these cases is all we can do for now.

No you don't. You are complaining about crime. You have not pointed out a single issue of sentencing policy which needs to be changed. For example, what policy mistakes did the judges in the two examples make?

AlekSmart wrote: »

Solutions to problems such as we are witnessing rarely come easy and certainly not from merely a single individual like me.

I don`t have a magic key or a panacea for all our social ills,but I remain convinced that the manner in which our current Criminal Justice system operates is doing little to deter let alone actively prevent recidivist violence,whilst simultaneously alienating the great mass of law abiding citizens from engaging with the process itself on a broader scale.

In the meantime we`ll simply have to muddle along and hope we don`t catch the eye of some multiple repeat offender on the street or the luas or wherever.......

Right, so you go around talking (unfoundedly in some instances) about how bad the criminal justice system is and you don't provide any suggestions as to how to fix or improve it. Well done you. Of course, you do realise that this is inconsistent with your overall view in that by going around undermining the system, you are adding to the perception that the criminal justice system is broken. When you say this to someone who might commit a criminal offence, you are (by your own logic - not mine) encouraging them to commit such crimes because you are giving the impression that there will be no consequence.

So keep telling everyone the criminal justice system is useless without any facts to back it up - that'll make for a safer society.

censuspro

This Poll currently stands at 76% Yes. Guess it's not only the readers of tabloid papers who have a problem with the penal system.

johnnyskeleton

censuspro wrote: »

This Poll currently stands at 76% Yes. Guess it's not only the readers of tabloid papers who have a problem with the penal system.

So? Was anyone arguing that it was only the readers of certain types of newspaper who held such views?

Furthermore, that poll relates to the penal system, not the judiciary or the wider criminal justice system.

Finally, the fact that 76% of people who use an internet poll thinks that the penal system is failing doesn't amount to much. I'm sure 99% of people would say that the HSE is failing, but that's not exactly a cogent argument.

censuspro

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So? Was anyone arguing that it was only the readers of certain types of newspaper who held such views?

Furthermore, that poll relates to the penal system, not the judiciary or the wider criminal justice system.

Finally, the fact that 76% of people who use an internet poll thinks that the penal system is failing doesn't amount to much. I'm sure 99% of people would say that the HSE is failing, but that's not exactly a cogent argument.

There were previos posters who raised the issue of the penal system.