Suspended sentencing

meoklmrk91

Just wanted to gauge the general opinion here on suspended sentencing. I think it should be the exception rather than the rule, it should be for first time offenders who commit relatively minor crimes. The vast majority upon getting a suspended sentence would thank their lucky stars and take it as a lesson learnt, I have personal knowledge of cases like this.

However in many others it seems that suspended sentencing only makes it so that we don't have people with 60 convictions walking around who have never seen a day inside of prison. I know that we have overcrowded prisons and suspended sentencing helps to eliviate that but there has to be a line where suspended sentencing can no longer be considered, sexual abuse cases, rape cases, aggravated burglary, attempted murder, manslaughter these are all very serious crimes, in sexual abuse and rape cases there have been plenty of cases that have shown that suspended sentencing is the rule rather than the exception. I understand that there are cases where locking up offenders for a long time is not going to help everyone but again these are the exception rather than the rule.

stmol32

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

The vast majority upon getting a suspended sentence would thank their lucky stars and take it as a lesson learnt, I have personal knowledge of cases like this.

What did you get caught doing dude?

meoklmrk91

stmol32 wrote: »

What did you get caught doing dude?

Lol, not myself, know people who have gotten a suspended sentence for their first offence and it well quietened them.

dxhound2005

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

Just wanted to gauge the general opinion here on suspended sentencing. I think it should be the exception rather than the rule, it should be for first time offenders who commit relatively minor crimes. The vast majority upon getting a suspended sentence would thank their lucky stars and take it as a lesson learnt, I have personal knowledge of cases like this.

However in many others it seems that suspended sentencing only makes it so that we don't have people with 60 convictions walking around who have never seen a day inside of prison. I know that we have overcrowded prisons and suspended sentencing helps to eliviate that but there has to be a line where suspended sentencing can no longer be considered, sexual abuse cases, rape cases, aggravated burglary, attempted murder, manslaughter these are all very serious crimes, in sexual abuse and rape cases there have been plenty of cases that have shown that suspended sentencing is the rule rather than the exception. I understand that there are cases where locking up offenders for a long time is not going to help everyone but again these are the exception rather than the rule.

Where did you get the information about rape sentencing? I did a quick search and it says that suspended sentences were never used in rape convictions.

http://www.thejournal.ie/rape-sentencing-ireland-772129-Jan2013/

Three of the cases were described as “exceptional”, where the judges imposed sentences of two years or less. No rape cases had a suspended sentence. Seventeen cases had sentences ranging between three and eight years.


A sentence is only suspended for as long as the criminal keeps to the conditions of the sentence. If he/she breaks those conditons the sentence is activated and they go to prison.

Pat Mustard

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

in sexual abuse and rape cases there have been plenty of cases that have shown that suspended sentencing is the rule rather than the exception.

Not true. Most convicted rapists get a decent spell in jail.

EyeSight

The Mustard wrote: »

Not true. Most convicted rapists get a decent spell in jail.

isn't it on average around 8 years? I think 20 should be the minimum

It has always astounded me that politicians and the media(who usually find any reason incite "public outrage" always ignore crime.
Even when politicians find the tiniest things to complain about each other, crime never gets a mention....

meoklmrk91

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Where did you get the information about rape sentencing? I did a quick search and it says that suspended sentences were never used in rape convictions.

http://www.thejournal.ie/rape-sentencing-ireland-772129-Jan2013/

Three of the cases were described as “exceptional”, where the judges imposed sentences of two years or less. No rape cases had a suspended sentence. Seventeen cases had sentences ranging between three and eight years.


A sentence is only suspended for as long as the criminal keeps to the conditions of the sentence. If he/she breaks those conditons the sentence is activated and they go to prison.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/icrime/rape-crisis-groups-ask-if-wealth-means-shorter-sentences-202496.html

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/crime/victims-fury-paedo-rapist-walks-1944274

http://www.thestar.ie/star/victims-suffer-as-sex-monsters-roam-free-its-time-for-tougher-sentences-for-sickening-sex-predators-27656/

El Weirdo

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/icrime/rape-crisis-groups-ask-if-wealth-means-shorter-sentences-202496.html

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/crime/victims-fury-paedo-rapist-walks-1944274

http://www.thestar.ie/star/victims-suffer-as-sex-monsters-roam-free-its-time-for-tougher-sentences-for-sickening-sex-predators-27656/

But it would appear that those are the exceptions.

Tail Docker

The Mustard wrote: »

Not true. Most convicted rapists get a decent spell in jail.

Usually after the public kick up about their suspended sentence..

TPD

I agree with you OP, suspended sentences should only be used for first offences, and relatively minor ones at that.

What I find more annoying is concurrent sentences when multiple crimes have been committed. Sure, you killed 10 people, we'll send you to jail for the first and let you off the other 9.

SVJKarate

Tail Docker wrote: »

Usually after the public kick up about their suspended sentence..

Not true.

Have you thought about looking for evidence to support that view? Outcry by the public almost never (thankfully) changes a sentence imposed by a court. In any event only the DPP can actually appeal the leniency of a sentence.

The public will outcry fairly easily, especially if they are informed of 'the facts' by the sort of mindless tabloid journalism to which we have become accustomed.

El Weirdo

TPD wrote: »

I agree with you OP, suspended sentences should only be used for first offences, and relatively minor ones at that.

What I find more annoying is concurrent sentences when multiple crimes have been committed. Sure, you killed 10 people, we'll send you to jail for the first and let you off the other 9.

If someone killed 10 people, I very much doubt they'd ever be released. They'd have a life sentence anyway, what's the difference whether it's consecutive or concurrent?

SVJKarate

El Weirdo wrote: »

If someone killed 10 people, I very much doubt they'd ever be released. They'd have a life sentence anyway, what's the difference whether it's consecutive or concurrent?

I think imposition of concurrent sentences impacts on the terms of parole. I'm guessing a person serving 10 life sentences could never be released on parole?

El Weirdo

SVJKarate wrote: »

I think imposition of concurrent sentences impacts on the terms of parole. I'm guessing a person serving 10 life sentences could never be released on parole?

It's not impossible, but I doubt any Minister would have the balls to release a 10 time murderer.

Really depends on the case though, I suppose.

SVJKarate

El Weirdo wrote: »

It's not impossible, but I doubt any Minister would have the balls to release a 10 time murderer.

Ministers don't release prisoners.

They may well write letters of support to the prison service & courts, asking that a case for parole 'be reviewed' but ministers will write a letter of support for pretty much anything. Such letters have become a bit of a joke.

El Weirdo

SVJKarate wrote: »

Ministers don't release prisoners.

They may well write letters of support to the prison service & courts, asking that a case for parole 'be reviewed' but ministers will write a letter of support for pretty much anything. Such letters have become a bit of a joke.

No. The only person that can release a prisoner serving a life sentence, is the Minister for Justice. In making the decision, the Minister will take advice from the parole board.

TPD

El Weirdo wrote: »

If someone killed 10 people, I very much doubt they'd ever be released. They'd have a life sentence anyway, what's the difference whether it's consecutive or concurrent?

Murder was the first crime that sprang to mind. Lets say they burglarised 10 houses in a spree.

El Weirdo

TPD wrote: »

Murder was the first crime that sprang to mind. Lets say they burglarised 10 houses in a spree.

But it all depends on a whole load of other circumstances along with the "10 burglaries".

V.W.L 11

i know a guy who has multiple convictions for burglary,after a gap of a few years he went on another burglary spree!in the end he got a 2 year suspended sentence which has now lapsed

tritium

EyeSight wrote: »

isn't it on average around 8 years? I think 20 should be the minimum

It has always astounded me that politicians and the media(who usually find any reason incite "public outrage" always ignore crime.
Even when politicians find the tiniest things to complain about each other, crime never gets a mention....

And yet here you are inciting outrage. While I would disagree with suspended sentences for serious crimes a twenty year minimum seems a bit crazy given how broad that offence can be- would you include statutory rape in there for example? How would you square that minimum with a potentially more serious sexual assault? You're going to end up with a lot of prisons being built here, without necessarily achieving very much (apart from pandering to the pitchfork and torches crowd who'll just move on to wanting lynchings anyway)

TPD

El Weirdo wrote: »

But it all depends on a whole load of other circumstances along with the "10 burglaries".

I'm sure it does, but I don't know the circumstances which validate one year in prison knocking a year off the punishment for two or more crimes at once.

allibastor

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

Just wanted to gauge the general opinion here on suspended sentencing. I think it should be the exception rather than the rule, it should be for first time offenders who commit relatively minor crimes. The vast majority upon getting a suspended sentence would thank their lucky stars and take it as a lesson learnt, I have personal knowledge of cases like this.

However in many others it seems that suspended sentencing only makes it so that we don't have people with 60 convictions walking around who have never seen a day inside of prison. I know that we have overcrowded prisons and suspended sentencing helps to eliviate that but there has to be a line where suspended sentencing can no longer be considered, sexual abuse cases, rape cases, aggravated burglary, attempted murder, manslaughter these are all very serious crimes, in sexual abuse and rape cases there have been plenty of cases that have shown that suspended sentencing is the rule rather than the exception. I understand that there are cases where locking up offenders for a long time is not going to help everyone but again these are the exception rather than the rule.

It is a bit like the old threat when you were a child " wait till your father gets home" It does nothing to stop you and has no real repercussions.

Pat Mustard

EyeSight wrote: »

isn't it on average around 8 years? I think 20 should be the minimum

You can check it on the ISIS website.

Central Criminal Court Statistics show that in 2008, most sentences for rape/sexual assault were more than five years, up to twelve years.

Rape and Sexual Assault

Cases disposed of

Convicted of rape

27

Convicted of rape and other offences

9

Convicted of other sexual offences

6

Acquitted

15

Other (including nolle prosequi)

15

Total

72

Sentences imposed

Life

1

Over 12 years

5

Over five years to 12 years

24

Up to five years

12

Other*

2

*Includes suspended sentences, bench warrants

Pleas/jury trials

Guilty pleas

29

Jury trials

27

Guy:Incognito

The thing that gets me is the automatic remission, what the **** is the point of that. Then more time off for good behaviour. The minimum you serve should be your sentence, maybe some time off for exceptional good behaviour, and time added on for discretions.

El Weirdo

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The thing that gets me is the automatic remission, what the **** is the point of that. Then more time off for good behaviour. The minimum you serve should be your sentence, maybe some time off for exceptional good behaviour, and time added on for discretions.

No. Remission is given for good behaviour. It's not remission + good behaviour.