Legal System Broken?

Seridisand

This is more of a vent than a question, but this article http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/30k-compo-sees-attackers-avoid-jail-289420.html ,on an assault conviction in limerick really just got me frustrated with the seemingly apparent lack of accountability in the Justice system in this country.

It boggles the mind that two men can beat another, in an unprovoked attacked into a coma, throw some compo at the case and walk away without anyway real punishment - 4 years suspended.

Where was the DPP on this one, have they simply stopped trying to convict violent criminals?
What about the duty to the people of Limerick/Ireland to at the very least pretend to try to rehabilitate these scumbags?
There really does seem to be rules of law in this country.

chopser

Pretty strong set of facts.
I'm a bleeding heart liberal and even I think they got off quite light after putting someone into a coma and causing multiple brain injuries according to the newspaper.
There is always something slightly unsavoury about compensation allowing for a suspended sentence in a case. Granted the victim gets money but this rules out a person from a less well off background ever having the same opportunity at freedom.
I wouldn't bet against an appeal on undue leniency.

Bepolite

The problem, as I see it, is that what is locking them up going to accomplish? I gather this was a first offence. I'm playing devils advocate a bit here as I also think they should have spent some time inside. The problem is that we don;t really have the facilities to tailor punishment. Ideally these lads should have done a few months over the college holidays, as well as the compensation; personally I think that would have been satisfactory punishment and not completely screwed them in the long term.

I can see where the judge is coming from in relation to not wanting to impose a custodial sentence in relation to the future prospects of the assailants. If we had spent convictions legislation in place this concern could have been dispensed with in the proper manner, which is through democratically appointed legislation.

Torn on this one I have to admit. Good thread if it doesn't pull in a load of nonsense here today, gone tomorrow eejits that would be better off in After Hours.

EDIT: Very good point on rehab OP - I think that's what the judge thinks he's doing in this instance. The situation with most 'disorder' type crime in Ireland is it's simply grown out of by 25-30. I have my own views on that but it would derail the thread somewhat.

littlemac1980

I can see the possible rationale of the Judge's decision, but I have to say I completely disagree with it. The Judge in that case made a very bad decision in my view.

If they were from a lower social class, or a troubled hosing estate, these guys would both be readily classified as "scumbags".

Anyone who behaves in the manner they did toward that girl in the take-away is an as*hole, and to then follow up with an unprovoked violent attack on the poor boyfriend which left him in a coma, and from what I read in the report ongoing, if not, life-long effects - There is no basis for suggesting such people should be given a second chance - they are already criminals of the highest order, with clearly no disregard for other members of society.

There is only one place for such people - In Jail, and out of the way of good people. The opposite was achieved here - they were given a slap on the wrists (an indirect "Ah sure boys will be boys!") and essentially told it's OK, sure you're the teacher's son, and we hope you'll sort yourself out.

The answer to your question OP - Yes, clearly our Justice system is broken.

What's worse yet is that O'Sullivan denied he initiated an unprovoked attack, and claimed he was attacked by the victim (was defending himself). Only through sheer luck was the incident caught on tape, otherwise the victims may have ended up with charges themselves, and who knows what their background was, in a broken justice system, the word of 2 college students from a good background can mean a lot more than a poor man in a coma and his hysterical girlfriend.

This completely sickens me.:mad::mad::mad:

Bepolite

I can completely understand your reaction, although I think there is a little inverted snobbery in there. That aside how long do we (because it's you and me paying for it) lock them up for? What happens after that period of time? What facilities should be available fore them for rehabilitation and aren't they better off finishing college rather than engaging in a courses inside.

I'm not belittling your position, it's perfectly understandable and reasonable but I'm wondering what the end-game is with this type of position.

Rightwing

My understanding is that it's in the judges interests to be letting all these thugs out on bail etc. It will keep them busy because they'll be back in court in a few weeks again. More judges will required etc. They are untouchable.

Rightwing

Rightwing wrote: »

My understanding is that it's in the judges interests to be letting all these thugs out on bail etc. It will keep them busy because they'll be back in court in a few weeks again. More judges will required etc. They are untouchable.

Your understanding is completely incorrect.

Bepolite

Rightwing wrote: »

My understanding is that it's in the judges interests to be letting all these thugs out on bail etc. It will keep them busy because they'll be back in court in a few weeks again. More judges will required etc. They are untouchable.

We've required more judges for as long as I'm aware of and we've never done it. There is even less movement towards more judges in the Criminal Courts. We might see a dozen or so in the new Court of Appeal but that's exclusively civil cases.

We massively under fund the CJS, so yes I would agree to a certain extent it's broken. When we can't house a 15 year old in detention because there are no places and the local community are threatening to decapitate him I think we might have an issue, the solution is not one that people are gonna like.

littlemac1980

Bepolite wrote: »

I can completely understand your reaction, although I think there is a little inverted snobbery in there. That aside how long do we (because it's you and me paying for it) lock them up for? What happens after that period of time? What facilities should be available fore them for rehabilitation and aren't they better off finishing college rather than engaging in a courses inside.

I'm not belittling your position, it's perfectly understandable and reasonable but I'm wondering what the end-game is with this type of position.

No I understand your view too. I haven't thought through the end game of my points - or any where close to it yet. But I'll still stand over what I'm saying.

All I see everyday is more and more violent crime, unprovoked assaults and the deterioration of cities, towns and more and more rural areas. Decisions like this promote that sort of behaviour. Go to many other European cities and towns (not all I'll admit) and you can see elderly people walking largely carefree through large swathes of their urban areas. In Ireland I think one could probably walk around some parts of Dublin 4, and its environs at night without much chance of being randomly attacked, everywhere else in the main cities are a mess.

If we don't have the resources to rehabilitate we have to prioritise other forms of punishment, i.e. deterrence, retribution, incapicitation - The current system, demonstrated by the above decision, effectively ignores all known and accepted objectives of the criminal justice systems. (it's purely administratvie - logging of incidents).

Society (tax-payers) worrying about what might become of the criminals is not an effective or rationale means of dealing with the criminals failure to worry about their own actions and their own futures or lack their of. The purpose of defining crimes is to draw a line on what is socially acceptable and what is not. There is no grey area in this case. It's a horrifically serious incident. Considerations of the criminals' future prospects shouldn't even be a material factor when weighed up against the harm actually done in the commission of the crime.

I can't see why you think I might be slighty inversely snobbish in my view - although I know I've commented only on the circumstances of this case which involves the middle class - so maybe there's something implicit in my first post to suggest your view - for the record I believe the lower classes are generally responsible for most random violent crime which currently happens in Ireland. And I think its equally outrageous that in most cases, where incidents of common assault, mugging, theft etc are involved, that people with 10's or even 100's of convictions are involved, that likewise there are some utterly pointless decisions made by Judges to allow those people back on to the streets, to once again victimise good members of society.

Rightwing

Deleted User wrote: »

Your understanding is completely incorrect.

It's only when the judges themselves get smashed, will they change. Money trumps everything else for them.

desertcircus

littlemac1980 wrote: »

No I understand your view too. I haven't thought through the end game of my points - or any where close to it yet. But I'll still stand over what I'm saying.

All I see everyday is more and more violent crime, unprovoked assaults and the deterioration of cities, towns and more and more rural areas. Decisions like this promote that sort of behaviour. Go to many other European cities and towns (not all I'll admit) and you can see elderly people walking largely carefree through large swathes of their urban areas. In Ireland I think one could probably walk around some parts of Dublin 4, and its environs at night without much chance of being randomly attacked, everywhere else in the main cities are a mess.

If we don't have the resources to rehabilitate we have to prioritise other forms of punishment, i.e. deterrence, retribution, incapicitation - The current system, demonstrated by the above decision, effectively ignores all known and accepted objectives of the criminal justice systems. (it's purely administratvie - logging of incidents).

Society (tax-payers) worrying about what might become of the criminals is not an effective or rationale means of dealing with the criminals failure to worry about their own actions and their own futures or lack their of. The purpose of defining crimes is to draw a line on what is socially acceptable and what is not. There is no grey area in this case. It's a horrifically serious incident. Considerations of the criminals' future prospects shouldn't even be a material factor when weighed up against the harm actually done in the commission of the crime.

I can't see why you think I might be slighty inversely snobbish in my view - although I know I've commented only on the circumstances of this case which involves the middle class - so maybe there's something implicit in my first post to suggest your view - for the record I believe the lower classes are generally responsible for most random violent crime which currently happens in Ireland. And I think its equally outrageous that in most cases, where incidents of common assault, mugging, theft etc are involved, that people with 10's or even 100's of convictions are involved, that likewise there are some utterly pointless decisions made by Judges to allow those people back on to the streets, to once again victimise good members of society.

I don't recognise this description of Dublin at all. We don't live in a particularly violent country or city, and I'm not aware of any significant upswing in violent crime.

littlemac1980

littlemac1980 wrote: »

I can't see why you think I might be slighty inversely snobbish in my view - although I know I've commented only on the circumstances of this case which involves the middle class - so maybe there's something implicit in my first post to suggest your view - for the record I believe the lower classes are generally responsible for most random violent crime which currently happens in Ireland. And I think its equally outrageous that in most cases, where incidents of common assault, mugging, theft etc are involved, that people with 10's or even 100's of convictions are involved, that likewise there are some utterly pointless decisions made by Judges to allow those people back on to the streets, to once again victimise good members of society.

There have been numerous studies in numerous common law jurisdictions that show that when people hear the facts of a case according to newspaper accounts and are asked to give a hypothetical sentence they almost always give a higher sentence than the trial judge. However when they hear the facts as the judge hears them and are asked to give a hypothetical sentence they correlate remarkably closely with the actual sentences handed down.

I'm not saying that this sentence is right or wrong necessarily, but I am saying that we should be slow to assume we know better than an experienced trial judge when we are privy only to a 1,000 word article that summarises a full legal trial.

Rightwing

Rightwing wrote: »

It's only when the judges themselves get smashed, will they change. Money trumps everything else for them.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

Rightwing

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

www.fact.com

DubVelo

That's sickening. Absolute scumbags.
Why shouldn't their future careers be jeopardised? That was their choice. Would you want someone like that working for you / working next to you?
From the article it sounds like the assault only stopped because a Garda happened to be nearby.

Yes the system is broken. We need a structure of clear sentencing guidelines, there is a systemic failure in our judicial system.
Being able to buy leniency is positively medieval. Or like Iran.

Pro Hoc Vice

Rightwing wrote: »

My understanding is that it's in the judges interests to be letting all these thugs out on bail etc. It will keep them busy because they'll be back in court in a few weeks again. More judges will required etc. They are untouchable.

No facts to back up this claim. Have you ever visited your local District Court and Circuit Court I am assuming not, well if not visit them and actually see what judges do on a daily basis.

A few Facts rough Figures

Cost of AGS 1.2 billion
prison service 300 million
Prosecution of offences about 50 million (if I remember)
Free Legal Aid 50 million
Courts service inc all wages 110 million less 50 million in stamp duty total 60 million

It seems to me the people most served by your logic are AGS and Prison service.

Rightwing

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

No facts to back up this claim. Have you ever visited your local District Court and Circuit Court I am assuming not, well if not visit them and actually see what judges do on a daily basis.

A few Facts rough Figures

Cost of AGS 1.2 billion
prison service 300 million
Prosecution of offences about 50 million (if I remember)
Free Legal Aid 50 million
Courts service inc all wages 110 million less 50 million in stamp duty total 60 million

It seems to me the people most served by your logic are AGS and Prison service.

No, but I'm assuming they do little more than sit on their fat arses talking to themselves.

They need to sent back to college.

Pro Hoc Vice

Rightwing wrote: »

No, but I'm assuming they do little more than sit on their fat arses talking to themselves.

They need to sent back to college.

Well visit your local District Court on any given day a DJ will deal with in excess of 50 to 100 cases, many DJ's sit into the evening dealing with what are hard cases weighing up the protection of society, the victim and what is in the best interests of all including the defendant.

Studies have shown we have one of the least expensive courts systems in the world. If you want to knock something its an idea to actually go and see it in action.

Bepolite

desertcircus wrote: »

I don't recognise this description of Dublin at all. We don't live in a particularly violent country or city, and I'm not aware of any significant upswing in violent crime.

Off hand although crime has decreased year on year violent crime is on the increase. That's not meant to be alarmist, I'm not suggesting it's unsafe to walk the streets - I'm off out the door but I'll look up the stats later; unless someone beats me to it proving me wrong!

Beano

Bepolite wrote: »

Off hand although crime has decreased year on year violent crime is on the increase. That's not meant to be alarmist, I'm not suggesting it's unsafe to walk the streets - I'm off out the door but I'll look up the stats later; unless someone beats me to it proving me wrong!

http://cso.ie/Quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=cja01c13.asp&TableName=Attempts+/+threats+to+murder+,+assaults+,+harassments+and+related+offences&StatisticalProduct=DB_CJ

There was a discussion in AH (i know, i know) recently about the "significant" rise in the murder rate last year. Alongside the murder stats the violent crime stats are given on the CSO website. I'm no statistician but it seems to me that the figures are decreasing not increasing, if we exclude the stats for murder.

Bepolite

Beano wrote: »

http://cso.ie/Quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=cja01c13.asp&TableName=Attempts+/+threats+to+murder+,+assaults+,+harassments+and+related+offences&StatisticalProduct=DB_CJ

There was a discussion in AH (i know, i know) recently about the "significant" rise in the murder rate last year. Alongside the murder stats the violent crime stats are given on the CSO website. I'm no statistician but it seems to me that the figures are decreasing not increasing, if we exclude the stats for murder.

Great link thank you. The murder rate actually seems pretty, the homicide rate seems to fluctuate more based on dangerous driving.

http://cso.ie/Quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=cja01c1.asp&TableName=Homicide+Offences&StatisticalProduct=DB_CJ

I know I should have known better but I was convinced by the rhetoric that murders get bumped down to manslaughter more often than not. Simply not reflected in the numbers.

Pat Mustard

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not saying that this sentence is right or wrong necessarily, but I am saying that we should be slow to assume we know better than an experienced trial judge when we are privy only to a 1,000 word article that summarises a full legal trial.

There are judges who are particularly lenient. As I am uncertain of the protocol regarding criticising judges publicly, I'm going to draw the line there.

I think that the elephant in the room is inconsistency in sentencing. One judge may hand down a custodial sentence whereas the next judge might suspend it, on the same facts.

Minimum sentencing would reduce inconsistency in sentencing, provided that there were no exceptions. Allowing for exceptions has resulted in the farcical situation where many drug traffickers plead exceptional circumstances on the basis of their foreign origin and do not receive the prescribed ten year sentence.

Bepolite

The Mustard wrote: »

There are judges who are particularly lenient. As I am uncertain of the protocol regarding criticising judges publicly, I'm going to draw the line there.

I think that the elephant in the room is inconsistency in sentencing. One judge may hand down a custodial sentence whereas the next judge might suspend it, on the same facts.

Minimum sentencing would reduce inconsistency in sentencing, provided that there were no exceptions. Allowing for exceptions has resulted in the farcical situation where drug traffickers plead exceptional circumstances and do not receive the prescribed ten year sentence.

I'm trying not to jump off the deep end here but are you really advocating mandatory minimums? I thought that these were almost universally condemned as allowing for farcical results such as someone having a gun held to their head in relation to storing drugs and ending up getting ten years due to quantity.

Surely every case is unique and the CJS should reflect this?

Pat Mustard

Bepolite wrote: »

I'm trying not to jump off the deep end here but are you really advocating mandatory minimums?

Surely every case is unique and the CJS should reflect this?

They have been criticised, yes.

I don't agree that every single case should be viewed as unique. There are thousands of similar cases every day in the courts.

In the USA, the judge's discretion is often restricted in sentencing; e.g. sentences from ten to twenty years.

And I would imagine that someone with a gun to their head would argue duress as a defence.

Bepolite

The Mustard wrote: »

They have been criticised, yes.

I don't agree that every single case should be viewed as unique. There are thousands of similar cases every day in the courts.

In the USA, the judge's discretion is often restricted in sentencing; e.g. sentences from ten to twenty years.

And I would imagine that someone with a gun to their head would argue duress as a defence.

But then we end up back at the situation of special circumstances. I don't want to side track this thread, although to be fair I think it's relevant, weigh in OP if you think it isn't. I'm not sure using the US as a model of a functioning CJS is helpful. The Scandinavian model seems more successful, although not in all cases admittedly.

I'm not against custodial sentences, in fact I think they should be used more. I do think that we should be smarter about the way we go about things though. Again looking across the water they have the ability for offenders to serve their time at week-ends. They have proper spent convictions legislation. They have deferred entry into prison.

As I say I'm torn on this. I can see both sides. If it was me I'd be absolutely livid that they didn't get time. On the other hand I can see the merits in not locking them up.

Pat Mustard

Bepolite wrote: »

But then we end up back at the situation of special circumstances.

That's not what I meant. I meant that duress would be argued as a full defence to the charge, in the scenario outlined by you.

I'm saying that minimum sentences should apply, whether or not there are exceptional circumstances.

Pro Hoc Vice

The Mustard wrote: »

That's not what I meant. I meant that duress would be argued as a full defence to the charge, in the scenario outlined by you.

I'm saying that minimum sentences should apply, whether or not there are exceptional circumstances.

So you want politicians who are not in possesion of the relevant facts to set the tariff.

The Mustard

The Mustard wrote: »

That's not what I meant. I meant that duress would be argued as a full defence to the charge, in the scenario outlined by you.

I'm saying that minimum sentences should apply, whether or not there are exceptional circumstances.

Minimum sentences don't work. They have never worked. The US model favours this type of action and the US now incarcerate a higher percentage of their population than Russia did under Stalin. The Norwegian model (by any measure the gold standard of criminal justice systems) steers well clear of them.

Minimum sentences without exceptions are unduly harsh and create horrible anomalies and minimum sentences with exceptions are useless. They are not a realistic solution at all.

Pat Mustard

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

So you want politicians who are not in possesion of the relevant facts to set the tariff.

I would like to see a minimum sentence for certain crimes.

For instance; rape, murder, drug trafficking.

Pat Mustard

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Minimum sentences without exceptions are unduly harsh and create horrible anomalies and minimum sentences with exceptions are useless. They are not a realistic solution at all.

Surely that must depend on the implementation of the system, regarding the level at which the minimums are set.

The USA has a huge incarceration rate but there are factors other than minimum sentencing, which are at play.

I agree that minimum sentences with exceptions are useless.

Pro Hoc Vice

The Mustard wrote: »

I would like to see a minimum sentence for certain crimes.

For instance; rape, murder, drug trafficking.

Murder is minimum life, drug trafficking is minimum 10 years with statutory exceptions, and rape is far too complex to have minimums.

Pat Mustard

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Murder is minimum life, drug trafficking is minimum 10 years with statutory exceptions, and rape is far too complex to have minimums.

I was getting carried away with murder there, as it is indeed life.

The drug trafficking 'exceptional circumstances' are what makes this mandatory minimum a bit of a joke, in the case of that piece of legislation.

I don't think that it should be the preserve of lawyers to assert that rape cases couldn't have minimum sentences. However, it would probably require further classification of offences in order to work properly, rather than the crime of rape simpliciter or aggravated rape, etc.

johnnyskeleton

The Mustard wrote: »

I was getting carried away with murder there, as it is indeed life.

The drug trafficking 'exceptional circumstances' are what makes this mandatory minimum a bit of a joke, in the case of that piece of legislation.

I don't think that it should be the preserve of lawyers to assert that rape cases couldn't have minimum sentences. However, it would probably require further classification of offences in order to work properly, rather than simply the crime of rape simpliciter or aggravated rape, etc.

I dont think lawyers views can be ignored though. If a doctor says we should eat less sugar people listen. But if a lawyer says that minimum sentences can lead to unfair results then suddenly everyone loses their minds.

But in any event it is of course the people who set crime and punishment so obviously the peoples represnetatives can set the law provided it doesnt interfere with fundamental rights.

What woukd you suggest as the mandatory minimum for rape, and would it alow for exceptions or apply to all cases?

Pro Hoc Vice

The Mustard wrote: »

I was getting carried away with murder there, as it is indeed life.

The drug trafficking 'exceptional circumstances' are what makes this mandatory minimum a bit of a joke, in the case of that piece of legislation.

I don't think that it should be the preserve of lawyers to assert that rape cases couldn't have minimum sentences. However, it would probably require further classification of offences in order to work properly, rather than simply the crime of rape simpliciter or aggravated rape, etc.

That is the exact problem, rape is a very narrow and broad concept itis one person in ireland a man having non consensual sex with another person. That's the narrow, but it can range from the deprived and violent to something that any person could find themselves guilty of. By grading rape as you proposes leads to a terrible outcome for victims with some being told by these state your rape is not as important as another person's.

Little CuChulainn

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

That is the exact problem, rape is a very narrow and broad concept itis one person in ireland a man having non consensual sex with another person. That's the narrow, but it can range from the deprived and violent to something that any person could find themselves guilty of. By grading rape as you proposes leads to a terrible outcome for victims with some being told by these state your rape is not as important as another person's.

It sounds harsh but the law is not there to make victims feel good, it's there to administer justice. You've already got a situation where victims are left feeling that way because of crazy decisions by judges. At least if it's spelled out a bit more in legislation they'll have an idea what to expect.

Pro Hoc Vice

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It sounds harsh but the law is not there to make victims feel good, it's there to administer justice. You've already got a situation where victims are left feeling that way because of crazy decisions by judges. At least if it's spelled out a bit more in legislation they'll have an idea what to expect.

Yes and how is it justice to tell a person your rape was third class because you got a bit drunk, rape is rape simple. But the sentence must not just reflect the crime but all 3 involved being society, the victim and the guilty party. Two people committing the same crime may for Many personal reasons deserve different sentences that's the justice bit and why she is blind and carrying a scales. To impose minimum sentences removes the blindfold and destroys the scales.

Pat Mustard

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What woukd you suggest as the mandatory minimum for rape, and would it alow for exceptions or apply to all cases?

Suppose we took the crime of rape and classified it into intentional rape as rape in the first degree, reckless rape as rape in the second degree, and rape by deception as another classification, I think that you could take it from there.

I can't really check ISIS very well from my phone but maybe somewhere along the lines of five years minimum for intentional rape and two years minimum for reckless rape. Something like that. I haven't put huge thought into what the figures should be.

Pat Mustard

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

By grading rape as you proposes leads to a terrible outcome for victims with some being told by these state your rape is not as important as another person's.

We are already grading rapes along the unwritten scale of severity which is taken into account when sentencing.

The victim is already told that their rape is not as serious as another rape by the fact that another rape attracts a longer sentence. You may argue (correctly) that there are other factors, but these are not always apparent to the victim.

The injustice that you describe is already here and people are unwilling to change the situation.

Pro Hoc Vice

The Mustard wrote: »

We are already grading rapes along the unwritten scale of severity which is taken into account when sentencing.

The victim is already told that their rape is not as serious as another rape by the fact that another rape attracts a larger sentence. You may argue (correctly) that there are other factors, but these are not apparent to the victim.

The injustice that you describe is already here and people are unwilling to change the situation.

No it is not the conviction is for rape, the sentence takes into account the circumstances of the rape, the victim, society and the guilty party and even people while connected are independant, family and job etc. That is not saying one crime is lesser than another but that all the circumstances lead to a different punishment. The both lead to the same conviction.

Pat Mustard

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

No it is not the conviction is for rape, the sentence takes into account the circumstances of the rape, the victim, society and the guilty party and even people while connected are independant, family and job etc. That is not saying one crime is lesser than another but that all the circumstances lead to a different punishment. The both lead to the same conviction.

I don't agree tbh. I think that the victim is going to see the sentence at the end of the day, and it would hardly matter much to that victim whether it was for Rape I or Rape II if the sentence was 8 years in any event.

DubVelo

The Mustard wrote: »

I would like to see a minimum sentence for certain crimes.

For instance; rape, murder, drug trafficking.

Why does drug trafficking stand out to you as among the most heinous? I'm curious.

Now I've had stuff stolen from me and had my house broken into and I would see horrible, horrible things done to those people quite happily. But drug trafficking? Meh... I don't care.
It's supplying a product to people who wanted said product. It's a strange crime.
(Yes I'm aware there is often a link between crime and drugs.)
People like drugs, they're not going to stop liking drugs.

In fact it actually makes me angry to see all the crowing about that drug yacht the other day when town is full of beggars harassing people and thefts and burglaries are rampant.


Anyway, sentencing guidelines that rule out the possibility of Cash for Rape / Cash for Coma cases hitting the headlines are the absolute minimum reform we need.

Johngoose

€30,000? Put somebody in a coma with life-long consequences,untold damage to their brain and quality of life and a low monetary sum like this is paid in compensation? It makes me sick also that a guy can't go for chips after a night out,without being targeted so savagely.By all accounts the victim was a passive character and was targeted by these thugs.I don't care how educated these two thugs are, or if they are from respectable families,if they were from a disadvantaged area they would receive the full brunt of the law. Who gives a f*uck if one of their parents as a primary school teacher, I don't see why the newspaper thought this was worth mentioning.They are two savages!

Pro Hoc Vice

The Mustard wrote: »

I don't agree tbh. I think that the victim is going to see the sentence at the end of the day, and it would hardly matter whether it was for Rape I or Rape II if the sentence was 8 years (say).

My own experience is that victims of violent crimes mostly want a guilty verdict sentence for many is secondary.

Pat Mustard

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

My own experience is that victims of violent crimes mostly want a guilty verdict sentence for many is secondary.

Fair enough.

the_syco

Bepolite wrote: »

The problem, as I see it, is that what is locking them up going to accomplish?

It takes them off the streets. After not getting a reaction from the guy, they punch him into a coma.

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local-news/limerick-man-told-to-raise-more-compensation-for-assault-victim-1-6187853

Judge Carroll Moran was told the defendants come from respected families and that neither have any previous convictions.

Mr O’Sullivan, the court heard, comes from a farming background and works as an aircraft mechanic in Shannon.

Mr Shine is student at Limerick Institute of Technology.

On the one hand, they're actually trying to better themselves, and are not the usual out of work scumbags.

Sgt Carey said Mr Toomey did not react to the defendants and was “backing away” when he was struck up to 11 times.

On the other hand, they bet the crap out of someone for no reason at all. This them to be violent scumbags, and I fear it's only a matter of when not if they attack another person.

Pat Mustard

DubVelo wrote: »

Why does drug trafficking stand out to you as among the most heinous? I'm curious.

I only included it because there is an existing ten-year minimum sentence for drug trafficking. However, the minimum sentence may not be imposed if there are 'exceptional circumstances'. Many drug traffickers tend to be foreigners, and courts find that time in an Irish prison would be extra difficult, as they would be away from their families, etc, etc. Therefore, they find that there are exceptional circumstances, and do not impose the minimum ten year sentence. It's a bit of a joke.

Bepolite

DubVelo wrote: »

Why does drug trafficking stand out to you as among the most heinous? I'm curious.

I know I frequently fall back on this argument but I at a conference (as a spectator only) with Judge Reilly and he made an excellent point ref minimum sentences. If the minimum for drugs is, say, 10 years then a serious assault has to attract a similar sentence and you end up with a draconian justice system even though minimum sentences are only in a narrow range of crimes. I'm not sure he's been proved right with this case but the general point stands.

Drug will drag this completely off topic but given 80% of Dublin burglaries are committed by Heroin addicts feeding a habit what we're doing currently ain't working.

Guidelines are one thing but mandatory minimums are dangerous in my opinion. Sure we can start grading crimes but I'm not sure that's wise for two reasons. Firstly what's the point? Do we bring in so many grades as to essentially foster the system of discretion we have now? The second is much more dangerous; we would be definition have to have a plea bargain system where by one could cop to assault II in order to avoid an assault III charge and suddenly we have the DPP being judge and jury in criminal cases.

Perhaps I'm naive and this sort of thing goes on already, I know there is massive incentives to plead guilty but this is where I think the balance lies. Returning to the instant case I'm lead to believe the accused didn't plead guilty; that would give me pause for thought in there not being a custodial sentence I must admit. That said I think 234 hit it on the very first response that we have a system in place to deal with sentences that are unduly lenient.

Bepolite

the_syco wrote: »

It takes them off the streets. After not getting a reaction from the guy, they punch him into a coma.

It will prevent them from doing it for a few months perhaps even a few years, then they get released, what then? I have a great deal of respect for the people that work in the prison system but they have an impossible task that only makes people worse not better.

the_syco wrote: »

On the one hand, they're actually trying to better themselves, and are not the usual out of work scumbags.

To be honest I actually think this makes it worse, they've very little excuse.

the_syco wrote: »

On the other hand, they bet the crap out of someone for no reason at all. This them to be violent scumbags, and I fear it's only a matter of when not if they attack another person.

To be fair there is a four year suspended sentence hanging over them, and rightly so.

johnnyskeleton

The Mustard wrote: »

Suppose we took the crime of rape and classified it into intentional rape as rape in the first degree, reckless rape as rape in the second degree, and rape by deception as another classification, I think that you could take it from there.

But what sentence? 5 years, 10 years, life? What if a deception rape (your third category) has a more profound effect on the victim than the first category?

Pat Mustard

I made the following suggestions:

The Mustard wrote: »

I can't really check ISIS very well from my phone but maybe somewhere along the lines of five years minimum for intentional rape and two years minimum for reckless rape. Something like that. I haven't put huge thought into what the figures should be.

I proposed minimum sentencing but the classifications were just meant to be illustrative and I hadn't really intended on having to defend the exact details.

johnnyskeleton

The Mustard wrote: »

I made the following suggestions:



I proposed minimum sentencing but the classifications were just meant to be illustrative and I hadn't really intended on having to defend the exact details.

Of course. The point isnt to put you on the spot about your views, its to illustrate the difficulty in setting minimum sentences. There are very few rapes that get less than 5 years sentence by the way, almost all are either very unusual ciecumstances or are overturned on appeal. So while individual sentences are open to criticism, overall the system works and imposes sentences greater than the proposed minimum.

But say a politician decides he wants to increase the minimum tariff. Then, overnight, sentences double. Sentencing then becomes arbitrary