Suspended sentences for assault

homeOwner

In the IT newspaper today there are 3 articles regarding assaults on women

#1 sexual assault
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0731/1224321155235.html

#2 physical assault against 3 women
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0731/1224321155290.html

#3 child sexual assault by teacher on 8 yr old girl.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0731/1224321155754.html

In all 3 cases, the sentence imposed seems very lenient.
#1 - 6 yr sentence : 6 months to be served, 5.5 years suspended plus 75K compensation to victim. The victim did not request the compensation and rejected previous offers of money.
#2 - 3 yr sentence: all 3 suspended plus 12K compensation to victim(s) - the victim rejects the offer of compensation.
#3 - 2 yr sentence: 1 yr to be served, 1 yr suspended.

#1 & #3 decided by the same judge
#2 decided by a different judge

Both judges were men.

I read all 3 one after the one as they are reported in the paper today and am in utter disbelief.

Time served in each of these cases is literally going to be a few months or nothing at all. How is justice being served to these women? To me this sends a clear message - don't bother reporting assault it because it wont be treated seriously.

Can any of the legal minds here explain the thinking behind this?

hardCopy

homeOwner wrote: »

In the IT newspaper today there are 3 articles regarding assaults on women

#1 sexual assault
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0731/1224321155235.html - Judge Desmond Hogan

#2 physical assault against 3 women
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0731/1224321155290.html - Judge Martin Nolan

#3 child sexual assault by teacher on 8 yr old girl.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0731/1224321155754.html - Judge Desmond Hogan

In all 3 cases, the sentence imposed seems very lenient.
#1 - 6 yr sentence : 6 months to be served, 5.5 years suspended plus 75K compensation to victim. The victim did not request the compensation and rejected previous offers of money.
#2 - 3 yr sentence: all 3 suspended plus 12K compensation to victim(s) - the victim rejects the offer of compensation.
#3 - 2 yr sentence: 1 yr to be served, 1 yr suspended.

#1 & #3 decided by the same judge
#2 decided by a different judge

Both judges were men.

I read all 3 one after the one as they are reported in the paper today and am in utter disbelief.

Time served in each of these cases is literally going to be a few months or nothing at all. How is justice being served to these women? To me this sends a clear message - don't bother reporting assault it because it wont be treated seriously.

Can any of the legal minds here explain the thinking behind this?

I've just added the relevant judges names for clarity.

Is it possible for a judge to be fired or face sanction for ineptitude in Ireland?

Tom Young

I think this thread is completely missing the point. The fact that the Judge was a man is completely immaterial. Making sweeping statements about the outcomes of a case/cases is not considering the evidence that is unique to each case.

Further, the sentencing guidelines issued by the DPP are usually followed, as is common law, as developed.

234

hardCopy wrote: »

I've just added the relevant judges names for clarity.

Is it possible for a judge to be fired or face sanction for ineptitude in Ireland?

What on earth makes you think that you can determine that these judges acted ineptly. In all cases the media reporting provides, at best, an incomplete picture of criminal cases. Have you considered that the reports might deliberately emphasise the length of the sentences and focus less on the reasons for them? The judges would have been in possession of information that we are not, this would have enabled them to make an appropriate determination. Without being in possession of all the facts it is entirely unwarranted to make implications of ineptitude.

While there has been some comment on #1 the DPP can appeal the decision on the grounds of undue leniency. That is what an appellate system is there for, correting mistakes, if, they occur.

To answer you original question: a judge can be impeached for stated misbehaviour by the Oireachtas.

hardCopy

Tom Young wrote: »

I think this thread is completely missing the point. The fact that the Judge was a man is completely immaterial. Making sweeping statements about the outcomes of a case/cases is not considering the evidence that is unique to each case.

Further, the sentencing guidelines issued by the DPP are usually followed, as is common law, as developed.

I'd agree that the fact that the judge is a man is immaterial, others would probably disagree.

What are the sentencing guidelines from the DPP? The only reference to these guidelines that I can find refer to calls from the DPP for them to be introduced, I can't find any reference to them being enacted.

I find it hard to believe that the guidelines call for a 6 month sentence for sexual assault.

homeOwner

Tom Young wrote: »

I think this thread is completely missing the point. The fact that the Judge was a man is completely immaterial. Making sweeping statements about the outcomes of a case/cases is not considering the evidence that is unique to each case.

Further, the sentencing guidelines issued by the DPP are usually followed, as is common law, as developed.

The point of the thread is not that the judges were both men, i never make that the point. I added that as a fact. The point of the thread is to enquire how is a suspended sentence considered justice to the victim?

Even if the "sentencing guidelines" as you put it, were followed, the judge decided to suspend most or all of the sentences.

And what sweeping statement did I make about the outcome?

hardCopy

234 wrote: »

What on earth makes you think that you can determine that these judges acted ineptly. In all cases the media reporting provides, at best, an incomplete picture of criminal cases. Have you considered that the reports might deliberately emphasise the length of the sentences and focus less on the reasons for them? The judges would have been in possession of information that we are not, this would have enabled them to make an appropriate determination. Without being in possession of all the facts it is entirely unwarranted to make implications of ineptitude.

While there has been some comment on #1 the DPP can appeal the decision on the grounds of undue leniency. That is what an appellate system is there for, correting mistakes, if, they occur.

To answer you original question: a judge can be impeached for stated misbehaviour by the Oireachtas.

If there are reasons for this then they should be published by the Courts Service. The judicial system is widely perceived to be broken in this country, rightly so IMO.

If the DPP appeals against leniency and is successful, what are the consequences for the judge in question?

I don't think it's enough for judges to imply that they know best and fail to explain themselves.

homeOwner

hardCopy wrote: »

I'd agree that the fact that the judge is a man is immaterial, others would probably disagree.

Its not necessarily immaterial. And it is certainly worth noting.

hardCopy

homeOwner wrote: »

Its not necessarily immaterial. And it is certainly worth noting.

My point is that there are numerous bizarre suspended/lenient/concurrent sentences handed out in this country for other non-sexual crimes against women and men that should also be questioned.

Procrastastudy

This isn't a considered legal point of view, but frankly neither is this thread so I'll put in my 2 cents.

In my view there are three elements to a prison sentence.

(i) Protection of the public - if there is very little threat of a repeat there is no point in keeping someone locked up for years and years. It costs the tax payer money and doesn't serve the following elements

(ii) Rehabilitation - moot point as the system is completely broken

(iii) Punishment - with the exception of third story which I'm not going to get into a discussion about due to the highly emotive subject, the punishment seems to fit to be honest. In the first situation there was mitigation, they guy has lost his job and paid €75,000 in compensation. In the second case - I'm sorry it shouldn't happen but p*ssed d*ckheads at abrakebabras are a fact of life. Punishment fits here as well.

Compare two countries sentencing - the US and Japan. The incidence of rape and sexual assaults are three times higher in the US. Japan uses very short prison sentences - the US pander to the electorate, lock them up and throw away they key. I'd rather be safer and pay less tax than satisfy my need for retribution.

The assertion that a Judge who's sentences where consistently either to lenient or to harsh, would not be investigated seems nonsense to me personally.

homeOwner

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

This isn't a considered legal point of view, but frankly neither is this thread so I'll put in my 2 cents.

In my view there are three elements to a prison sentence.

(i) Protection of the public - if there is very little threat of a repeat there is no point in keeping someone locked up for years and years. It costs the tax payer money and doesn't serve the following elements

(ii) Rehabilitation - moot point as the system is completely broken

(iii) Punishment - with the exception of third story which I'm not going to get into a discussion about due to the highly emotive subject, the punishment seems to fit to be honest. In the first situation there was mitigation, they guy has lost his job and paid €75,000 in compensation. In the second case - I'm sorry it shouldn't happen but p*ssed d*ckheads at abrakebabras are a fact of life. Punishment fits here as well.

Compare two countries sentencing - the US and Japan. The incidence of rape and sexual assaults are three times higher in the US. Japan uses very short prison sentences - the US pander to the electorate, lock them up and throw away they key. I'd rather be safer and pay less tax than satisfy my need for retribution.

The assertion that a Judge who's sentences where consistently either to lenient or to harsh, would not be investigated seems nonsense to me personally.

Your breakdown of points regarding prison sentence is interesting.
Point #1 is the good of society type thing
Points #2 & #3 refer to the perpertrator of the crime.
None of your points relates to the victim which seems odd to me.

Would it be accurate to say that the notion of "justice" for the victim doesn't come into sentencing? Or even should it be taken in to consideration? I put it in inverted commas because obviously the notion of justice is subjective but surely for a victim to be inclined to take a case forward to court, there has to be some notion of getting justice for the wrong done against you?

From reading the words of the victims in the first two cases, they do not consider justice to have been served, surely that should be an element of the outcome?

234

hardCopy wrote: »

If there are reasons for this then they should be published by the Courts Service. The judicial system is widely perceived to be broken in this country, rightly so IMO.

If the DPP appeals against leniency and is successful, what are the consequences for the judge in question?

I don't think it's enough for judges to imply that they know best and fail to explain themselves.

If the sentence is increased on appeal then there would be no consequences for the judge in question. The reason why there are rights of appeal to higher courts is to ensure the integrity of the system. It is not some kind of disciplinary mechanism. If every judge who had a decision overturned on appeal was disciplined then the entire judiciary would have to be fired! The idea that a judge should be punished for a decision that is overturned on appeal is farcical.

Judges don't imply that they know best. They are the people designated by the Constitution to perform certain tasks. They perform these tasks as they are the only people permitted/enabled to do so. Discharging your responsibities does not imply some kind of superiority. The Taoiseach is charged with certain tasks, nobody is suggesting that he is somehow a superior human.

Procrastastudy

homeOwner wrote: »

Your breakdown of points regarding prison sentence is interesting.
Point #1 is the good of society type thing
Points #2 & #3 refer to the perpertrator of the crime.
None of your points relates to the victim which seems odd to me.

Would it be accurate to say that the notion of "justice" for the victim doesn't come into sentencing? Or even should it be taken in to consideration? I put it in inverted commas because obviously the notion of justice is subjective but surely for a victim to be inclined to take a case forward to court, there has to be some notion of getting justice for the wrong done against you?

From reading the words of the victims in the first two cases, they do not consider justice to have been served, surely that should be an element of the outcome?

You have a point, but, I consider the 'punishment' aspect the justice for the victim. Ideally all punishments would have an element of restorative justice such as compensation - thats not always possible of course. However it's very unlikely any victim will ever consider justice served - I know if someone broke into my house and nicked something of sentimental value I'd probably want their hands cut off. It takes an independent third party backed up by the massive machinery of an established criminal justice system effectively serve justice.

hardCopy

234 wrote: »

hardCopy wrote: »

If there are reasons for this then they should be published by the Courts Service. The judicial system is widely perceived to be broken in this country, rightly so IMO.

If the DPP appeals against leniency and is successful, what are the consequences for the judge in question?

I don't think it's enough for judges to imply that they know best and fail to explain themselves.

If the sentence is increased on appeal then there would be no consequences for the judge in question. The reason why there are rights of appeal to higher courts is to ensure the integrity of the system. It is not some kind of disciplinary mechanism. If every judge who had a decision overturned on appeal was disciplined then the entire judiciary would have to be fired! The idea that a judge should be punished for a decision that is overturned on appeal is farcical.

Judges don't imply that they know best. They are the people designated by the Constitution to perform certain tasks. They perform these tasks as they are the only people permitted/enabled to do so. Discharging your responsibities does not imply some kind of superiority. The Taoiseach is charged with certain tasks, nobody is suggesting that he is somehow a superior human.

When I say that we are asked to accept that they know best, my problem is that we don't get any explanation of judgments or sentencing, when we question it, people say we can't judge based on media coverage. How are the judges held accountable for their decisions?

If a taoiseach refuses to explain themselves we can throw them out in five years.

Procrastastudy

hardCopy wrote: »

When I say that we are asked to accept that they know best, my problem is that we don't get any explanation of judgments or sentencing, when we question it, people say we can't judge based on media coverage. How are the judges held accountable for their decisions?

If a taoiseach refuses to explain themselves we can throw them out in five years.

Rock up to the court and sit in on the trial. It's not reported on because it's not sexy to give all the facts, just the ones that sell papers.

A court system based on the political whims of the people - interesting.

The DPP recommends six months for violent sexual assault, do they?

GCDLawstudent

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Rock up to the court and sit in on the trial. It's not reported on because it's not sexy to give all the facts, just the ones that sell papers.

A court system based on the political whims of the people - interesting.

Do tell, what do you know that we don't? This is a case that has been followed closely - the Jury didn't believe a word Mr Lyons (sexual attacker) said in regards to his cholesterol medication defense.

So he's found guilty of the *violent* sexual assault by a jury of his peers, and the judge feels fit to knock 90% of his sentence off? And you think that's an acceptable outcome?

Procrastastudy

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Do tell, what do you know that we don't? This is a case that has been followed closely - the Jury didn't believe a word Mr Lyons (sexual attacker) said in regards to his cholesterol medication defense.

So he's found guilty of the *violent* sexual assault by a jury of his peers, and the judge feels fit to knock 90% of his sentence off? And you think that's an acceptable outcome?

You don't know and I don't know, thats the point being made. The Judge would have been presented with all the facts. For the record given what little I know of his past, the bigger picture in relation to his punishment, the €75,000 in compensation I do believe the sentence was acceptable. It's a six year term suspended not 'a knocking off' of 90%

hardCopy

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Rock up to the court and sit in on the trial. It's not reported on because it's not sexy to give all the facts, just the ones that sell papers.

A court system based on the political whims of the people - interesting.

No time I'm afraid, wouldn't it make sense for the judge to publish his justification online? Takes ten minutes to set up a blog.

It seems the only people who see this as justice are people involved in the legal profession.

I agree that direct election of judges would be a bad idea, but something needs to change.

homeOwner

hardCopy wrote: »

No time I'm afraid, wouldn't it make sense for the judge to publish his justification online? Takes ten minutes to set up a blog.

It seems the only people who see this as justice are people involved in the legal profession.

I agree that direct election of judges would be a bad idea, but something needs to change.

The justification should be part of the comments made during sentencing.

Here is what Judge Hogan said at sentencing:

"He said he had “no doubt” that it was a serious offence which had involved “violence of a seriously frightening nature”.
“He had rugby-tackled this young lady to the ground in a dark area under trees on a quiet road,” Judge Hogan said before he commented that the effects of what happened to her would continue “beyond any sentence I can impose”.
“The long-abiding psychological trauma suffered by her is perhaps seriously greater than the physical injuries she sustained,” the judge said.
“There is little doubt that a very serious wrong has been done on her by a person who has expressed remorse, has been hitherto of good character, is well regarded and is unlikely to reoffend,” Judge Hogan added.


I highlight these parts:
"as been hitherto of good character, is well regarded and is unlikely to reoffend"

Why are these points even relevant and how does the judge know any of these to be true? How does one prove they are "well regarded"

It seems the judge has complete descretion to apply the sentence according to his own set of morals (?) which I find objectionable.

There should be a sentence set out for the crime (in this case 6 years) and that should be the sentence handed down.

Procrastastudy

hardCopy wrote: »

No time I'm afraid, wouldn't it make sense for the judge to publish his justification online? Takes ten minutes to set up a blog.

It seems the only people who see this as justice are people involved in the legal profession.

I agree that direct election of judges would be a bad idea, but something needs to change.

There is extensive reporting of Judgments. How this plays out in the criminal sphere I'm not 100% sure I have to admit. I realise what you are saying about the blog but it wouldn't be feasible. The current reporting systems probably do need updating and made more widely available but they need to retain there professionalism. You wouldn't expect to read about open heart surgery, explained in any accurate detail, in a surgeons blog. You may however have a point that a third party blog, taken in the proper context, might be an idea - there must be a few out there?

One thing I will concede as well. Judges are acutely aware of the current issues in the Irish prison system. To ignore the effect of that on sentencing would, in my uneducated view, be somewhat naive.

Dan133269

Tom Young wrote: »

I think this thread is completely missing the point. The fact that the Judge was a man is completely immaterial. Making sweeping statements about the outcomes of a case/cases is not considering the evidence that is unique to each case.

Further, the sentencing guidelines issued by the DPP are usually followed, as is common law, as developed.

It seems to me that you're missing the point. How is the evidence in a particular case relevant to the sentence? Surely the evidence is only relevant to the extent whether it can secure a conviction or not. In these cases, it did secure a conviction, and the question then turns to the appropriate sentence which should be applied in light of the crime. How is evidence still relevant?

The guidelines on sentencing are extremely wide and allow a huge degree of discretion to judges, isn't that the case? The whole point of this thread is the apparent bad decision making in deciding sentences for criminals.

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

A court system based on the political whims of the people - interesting.

Yes, that would be called democracy.

Procrastastudy

homeOwner wrote: »

The justification should be part of the comments made during sentencing.

Here is what Judge Hogan said at sentencing:

"He said he had “no doubt” that it was a serious offence which had involved “violence of a seriously frightening nature”.
“He had rugby-tackled this young lady to the ground in a dark area under trees on a quiet road,” Judge Hogan said before he commented that the effects of what happened to her would continue “beyond any sentence I can impose”.
“The long-abiding psychological trauma suffered by her is perhaps seriously greater than the physical injuries she sustained,” the judge said.
“There is little doubt that a very serious wrong has been done on her by a person who has expressed remorse, has been hitherto of good character, is well regarded and is unlikely to reoffend,” Judge Hogan added.


I highlight these parts:
"as been hitherto of good character, is well regarded and is unlikely to reoffend"

Why are these points even relevant and how does the judge know any of these to be true? How does one prove they are "well regarded"

It seems the judge has complete descretion to apply the sentence according to his own set of morals (?) which I find objectionable.

There should be a sentence set out for the crime (in this case 6 years) and that should be the sentence handed down.

There can be no justice as long as laws are absolute. Now that I've got quoting Star Trek out of the way consider a scenario.

My daughter is raped by a pedophile - I go out find him and kill him. The mandatory sentence for murder is life (meaning life) in prison. You don't think there should be mitigation taken into account?

Procrastastudy

Dan133269 wrote: »

Yes, that would be called democracy.

No it would be a mess - there are very good reasons why the separation of powers are set up in the constitution in the way they are.

hardCopy

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

There is extensive reporting of Judgments. How this plays out in the criminal sphere I'm not 100% sure I have to admit. I realise what you are saying about the blog but it wouldn't be feasible. The current reporting systems probably do need updating and made more widely available but they need to retain there professionalism. You wouldn't expect to read about open heart surgery, explained in any accurate detail, in a surgeons blog. You may however have a point that a third party blog, taken in the proper context, might be an idea - there must be a few out there?

One thing I will concede as well. Judges are acutely aware of the current issues in the Irish prison system. To ignore the effect of that on sentencing would, in my uneducated view, be somewhat naive.

We currently have very detailed reporting of Oireachtas debates, done in a professional manner, something similar would make a lot of sense for the judiciary. As long as sentences that are perceived to be inadequate are handed down people will continue to question them, as we should as citizens of the state. It's not good enough to simply expect everyone to attend court every day.

I'm not convinced that these sentences were appropriate but as you say, I don't have the full facts. Unless some mitigating circumstance is revealed I will remain disgusted. The compensation order amounts to at most 2 years salary, a lot less than he would have lost if he'd served six years.

As regards the prison systems, I feel the overcrowding problems would be a lot more quantifiable if judges handed down their desired custodial sentence and let the Prison Service and Dept. of Justice explain why people are being released early.

homeOwner

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

There can be no justice as long as laws are absolute. Now that I've got quoting Star Trek out of the way consider a scenario.

My daughter is raped by a pedophile - I go out find him and kill him. The mandatory sentence for murder is life (meaning life) in prison. You don't think there should be mitigation taken into account?

I think that there could be a mandatory sentence for "provoked" murder different to murder where there is no cause or reason for it. In some countries you have 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder and the sentences for each are very different.

I know we don't have that here but in your example it could be argued that there was an underlying provocation and the whole business of temporary insanity could be brought into it (it probably doesnt exist here either). Which would make it different to someone just going out and killing a random stranger which should/could carry a different mandatory sentence.

My point is that the crime the person is charged with based on the evidence should decide the "degree" of the murder. And that should come with a mandatory sentence.

Procrastastudy

hardCopy wrote: »

We currently have very detailed reporting of Oireachtas debates, done in a professional manner, something similar would make a lot of sense for the judiciary. As long as sentences that are perceived to be inadequate are handed down people will continue to question them, as we should as citizens of the state. It's not good enough to simply expect everyone to attend court every day.

We may very well have an excellent system - I simply don't know. The perils of debating with a First year I'm afraid. Current civil system is excellent and people like BAILII are real shining lights imo.

hardCopy wrote: »

As regards the prison systems, I feel the overcrowding problems would be a lot more quantifiable if judges handed down their desired custodial sentence and let the Prison Service and Dept. of Justice explain why people are being released early.

I'm not sure it would be possible to do it that way. The system is near breaking point it's a separate topic in itself to be fair. Do bear in mind it costs around €86,000 a year to keep someone in prison plus all the issues the current broken system creates - such as drug addiction. Now I'm not saying people shouldn't be sent to prison but the punishment needs to be proportionate and not a pandering to ill-informed public opinion.

Procrastastudy

homeOwner wrote: »

I think that there could be a mandatory sentence for "provoked" murder different to murder where there is no cause or reason for it. In some countries you have 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder and the sentences for each are very different.

I know we don't have that here but in your example it could be argued that there was an underlying provocation and the whole business of temporary insanity could be brought into it (it probably doesnt exist here either). Which would make it different to someone just going out and killing a random stranger which should/could carry a different mandatory sentence.

My point is that the crime the person is charged with based on the evidence should decide the "degree" of the murder. And that should come with a mandatory sentence.

You can keep adding layers of complexity until you get to the system we have now.

Personally I think the current system, isn't perfect but works better than justice administered by computation. Mandatory sentences are a topic in themselves.

234

hardCopy wrote: »

We currently have very detailed reporting of Oireachtas debates, done in a professional manner, something similar would make a lot of sense for the judiciary. As long as sentences that are perceived to be inadequate are handed down people will continue to question them, as we should as citizens of the state. It's not good enough to simply expect everyone to attend court every day.

I'm not convinced that these sentences were appropriate but as you say, I don't have the full facts. Unless some mitigating circumstance is revealed I will remain disgusted. The compensation order amounts to at most 2 years salary, a lot less than he would have lost if he'd served six years.

As regards the prison systems, I feel the overcrowding problems would be a lot more quantifiable if judges handed down their desired custodial sentence and let the Prison Service and Dept. of Justice explain why people are being released early.

All court proceedings are recorded by stenographers. All written judgments are reported. Try courts.ie and BAILII for the most recent. In DC and CC cases judgments are not reported because they are of no precedental value. In many cases there is no need for a written judgment as it's a simply Yes or No. It would simply become and empty, formulaic exercies where the judge would say "The evidence adduced by the plainitff/defendant has convinced me that on the balance of probabilities X occured and the plainitff is/isn't liable, etc." and so on with more padding.

In crimes tried on indictment the jury does the majority of the decision-making and they are not obliged to give reasons for their judgments.

Bear in mind that a written judgment requires a lot of time and effort and if it was compulsory to give written judgments in all cases then the courts system would be even slower thatn it is as the moment and we would need to double the number of High Court judges.

hardCopy

234 wrote: »

All court proceedings are recorded by stenographers. All written judgments are reported. Try courts.ie and BAILII for the most recent. In DC and CC cases judgments are not reported because they are of no precedental value. In many cases there is no need for a written judgment as it's a simply Yes or No. It would simply become and empty, formulaic exercies where the judge would say "The evidence adduced by the plainitff/defendant has convinced me that on the balance of probabilities X occured and the plainitff is/isn't liable, etc." and so on with more padding.

In crimes tried on indictment the jury does the majority of the decision-making and they are not obliged to give reasons for their judgments.

Bear in mind that a written judgment requires a lot of time and effort and if it was compulsory to give written judgments in all cases then the courts system would be even slower thatn it is as the moment and we would need to double the number of High Court judges.

The judgements may not be of precedental value but there is value in giving a more complete judgement than:

Judge Hogan said a custodial sentence was warranted but, having regard to the compensation order of €75,000 and other “mitigating factors”, he suspended all but six months of that term.

What other mitigating factors caused him to suspend five and a half years of the six year sentence, did he believe the defendants claim that the cholesterol made him do it?

Kosseegan

hardCopy wrote: »

The judgements may not be of precedental value but there is value in giving a more complete judgement than:



What other mitigating factors caused him to suspend five and a half years of the six year sentence, did he believe the defendants claim that the cholesterol made him do it?

He mentioned some of them. No previous convictions. Character testimony. Probation services report showing a low likelihood of re-offending.

homeOwner

Kosseegan wrote: »

He mentioned some of them. No previous convictions. Character testimony. Probation services report showing a low likelihood of re-offending.

How can these things be given more weight that the evidence in the case? Character testimony is not worth the paper it is written on, it is supplied by people known to or more likely related to the defendant which is almost guaranteed to be biased. A report showing a low likelihood of re-offending, based on what - statistics? age group?

Is the victim in the case allowed to ask the judge what exactly were the "mitigating circumstances"?

234

homeOwner wrote: »

How can these things be given more weight that the evidence in the case? Character testimony is not worth the paper it is written on, it is supplied by people known to or more likely related to the defendant which is almost guaranteed to be biased. A report showing a low likelihood of re-offending, based on what - statistics? age group?

Is the victim in the case allowed to ask the judge what exactly were the "mitigating circumstances"?

No the victim is not entitled to these documents as they have no role in criminal proceedings beyond testifying. Whether they will be provided with copies on a discertionary basis is another thing.

The judge would have seen what data the probation report was based upon. You are not in any position to dispute the value of character testimony. While some information can be provided, it is impossible, even if you go and watch a case, to provide such information to the public that they can put themselves in the position of a judge and judge the case for themselves. That is why there are judges.

The judge would have taken the evidence given in the case into account. Again, a painstaking elucidation of his though process, while interesting, would be so onerous compared with the need to deal with a heavy judicial workload that it would not be in the public interest to require one.

homeOwner

234 wrote: »

The judge would have seen what data the probation report was based upon. You are not in any position to dispute the value of character testimony. While some information can be provided, it is impossible, even if you go and watch a case, to provide such information to the public that they can put themselves in the position of a judge and judge the case for themselves. That is why there are judges.

The judge would have taken the evidence given in the case into account. Again, a painstaking elucidation of his though process, while interesting, would be so onerous compared with the need to deal with a heavy judicial workload that it would not be in the public interest to require one.

I take your point but regardless of quality of the character testimony, it simply beggars belief that these factors would be the basis of a 90% reduction in sentence. I guess this is the nub of the whole issue.

The proceedings from start to finish are about evidence, what can be proven in a court of law, each side getting to make their case, innocent until proven guilty etc.... but when it comes to implementing a sentence the judge can basically make up his own mind what he wants to place greater weight on and is not required to explain himself.

Surely this leaves the whole process open to massive abuse. We are basically trusting our judges to impose sentences that are worthy of the crime without any input into the appointing of the judges. Given that they have such power.

You can look at it two ways:
Experienced judge makes a wise decision to suspend 90% of a sentence and impose a fine on a wealthy well respected businessman who is unlikely to re-offend, saving the tax payer alot of money.

or

Experienced judge decides that man of similar age and means as himself is not a threat to society and decides to suspend 90% of his sentence and impose a fine that amounts to a slap on the wrist.

Tom Young

The DPP can appeal based on the leniency of the sentence should they so wish.

Procrastastudy

First of all 6 months in prison will be a harrowing experience - if you're looking for an eye for an eye then I'm certain he'll get it more than a few times.

Secondly a suspended sentence and additional requirements isn't being let off!

Thirdly 6 months of 6 years is not 90% its 83%.

I simply don't understand what purpose is served by the guy going in for a full six years.

GCDLawstudent

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

First of all 6 months in prison will be a harrowing experience - if you're looking for an eye for an eye then I'm certain he'll get it more than a few times.

Secondly a suspended sentence and additional requirements isn't being let off!

Thirdly 6 months of 6 years is not 90% its 83%.

I simply don't understand what purpose is served by the guy going in for a full six years.

Maths ain't your strong point. 6 months out of 6 years is 8.3% so it was 91.7% knocked off.

Procrastastudy

I was working it out as 6/72, you could be right, but either way it its not 'knocked off' its suspended sentence, probation and presumably the sex offenders register.

The guys life is ruined - and rightly so - I don't think locking him up serves any useful purpose other than costing the tax payer almost half a million euro.

hardCopy

234 wrote: »

No the victim is not entitled to these documents as they have no role in criminal proceedings beyond testifying. Whether they will be provided with copies on a discertionary basis is another thing.

The judge would have seen what data the probation report was based upon. You are not in any position to dispute the value of character testimony. While some information can be provided, it is impossible, even if you go and watch a case, to provide such information to the public that they can put themselves in the position of a judge and judge the case for themselves. That is why there are judges.

The judge would have taken the evidence given in the case into account. Again, a painstaking elucidation of his though process, while interesting, would be so onerous compared with the need to deal with a heavy judicial workload that it would not be in the public interest to require one.

So the judge knows best then? End of discussion?

homeOwner wrote: »

I take your point but regardless of quality of the character testimony, it simply beggars belief that these factors would be the basis of a 90% reduction in sentence. I guess this is the nub of the whole issue.

The proceedings from start to finish are about evidence, what can be proven in a court of law, each side getting to make their case, innocent until proven guilty etc.... but when it comes to implementing a sentence the judge can basically make up his own mind what he wants to place greater weight on and is not required to explain himself.

Surely this leaves the whole process open to massive abuse. We are basically trusting our judges to impose sentences that are worthy of the crime without any input into the appointing of the judges. Given that they have such power.

You can look at it two ways:
Experienced judge makes a wise decision to suspend 90% of a sentence and impose a fine on a wealthy well respected businessman who is unlikely to re-offend, saving the tax payer alot of money.

or

Experienced judge decides that man of similar age and means as himself is not a threat to society and decides to suspend 90% of his sentence and impose a fine that amounts to a slap on the wrist.

Ding ding ding!

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

First of all 6 months in prison will be a harrowing experience - if you're looking for an eye for an eye then I'm certain he'll get it more than a few times.

Secondly a suspended sentence and additional requirements isn't being let off!

Thirdly 6 months of 6 years is not 90% its 83%.

I simply don't understand what purpose is served by the guy going in for a full six years.

By that logic, why make anyone serve a full sentence? I'm sorry but 6 months and a year's wages is a joke of a sentence for sexual assault.

But sure he's an upstanding, respected man of means, I'm sure he'll be good from now on.

GCDLawstudent

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I was working it out as 6/72, you could be right, but either way it its not 'knocked off' its suspended sentence, probation and presumably the sex offenders register.

The guys life is ruined - and rightly so - I don't think locking him up serves any useful purpose other than costing the tax payer almost half a million euro.

Wow, with that kind of attitude you could almost be a judge.

His life being ruined is a by-product of his crime, it's not supposed to be the punishment. In that case, the girl who he attacked has also had a sentence imposed seeing as her life is now ruined also.

Procrastastudy

As awful as it sounds a certain emotional detachment has to be maintained. People are killed or have their lives ruined by motorists, faulty products or just plain negligence. The remedy in those cases is compensation, as it should be. If I where her I'd have a legal team working out how to take his house right now.

The criminal system is there to do justice for the victims, but it is primarily there, in my humble opinion, to try an make society safer. No punishment will be seen my the majority of victims as sufficient.

As an aside it does always make me have a little giggle when people accuse me of one day being a judge or you'd make a great lawyer - I'm not sure the majority of the qualified lawyers here share that view

hardCopy

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

The criminal system is there to do justice for the victims

Not these days it would seem.

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

As an aside it does always make me have a little giggle when people accuse me of one day being a judge or you'd make a great lawyer - I'm not sure the majority of the qualified lawyers here share that view

I'd be pretty offended if someone called me a judge in the making :P

Jev/N

homeOwner wrote: »

Why are these points even relevant and how does the judge know any of these to be true?

Because there are two sides to every situation and outcome.

homeOwner wrote: »

How does one prove they are "well regarded"

Evidence.

You really seem to hope for a black and white sentencing in every case. This is very detached from reality as no two instances are the same. Minimum or maximum sentences, yes, but not a set sentence for a specific, serious crime.

Procrastastudy

hardCopy wrote: »

I'd be pretty offended if someone called me a judge in the making :P

In jest I think there in lies the problem for a lot of people. I wish Judges where more accessible - I think thats a view we possibly share? I can't speak to circuit court judges, or in deed with any great authority at all, but I've met two supreme court Judges - one of whom is one of the nicest, most down to earth people you could ever hope to meet. The other is somewhat less cuddly but clearly a man with a fierce intellect.

I've only ever met one DC court Judge - Although he's not in the DC at the moment he's inspector of prisons. I wish it was possible for more people to get a few minutes with him - he would open your eyes to the prisons system and mandatory sentencing.

I think people need to look at the objective facts rather than their preconceptions of some old, out of touch guy just letting off the ones who look 'right'. Myself, albeit from a different angle, included to be fair.

hardCopy

I just got a chance to look back for a previous case that stuck in my mind. http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/?c=IRELAND&jp=cwauidsnqlmh&d=2005-06-27

This describes one of the worst ordeals I can imagine but the most sickening thing about it is the fact that the defendant had 36 previous convictions at the age of 25. How many of those sentences must have been suspended or served concurrently for him to still be on the streets?

The justice system will never be respected by the criminals or by ordinary people when situations like that happen. He did at least get a decent stretch on conviction but note the following:

Mr Justice Paul Carney imposed 21 years for the count of rape, 21 years for false imprisonment, five years for each assault and 12 months for theft. All terms are to run concurrently and the final year will be suspended.

Why serve the sentences concurrently? What possible logic can there be for that? The theft wasn't even part of the same incident.

If a judge feels there are mitigating circumstances he should have a responsibility to explain himself.

Here's another charming gent with 83 previous convictions, 8 month sentence to run concurrent to a backdated 9 month sentence he's already serving, does anybody really believe he won't re-offend on release? http://www.limerickpost.ie/index.php/navigation-mainmenu-30/local-news/4752-car-thief-vows-to-turn-his-life-around.html

GCDLawstudent

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

As awful as it sounds a certain emotional detachment has to be maintained. People are killed or have their lives ruined by motorists, faulty products or just plain negligence. The remedy in those cases is compensation, as it should be. If I where her I'd have a legal team working out how to take his house right now.

Now you're comparing sexual assault to knocking someone down.

And the judge remark was tongue in cheek, don't be going taking it as some sort of compliment. Hilarious.

Procrastastudy

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Now you're comparing sexual assault to knocking someone down.

And the judge remark was tongue in cheek, don't be going taking it as some sort of compliment. Hilarious.

Now you're being over sensitive and over emotional. If we run the CJS like you suggest we'll be in the same mess the Americans are without the massive funds required to support it.

We cant afford it, most people don't want it and it serves no purpose.

@Hardcopy - 21 years is a massive stretch. Concurrent sentences are an issue in themselves and have been dealt with in many, many threads. As for people re-offending in 'petty' crime. The accepted logic is they grow out of it. There is also the complete failure of the rehabilitation aspect that should be present in our prison system that isn't there. A bleeding heart I may be but somewhere along the line these people (petty crime) are failed by society. The other issue is that again looking at the US long sentences don't equate to lower recidivism (sp?) rates or lower crime.

Predalien

Deleted User wrote: »

Maths ain't your strong point. 6 months out of 6 years is 8.3% so it was 91.7% knocked off.

He'll also get a quarter knocked off automatically, so will only do 4 and a half months. Shocking sentence.

hardCopy

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Now you're being over sensitive and over emotional. If we run the CJS like you suggest we'll be in the same mess the Americans are without the massive funds required to support it.

We cant afford it, most people don't want it and it serves no purpose.

@Hardcopy - 21 years is a massive stretch. Concurrent sentences are an issue in themselves and have been dealt with in many, many threads. As for people re-offending in 'petty' crime. The accepted logic is they grow out of it. There is also the complete failure of the rehabilitation aspect that should be present in our prison system that isn't there. A bleeding heart I may be but somewhere along the line these people (petty crime) are failed by society. The other issue is that again looking at the US long sentences don't equate to lower recidivism (sp?) rates or lower crime.

Petty according to who? And who accepts that logic?

In the absence of true rehabilitation, crime prevention should be the priority. Here we just have lenient sentencing with no rehabilitation, the worst of both worlds.

GCDLawstudent

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Now you're being over sensitive and over emotional. If we run the CJS like you suggest we'll be in the same mess the Americans are without the massive funds required to support it.

I wasn't calling you out for being insensitive, I was calling you out for being on another planet.

I'm not calling for some radical re-introduction of stoning or anything of the sort, I'm simply expressing the view that 6 months in jail for a violent sexual assault under the circumstances of the case (he knew the victim, followed her home, pled not guilty etc etc) is a totally unrealistic sentence. It's completely out of whack with what the average citizen expects of their CJS, and lets face it - the CJS is there to serve the citizens, not the other way round.

Procrastastudy

I'm convinced lads! Down with this sort of thing. Bollocks to a system of checks and balances! A system of subjective, emotionally driven, opinion is what we need! We should just have list of crimes and a list of sentences - simples!