Life Sentences Outside of Murder

oconcuc

Hello all,

Following what I consider a more than justified life sentence handed down by Carney J. this week (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1210/1224308870169.html?via=rel) for the horrific rape and torture by a father of his daughters, a criticism that I had while an undergraduate student re-emerged.

Why are the judiciary so reluctant to hand down life sentences to people convicted of violent crimes who are more dangerous than many who recieve the mandatory sentence for murder?

I have say I cannot think of another case outside of murder where a life sentence was handed down in the last ten years.

Even very serious attempted Murder cases, where mere luck on the part of the intended victim saved there life, have not resulted in life sentences.

I should point out, I am against mandatory sentencing for any crimes including murder. But life sentences should always be at the disposal of judges for serious violence-related offences (though not the host of drug related offences that carry up to a life tariff), and they should be far more willing to impose them.

There are rational public safety concerns for using the life sentence where extremely violent offenders are in question. Our current prison regime is decades away from offering the kind of rehabilitation of offenders our society needs. But aside from this, even with best practise being observed, there will always be a small minority of offenders who will never be safe to release into the public.

Life sentences are not for life, and I think for good reason. But the benefit of having such sentences, is that someone released can be recalled on their license for infringements on the terms of their release. That avoids having to reconvict them in order to get the off the streets.

I am curious if anyone has any examples of life sentences in this jurisdiction outside of murder.

Cheers.

ResearchWill

I was just chatting to a person about that. Murder is the only crime that has a mandatory life sentence. In for example rape, there is a max of life. A number of years ago the CCJ stated where a person has pleaded there must be a discount. So that is why it's rare outside of murder.

MagicSean

I presume mandatory life sentences would be why so few people plead guilty to murder.

oconcuc

ResearchWill wrote: »

I was just chatting to a person about that. Murder is the only crime that has a mandatory life sentence. In for example rape, there is a max of life. A number of years ago the CCJ stated where a person has pleaded there must be a discount. So that is why it's rare outside of murder.

Rarely? I can't think of another time it has been used. I vaguely remember an Offences Against the State sentence for life, but I honestly can't think of another time it has been used.

I understand that the courts are cognisant of guilty pleas in mitigation, but there are many examples where there is no guilty plea, and yet the courts resist a life sentence.

The most notable for me was The People (DPP) v Larkin [2008] IECCA where the CCA overturned a life sentence for attempted murder given by DeValera J, because the court felt that significance should be attached to the fact that the victim wasn't killed.

In that case, I fail to understand how the victim getting lucky, through no intent of the accused, should go to mitigation for the accused/

oconcuc

MagicSean wrote: »

I presume mandatory life sentences would be why so few people plead guilty to murder.

Excellent point. That is why there are many advocating the removal of the mandatory sentence. It would save money and court time, and sentences could be tailored to the culpability of the accused in the case.

There are varying degrees of moral culpability in Murder under our current approach to categorising the mens rea for murder.

johnnyskeleton

ResearchWill wrote: »

I was just chatting to a person about that. Murder is the only crime that has a mandatory life sentence. In for example rape, there is a max of life. A number of years ago the CCJ stated where a person has pleaded there must be a discount. So that is why it's rare outside of murder.

Which case was that? I always thought that a judge was entitled to impose the maximum sentence even on a plea of guilty where the facts of thr case are such that it is just in the circumstance.

dermot_sheehan

The Circuit Court sentenced Frank Ward to life imprisonment for armed robbery and the shooting of Charlie Chawke.

It is rarely handed down in rape or manslaughter trials as well.

johnnyskeleton

oconcuc wrote: »

MagicSean wrote: »

I presume mandatory life sentences would be why so few people plead guilty to murder.

Excellent point. That is why there are many advocating the removal of the mandatory sentence. It would save money and court time, and sentences could be tailored to the culpability of the accused in the case.

There are varying degrees of moral culpability in Murder under our current approach to categorising the mens rea for murder.

Boo! Down with this sort of thing! Saving money by discouraging trials and encouraging guilty pleas is bad for justice (and possibly, but not necessarily, bad for lawyers).

Why not introduce instead a system whereby the mandatory life aspect remains but a judge can specify the minimum period of time to be served.

MagicSean

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Boo! Down with this sort of thing! Saving money by discouraging trials and encouraging guilty pleas is bad for justice (and possibly, but not necessarily, bad for lawyers).

Why not introduce instead a system whereby the mandatory life aspect remains but a judge can specify the minimum period of time to be served.

It's not always about saving money. Trials aren't enjoyable experiences for victims you know. And there is always the chance of a jury finding someone not guilty despite the facts showing otherwise.

I think there should be a mandatory minimum for all serious crimes.

charlemont

oconcuc wrote: »

Hello all,

Following what I consider a more than justified life sentence handed down by Carney J. this week (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1210/1224308870169.html?via=rel) for the horrific rape and torture by a father of his daughters, a criticism that I had while an undergraduate student re-emerged.

Why are the judiciary so reluctant to hand down life sentences to people convicted of violent crimes who are more dangerous than many who recieve the mandatory sentence for murder?

I have say I cannot think of another case outside of murder where a life sentence was handed down in the last ten years.

Even very serious attempted Murder cases, where mere luck on the part of the intended victim saved there life, have not resulted in life sentences.

I should point out, I am against mandatory sentencing for any crimes including murder. But life sentences should always be at the disposal of judges for serious violence-related offences (though not the host of drug related offences that carry up to a life tariff), and they should be far more willing to impose them.

There are rational public safety concerns for using the life sentence where extremely violent offenders are in question. Our current prison regime is decades away from offering the kind of rehabilitation of offenders our society needs. But aside from this, even with best practise being observed, there will always be a small minority of offenders who will never be safe to release into the public.

Life sentences are not for life, and I think for good reason. But the benefit of having such sentences, is that someone released can be recalled on their license for infringements on the terms of their release. That avoids having to reconvict them in order to get the off the streets.

I am curious if anyone has any examples of life sentences in this jurisdiction outside of murder.

Cheers.

Leigh Crowe got Life for Manslaughter but it was reduced to 20 Years on appeal. Now if the DPP had more balls they could have made a good case for a murder charge as the offence he committed was premeditated. But he was suffering from paranoia due to a previous attempt on his life so that was taken into account at his appeal.

ResearchWill

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Which case was that? I always thought that a judge was entitled to impose the maximum sentence even on a plea of guilty where the facts of thr case are such that it is just in the circumstance.

I decided to look into this a bit more, a 2007 case blows my argument out of the water http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/7ca3c1bb866978e78025737f0055c6c3?OpenDocument, says even in a case of guilty plea life can be given. So the CCA may not in any way interfere with the current case.

I will try and find the other case I had in the back of my mind that there was a maxium tarrif but I could be wrong as I think it was something I was chatting to someone about.

johnnyskeleton

ResearchWill wrote: »

I decided to look into this a bit more, a 2007 case blows my argument out of the water http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/7ca3c1bb866978e78025737f0055c6c3?OpenDocument, says even in a case of guilty plea life can be given. So the CCA may not in any way interfere with the current case.

I will try and find the other case I had in the back of my mind that there was a maxium tarrif but I could be wrong as I think it was something I was chatting to someone about.

There's also s29 of the criminal justice act 1999, that says that it can be done in exceptional circumstances, but I'm not sure if that is a separate jurisdiction to the common law rule that a maximum sentence may be appropriate where the facts of the case and aggravating circumstances are so severe that even taking full account of all mitigating factors the maximum sentence is appropriate.

An example of this might be where someone is convicted of a minor offence that has serious repurcussions

oconcuc

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Boo! Down with this sort of thing! Saving money by discouraging trials and encouraging guilty pleas is bad for justice (and possibly, but not necessarily, bad for lawyers).

Why not introduce instead a system whereby the mandatory life aspect remains but a judge can specify the minimum period of time to be served.

I agree with you. Saving money should not be the main focus of encouraging guilty pleas.

But the problem is, even where there are fairly indefensible cases of murder, you have defendants pleading not-guilty to murder and guilty to manslaughter due to the mandatory sentence.

Life with minimum time served sentences are not a solution to this problem. People still have the life sentence hanging over them. What you are talking about is in place in the UK and they still have the same problems we do. A life sentence is for life, as even when you are released, you can be recalled for a breach of your release conditions.

These conditions can be fairly strict too. I interviewed an inmate serving life for a Criminology class who had been released on license, showed up with booze on his breath to an interview with his probation officer, and had his license suspended immediately. He has been back for 4 years at that point.

oconcuc

charlemont wrote: »

Leigh Crowe got Life for Manslaughter but it was reduced to 20 Years on appeal. Now if the DPP had more balls they could have made a good case for a murder charge as the offence he committed was premeditated. But he was suffering from paranoia due to a previous attempt on his life so that was taken into account at his appeal.

That was the same problem with The People (DPP) v Larkin [2008] IECCA, the CCA overturned the life sentence on appeal.

oconcuc

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

The Circuit Court sentenced Frank Ward to life imprisonment for armed robbery and the shooting of Charlie Chawke.

It is rarely handed down in rape or manslaughter trials as well.

Thank you for that. I read about his appeal alright, but didn't notice his sentence.

coylemj

Carney uses every opportunity presented to him (college law society meetings, criminal law conferences etc.) to crib about the CCA reducing sentences he hands down. It will be interesting to see what happens in the most recent case which will almost certainly be appealed on the severity of the sentence.

oconcuc

coylemj wrote: »

Carney uses every opportunity presented to him (college law society meetings, criminal law conferences etc.) to crib about the CCA reducing sentences he hands down. It will be interesting to see what happens in the most recent case which will almost certainly be appealed on the severity of the sentence.

Agreed. Though given the particular facts of this case, I would find it hard to believe the CCA would reduce this sentence.

johnnyskeleton

oconcuc wrote: »

But the problem is, even where there are fairly indefensible cases of murder, you have defendants pleading not-guilty to murder and guilty to manslaughter due to the mandatory sentence.

Let's be clear, there are those who believe that pleading not guilty is a bad thing and those who believe that it is the default position. In my view a guilty plea should be a rare and exceptional thing, where the accused is so overcome with guilt that they admit their wrong straight away. It should be as rare as people voluntarily coming into a garda station and making a confession.

Instead, we as a society turn a blind eye to the potential damage that could be done in a system where contesting a criminal charge is seen as risky, where a guilty plea is seen as a practical way of reducing the possibility of a prison sentence and where gardai use everything short of outright threats and inducements to procure a confession.

Murder cases are a good example of a mandatory sentence working particularly well i.e. the sentence will be the same whether you fully contest it or not. An example of a very bad system of "mandatory" sentencing is under section 15A where the main considerations as to whether or not to impose the 10 year sentence are whether there was a guilty plea and whether there was material assistance with the investigation i.e. confessions. Thus, two people in virtually identical positions could get vastly different sentences because one pleads guilty for tactical reasons while the other contests the charges (as is their constitutional right).

Life with minimum time served sentences are not a solution to this problem. People still have the life sentence hanging over them. What you are talking about is in place in the UK and they still have the same problems we do. A life sentence is for life, as even when you are released, you can be recalled for a breach of your release conditions.

What problems are those? The point being that if there is to be any encouragement to plead guilty to murder (which in my view there should not be), it should be reflected in the minimum period to be served being reduced. It should still be a life sentence though, given that it is one of the most serious offences in the State.

These conditions can be fairly strict too. I interviewed an inmate serving life for a Criminology class who had been released on license, showed up with booze on his breath to an interview with his probation officer, and had his license suspended immediately. He has been back for 4 years at that point.

I'm not doubting your word, but I would be reluctant to accept what he said on face value. If that were the case, he could bring judicial review proceedings citing the decision as being irrational (unless it was a strict term of his licence that he not touch a drop, and AFAIK it is usually along the lines of being of sober habits etc).

MagicSean

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Let's be clear, there are those who believe that pleading not guilty is a bad thing and those who believe that it is the default position. In my view a guilty plea should be a rare and exceptional thing, where the accused is so overcome with guilt that they admit their wrong straight away. It should be as rare as people voluntarily coming into a garda station and making a confession.

Instead, we as a society turn a blind eye to the potential damage that could be done in a system where contesting a criminal charge is seen as risky, where a guilty plea is seen as a practical way of reducing the possibility of a prison sentence and where gardai use everything short of outright threats and inducements to procure a confession.

Murder cases are a good example of a mandatory sentence working particularly well i.e. the sentence will be the same whether you fully contest it or not. An example of a very bad system of "mandatory" sentencing is under section 15A where the main considerations as to whether or not to impose the 10 year sentence are whether there was a guilty plea and whether there was material assistance with the investigation i.e. confessions. Thus, two people in virtually identical positions could get vastly different sentences because one pleads guilty for tactical reasons while the other contests the charges (as is their constitutional right).



What problems are those? The point being that if there is to be any encouragement to plead guilty to murder (which in my view there should not be), it should be reflected in the minimum period to be served being reduced. It should still be a life sentence though, given that it is one of the most serious offences in the State.



I'm not doubting your word, but I would be reluctant to accept what he said on face value. If that were the case, he could bring judicial review proceedings citing the decision as being irrational (unless it was a strict term of his licence that he not touch a drop, and AFAIK it is usually along the lines of being of sober habits etc).

So basically if someone is good enough to not leave a lot of evidence they shouldn't have to worry about consequences?

johnnyskeleton

MagicSean wrote: »

So basically if someone is good enough to not leave a lot of evidence they shouldn't have to worry about consequences?

I don't understand your question or how it relates to my post.

MagicSean

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't understand your question or how it relates to my post.

Lets say there is a serial rapist who leaves no evidence until their fourth victim. This evidence leads to their arrest. You seem to believe they should not be questioned about the most recent crime or the similar ones but should be charged straight away with only the one there is evidence for. Or have I mistaken your position?

johnnyskeleton

MagicSean wrote: »

Lets say there is a serial rapist who leaves no evidence until their fourth victim. This evidence leads to their arrest. You seem to believe they should not be questioned about the most recent crime or the similar ones but should be charged straight away with only the one there is evidence for. Or have I mistaken your position?

Where there is no evidence of rape but the gardai suspect that a person might have committed some unspecified rape on someone and decides to question them on that? No, I don't agree with that at all.

Where they do have evidence, they can put that before the court, but they shouldn't go fishing for random other crimes that a person might have committed. If the evidence is credible then the jury may convict. What's the problem with that?

MagicSean

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Where there is no evidence of rape but the gardai suspect that a person might have committed some unspecified rape on someone and decides to question them on that? No, I don't agree with that at all.

Where they do have evidence, they can put that before the court, but they shouldn't go fishing for random other crimes that a person might have committed. If the evidence is credible then the jury may convict. What's the problem with that?

I wasn't talking about random crimes but crimes that fit a very specific M.O.

Also, it seems like a massive waste to take a person to court and show them the evidence for the first time when they have a perfectly valid defence or alibi. For example, if a rape victim is found with the DNA of someone on them and that person should be allowed explain it before being charged and appearing in court.

johnnyskeleton

MagicSean wrote: »

I wasn't talking about random crimes but crimes that fit a very specific M.O.

You were talking about where there is no evidence of other crimes but a sort of presumption that if a person commits one offence they must have committed others of a similar nature in the past.

MagicSean wrote: »

Also, it seems like a massive waste to take a person to court and show them the evidence for the first time when they have a perfectly valid defence or alibi. For example, if a rape victim is found with the DNA of someone on them and that person should be allowed explain it before being charged and appearing in court.

I never said that a person was not entitled to put their version of events to the Gardai before court. Nor do I have a problem with people who are happy to undergo a Q&A session with gardai to establish their innocence. But I have some concerns about the manner in which confession evidence is all too often used as the sole or majority evidence against someone and, where such is done, it is often after a very stressful detention and interview session where a lot of pressure, sort of threats or inducements, is brought to bear on the accused.

In a civil case, if a person is considering entering a contract and their lawyer writes to the other side saying that having reviewed the terms they will not enter the contract, could you imagine a judge upholding a contract created where the other side subsequently detain the person for 24 hours and bring them through a number of interview sessions until eventually the person agrees to enter into the contract? Yet judges turn a blind eye to such things happening in a criminal context of a day to day basis.

I accept that it is the reality of how things are done in Ireland. But I find it hard to accept, on the basis of first principles, that this is an appropriate method of investigating and prosecuting crime. Perhaps I am being overly academic, perhaps someone else will say that their practical experience is the system works etc etc. But whether it works in reality and whether it stands up to logical scrutiny are two different things.