Sentencing in Ireland.

El Guapo!

What's your opinion on sentencing, or more specifically, mandatory sentencing?

We're all familiar with scenarios in this country that baffle us all one way or another. Situations like the infamous garlic importer who got 6 years while other people with convictions as long as your arm who commit despicable crimes routinely get a slap on the wrist.
But if you had it your way, what would you do? And I don't mean burn them all!! Do we go the way a lot of U.S States have lengthy mandatory minimums for certain crimes? Or follow their 3 strikes rule? (Which can be incredibly harsh in certain situations.)

The reason I ask is I was watching a documentary on tv last night and it followed young offenders facing long stretches in prison. One young guy got involved with a gang and ended up facing 130 years in prison.

The one that stood out for me though was a 17 year old kid and his 2 friends decided to break into a house. When they did, the owner shot them; killing one of the teenagers. But what shocked me was the other 2 teens were held responsible and were charged with the murder, even though it was the homeowner who fired at them. They were sentenced to 55 years in prison.

Now, even though they were totally in the wrong, and breaking into the house was a scumbag thing to do, I think charging them with the murder and giving them 55 years was extremely OTT. They're not killers. They made a stupid choice but I don't think the punishment fits the crime.

So do you think that was fair? Should we go down the same route with sentencing in this country?

mynamejeff

how about the sentence fitting the crime.
or the sentence decided by the amount of damage it did to the victim (tempered by a informed and rational and socially sane judge)

pmy.murphy

Should reintroduce the hanging,drawing and quartering of offenders

mickydoomsux

A good start would be a life sentence actually meaning someone spends the rest of their life behind bars.

DrGreenthumb

thekeytosentenceningisspacingifyoudontspacethingswellanduseproperpunctuationitcanbedifficulttoreadfailuretousethesecanresultinamessthatisutterlyincomprehensiblesonexttimeyouaregoingtoformasentencedontforgetthesetips

kneemos

Do ye ever get tired of this same auld sho1te?

El Guapo!

kneemos wrote: »

Do ye ever get tired of this same auld sho1te?

Do you ever get tired of complaining?

moc moc a moc

Mandatory sentences to live in somewhere like Darndale for any judge who gives out more than three suspended "sentences". The problem will swiftly solve itself.

Tombi!

I think it's a bad idea but given how the judges tend to give light sentences in the case of many convictions because the little scumbag criminal beat up an aul granny and faked a smile in court, they're practically a necessity. If only they were put to use for violent criminals.

For Forks Sake

kneemos wrote: »

Do ye ever get tired of this same auld sho1te?

You probably need more or less fibre in your diet.

Flood

Its worth doing a crime here for the little sentence one gets.

kneemos

El Guapo! wrote: »

Do you ever get tired of complaining?

You'll be the first to know son.

mickydoomsux

Concurrent sentencing should be done away with as well.

As it stands the crim is only really getting punished for the "worst" offense committed in these situations. They are getting away completely free with the rest.

Agent Coulson

Get rid of concurrent sentencing for multiple crimes and let them serve a consecutive sentences for all there crimes.

El Weirdo

kneemos wrote: »

Do ye ever get tired of this same auld sho1te?

Maybe you should start a Feedback thread about it.

kneemos

El Weirdo wrote: »

Maybe you should start a Feedback thread about it.

I did ages ago .

SummerSummit

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Get rid of concurrent sentencing for multiple crimes and let them serve a consecutive sentences for all there crimes.

Yeah the current system is ridiculous. Basically a 2(or more)for1 deal. Rob 20 houses and get sentenced for 1 with the rest all concurrent. Stupid.

Eutow

Stop letting people out early for good behaviour. If you get 20 years, you serve 20 years. No getting out for Christmas and christenings etc.

Tougher bail. If you have previous serious convictions no bail allowed.

Consective sentencing instead of concurrent.

Life means life until the day you die.

Actually try and rehabilitate prisioners so when they are released they can become productive members of the public on the outside.

Hans Bricks

When you reach x number of convictions, automatic long sentence. If repeat offenders on release, out on probation appear again in court and are found not to be seeking either education and/or employment, this should be taken into consideration upon sentencing. We live in a basic welfare state. Take advantage of it if you're that vulnerable in terms of employment opportunities, stuck for money. There really is no excuse to be thieving, robbing or selling dope to "get by". In fact it's laughable really.

RonanP77

Bring back the death penalty. It cost a fortune to keep the scumbags inside.

dxhound2005

El Guapo! wrote: »

What's your opinion on sentencing, or more specifically, mandatory sentencing?

We're all familiar with scenarios in this country that baffle us all one way or another. Situations like the infamous garlic importer who got 6 years

I'm familiar with the fact the it was reduced to 2 years on appeal. Light enough (in my opinion) for multiple crimes over 4 years which netted him €1.6 million. Another gentleman who set out with equal deliberation to defraud the State, but only got away with €248,000, was sentenced to twelve and a half years. No claims by anyone to be baffled by that and no public campaigns on his behalf.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0721/304028-murrayp/

The court of public opinion is not the place to decide these matters.

cloud493

RonanP77 wrote: »

Bring back the death penalty. It cost a fortune to keep the scumbags inside.

Sure its expensive executing them as well. Plus the EU would probably never stand for it.

RonanP77

cloud493 wrote:

Sure its expensive executing them as well. Plus the EU would probably never stand for it.

Only if you use these new fancy methods, a length of rope is cheap enough.

Pedro K

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Concurrent sentencing should be done away with as well.

As it stands the crim is only really getting punished for the "worst" offense committed in these situations. They are getting away completely free with the rest.

I've said it before on other threads. It incentivises crime. May as well commit a few more while awaiting trial...

dxhound2005

I was going to ask where will we get all the jail space for these recividists and those who get consecutive sentences.

But of course now that the martyrs (I will go to jail before I will pay any fine) no longer have that option, there will be loads of space.

Mint Aero

We badly need a three strikes rule in this country.

VisibleGorilla

Eutow wrote: »

Stop letting people out early for good behaviour. If you get 20 years, you serve 20 years. No getting out for Christmas and christenings etc.

Tougher bail. If you have previous serious convictions no bail allowed.

Consective sentencing instead of concurrent.

Life means life until the day you die.

Actually try and rehabilitate prisioners so when they are released they can become productive members of the public on the outside.

Your last point pretty much goes against all the others?

Eutow

Eutow wrote: »

Stop letting people out early for good behaviour. If you get 20 years, you serve 20 years. No getting out for Christmas and christenings etc.
...
...
Actually try and rehabilitate prisioners so when they are released they can become productive members of the public on the outside.

Why would a prisoner engage in rehabilitation if there was no prospect of getting out early for good behaviour? There is no incentive.

the groutch

any system that allows people with 50+ convictions to walk free is completely broken.

I'm not saying have something as extreme as the American 3 strike rules, but maybe something along the lines of only first ever conviction can have a supended sentence, and from the 5th one onwards any conviction is a manditory one year with no early release, regardless of the offence.

Egginacup

El Guapo! wrote: »

What's your opinion on sentencing, or more specifically, mandatory sentencing?

We're all familiar with scenarios in this country that baffle us all one way or another. Situations like the infamous garlic importer who got 6 years while other people with convictions as long as your arm who commit despicable crimes routinely get a slap on the wrist.
But if you had it your way, what would you do? And I don't mean burn them all!! Do we go the way a lot of U.S States have lengthy mandatory minimums for certain crimes? Or follow their 3 strikes rule? (Which can be incredibly harsh in certain situations.)

The reason I ask is I was watching a documentary on tv last night and it followed young offenders facing long stretches in prison. One young guy got involved with a gang and ended up facing 130 years in prison.

The one that stood out for me though was a 17 year old kid and his 2 friends decided to break into a house. When they did, the owner shot them; killing one of the teenagers. But what shocked me was the other 2 teens were held responsible and were charged with the murder, even though it was the homeowner who fired at them. They were sentenced to 55 years in prison.

Now, even though they were totally in the wrong, and breaking into the house was a scumbag thing to do, I think charging them with the murder and giving them 55 years was extremely OTT. They're not killers. They made a stupid choice but I don't think the punishment fits the crime.

So do you think that was fair? Should we go down the same route with sentencing in this country?

The sentencing in the US is like something crossed between Alice-in-wonderland and Orwell. It is sick and cretinous and completely bereft of logic. I read about one guy who was at a house party. Somebody asked to borrow his car to go on a beer run. He gave him the keys and went back to his partying. The guy who borrowed the car got into some kind of altercation at the convenience store and somebody was killed. Car owner was done for accessory to murder and banged up for life.

And there are people who actually say "yeah well it's his fault for letting the guy borrow his car!"

It's one thing to driving a guy to the scene whereby you know he's going to commit a crime. That at least is accessory.

VisibleGorilla

the groutch wrote: »

any system that allows people with 50+ convictions to walk free is completely broken.

I'm not saying have something as extreme as the American 3 strike rules, but maybe something along the lines of only first ever conviction can have a supended sentence, and from the 5th one onwards any conviction is a manditory one year with no early release, regardless of the offence.

That is just as extreme as 3 strikes.....

mickydoomsux

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

That is just as extreme as 3 strikes.....

**** it so. Nice cup of tea and a chat with a social worker instead.

whisky_galore

Two words. Prison space.

Until this is sorted we'll have more of the same, building new prisons is not sexy nor is it a vote-getter.

Eutow

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

Your last point pretty much goes against all the others?

How so? Prision is supposed to punish individuals, but it is also there to try and rehabilitate them, so that when they are released they won't revert to crime. At the moment it doesn't seem to be working with the amount of people getting released early and then commiting more crimes after they have been released.

Deleted User wrote: »

Why would a prisoner engage in rehabilitation if there was no prospect of getting out early for good behaviour? There is no incentive.

If you are sentenced to 20 years then that is what somebody should serve. If they have a problem with that then they should have thought about that before commiting the crime. Irish sentencing is a joke with people who have committed serious offences getting released early due to "good behaviour". Well, if they were good on the outside they wouldn't be in jail.

The incentive would be that they are released after their time has been completed. If they commit a crime in jail such as assaulting a prison officer or fellow inmate, then they should have time added on to their sentence. I don't believe rapists, murderers and those with multiple convictions should have their time reduced due to good behaviour.

VisibleGorilla

Eutow wrote: »

How so? Prision is supposed to punish individuals, but it is also there to try and rehabilitate them, so that when they are released they won't revert to crime. At the moment it doesn't seem to be working with the amount of people getting released early and then commiting more crimes after they have been released.

You think that

-no early release for good behaviour,
-No getting out for Christmas and christenings and
-doing every single day of your sentence
-Tougher bail.Previous = no bail allowed.
- Consective sentencing.
- Life means life until the day you die.

Are indicative of rehabilitation?

mickydoomsux

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

You think that

-no early release for good behaviour,
-No getting out for Christmas and christenings and
-doing every single day of your sentence
-Tougher bail.Previous = no bail allowed.
- Consective sentencing.
- Life means life until the day you die.

Are indicative of rehabilitation?

Nah, obviously repeat convictions stretching into the double or triple digits with many offenses committed while out on bail/temporary/early release are indicative of rehabilitation.

tom_k

Looking to the American system is not the answer in our country IMO.

I believe crimes which involve the violation of the home should carry stiff mandatory sentences.

Unprovoked attacks, crimes against the elderly and the young should also carry minimum sentences.

Repeat offenders should face a minimum of 5 years if the conviction tally exceeds ten offences.

Remission of jail time should only be given where detainees engage in education/retraining programmes, drug/alcohol rehab programs and/or anger management counselling services during and after a sentence in a real and meaningful way.

Those involved in financial crimes where public safety isn't directly threatened by the convicted person should receive suspended custodial sentences but with punitive fines, for example in the case of the garlic importer make his fine in the region of double what he gained in the commission of the crime. An enforcement order or similar attached to earnings could be used to ensure the payment of the entire amount over time.

In the odd case where we hear that an offender is considered to be at high risk of reoffending upon release then a lifetime monitoring system should be employed.

Finally, I believe that too much emphasis is placed on the tough lives that criminals have endured prior to court appearances. This emphasis should be refocused on the victims of crime.

Eutow

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

You think that

-no early release for good behaviour,
-No getting out for Christmas and christenings and
-doing every single day of your sentence
-Tougher bail.Previous = no bail allowed.
- Consective sentencing.
- Life means life until the day you die.

Are indicative of rehabilitation?

You think suspended sentences, minimal jail time, easy bail conditions are working. Obviously the serving time until the day you die would be for extreme cases, some would prefer capital punishment which I don't agree with. Rehab for those that will be released eventually. Why should some scumbag that raped somebody, that killed somebody in cold blood or someone with multiple convictions get released early for good behaviour, or for Christmas? If they were good they wouldn't have committed the crime they were jailed for. Tough sh!t if they miss these events.

moc moc a moc

moc moc a moc wrote: »

Mandatory sentences to live in somewhere like Darndale for any judge who gives out more than three suspended "sentences". The problem will swiftly solve itself.

But that's just silly stuff. Very very silly.

Of course suspended sentences are appropriate in a wide range of cases, a classic one where it is often used is cultivation of cannabis with a large number of plants but little equipment by someone who pleads guilty.

El Guapo!

Egginacup wrote: »

The sentencing in the US is like something crossed between Alice-in-wonderland and Orwell. It is sick and cretinous and completely bereft of logic. I read about one guy who was at a house party. Somebody asked to borrow his car to go on a beer run. He gave him the keys and went back to his partying. The guy who borrowed the car got into some kind of altercation at the convenience store and somebody was killed. Car owner was done for accessory to murder and banged up for life.

And there are people who actually say "yeah well it's his fault for letting the guy borrow his car!"

It's one thing to driving a guy to the scene whereby you know he's going to commit a crime. That at least is accessory.

Do you have a link to that case? I'm not saying you're lying or anything, I'd just like to read it. It seems crazy and extremely unfair. I find it hard to believe.
But then again I find the story I told in the OP hard to believe too, but it's true.

Eutow

El Guapo! I found it strange myself so I googled it and got this:


http://www.thenation.com/article/178984/why-florida-man-facing-life-prison-lending-out-his-car-and-going-sleep

Something to do with the Felony Rule/Law. That is just a plain stupid law.

El Guapo!

Eutow wrote: »

El Guapo! I found it strange myself so I googled it and got this:


http://www.thenation.com/article/178984/why-florida-man-facing-life-prison-lending-out-his-car-and-going-sleep

Something to do with the Felony Rule/Law. That is just a plain stupid law.

Wow. That is absolutely bananas.

Neyite

Mint Aero wrote: »

We badly need a three strikes rule in this country.

Or a kind of compound sentencing. Firstly determine minimum sentences for crimes - say a burglary is a minimum 3 years sentence, then your second conviction for that is an automatic doubling of that minimum sentence, your third would see you serving a minimum of 9 years and so on. And not suspended either.

I do see that reductions for good behaviour work, but instead of you getting an automatic halving of the sentence for being a good prisoner and sitting playing your playstation all day that it gets awarded for genuine rehabilitation participation.

Neyite

Neyite wrote: »

Or a kind of compound sentencing. Firstly determine minimum sentences for crimes - say a burglary is a minimum 3 years sentence, then your second conviction for that is an automatic doubling of that minimum sentence, your third would see you serving a minimum of 9 years and so on. And not suspended either.

I do see that reductions for good behaviour work, but instead of you getting an automatic halving of the sentence for being a good prisoner and sitting playing your playstation all day that it gets awarded for genuine rehabilitation participation.

I'd just be out now, but on the other hand I'd never steal apples again.

howamidifferent

RonanP77 wrote:

Only if you use these new fancy methods, a length of rope is cheap enough.

Especially if you get it in the lidl bargain alert threads

Agent Coulson

whisky_galore wrote: »

Two words. Prison space.

Until this is sorted we'll have more of the same, building new prisons is not sexy nor is it a vote-getter.

Honestly it would get my vote.

whisky_galore

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Honestly it would get my vote.

Well, you're more enlightened than many of the chattering classes who harp on about harsher sentences when you've got nowhere to put people in the first place.

suicide_circus

End concurrent sentencing

Electronic ankle tags for those on bail for violent offenses or burglary

Chain gangs for repeat offenders

Increase spending on training and education for prisoners

osarusan

Yes to stiffer sentences and respective guidelines.

Yes to consecutive sentencing.

Yes to re-writing legislation where necessary.

No to mandatory minimum sentencing.

Neyite

osarusan wrote: »

No to mandatory minimum sentencing.

Why not?

osarusan

Neyite wrote: »

Why not?

Because, inevitably, somebody gets punished way too harshly.