Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Concurrent Sentencing

13»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    This post has been deleted.

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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    This post has been deleted.

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,744 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,317 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,744 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,744 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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.
    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.)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,723 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭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 ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    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.
    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,317 ✭✭✭Dublin Spur


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭Enjoy Heroin Responsibly


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    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?
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    What's your beef with camels?

    I thought that came from cows :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,317 ✭✭✭Dublin Spur


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,317 ✭✭✭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 ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,317 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,317 ✭✭✭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/


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 280 ✭✭wellwhynot


    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?


Advertisement