How could a judge change sentencing precedents?

Thoie

From a lay perspective, it appears that a lot of sentencing in Ireland is based on precedents. Bad Guy A gets low, concurrent sentences, because a previous criminal convicted of something similar got low, concurrent sentences.

Is it possible now for a judge to give higher, consecutive sentences for a crime, or does the issue of precedents essentially mean that sentences will always reduce, and never increase?

Assuming an unlimited prison service (where there's plenty of room for everyone and the magic prison fairies make it all free), a judge could theoretically say "OK, so that's 3 years for the robbery, 5 years for the assault, and 8 years for the other thing - that's 16 years, off you pop".

I get the impression today that sentence would be appealed, and the appeal upheld, on the basis that it's harsher than what the last similar defendant received. Am I incorrect in my thinking (I hope I am), or does the system of using precedents lead to a reduction in average sentences over time?

Pro Hoc Vice

Thoie wrote: »

From a lay perspective, it appears that a lot of sentencing in Ireland is based on precedents. Bad Guy A gets low, concurrent sentences, because a previous criminal convicted of something similar got low, concurrent sentences.

Is it possible now for a judge to give higher, consecutive sentences for a crime, or does the issue of precedents essentially mean that sentences will always reduce, and never increase?

Assuming an unlimited prison service (where there's plenty of room for everyone and the magic prison fairies make it all free), a judge could theoretically say "OK, so that's 3 years for the robbery, 5 years for the assault, and 8 years for the other thing - that's 16 years, off you pop".

I get the impression today that sentence would be appealed, and the appeal upheld, on the basis that it's harsher than what the last similar defendant received. Am I incorrect in my thinking (I hope I am), or does the system of using precedents lead to a reduction in average sentences over time?

Precedence only says that like cases should be treated alike. Sentencing is a very complex issue, and in my opinion most people have a certain view because mostly only what are perceived as low sentences are reported. We all hear about the case of a suspended sentence for rape, but we rarely hear of the life sentence for the same offence. A certain High Court judge is perceived as giving low sentences for rape, yet if you go through all his sentences you will discover he has given life for that crime on multiple cases.

I have been in court and seen many fair sentences but they don't get reported. The average time imposed for rape is if I remember correctly 15 years, murder always carries a life sentence.

While many people go on about people with multiple convictions getting a suspended sentence, they never mention the thousands of people who take the chance the courts give them and change their offending ways. Once the courts have to jail a person then society has lost, once the fear of a custodial sentence is gone there is little the courts can do to change behaviour. We as a society have to ask do we want to punish only or do we want to at least try and change behaviour. As I said we only hear of the system failures not the success.

Thankfully criminal cases are heard in public, I strongly encourage any person interested in the subject to go to their local District Court (for minor matters) or Circuit Court (for serious matters) and watch a case or 2 and watch a number of sentences, listen to everything that's said and ask yourself what would I do if I was judge, then when the judge does impose sentence you may be surprised.

Thoie

infosys wrote: »

Precedence only says that like cases should be treated alike.

Let's take the opposite tack then. I commit a "new" crime (no-one can find a reasonable/suitable precedent), the judge sentences me to 20 years in prison (even though "everyone" thinks 15 years would be more suitable).

You come along next year and commit a similar crime. Your starting point (based on precedence) is now 20 years. If you're given 15 years, you're unlikely to appeal. If you were given 25, you probably will appeal, on the basis that I only got 20 years.

Pro Hoc Vice

Thoie wrote: »

Let's take the opposite tack then. I commit a "new" crime (no-one can find a reasonable/suitable precedent), the judge sentences me to 20 years in prison (even though "everyone" thinks 15 years would be more suitable).

You come along next year and commit a similar crime. Your starting point (based on precedence) is now 20 years. If you're given 15 years, you're unlikely to appeal. If you were given 25, you probably will appeal, on the basis that I only got 20 years.

First of all the vast majority of crimes have the tariff set by statute, so a new crime is now made so by statute.

So let's look at Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, 1998, (iam going somewhere with this don't worry) that act created a number of new offences

Let's look at section 4: Allowing child to be used for child pornography. That carries a maxium sentence of "imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years" and can only be tried on indictment (jury trial) now let's look at section 6 Possession of child pornography that can be a district court case max 12 months or on indictment max 5 years. I am looking at the original act so punishments could have changed but the principles apply.

Now say the first person ever charged under section 4 was before the courts what do they do, well the look at the maximum tariff, the they apply the principles of sentencing. Once the court follows good sentencing principles then a solid sentce will be arrived at.

Some of the things a court will look at, the maximum sentance available, was it a plea or a jury verdict, at what end of the scale was the offence, was it multiple offences, previous history of convictions, is there recidivism, in cases of personal injury the effect on the victim, genuine remorse, previous good history, the effect any jail time will have on society, the guilty persons family. It's really about the balance of all of those competing issues and more. So it's really not as simple as saying person a is guilty of such a crime he got 10 years now person b is guilty of the same crime he must get 10 years.

johnnyskeleton

To appeal on disproportionality with another case is very hard, outside of two co-accused sentenced for the same offence. You need to almost show that the sentenced is unheard of for that type of offence or that the judge was, for example, biased or trying to make an example.

Peregrinus

Thoie wrote: »

. . . Am I incorrect in my thinking (I hope I am), or does the system of using precedents lead to a reduction in average sentences over time?

Logic suggests that reliance on precedent should lead to sentencing patterns which are stable over time.

When sentences tend to get longer or shorter (and both of these things have happened in the past) it's not because of reliance on precedent, but in spite of it. Other factors are at work; amended sentencing legislation or sentencing policy, or changed attitudes among the judiciary (usually reflecting changed attitudes in society).