What's the longest sentence handed down in Ireland?

Flippyfloppy

Following a particularly gruesome trial at the moment, and

<extensive modsnip>

So does anyone know the longest sentence handed down by a judge? What was it for , how long did they serve? Anyone ever get more than one life sentence?

Finally is there any way that the constitution can be changed to allow for longer sentences? The ones being served are a joke ...think of Larry Murphy!!

MOD:

The forum charter does not allow any comment to be made in relation to ongoing trials.

MarkAnthony

So you want to lock up someone who's not been convicted of anything?

If the trial resulted in a murder then the sentence will be life. The fact is when people satisfy the parole board that they are no longer a risk it's to society's benefit to release them. That point is arguable. What is not arguable is a CJS that places the the public's want for retribution before anything else is one that will largely fail on all fronts other than getting politicians elected. Simply look at the US system.

The longest sentences handed down in Ireland have been eternity - e.g. the Death penalty, at least one of which was recently found to be a wrongful conviction.

NoQuarter

Most likely one of the people who were sentenced to capital murder.

MarkAnthony

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/michael-clifford/jailed-garda-killers-have-paid-their-debt-225573.html

unattendedbag

isnt the whole basis of court that a person accused of committing a crime be brought before a court of their peers so they can be answerable to society? We have juries of our peers who decide on innocence of guilt so why can't these juries have an input on the severity of sentence? That way the penalty handed out is consistent with the public opinion and perception.

MarkAnthony

unattendedbag wrote: »

isnt the whole basis of court that a person accused of committing a crime be brought before a court of their peers so they can be answerable to society? We have juries of our peers who decide on innocence of guilt so why can't these juries have an input on the severity of sentence? That way the penalty handed out is consistent with the public opinion and perception.

Because a that would allow sentences to be at the mercy of public opinion. Kill a paedophile you're likely to get three weeks at the four seasons, but do we really want to encourage that behaviour? Conversely someone kills a child by hitting them with their car, with very little fault on their part, you've a 200 year sentence handed down.

unattendedbag

unattendedbag wrote: »

isnt the whole basis of court that a person accused of committing a crime be brought before a court of their peers so they can be answerable to society? We have juries of our peers who decide on innocence of guilt so why can't these juries have an input on the severity of sentence? That way the penalty handed out is consistent with the public opinion and perception.

Study after study after study shows that when people hear the facts of a case from a newspaper and are asked to give a verdict they pretty much always give a higher sentence than the judge. However, when they hear the full facts as heard by the judge including mitigation they give sentences almost perfectly in line with the sentencing judge.

Basically: newspapers have actually skewed your view of how sentences are handed down in Ireland. You only hear the major cases or outlier unusual decisions and extrapolate from there. They're just not representative of the whole.

MarkAnthony

Deleted User wrote: »

Study after study after study shows that when people hear the facts of a case from a newspaper and are asked to give a verdict they pretty much always give a higher sentence than the judge. However, when they hear the full facts as heard by the judge including mitigation they give sentences almost perfectly in line with the sentencing judge.

Basically: newspapers have actually skewed your view of how sentences are handed down in Ireland. You only hear the major cases or outlier unusual decisions and extrapolate from there. They're just not representative of the whole.

I'd absolutely love some links to said studies if you have them handy, no problem if they're behind a paywall I probably have access if their on Lexis etc.

That said I could just no be lazy and look myself! :pac:

unattendedbag

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Because a that would allow sentences to be at the mercy of public opinion. Kill a paedophile you're likely to get three weeks at the four seasons, but do we really want to encourage that behaviour? Conversely someone kills a child by hitting them with their car, with very little fault on their part, you've a 200 year sentence handed down.

I know what ur saying, but I still think that there should be more input into sentencing than the mood of the judge. There is appalling sentences handed down in recent years for horrific sexual crimes and then you have the repeat offenders who quite honestly don't give a f***. I've never heard of a victim being asked what they would consider appropriate. Reform is needed to change the public confidence in our judicial system

Really good 2011 study. Has been repeated since with similar results. It was a broad and fascinating study actually.


http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/401-420/tandi407.html

MarkAnthony

unattendedbag wrote: »

I know what ur saying, but I still think that there should be more input into sentencing than the mood of the judge. There is appalling sentences handed down in recent years for horrific sexual crimes and then you have the repeat offenders who quite honestly don't give a f***. I've never heard of a victim being asked what they would consider appropriate. Reform is needed to change the public confidence in our judicial system

The problem with sexual crimes is the cases are held in camera. No one really knows what went on and what was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The other issue is mention sex in any crime and the expected sentence probably quadruples in the average persons mind.

That said, yes there is a lack of proper sentencing IMHO for sexual offences and serious assaults. There is a very weak excuse for this and that's we simply don't have the resources to imprison these people. Judges seem (I'm open to correction) to be taking this into account which is absolute madness.

It's more complex than that and the legislature are to blame in some cases, I can see where you're coming from, in some cases, though.

unattendedbag

unattendedbag wrote: »

I've never heard of a victim being asked what they would consider appropriate.

Thankfully! How could they possibly be expected to be rational, dispassionate and fair; taking into account all the relevant circumstances? That's why we have judges.

athtrasna

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The problem with sexual crimes is the cases are held in camera. No one really knows what went on and what was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The other issue is mention sex in any crime and the expected sentence probably quadruples in the average persons mind.

That said, yes there is a lack of proper sentencing IMHO for sexual offences and serious assaults. There is a very weak excuse for this and that's we simply don't have the resources to imprison these people. Judges seem (I'm open to correction) to be taking this into account which is absolute madness.

It's more complex than that and the legislature are to blame in some cases, I can see where you're coming from, in some cases, though.

I wish this particular case had been held in camera too, the media circus is sickening , and there's no respect for the memory of the deceased. Metaphorically speaking he will serve a life sentence anyway even if found not guilty, there's no escaping the revelations of this trial. If he is found guilty then life should mean life imo. Ireland would be a safer place.

MarkAnthony

athtrasna wrote: »

Ireland would be a safer place.

On what do you base that assertion? The cost of maintaining someone in prison would mean that other services such as the guards, health care and education would all suffer.

conorh91

Semi-interesting aside: I think it was one of the Guildford Four who said that one of the most difficult adjustments he had to make after his release, was the ability to walk on uneven surfaces, such as grass, gravel or loose paving.

In the newer prisons, the floors are (presumably) all constructed of concrete, or other poured materials.

Not sure why that stuck with me, but maybe it's illustrative of something we don't engage with: the psychological effects of losing your connection to the outside world which are probably difficult to describe to those of us on the outside. Of course, my example is a trivial one, it's just an illustration. The deeper disconnections would be impossible to describe.

What I'm getting at is the penal sanction doesn't end upon release, and its enduring nature is perhaps underestimated when imposing long sentences.

athtrasna

MarkAnthony wrote: »

On what do you base that assertion? The cost of maintaining someone in prison would mean that other services such as the guards, health care and education would all suffer.

I resent the cost of prison and do feel that prisoners should have to work to contribute, however some people are clearly a danger to society and belong behind bars.

Carawaystick

athtrasna wrote: »

I resent the cost of prison and do feel that prisoners should have to work to contribute

I presume you'ld have no issue with your job being replaced by a prisoner doing the work for free? Because thats what prison labour does, displaces real jobs for a lower cost alternative.

Flippyfloppy

athtrasna wrote: »

I resent the cost of prison and do feel that prisoners should have to work to contribute, however some people are clearly a danger to society and belong behind bars.

True. I think it's worth the money to keep society safe. Some prisoners are let out having shown no remorse and refusing to take part in any therapy. It's a pity that life doesn't mean life. I've never heard anyone being put away for an eternity in Ireland. Off to look that up...

Alan_P

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

True. I think it's worth the money to keep society safe. Some prisoners are let out having shown no remorse and refusing to take part in any therapy. It's a pity that life doesn't mean life. I've never heard anyone being put away for an eternity in Ireland. Off to look that up...

The surviving Brittas Bay killer has been in prison since 1978. He's expected to die there. His accomplice died a few years ago, technically not in custody but only because he had had a stroke and was in a persistent vegetative state.. (It was cheaper to fit a monitoring ankle bracelet and give him temporary release than have prison guards sitting beside his bed).

Flippyfloppy

Alan_P wrote: »

The surviving Brittas Bay killer.......

I can't believe I've never heard about this case before :eek:

Pro Hoc Vice

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

I can't believe I've never heard about this case before :eek:

Maybe prisoners who die in prison does not fit the story that many in the media tell. Fact is that life average times served has doubled in past 30 years.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Basically: newspapers have actually skewed your view of how sentences are handed down in Ireland. You only hear the major cases or outlier unusual decisions and extrapolate from there. They're just not representative of the whole.

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

I can't believe I've never heard about this case before :eek:

QED

Flippyfloppy

Deleted User wrote: »

QED

It seems like it was a pretty major case and was, and still is, splashed all over the media. It shocks me at a personal level as that area is a place I've spent a great deal of time, and it seems I just never heard about it, easily explained by the fact it was well before my time on this earth.

Flippyfloppy

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

It seems like it was a pretty major case and was, and still is, splashed all over the media. It shocks me at a personal level as that area is a place I've spent a great deal of time, and it seems I just never heard about it, easily explained by the fact it was well before my time on this earth.

You're missing my point. That case had an appropriate sentence and so other than the crime (which did make the papers) it has left the general public consciousness.

Your perception of sentencing leniency is completely wrong. It is based on bad information and you should dispose of it and seriously reconsider.

MyNameIsMethos

Fair play to Alan_P for trying actually trying his hand at the question; instead of circlej***ing moth-eaten, rehashed prison viewpoints, he says while adding nothing relevant.

Flippyfloppy

Deleted User wrote: »

You're missing my point. That case had an appropriate sentence and so other than the crime (which did make the papers) it has left the general public consciousness.

Your perception of sentencing leniency is completely wrong. It is based on bad information and you should dispose of it and seriously reconsider.

Your perception of my perception should perhaps be questioned here.

There has been without a doubt some high profile criminals given very lenient sentences in the recent past and not so recent. For example those who go on to reoffend, not rehabilitated etc. Very good if by your account most are given appropriate sentences, however not all are. Some of these are high profile and yes, they are given media attention as it is in the general publics' interest, through fear or whatnot.

The whole point of this thread was not to defend my opinion on this however. I was hoping to find out how long of a sentence can be given (good example given by Alan P ) and would there ever be a view to changing the constitution to allow longer sentencing/tougher minimum sentences if it's not possible.

Flippyfloppy

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

The whole point of this thread was not to defend my opinion on this however. I was hoping to find out how long of a sentence can be given (good example given by Alan P ) and would there ever be a view to changing the constitution to allow longer sentencing/tougher minimum sentences if it's not possible.

You're right, let's revisit these points.

First off, the longest sentence that can be given - as Alan P has so excellently demonstrated, is life. Actual end-of-your-days life. So there's no need to extend the maximum sentence I'm sure you'll agree.

The Constitution has very little to do with sentencing so I don't know why you'd need an amendment to make sentences longer. Also, prison sentences are only useful if the prisons are fit for purpose. If the primary goal of a custodial sentence is to assure someone doesn't re-offend - be it by incarcerating the person beyond a point where a re-offence is likely or by rehabilitating them so that they can rejoin society as a functional member - then our prisons are currently not maximised to that goal. But that's a different discussion really.

In short - every once in a while we get a sentence that seems too short. The ones that are actually too short are appealed and often appealed successfully (I can't actually recall an appeal on a sentence being too short ever being dismissed). For the most part the sentences that seem too short are more than likely appropriate sentences and the perception that they are too short is a by-product of a lack of understanding of the process and/or knowledge of the case. The study I refer to above ably demonstrates that.

MarkAnthony

athtrasna wrote: »

I resent the cost of prison and do feel that prisoners should have to work to contribute, however some people are clearly a danger to society and belong behind bars.

Hence why we let people who are less risk out so we have space for higher risk offenders. The issue is of course that some high risk offenders do have to be let out because of their sentence. Indeterminate sentences would be great IMHO, especially in sexual offences. At least one US state has this, there would be huge problems with implementation though.

goz83

Carawaystick wrote: »

I presume you'ld have no issue with your job being replaced by a prisoner doing the work for free? Because thats what prison labour does, displaces real jobs for a lower cost alternative.

I'm sure they could be given jobs to do, which would not displace "real" jobs. Moving rocks, for example :pac:

Though seriously, there are things they could and probably actually do, which contributes to society. I am sure i have seen some form of art created by mountjoy prisoners on sale. It's also better that they have earned some crust if they are getting out of prison some day. The temptation to take it from an armoured van will be lessened if they can pick up a McDonalds on the way home.

234

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Hence why we let people who are less risk out so we have space for higher risk offenders. The issue is of course that some high risk offenders do have to be let out because of their sentence. Indeterminate sentences would be great IMHO, especially in sexual offences. At least one US state has this, there would be huge problems with implementation though.

You would have big ECHR issues unless you have very clear criteria and goals from the outset that would let the prisoner know exactly what they had to do to get released.

The UK have had this problem with whole life tariffs where the statutory provision states only that they can show "exceptional circumstances" to the Secretary of State to get released. Court of Appeal has tried to reconcile it to the ECHR jurisprudence in an entirely unconvincing manner.

Victor

Perhaps off-topic, but prisoners do work in prison - cleaning, cooking, etc. They also do classes.

Participation in such activities will help if they are looking for early release, as they reduce the risk of re-offending.

athtrasna

Victor wrote: »

Perhaps off-topic, but prisoners do work in prison - cleaning, cooking, etc. They also do classes.

Participation in such activities will help if they are looking for early release, as they reduce the risk of re-offending.

My point was in relation to prisoners contributing to the costs of their detention by working, rather than them earning a small wage or credit for good behavior. As regards classes, there was a guy on Newstalk yesterday talking about possible legislation to erase minor convictions after a prison sentence. He said he actually was allowed out to attend classes a third level institution in his final year, but had to return every evening. Seriously

Back on topic, www.irishsentencing.ie appears to be slightly out of date but has some interesting statistics on sentencing.

MarkAnthony

234 wrote: »

You would have big ECHR issues unless you have very clear criteria and goals from the outset that would let the prisoner know exactly what they had to do to get released.

The UK have had this problem with whole life tariffs where the statutory provision states only that they can show "exceptional circumstances" to the Secretary of State to get released. Court of Appeal has tried to reconcile it to the ECHR jurisprudence in an entirely unconvincing manner.

Oh absolutely and the bonkers approach taken in the US meant that they couldn't be released if there was no where to go; with the obvious problem, who want's a sex offender living next door.

The other one that's nice and counter productive is making people responsible for prisoner conduct after release; rules made with the best of intention but that meant no one was ever released.

Obviously people have the right to be protected against crime, the problem is the way to do this often appears 'soft on crime' with a system based on rehabilitation. The approach I would take we're never get to, people being kept in on indeterminate sentences would be seen as sick and pitied rather than locked down for 23 hours a day for their own protection. I'm not sure even that approach, as pie in the Sky that it is, would satisfy the ECHR requirements.

MarkAnthony

athtrasna wrote: »

My point was in relation to prisoners contributing to the costs of their detention by working, rather than them earning a small wage or credit for good behavior. As regards classes, there was a guy on Newstalk yesterday talking about possible legislation to erase minor convictions after a prison sentence. He said he actually was allowed out to attend classes a third level institution in his final year, but had to return every evening. Seriously

Back on topic, www.irishsentencing.ie appears to be slightly out of date but has some interesting statistics on sentencing.

Absolutely! That's exactly what should happen.

Firstly we're the only state in the EU not to have spent convictions legislation. It's farcical that the Bill still isn't through. Secondly we've a well documented phenomenon of people 'growing out of petty crime' in Ireland. Granted the local toe rag shouldn't have more opportunities than the everyone else in the same community that doesn't go around getting 100 convictions but equality issues aside, lets get them trained in and if they're engaging in something other than nicking cars encourage them 100%!

As for being let out, load of countries let people out towards the end of their sentences, it's how you reintegrate people. Some countries have the Mon-Fri prisoners and weekend prisoner. Something I 100% support! Generally a law abiding citizen that drove during a ban? You do your 60 days on the weekends so no to lose your job.

A burglar that is ostensibly rehabilitated in the final year or so of a sentence? You go home at the weekend to make space for the guy above AND for us to see if any burglaries happen Sat/Sun and so I know where you are come Monday so I can have a word.

There's a complete lack of innovation in Ireland in relation to things like the CJS, and it's entirely at the feet of the Government that won't do anything that'll lose a few votes.

feargale

unattendedbag wrote: »

I know what ur saying, but I still think that there should be more input into sentencing than the mood of the judge. There is appalling sentences handed down in recent years for horrific sexual crimes and then you have the repeat offenders who quite honestly don't give a f***. I've never heard of a victim being asked what they would consider appropriate. Reform is needed to change the public confidence in our judicial system

Yes those pesky judges can have ten different moods during the day, often caused by not getting milk with their porridge in the morning. Of course, the public are not subject to any mood changes.

Pro Hoc Vice

unattendedbag wrote: »

I know what ur saying, but I still think that there should be more input into sentencing than the mood of the judge. There is appalling sentences handed down in recent years for horrific sexual crimes and then you have the repeat offenders who quite honestly don't give a f***. I've never heard of a victim being asked what they would consider appropriate. Reform is needed to change the public confidence in our judicial system

Have you ever sat through a sentence? Simple yes no answer will suffice.

conorh91

I think there are two sides to the debate on sentencing. On the one hand, people allow their perception to be distorted by media reporting of exceptional cases; on the other hand, problems of inconsistency should not be dismissed out of hand. Sentencing is not an exact science, and inconsistency is an unavoidable outcome which can someday be minimized.

Attached is an empirical analysis on Irish sentencing which also compares alternative sentencing regimes. It is co-authored by Peter Charleton, Judge of the High Court.

http://www.acjrd.ie/files/Throw_Away_the_Key._Public_and_Judicial_Approaches_to_Sentencing_-_Towards_Reconcilliation_3.pdf

On a wider point about public confidence in the administration of justice, too much blame is apportioned to the superior courts. Undeservedly, because these courts are the most careful and consistent of all.

The District Court is the most tangible manifestation of the Irish courts in the lives of ordinary people, and it can appear chaotic, arbitrary and temperamental.

Given that the District Court is essentially an Executive function and is not constitutionally sacred, I think 'cleaning up' the District Court should be the first step taken by any Government trying to reform the legal system. Imagine a world where the District Court is run with the same calm, clear fairness and efficiency of the Revenue services. Now that would go a long way to ensuring public confidence in the administration of justice.

Uno my Uno.

I won't dispute the suggestion that errors are sometimes made in sentencing but I think it is clear that these decisions are usually appealed and mostly the appeal is upheld.

The Point that some sentences seem overly lenient is bang on in my opinion. The public might consider a 6 or 15 year sentence lenient for a Sexual assault or manslaughter case. I can assure you anyone who feels that way has never spent a night in prison or seen first hand the effect a long sentence has on a person.

Think about how long a year is, actually imagine how long it takes for each day to pass and turn into weeks and months, it's a long time. Now imagine spending each of those days locked in a small room, possibly with someone else you don't want to be locked into a room with it. Now imagine that for 6 years or 15 or 25. whatever it is, it isn't easy.

People who commit crimes should serve appropriate sentences, up to life on some occasions. It drives me to distraction when the "Lock em all up" brigade (I'm not saying anyone here is part of that btw) come along spouting uninformed opinions about prison and sentencing.

In respect of the high profile case in the courts at the moment, I am concerned that the prosecution may not be successful but if they are I imagine that the accused will serve a long sentence because of the nature of the alleged crime.

Taxburden carrier

Sentenced to carry the fallout of the government guarantee for life.
Sentence to be passed to subsequent generations.
No time off for good behaviour....ever !

Pat Mustard

Taxburden carrier wrote: »

Sentenced to carry the fallout of the government guarantee for life.
Sentence to be passed to subsequent generations.
No time off for good behaviour....ever !

Mod:

Less of the off-topic nonsense, please.

conorh91

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Ianyone who feels that way has never spent a night in prison or seen first hand the effect a long sentence has on a person.

I think this is a bit idealistic to be honest.

I fully accept the long term consequences of imprisonment are grave, and I tried to express that earlier in the thread, but some people are almost blind to the danger of imprisonment. Lawyers (pretty correctly!) tend to be more concerned about curtailments of personal liberty than prisoners, who often almost expect to be locked away, and don't necessarily fret about it as others might.

Kevin McCloud

Marriage, for life.