Concurrent Sentencing

MarkAnthony

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Constitutionally created prerogative IIRC. Interesting thread/question in of itself!

Pro Hoc Vice

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Since life sentences are not for life (at one point in the 80's the average time in prison for life was a decade) the consecutive life sentences begin after the normal life prisoner would be released on licence. The parole board would inform him that he's served one and now starts the second one.

You do not understand how life sentence works, yes at one stage the Average time served was less than 10 years, the important word being average. Currently the average is more like 17 years again average. A number of people and if memory serves (multiple murders) have either died in prison or served more than 30 years. The judge can only impose life for murder, early release is the prerogative of the executive, there is nothing stoping the minister releasing a prisoner serving consecutive sentences when he wants.

Pro Hoc Vice

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Interesting I suppose it could be a condition of the licence if the facts support it.

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A passport is not an absolute right, but there do need to be solid reasons before you can be refused a passport.

It wouldn't be usual for a lifer released on licence to be denied a passport. Usually before releasing you they consider whether you will present a danger to the public and, if the conclusion is that you won't, for what reason would they refuse you a passport? Would you suddenly become a danger if you travelled to another country?

There could be circumstances where, e.g. your release conditions prevent you from travelling, and in those cases a passport could be refused. But I would think it would be rare.

Dublin Spur

life should mean life

I would love the population to decide on these issues

Its the only way we get the system we want

Pro Hoc Vice

Dublin Spur wrote: »

life should mean life

I would love the population to decide on these issues

Its the only way we get the system we want

The decision to release a life prisoner is for politicians and can easily be changed. But as with most things be careful what you wish for. While murder is murder not all murders are the same.

Eugene Norman

234 wrote: »

You never finish serving a life sentence.

Yes you do when released. From prison. Which is not serving the sentence in any significant way. What exactly gets a life sentencee back into prison -- another murder? Has anybody gone back for considerable time after release for minor violations?

Eugene Norman

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

You do not understand how life sentence works, yes at one stage the Average time served was less than 10 years, the important word being average. Currently the average is more like 17 years again average. A number of people and if memory serves (multiple murders) have either died in prison or served more than 30 years. The judge can only impose life for murder, early release is the prerogative of the executive, there is nothing stoping the minister releasing a prisoner serving consecutive sentences when he wants.

What ever have you the idea that I don't understand averages. If the average was a decade and some people serve 30 years then, appallingly some people served less than a 10 years for murder. Given concurrent sentences this could apply to multiple murders.

Peregrinus

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Yes you do when released. From prison. Which is not serving the sentence. What exactly gets a life sentencee back into prison -- another murder? Has anybody gone back for considerable time after release for minor violations?

It's rare for prisoners released on licence to go back to prison, but it does happen. People don't get sent back for "minor violations", and nor should they.

You can't be sent back (except upon conviction for a new offence) once the full term of your original sentence has expired - e.g. if released on licence after serving 9 years of a 12-year sentence, you can only be on licence for 3 years.

Eugene Norman

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's rare for prisoners released on licence to go back to prison, but it does happen. People don't get sent back for "minor violations", and nor should they.

You can't be sent back (except upon conviction for a new offence) once the full term of your original sentence has expired - e.g. if released on licence after serving 9 years of a 12-year sentence, you can only be on licence for 3 years.

We were talking about life sentences which I was told "never end". Clearly in terms of imprisonment they do end, and if you don't go back to prison for anything but major violations (presumably another serious crime) and you keep your passport I'm not see the "not ending" bit. Can someone out on licence leave the country?

Peregrinus

Eugene Norman wrote: »

We were talking about life sentences which I was told "never end". Clearly in terms of imprisonment they do end, and if you don't go back to prison for anything but major violations (presumably another serious crime) and you keep your passport I'm not see the "not ending" bit.

It's not over because you can be sent back to prison without having committed or being convicted of any other offence, which is a fairly major thing, in my view.

If people out on licence are rarely sent back to prison, does that not suggest that the system is working reasonably well, and that people judged not to be a danger to the community and released on licence are, by and large, not a danger to the community? And possibly, just possibly, the fact that they can be returned to prison is one of the things that keeps them on the straight and narrow?

Or are you aware of people released on licence and then causing all kinds of mayhem and damage? Is there a problem here that we need to fix? Cause, you know, if the system ain't broke, my instinct would be not to fix it.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Can someone out on licence leave the country?

If their licence conditions don't prevent it, yes. (And, usually, they don't prevent it.)

(Realistically, it's hard to prevent anyone leaving this country if they are minded to. We have a land border with no border controls.)

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

MarkAnthony

Dublin Spur wrote: »

life should mean life

I would love the population to decide on these issues

Its the only way we get the system we want

Someone who kills a peadophile who's raped their daughter deserves the same sentance as a someone who's raped and killed multiple times?

We have the system we want - collectively - as a population.

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly

Abolishing concurrent sentencing sounds like a good idea in theory but could lead to all manner of unintended consequences.

For example a murderer who kills one person could be dealt with more leniently than a dangerous driver who kills three ?

As for denying passports how would this work with persons with dual/multiple nationalities ?

Little CuChulainn

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Someone who kills a peadophile who's raped their daughter deserves the same sentance as a someone who's raped and killed multiple times?

We have the system we want - collectively - as a population.

No we don't. Maybe in theory we do but in practice it doesn't work. Punishments rarely match the crime, sentences are rarely consistent between judges and there is little to no rehabilitation for offenders.

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly wrote: »

Abolishing concurrent sentencing sounds like a good idea in theory but could lead to all manner of unintended consequences.

For example a murderer who kills one person could be dealt with more leniently than a dangerous driver who kills three ?

As for denying passports how would this work with persons with dual/multiple nationalities ?

I don't think anyone is suggesting abolishing it completely. If the crimes are all part of the one incident, such a as driver hitting a crowd of people, then concurrent sentences are more appropriate but if he hit three people in three different locations then consecutive sentences would be appropriate.

Dublin Spur

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Someone who kills a peadophile who's raped their daughter deserves the same sentance as a someone who's raped and killed multiple times?

We have the system we want - collectively - as a population.

Personally I would give them an award but we can't have a country that rewards vigilantism.

So what's appropriate in these cases ?

The person that raped and killed numerous times gets consecutive sentences of over 100 years in jail - preferably hard labour or solitary confinement.

The vigilante gets a single life sentence with parole - would probably be out in 15 yrs.

Pro Hoc Vice

Dublin Spur wrote: »

Personally I would give them an award but we can't have a country that rewards vigilantism.

So what's appropriate in these cases ?

The person that raped and killed numerous times gets consecutive sentences of over 100 years in jail - preferably hard labour or solitary confinement.

The vigilante gets a single life sentence with parole - would probably be out in 15 yrs.

In fact they would both get 1 life sentence in the first case as no minister for justice would allow early release then the person will in all likelihood die in prison, in the second case if convicted of murder (would not be surprised if a jury acquitted) I could see release in a very very very short time or even a pardon again very fact dependant. It's this flexibility that is one of the few good parts of the system in my option.

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly

Dublin Spur wrote: »

The vigilante gets a single life sentence with parole - would probably be out in 15 yrs.

I wouldn't be so sure given that the criminal justice system tends to take a dim view of vigilantism regardless of how justified it may appear to be.

MarkAnthony

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

No we don't. Maybe in theory we do but in practice it doesn't work. Punishments rarely match the crime, sentences are rarely consistent between judges and there is little to no rehabilitation for offenders.

Yes we do. What do you get if you design a horse by committee? A camel. There are people who vote who would like to see very little money spent on the prison system, there are people that would see very little crime punished. There are those that believe that Judges exercise there discretion wisely the vast majority of the time. There are those that think we should spend money on rehabilitation and those that don't.

EDIT: perhaps 'want' is the wrong word... how about deserve?

Dublin Spur wrote: »

Personally I would give them an award but we can't have a country that rewards vigilantism.

So what's appropriate in these cases ?

The person that raped and killed numerous times gets consecutive sentences of over 100 years in jail - preferably hard labour or solitary confinement.

The vigilante gets a single life sentence with parole - would probably be out in 15 yrs.

Hang on so you're back tracking from you one size fits all solution?

Fair enough, one size does not fit all - luckily we've people with a life time of experience appointed to the bench who get it right the vast majority of the time, for the time they don't we have a robust appeal process from both sides and NGOs like the innocence project and the relevant legislation when even that fails.

Eugene Norman

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Yes we do. What do you get if you design a horse by committee? A camel. There are people who vote who would like to see very little money spent on the prison system, there are people that would see very little crime punished. There are those that believe that Judges exercise there discretion wisely the vast majority of the time. There are those that think we should spend money on rehabilitation and those that don't.

EDIT: perhaps 'want' is the wrong word... how about deserve?



Hang on so you're back tracking from you one size fits all solution?

Fair enough, one size does not fit all - luckily we've people with a life time of experience appointed to the bench who get it right the vast majority of the time, for the time they don't we have a robust appeal process from both sides and NGOs like the innocence project and the relevant legislation when even that fails.

You are throughly convinced among yourselves that the judiciary gets it "right" most of the time. If they did it wouldn't be that extraordinary an intellectual achievement , but in very many cases they don't. Hence the guys with 23 previous convictions killing people.

MarkAnthony

Eugene Norman wrote: »

You are throughly convinced among yourselves that the judiciary gets it "right" most of the time. If they did it wouldn't be that extraordinary an intellectual achievement , but in very many cases they don't. Hence the guys with 23 previous convictions killing people.

The solution is one I wholeheartedly support; indeterminate sentence for all but the most minor of crimes with a battery of risk assessments before release, intensive study of criminals the can't be rehabilitated and huge investment in rehabilitation, the question remains who's willing to pay for it?

There will still be the crime, there will still be mistakes.

It's actually in very, very few cases they get it wrong but they're the ones that get the press. It's a bit like saying roller-coasters are inherently unsafe because of the recent press. No one covered the other 100,000 times no one got hurt.

Little CuChulainn

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Yes we do. What do you get if you design a horse by committee? A camel. There are people who vote who would like to see very little money spent on the prison system, there are people that would see very little crime punished. There are those that believe that Judges exercise there discretion wisely the vast majority of the time. There are those that think we should spend money on rehabilitation and those that don't.

EDIT: perhaps 'want' is the wrong word... how about deserve?

What's your beef with camels?

MarkAnthony

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

What's your beef with camels?

I thought that came from cows

Dublin Spur

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Hang on so you're back tracking from you one size fits all solution?

Fair enough, one size does not fit all - luckily we've people with a life time of experience appointed to the bench who get it right the vast majority of the time, for the time they don't we have a robust appeal process from both sides and NGOs like the innocence project and the relevant legislation when even that fails.

I suppose I am backtracking a little in this example.

However if pushed I would prefer to see a "life means life" policy across the board. I agree that this approach would be harsh in some cases, but if that's the rule then everyone knows the price they will have to pay for taking a life.

Getting back to the concurrent sentencing issue - I still fail to see how the judge in both sample cases could have allowed concurrent sentences given the gravity of the offences.

1. The rapist gets a 2 for the price of one sentence
2. The hit and runner serves no time for taking a life

Absolutely Scandalous Decisions

MarkAnthony

Dublin Spur wrote: »

I suppose I am backtracking a little in this example.

However if pushed I would prefer to see a "life means life" policy across the board. I agree that this approach would be harsh in some cases, but if that's the rule then everyone knows the price they will have to pay for taking a life.

Getting back to the concurrent sentencing issue - I still fail to see how the judge in both sample cases could have allowed concurrent sentences given the gravity of the offences.

1. The rapist gets a 2 for the price of one sentence
2. The hit and runner serves no time for taking a life

Absolutely Scandalous Decisions

Why don't we just hire extremely well qualified professionals to make these decisions? Which is what we do. The Court has very little input on when lifers are released.

Point taken on getting back on topic. Largely it comes down to risk vs. cost. While crimes of a sexual nature can pretty much be hived of to their own discussion, most of the time a significant sentence is served - retribution is indeed an element of punishment but it's a fairly minor one.

Dublin Spur

the scourge of concurrent sentencing has raised it's ugly head again this week

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-jailed-for-10-years-for-threatening-assaulting-and-raping-his-wife-1.2733770

So he gets 12 years for the rape (2 suspended), and 3 & 7.5 years for the 2 assaults with all sentences running concurrently.

Shameful and no justice for the 2 horrific assaults - when will this madness end ?

MarkAnthony

Dublin Spur wrote: »

the scourge of concurrent sentencing has raised it's ugly head again this week

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-jailed-for-10-years-for-threatening-assaulting-and-raping-his-wife-1.2733770

So he gets 12 years for the rape (2 suspended), and 3 & 7.5 years for the 2 assaults with all sentences running concurrently.

Shameful and no justice for the 2 horrific assaults - when will this madness end ?

The very minute people will pay more tax for more prisons.

Dublin Spur

did anyone see this case yesterday?
this scum-bag was given 1 Life sentence for a double murder.
Seems like the scourge of concurrent sentencing has rared it's ugly head again

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/man-guilty-of-murdering-elderly-brothers-in-co-mayo-1.3166322

Dublin Spur

it's good to see this vile practice being brought into the public sphere again.

https://www.thejournal.ie/leona-ocallaghan-rape-sentencing-4348532-Nov2018/

wellwhynot

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The very minute people will pay more tax for more prisons.

I would happily pay more tax for prisons rather than pay more tax to pay for social welfare for these career criminals. We should privatise prisons. The governments couldn’t deliver value for money if their life depended on it. They have zero business experience.

Do prisoners still receive social welfare payments while in prison?