Concurrent Sentencing

Dublin Spur

I was completely appalled when I learned about the sentencing of a man who was convicted of the rape/sexual assault of 2 children last year. Apparently he received 2 x life sentences which the judge allowed to run concurrently.

This means that the amount of time he will serve will be based on the rape/sexual assault of 1 child. Where is the justice for the family of the other child ? It seems to me that got to carry out 2 crimes for the price of one, this is despicable in my opinion.

In a separate case last year a man serving an 8 year sentence was convicted of a hit and run of a teenage boy and sentenced to 20 months in jail. The judge allowed this new sentence to run concurrently and as such the man will do not extra jail time for this horrible crime. Where is the justice for boy’s family and where is the punishment for the crime ?

Surely common human sense would dictate that in both of the above cases, the 2nd sentence should commence when the first one ends. Apparently it is the judges’ discretion whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively. I am sickened to the pit of my stomach that any judge would opt to take the concurrent route in these cases and I am amazed that this sentencing did not cause uproar in the press/media.

Is this an unreasonable opinion ?

Dublin Spur

Dublin Spur wrote: »

Is this an unreasonable opinion ?

Yes. We have these threads all the time. Sentencing more or less accurately reflects how long people feel should be given in a particular case once they hear more than the headline elements. Generally speaking sentencing is in line with public ideas even if the public doesn't know it.

And it's particularly unreasonable to think serving 2 life sentences consecutively is any more of a punishment than concurrently unless you are sentencing Doctor Who.

Dublin Spur

Apologies for bringing up what may be a regular debate on here, I have not been involved in any of these debates in the past.

I think a referendum on the abolishment of concurrent sentencing would be very interesting. I would love for the people to have their say on this issue.

Dublin Spur

Dublin Spur wrote: »

Apologies for bringing up what may be a regular debate on here, I have not been involved in any of these debates in the past.

I think a referendum on the abolishment of concurrent sentencing would be very interesting. I would love for the people to have their say on this issue.

I wasn't having a pop at bringing up previous issues. Your point is thankfully more nuanced than "here's a recent case I read about briefly on the journal and I disagree with the sentence therefore sentencing needs to be harsher". That's the usual way these things start.

AFAIK there's no constitutional issue with consecutive sentencing so a referendum would be a waste of time. Also concurrent sentencing makes a lot of sense in a lot of cases. It's worth noting that there is a body of research to show that when people know the actual facts of a case they tend to agree with the judge's sentencing. The reason there's no outrage here is that there is nothing to be outraged about. Sentencing is more or less fine as it is. Reform of prisons and rehabilitation programmes is much more of an issue but people tend to get less excited and outraged by the Dickensian hell hole we call a prison in Mountjoy.

Dublin Spur

Thanks for the info and its interesting to consider the other side of the argument.

However I'm pretty sure that I would be a lot happier if the default position for sentences was consecutive. I mean look at the hit and run case - no extra time served - that's zero justice from where I'm sitting.

I take your point that a referendum on the subject would not be constitutional, but I would be very interested to see what the view of the citizens would be on this subject. I expect the numbers would be very high in favor of consecutive sentencing.

It is quite an emotional subject, I think most folk have a good sense of right and wrong, whats reasonable and whats unreasonable. For me in the 2 cases I described I am horrified at the sentencing. I don't think that's ever going to change because its the way my mind / moral compass works.

Not to be flippant but your happiness has nothing to do with the principles of sentencing. I don't know the hit and run you refer to - perhaps you can post a link - but news stories generally don't reflect the full story and often make things seem worse than they are.

Sentencing is an emotive topic but mostly because people in general are horribly misinformed about it. When they are informed about it most people are generally in agreement with how judges sentence.

Dublin Spur

Deleted User wrote: »

Not to be flippant but your happiness has nothing to do with the principles of sentencing. I don't know the hit and run you refer to - perhaps you can post a link - but news stories generally don't reflect the full story and often make things seem worse than they are.

Sentencing is an emotive topic but mostly because people in general are horribly misinformed about it. When they are informed about it most people are generally in agreement with how judges sentence.

Link
http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0312/601846-conor-hickey-cabra/

I agree that my happiness has nothing to do with it, but I am just stating my view on what I would like to see happen - nothing more, nothing less.

I think the rules on sentencing should be a reflection of how society in general views the subject. If the citizens were allowed determine the rules we would have a much fairer system in my opinion.

Grolschevik

Dublin Spur wrote: »

Link
If the citizens were allowed determine the rules we would have a much fairer system in my opinion lynch mobs.

Fixed that for you.

Dublin Spur

Grolschevik wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

Really ?

A bit harsh on the average citizen I reckon.

No lynch mobs, not looking for a Saudi solution. Instead just for consecutive sentencing as the default position.

Criminals to serve separate sentences for separate crimes is logical and would be voted in easily (in my opinion) if we were given the opportunity to decide.

Grolschevik

Dublin Spur wrote: »

Really ?

A bit harsh on the average citizen I reckon.

No lynch mobs, not looking for a Saudi solution. Instead just for consecutive sentencing as the default position.

Criminals to serve separate sentences for separate crimes is logical and would be voted in easily (in my opinion) if we were given the opportunity to decide.

I wouldn't underestimate mob mentality, but I was more being flippant. And I'd never before had the chance to do a "fixed that for ya" thing.

Dublin Spur

Dublin Spur wrote: »

Criminals to serve separate sentences for separate crimes is logical and would be voted in easily (in my opinion) if we were given the opportunity to decide.

We are a representative democracy, not a direct one. That's a matter for the Oireachtas. We might vote in all sorts of things but that doesn't make them objectively good.

Your view is far too myopic in that it presupposes two things: the sole purpose of sentencing is punishment and that imprisoning people for committing crimes is a net positive for the State.

It costs a fortune to imprison people on a long term basis. For serious crimes of course long prison sentences may be warranted. But what's the merit of consecutive life sentences other than it temporarily satisfies a misplaced public clamor for some form of vengeance?

Dublin Spur

I think you maybe confusing vengeance with justice

There should be consequences for every crime

The idea that you can essentially do 2 (or more) crimes for the price of one in my country does not rest well with me.

It looks like I'm in the minority here which is surprising - anyone I have spoken to about about this has shared my view. I thought I would raise it on here to get a wider view.

It's interesting

Dublin Spur

Dublin Spur wrote: »

I think you maybe confusing vengeance with justice

There should be consequences for every crime

The idea that you can essentially do 2 (or more) crimes for the price of one in my country does not rest well with me.

It looks like I'm in the minority here which is surprising - anyone I have spoken to about about this has shared my view. I thought I would raise it on here to get a wider view.

It's interesting

I'm not confusing vengeance with justice but you're confusing justice with penance.

The purpose of criminal sanction is threefold: discourage the prohibited behavior, punish transgressors and insure to as great a degree as possible that they don't transgress again. Sentencing isn't purely a penalty paid by the incarcerated - it's a removal from civil life. We are all better off where people are less likely to commit crimes. We stopped seeing punishments to crimes in a reciprocal fashion (the price for 1 crime is X, the price for 2 crimes is 2X) about 1600 years ago.

There's no benefit to consecutive over concurrent sentencing that I'm aware of. Perhaps if you can point me towards some?

For what it's worth nobody I talk to thinks it's a good idea and they all studied law. Interesting

Dublin Spur

Well it's a tough sell to me, I don't think studying law gives anyone's view more weight. It's all about your human sence of what is appropriate justice.

I don't think concurrent sentencing it's fair to the victims, in the 2 cases I have highlighted I don't not think appropriate justice has been achieved. The system has failed the victims and they have not receive justice.

By applying consecutive sentencing we would ensure that
1. The time = The crimes
2. The public risk posed by the criminal in free society is removed
3. Robust Punishment for the offender
4. A stronger sence of justice/closure for the victim and their family

The offenders welfare should be the least important consideration in my opinion, and the severity of their crime(s) should influence the level of consideration we should give to their needs.

I honestly believe this - Maybe I'll move to Texas

ArmaniJeanss

Dublin Spur wrote: »

By applying consecutive sentencing we would ensure that
1. The time = The crimes
2. The public risk posed by the criminal in free society is removed
3. Robust Punishment for the offender
4. A stronger sence of justice/closure for the victim and their family

There are a few downsides to consider.

5. Reduced incentive for offenders to plead guilty so presumably there'd be a lot more not guilty pleas wasting court, police and witness time.
6. Would stop criminals agreeing to tic up for other crimes (caught committing one burglary and asked for 57 others to be taken into consideration). Tocking is generally regarded as good as it gives victims some closure and also helps close cases to further investigation.
7. Would open a different public endangerment issue - If I'm about to be caught commiting a crime worth 5 years prison I may accept it as one of those things. If however I'm going to get 37 x 5 year sentences I'm much more likely to shoot my way out.
8. Your plan looks to have an exponential increase in prison spaces and attendant costs. (As an aside people may be less inclinded to vote Yes in your referendum if its tagged with '1.75% levy on all income to pay for it').

Victor

Dublin Spur wrote: »

I don't think concurrent sentencing it's fair to the victims, in the 2 cases I have highlighted

Out of hundreds of thousands of cases per year? Hardly a representative sample.

Dublin Spur

Interesting points

However I don't see how any of them would apply in the two sample cases I have referred to.

I both cases I think consecutive sentencing was definitely the way to go.

I really struggle with the idea that the rapist essentially ended up (in time terms) getting punished for only one of the rapes. A 2 for the price of one is a terrible message to be sending out to the public.

I the hit and run case he will serve no time for that disgusting act and yet the family have a life sentence. It's just unfair but I appriciate your points.

Shocked nobody yet agrees with me ? Funny old world eh ?

Dublin Spur

Victor wrote: »

Out of hundreds of thousands of cases per year? Hardly a representative sample.

True, but it was these cases that got me thinking about this whole area

I had never thought about it before and I am shocked that it's normal practice

Dublin Spur

Dublin Spur wrote: »

True, but it was these cases that got me thinking about this whole area

I had never thought about it before and I am shocked that it's normal practice

Because it works in normal practice. Also you're assuming that the rapes were sentenced individually at that time period: the fact there were two of them would be an aggrevating factor to be considered during sentencing (stand to be corrected by my peers if I'm wrong on that)

Dublin Spur

They were sentenced individually to the best of my knowledge

2 life sentences to be run concurrently is the official line I think

Really smells like 2 for the price of 1 to me

Dublin Spur

Dublin Spur wrote: »

They were sentenced individually to the best of my knowledge

2 life sentences to be run concurrently is the official line I think

Really smells like 2 for the price of 1 to me

No, you don't get what I mean. The fact that he committed a second rape means that the sentence for each individual rape is longer than it would have been otherwise as the fact of the second rape makes the first one worse - therefore attracting a greater penalty.

Dublin Spur

Deleted User wrote: »

No, you don't get what I mean. The fact that he committed a second rape means that the sentence for each individual rape is longer than it would have been otherwise as the fact of the second rape makes the first one worse - therefore attracting a greater penalty.

Okay, I thought they were treated as 2 equal crimes

One isn't worse that the other though is it ?

both equally horrific

Bloke should never be freed - he could be out in 20yrs as it stands

Seems very wrong to me

Cheers for the input all the same

Dublin Spur

Dublin Spur wrote: »

Okay, I thought they were treated as 2 equal crimes

One isn't worse that the other though is it ?

both equally horrific

Bloke should never be freed - he could be out in 20yrs as it stands

Seems very wrong to me

Cheers for the input all the same

No you're still not getting it. Both rapes make the other worse so both attract a higher sentence. Those sentences then run concurrently

Tea 1000

Deleted User wrote: »

No, you don't get what I mean. The fact that he committed a second rape means that the sentence for each individual rape is longer than it would have been otherwise as the fact of the second rape makes the first one worse - therefore attracting a greater penalty.

I didn't know this happens.
Funny, I don't like concurrent sentencing either, and couldn't see a point, which is why I came into this thread from the opening page. I had the idea that while I knew a simple doubling (or times x) of the sentence wasn't a great solution in practice, that a percentage increase would be the way forward instead. As in, you commit crime A. It's discovered that you've also done it 3 more times before. Therefore it's not a one-off or any other kind of temporary spike in your normal behaviour, so you get Y years for your sentence of crime X and Y+5% on top per subsequent crime. (simplistic, but a more practicable solution with that basis could be implemented).
However, what you describe here is more or less similar, albiet in a different way.
Maybe the law is a bit over-complicated for it's own (and us outsider's looking in!!) good.

Little CuChulainn

Deleted User wrote: »

There's no benefit to consecutive over concurrent sentencing that I'm aware of. Perhaps if you can point me towards some?

Burglar gets three one month sentences to run concurrently. Can't commit crime for one month. Burglar gets three on month sentences to run consecutively. Cannot commit crime for three months. An extra two months were that particular criminal can't commit burglary. Profit.

Deleted User wrote: »

For what it's worth nobody I talk to thinks it's a good idea and they all studied law. Interesting

I don't think I know anyone in any line of work who would wish for the potential of repeat customers to be reduced.

Eugene Norman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We are a representative democracy, not a direct one. That's a matter for the Oireachtas. We might vote in all sorts of things but that doesn't make them objectively good.

Your view is far too myopic in that it presupposes two things: the sole purpose of sentencing is punishment and that imprisoning people for committing crimes is a net positive for the State.

It costs a fortune to imprison people on a long term basis. For serious crimes of course long prison sentences may be warranted. But what's the merit of consecutive life sentences other than it temporarily satisfies a misplaced public clamor for some form of vengeance?

The point of consecutive life sentences ( which as you know aren't for life) is to stop killing sprees where your last murder or two is free, provided they are tried together.

Eugene Norman

What would happen in the Irish system if somebody is arrested for an actual killing spree as in Carolina? Say there's 9 murders and one trial? Are 8 concurrent?

ohnonotgmail

In one of the examples given the criminal was already serving an 8 year sentence. the sentence for the hit and run offence was set to run concurrently to the existing sentence. Effectively they got off scott free for the hit and run. No justice for the victims at all. I can understand concurrent sentences where offences are committed together as part of a single episode of crime but the example given by the OP frankly stinks.

galljga1

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. We have these threads all the time. Sentencing more or less accurately reflects how long people feel should be given in a particular case once they hear more than the headline elements. Generally speaking sentencing is in line with public ideas even if the public doesn't know it.

And it's particularly unreasonable to think serving 2 life sentences consecutively is any more of a punishment than concurrently unless you are sentencing Doctor Who.

Sheer nonsense. Check out what a life sentence actually means in Ireland.

Dublin Spur

galljga1 wrote: »

Sheer nonsense. Check out what a life sentence actually means in Ireland.

indeed, in the double rape case it is possible that the guilty party could be out in less than 20 years.

Consecutive sentencing here with no parole would have guaranteed a sentence of around 40 years, thus delivering an appropriate punishment for a sickening crime whilst at the same time protecting the citizens from this man for a long period of time. It's a win win.

Dublin Spur

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

In one of the examples given the criminal was already serving an 8 year sentence. the sentence for the hit and run offence was set to run concurrently to the existing sentence. Effectively they got off scott free for the hit and run. No justice for the victims at all. I can understand concurrent sentences where offences are committed together as part of a single episode of crime but the example given by the OP frankly stinks.

it really is quite upsetting

Tom Young

Discussed before, a bit: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=83758782

Totality principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totality_principle

ohnonotgmail

Tom Young wrote: »

Discussed before, a bit: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=83758782

Totality principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totality_principle

From the Wiki article you linked to

• Concurrent sentences: offences arise out of the same incident; there are a series of offences of the same or similar kind, specifically when committed against the same person.
• Consecutive sentences: offences arise out of unrelated facts or incidents; offences that are of the same or similar kind but where the overall criminality will not sufficiently be reflected by concurrent sentences; one or more offence(s) qualifies for a statutory minimum sentence and concurrent sentences would improperly undermine that minimum.

Surely the example the OP provided regarding the hit and run breaks this principle as the offences were not in any way related?

Tom Young

Yes, I see what you mean. It doesn't operate that way though.

The principle has been stated many times in various forms: 'when a number of offences are being dealt with and specific punishments in respect of them are being totted up to make a total, it is always necessary for the court to take a last look at the total just to see whether it looks wrong'; 'when ... cases of multiplicity of offences come before the court, the court must not content itself by doing the arithmetic and passing the sentence which the arithmetic produces. It must look at the totality of the criminal behaviour and ask itself what is the appropriate sentence for all the offences.'

ohnonotgmail

Tom Young wrote: »

Yes, I see what you mean. It doesn't operate that way though.

This applies when multiple offences come before the court for sentencing. I get that. This is not what happened in the example provided. It was a not a case of a burglar coming before the court charged with 50 burglaries. Whatever way you look at it the judges decision to award a concurrent sentence for a separate offence that occurred on a separate date and that was sentenced separately is just plain wrong.

Tom Young

Well, I wasn't planning on going here, but I will.

The essential purpose of criminal law is the elimination of crime; Punishment is the means by which criminal law achieves this objective. Punishment facilitates the elimination of crime in a number of ways.

Rehabilitation

Usually punishment contributes to the rehabilitation of the offender. If rehabilitation occurs successfully, the offender should not re-offend. It is obvious that the absence of any decent or relapse back to criminal behaviour contributes to the elimination of crime.
 
Deterrence
 
Punishment usually acts as a deterrent to both the offender and would-be offenders, rendering them less likely to engage in criminal activity.
 
Incapacitation
 
Punishment that results in incarceration incapacitates the offender entirely. The offender should be unable to physically commit further offences during the duration of his incarceration. Other incapacitation might be, for example, signing on, curfew or attendance at treatment programmes.

Our prison and sentencing system is far from utopian. Though, while I can see what the point the OP makes is, and I decry the unfairness of the system, I can also see some sense to it.

See here by way of live example: http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/AB06F71F89A9AEB380257DA300590E8F

There is often no statutory law relating to consecutive or concurrent sentences relevant to the circumstances of certain cases. It is often a matter for the common law.

There are some cases which have referred to applicable principles. The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. G.McC. [2003] 3 I.R. 609 pointed out that it was the practice that a discretion in favour of consecutive sentences was to be exercised sparingly. The totality principle was also referred to: the overall sentence, after taking consecutive sentences into account, should be a just sentence.

ohnonotgmail

Honestly, if you can see some sense in that particular decision well that beggars belief.

I find it interesting that not once was the rights of victims mentioned.

jimmycrackcorm

I don't understand the point of concurrent sentences when it has no effect on the time served that would be served anyway. Why bother?

Dublin Spur

the family of the deceased boy received no justice whatsoever
the offender will pay no price for taking a life
it really is that simple

Are there any groups calling for/lobbying for new sentencing guidelines that would make it harder for Judges to apply these type of scandalous sentences ?

Zambia

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Honestly, if you can see some sense in that particular decision well that beggars belief.

I find it interesting that not once was the rights of victims mentioned.

What are the victims rights?

Little CuChulainn

Zambia wrote: »

What are the victims rights?

The right to life is a strong one.

hullaballoo

That is a right that is extinguished when you're dead. You cannot recover from death.

The criminal justice system is supposed to work on behalf of public society, not individual victims. That said, we seem to be at some sort of halfway house now on that front with the consideration of victim impact statements becoming part of the sentencing process.

ohnonotgmail

hullaballoo wrote: »

That is a right that is extinguished when you're dead. You cannot recover from death.

The criminal justice system is supposed to work on behalf of public society, not individual victims. That said, we seem to be at some sort of halfway house now on that front with the consideration of victim impact statements becoming part of the sentencing process.

The person who dies is not the only victim.

MarkAnthony

Dublin Spur wrote: »

Are there any groups calling for/lobbying for new sentencing guidelines that would make it harder for Judges to apply these type of scandalous sentences ?

The vast majority of voters would like to see crimes punished in the harshest possible way, with prisons costing the tax payer the least possible amount.

The lobby groups tend to want to look at alternatives to custodial sentances, and/or improve prison standards. Many people involved in this side of things, myself included, are well aware long sentances and harsh prison condistions ≠ a lower crime rate or safer society. In fact the majority of US states are held up as a total failure, and a vastly expensive one at that, in regards to crime.

The Scandinavian model has some advantages and the Japanese model also works, for them, it would be unlikely to work here because of lack of societial shame and would be vastly unpopular becuase of it's extremely short sentances.

With any discussion on sentances, lets cut to the chase - who pays?

Eugene Norman

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The vast majority of voters would like to see crimes punished in the harshest possible way, with prisons costing the tax payer the least possible amount.

The lobby groups tend to want to look at alternatives to custodial sentances, and/or improve prison standards. Many people involved in this side of things, myself included, are well aware long sentances and harsh prison condistions ≠ a lower crime rate or safer society. In fact the majority of US states are held up as a total failure, and a vastly expensive one at that, in regards to crime.

The Scandinavian model has some advantages and the Japanese model also works, for them, it would be unlikely to work here because of lack of societial shame and would be vastly unpopular becuase of it's extremely short sentances.

With any discussion on sentances, lets cut to the chase - who pays?

These are obstufcations. In the cases we are talking about -- serious crimes -- the guilty party is going to jail anyway. The question is for how long. The extra cost comes at the end of the sentence so it costs the future and the future is generally richer.

Basically I agree that a sum total of minor crimes shouldn't add up to life but all serious crimes, from rape to murder to gbh should be consecutive. Otherwise it encourages mass killings or rapes when the perp knows he has one under his belt already.

MarkAnthony

Eugene Norman wrote: »

These are obstufcations. In the cases we are talking about -- serious crimes -- the guilty party is going to jail anyway. The question is for how long. The extra cost comes at the end of the sentence so it costs the future and the future is generally richer.

Are you going for some sort of irony award with that?

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Basically I agree that a sum total of minor crimes shouldn't add up to life but all serious crimes, from rape to murder to gbh should be consecutive. Otherwise it encourages mass killings or rapes when the perp knows he has one under his belt already.

That's simply, patently and to be honest, obviously untrue. In fact it's completely counter to what you're saying. If a life sentence is given for a single rape or murder, one might as well think in for a penny, in for a pound. Perhaps you're fundamentally misunderstanding how a life tariff works? A life sentence in the case of murder, the only sentence available in that case, means that when (if) the person is released they are released on licence and subject to recall. A more serious and dangerous offender is less likely to be released than someone who kills someone who, say, kills the rapist of their daughter.

How do you think consecutive life sentences would work exactly?

Nermal

MarkAnthony wrote: »

With any discussion on sentances, lets cut to the chase - who pays?

The US model fails because more than half the prison population are in there for drug offences. Stop imprisoning people for that, and double everyone else's sentence. Problem solved.

MarkAnthony

Nermal wrote: »

The US model fails because more than half the prison population are in there for drug offences. Stop imprisoning people for that, and double everyone else's sentence. Problem solved.

While I agree with the first part (to a degree) actually by definition you just just make the problem exactly the same.

Dublin Spur

Does anyone think the family of the deceased boy received justice ?

Simple yes or no will suffice.

Dublin Spur

Dublin Spur wrote: »

Does anyone think the family of the deceased boy received justice ?

Simple yes or no will suffice.

What penalty would suffice? No penalty can remove the grief or the pain or the loss. That's why criminal sentencing isn't about the victim - it's about society as a whole.

johnnyskeleton

Dublin Spur wrote: »

Interesting points

However I don't see how any of them would apply in the two sample cases I have referred to.

I both cases I think consecutive sentencing was definitely the way to go.

I really struggle with the idea that the rapist essentially ended up (in time terms) getting punished for only one of the rapes. A 2 for the price of one is a terrible message to be sending out to the public.

I the hit and run case he will serve no time for that disgusting act and yet the family have a life sentence. It's just unfair but I appriciate your points.

Shocked nobody yet agrees with me ? Funny old world eh ?

You cant have consecutive life sentences. The fact that he is serving two is likely to lessen considerably his opportunity to be released on licence. Judges have no discrertion on this however.