Our justice system - can it be overhauled?

whiskeyman

Day after day, we seem to be coming across more and more posts and news articles with unbelievable sentences for awful crimes and a growing disillusionment of judges and the judicial system they're involved with.
I think many of us realise the Gardai are in fact powerless and can only do their job to some degree, but we need an overhaul in the system to make justice work so there better deterrent or that those who break the law learn never to break it again.

But what is it going to take for this to happen?
Do we all need to have ourselves or a loved one almost killed by some scumbag, and watch that said person receive a suspended sentence before it angers us that we may actually do something about it?
Why aren't political parties weighing in to want to change this? Is it just too much of a minefield and it'll never happen?

I'm sure there many here, like myself, utterly disillusioned with the legal system here.
Will it ever change / can it change?
Who can make it happen? (no, not the garbage man unfortunately... or can he?).

Is such a rant forever banished to be the topic of Joe Duffy and his cohorts?

I didn't protest for the water charges, but if there was a protest for this, I'd be compelled to attend!

Riskymove

I don't know - this is all very populist and emotionally driven

we only hear about certain cases and usually where certain background s are involved to keep us annoyed.

Today's case involves a person prosecuted and found guilty and given the max sentence for the crime yet there is "outrage" at the judicial system

omahaid

You see how much trouble they had in getting a judicial pay cut. Best of luck with anything else. The judge involved in some of the recent very lenient sentencing would be sacked in most normal jobs. Contrast this judges sentencing on sexual/violent offences and underpayment of VAT.

Reform, not going to happen.

El Weirdo

If people took a little time to learn a bit about how the justice system actually worked and didn't take everything they read in tabloids at face value, then that may go some way to reduce the outrage.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but most people complaining in these threads have absolutely no clue.

For example:

Four years is not enough... he will probably be out in two

Impossible

If it was a fellow judge that was kicked in the head you can be damn sure the guy would have got 40 years without parole.

Again, impossible.

Arsemageddon

Judges can only apply the laws that exist, they don't get to make the law.

The oft repeated notion that judges are 'out of touch' is just daft. They sit in the courts day in - day out, as such they are more in touch with how the criminal justice system works than the average punter.

Other than the introduction of what are often knee jerk legal reforms the Criminal Justice system is not a source of votes, therefore nothing substantive is done to reform it. Most crime happens in working class neighbourhoods where voter turnout is low. Unless the electorate makes criminal justice an issue our current system will continue.

Arsemageddon

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Judges can only apply the laws that exist, they don't get to make the law.

The oft repeated notion that judges are 'out of touch' is just daft. They sit in the courts day in - day out, as such they are more in touch with how the criminal justice system works than the average punter.

Other than the introduction of what are often knee jerk legal reforms the Criminal Justice system is not a source of votes, therefore nothing substantive is done to reform it. Most crime happens in working class neighbourhoods where voter turnout is low. Unless the electorate makes criminal justice an issue our current system will continue.

I haven't seen a non murder sentence in years that didn't have years knocked off. Even in cases involving dangerous people showing zero remorse. This is pure discretion.

Also, concurrent sentencing? What law says all sentences are to be served concurrently?

Arsemageddon

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

I haven't seen a non murder sentence in years that didn't have years knocked off. Even in cases involving dangerous people showing zero remorse. This is pure discretion.

In the majority of cases it's the 'guilty plea discount' that gets time knocked off a sentence. If a fella admits to an offence he gets time off his sentence for saving the courts and the Gardaí the hassle of having to go through a full trial. If every case went to trial the courts would not be able to deal with the workload and would grind to a halt.

Also, concurrent sentencing? What law says all sentences are to be served
concurrently?

The reality of our criminal justice system is that we simply do not have enough prison spaces and many of our prisoners are even worse when released. I'd have no problem with concurrent sentencing for some offenders/offences, but if there is no where to actually put offenders then they will just be let out on temporary release.

RDM_83 again

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Judges can only apply the laws that exist, they don't get to make the law.

The oft repeated notion that judges are 'out of touch' is just daft. They sit in the courts day in - day out, as such they are more in touch with how the criminal justice system works than the average punter.

Other than the introduction of what are often knee jerk legal reforms the Criminal Justice system is not a source of votes, therefore nothing substantive is done to reform it. Most crime happens in working class neighbourhoods where voter turnout is low. Unless the electorate makes criminal justice an issue our current system will continue.

There was a (possibly still is) a judge out the west thats an alcoholic, look for bizare sentencing in the mayo/galway area and you will find the person I am talking about (google tractor driver jailed), if thats not out of touch I dont know what is

Arsemageddon

Arsemageddon wrote: »

In the majority of cases it's the 'guilty plea discount' that gets time knocked off a sentence. If a fella admits to an offence he gets time off his sentence for saving the courts and the Gardaí the hassle of having to go through a full trial. If every case went to trial the courts would not be able to deal with the workload and would grind to a halt.

But its applied to both guilty pleas and contested cases alike. Here's one where the defendant went awol for a year, sentence reduced by half.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/young-mother-jailed-for-joining-in-on-savage-unprovoked-attack-in-which-a-man-danced-elderly-homeless-mans-head-31401783.html

Can you point to any recent cases where the full sentence was applied?

Atlantic Dawn

Judges should test alcoholics and drug addicts who claim to have been under the influence when they committed the crimes. If a drunk says he consumed 10 pints in 2 hours and then managed to rob a car he should be tested to see he could complete the task before he is taken pity on and released on a suspended sentence.

nokia69

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Judges should test alcoholics and drug addicts who claim to have been under the influence when they committed the crimes. If a drunk says he consumed 10 pints in 2 hours and then managed to rob a car he should be tested to see he could complete the task before he is taken pity on and released on a suspended sentence.

would it not be better if being drunk or stoned was not accepted as some kind of excuse for bad behaviour

getting so drunk that you can't control your actions should also be a crime IMO

nokia69

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Judges can only apply the laws that exist, they don't get to make the law.

not exactly true

in any case judges have control over sentencing, and some of them seem to let scumbags commit a massive number of crimes before they see the inside of a cell

nxbyveromdwjpg

El Weirdo wrote: »

I'm not saying it's perfect, but most people complaining in these threads have absolutely no clue.

Never a truer word spoken.

The judges know all the facts, some people on here ie: outraged posters that feed off each other do not. Stop knee-jerking from tabloid headlines.

El Weirdo

nokia69 wrote: »

not exactly true

in any case judges have control over sentencing, and some of them seem to let scumbags commit a massive number of crimes before they see the inside of a cell

But they have maximum sentences for the crimes that the accused in front of them are charged with.

conorhal

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Judges can only apply the laws that exist, they don't get to make the law.

The oft repeated notion that judges are 'out of touch' is just daft. They sit in the courts day in - day out, as such they are more in touch with how the criminal justice system works than the average punter.

Other than the introduction of what are often knee jerk legal reforms the Criminal Justice system is not a source of votes, therefore nothing substantive is done to reform it. Most crime happens in working class neighbourhoods where voter turnout is low. Unless the electorate makes criminal justice an issue our current system will continue.

10,693 crimes happened while the offenders were on bail for something else over the past 10 years. In the past year alone offenders on bail were responsible for 6 murders, 9 rapes and 2 kidnappings.

For starters the bail laws need a major overhaul and judges need to stop bailing individuals that are a danger to others, often giving bail to defendants for crimes comitted while already on bail. I know sombody in the courts services that will tell you of gardai practically begging judges not to grant bail to certian criminals and being ignored.

omahaid

nm wrote: »

Never a truer word spoken.

The judges know all the facts, some people on here ie: outraged posters that feed off each other do not. Stop knee-jerking from tabloid headlines.

By that logic we can't say anything about any decision as we never know all the facts. In reality if something smells bad we get an independent body to investigate e.g. GSOC. I see no reason why the decisions of judges should not be open to the same scrutiny.

El Weirdo

El Weirdo wrote: »

But they have maximum sentences for the crimes that the accused in front of them are charged with.

Show me even one person who has received the maximum sentence recently.

nokia69

nm wrote: »

Never a truer word spoken.

The judges know all the facts, some people on here ie: outraged posters that feed off each other do not. Stop knee-jerking from tabloid headlines.

we know the facts too

I don't have any problem with the idea of a second chance for anyone, even a 3rd or 4th chance, but there needs to be a limit, too many scumbags in Ireland collect a massive number of convictions and it only comes to an end when they do serious life changing damage to some unfortunate person

nm

nm wrote: »

Never a truer word spoken.

The judges know all the facts, some people on here ie: outraged posters that feed off each other do not. Stop knee-jerking from tabloid headlines.

OK, so that lad the other day who almost killed a guy who was being robbed by his friend and received a complete suspended sentence - exactly what mitigating circumstances could there possibly be for that sentence? Seriously, even try make up some kind of circumstance that makes that sentence OK...

Arsemageddon

conorhal wrote: »

10,693 crimes happened over the past ten years while the offenders were on bail for something else in this country including six homicides, nine rapes and two kidnappings.

For starters the bail laws need a major overhaul and judges need to stop bailing individuals that a danger to others, often giving bail for crimes comitted while already on bail. I know sombody in the courts services that will tell you of gardai practically begging judges not to grant bail to certian criminals and being ignored.

The vast majority of those 10,000 offences committed by those on bail are for relatively minor offences (Breach of court orders, public order offences, possession of small amounts of drugs, theft related offences). To expect everyone charged with an offence to be placed on remand until trial is unrealistic. There are not enough prison spaces for that.

Of course anyone charged with an offence who is potentially a significant danger to the public should be kept on remand until trial. The trouble with that is that the courts and Gardaí can't predict what crimes someone on bail will commit in the future.

a new bill to reform bail laws was published last week
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/new-bail-laws-propose-more-powers-for-gardai-687873.html

jobbridge4life

nokia69 wrote: »

we know the facts too

I don't have any problem with the idea of a second chance for anyone, even a 3rd or 4th chance, but there needs to be a limit, too many scumbags in Ireland collect a massive number of convictions and it only comes to an end when they do serious life changing damage to some unfortunate person

Okay so what do we do with them?

Arsemageddon

omahaid wrote: »

By that logic we can't say anything about any decision as we never know all the facts. In reality if something smells bad we get an independent body to investigate e.g. GSOC. I see no reason why the decisions of judges should not be open to the same scrutiny.

If a sentence is considered too lenient the DPP can appeal to have it reviewed by the Court of Criminal Appeal

El Weirdo

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

Show me even one person who has received the maximum sentence recently.

The maximum sentence is a starting point for the judge. He/she then takes into account guilty pleas, mitigating/aggravating circumstances, etc.

omahaid

Arsemageddon wrote: »

If a sentence is considered too lenient the DPP can appeal to have it reviewed by the Court of Criminal Appeal

There is a reason GSOC isn't staffed by Gardai.

Arsemageddon

omahaid wrote: »

There is a reason GSOC isn't staffed by Gardai.

.........and the relevance of that to your earlier statement is what exactly?

Sergio Georgini

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

OK, so that lad the other day who almost killed a guy who was being robbed by his friend and received a complete suspended sentence - exactly what mitigating circumstances could there possibly be for that sentence? Seriously, even try make up some kind of circumstance that makes that sentence OK...

He pleaded guilty.

I'm not saying his sentence wasn't light, but on the other hand you must know that a guilty plea is the biggest mitigating factor?

nokia69

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Okay so what do we do with them?

lock them up, a person breaks the law and they should go to prison

I know its a radical idea, but it does work

we need to build more prisons

VisibleGorilla

nokia69 wrote: »

lock them up, a person breaks the law and they should go to prison

I know its a radical idea, but it does work

we need to build more prisons

No we don't, at all.. not even a little bit.

Prison should be the last resort, every other option should be explored fully before putting someone in custody.

You think that every single crime should equal custody?!

Guy:Incognito

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Judges can only apply the laws that exist, they don't get to make the law..

Which law makes them give the guy from yesterday with 50 odd convictions a fully suspended sentence?

nokia69

nokia69 wrote: »

lock them up, a person breaks the law and they should go to prison

I know its a radical idea, but it does work

we need to build more prisons

where does it work?

Arsemageddon

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Which law makes them give the guy from yesterday with 50 odd convictions a fully suspended sentence?

Could this post be any more vague?

Guy:Incognito

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

where does it work?

It works for the people who would have been victims of said criminals who are locked up instead.

Guy:Incognito

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Could this post be any more vague?

How is it even a little bit vague ?

Guy kicks someone in the head and gets a suspended sentence. Guy has over 50 previous convictions.
You said the judges can only go by the laws as they are, as if their hands are tied and they can do no more for society. Locking the guy up was well within his power and well justified.

What law tied the judges hands and prevented a proper and well deserved penalty?

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It works for the people who would have been victims of said criminals who are locked up instead.

My family home was burgled a few weeks ago. If the men who burgled it had never been born, it would have been burgled anyway at some stage, by whatever local band of housebreakers sprung up in their absence.

For this kind of crime to prosper, there must be economic inquality and the propsect of ill-gotten opportunity. If you maintain inequality whilst locking up prisoners, all you're doing is increasing the availability for ill-gotten opportunity among rising criminals. There will be a lag, but the crime rate will hardly budge.

Imprisonment appears to do nothing except put a very small, temporary limit on criminality. In the UK, it has been estimated that a 25% rise in the prison population cuts crime by 1%.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/dec/07/michael-howard-prison-works-analysis

Arsemageddon

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How is it even a little bit vague ?

Guy kicks someone in the head and gets a suspended sentence. Guy has over 50 previous convictions.
You said the judges can only go by the laws as they are, as if their hands are tied and they can do no more for society. Locking the guy up was well within his power and well justified.

What law tied the judges hands and prevented a proper and well deserved penalty?

It was vague because I had no idea what you were talking about, you gave no detail in your previous post.

Unless you happened to be qualified in law, have considerable experience of how the criminal justice system operates in practice, were in court for the entire duration of this case and had reviewed all the relevant documentation then I would tend to think that the presiding judge would know more about the case and the relevant sentence than yourself.

nokia69

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

No we don't, at all.. not even a little bit..

yes we do

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

Prison should be the last resort, every other option should be explored fully before putting someone in custody.

it should the last resort for some types of crime, however it should the first and only resort for serious crimes

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

You think that every single crime should equal custody?!

I never said that, and I don't have a problem with giving people a 2nd or 3rd chance or maybe even more chances but I do have a limit

and its clear that some judges don't want to lock up anyone

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/passengers-watched-as-woman-attacked-and-robbed-on-luas-1.2280555

Larkin has 30 previous convictions, including thefts and drug offences, and McGowan has 24 previous convictions, including assault and public order offences.
Judge Patricia Ryan remanded McGowan on bail pending a probation and welfare services report, accepting that the offence was “out of character” for the mother-of-tw

the above is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, and thats not some kind of strange happening in an Irish court, if you read the papers you will see plenty of cases like the one above

Barely There

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Locking the guy up was well within his power and well justified.

Presume you sat though the entire court case and didn't just form your opinion from a couple of paragraphs in the paper?

Guy:Incognito

Arsemageddon wrote: »

It was vague because I had no idea what you were talking about, you gave no detail in your previous post.

Unless you happened to be qualified in law, have considerable experience of how the criminal justice system operates in practice, were in court for the entire duration of this case and had reviewed all the relevant documentation then I would tend to think that the presiding judge would know more about the case and the relevant sentence than yourself.

As has been asked before, what do you think a reason for such a lenient sentence is so? Be hypothetical .

Then go back to the laws that tied the judges hand and he has to give such a lenient sentence, as you implied int he first post I quoted.

Guy:Incognito

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

My family home was burgled a few weeks ago. If the men who burgled it had never been born, it would have been burgled anyway at some stage, by whatever local band of housebreakers sprung up in their absence. ]

Ridiculous analogy about being born aside, is that it so? We just accept that people are going to be criminals and let them at it.

Dont lock up a rapist, sure someone else would have come along and raped the next woman he ends up raping anyway.

Guy:Incognito

Barely There wrote: »

Presume you sat though the entire court case and didn't just form your opinion from a couple of paragraphs in the paper?

Again, fire away with any reason he shouldnt have been locked up, the floor is yours..........


Dont forget, the "I'm poor and the drinks/drugs made me do it(along with the 50 odd previous crimes) " was used int he paper so presumably you need another excuse.

Arsemageddon

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

As has been asked before, what do you think a reason for such a lenient sentence is so? Be hypothetical

.

Eh no, I would prefer to have the facts rather than just shoot from the hip with an opinion about a case I know nothing about.

Then go back to the laws that tied the judges hand and he has to give such a lenient sentence, as you implied int he first post I quoted.

There are no laws that tie a judges hands as you put it, under Irish law the sentence has to be appropriate to the offender - that is the guiding principle in sentencing.

Barely There

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Again, fire away with any reason he shouldnt have been locked up, the floor is yours..........

So you didn't sit through the court case then?

Guy:Incognito

Arsemageddon wrote: »

.

Eh no, I would prefer to have the facts rather than just shoot from the hip with an opinion about a case I know nothing about





There are no laws that tie a judges hands as you put it, under Irish law the sentence has to be appropriate to the offender - that is the guiding principle in sentencing.

Waffley no commital answers, I should have known better than to bother asking. :rolleyes:


Hide behind "the judge has all the facts and makes the right decision" all you like, its doesnt make you or him right.

I hope I dont come across you giving out about the government in any threads or Gardai or anyone you're not intimately familiar on the facts with, because remember, they have all the details and you dont.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Dont lock up a rapist, sure someone else would have come along and raped the next woman he ends up raping anyway.

Is there something 'special' about the 'bang-em-up' brigade that insists on these straw men?

Seriously anytime someone suggests imprisonment has a very weak success rate to someone who insists on building more prisons, the invariable reply is "oh so we shouldn't jail murderers and rapists?"

No, for some crimes there is obviously an incapacity advantage, e.g. where the number of potential offenders are small relative to the overall population, such as paedophiles.

However, for every drug dealer, burglar, opportunist thief, and other petty criminals, there will always be a replacement so long as the fundamental causes of criminal propensity persist.

If Harry the Housebreaker goes to Mountjoy for 6 months, he won't leave behind a peaceful and unmolested society where householders sleep with the doors unlocked. He will leave behind a vacuum, to be quickly filled.

Arsemageddon

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Waffley no commital answers, I should have known better than to bother asking. :rolleyes:

I can't be arsed getting into a tedious argument with someone who wants me to comment on a case that they can't even be bothered posting a link for.

If you want to know more about who sentencing law works in Ireland I'm sure google can provide some answers for ya.

Hide behind "the judge has all the facts and makes the right decision" all you like, its doesnt make you or him right.

Those pesky judges and their facts - always getting in the way of a good rant!

I hope I dont come across you giving out about the government in any threads or Gardai or anyone you're not intimately familiar on the facts with, because remember, they have all the details and you dont.

Absolutley no idea what this is suppose to mean, I'm sure it makes perfect sense in your head though.

Guy:Incognito

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Is there something 'special' about the 'bang-em-up' brigade that insists on these straw men?

Seriously anytime someone suggests imprisonment has a very weak success rate to someone who insists on building more prisons, the invariable reply is "oh so we shouldn't jail murderers and rapists?"

No, for some crimes there is obviously an incapacity advantage, e.g. where the number of potential offenders are small relative to the overall population, such as paedophiles.

However, for every drug dealer, burglar, opportunist thief, and other petty criminals, there will always be a replacement so long as the fundamental causes of criminal propensity persist.

Ok so, dont lock up burglars because there are other who will burgle the house anyway? So it's a free reign for burglars? Thats essentially what you're saying.

Guy:Incognito

Arsemageddon wrote: »

I can't be arsed getting into a tedious argument with someone who wants me to comment on a case that they can't even be bothered posting a link for.

If you want to know more about who sentencing law works in Ireland I'm sure google can provide some answers for ya.

But you'll be arsed replying to posts saying how much you wont reply and waffling about the other person not knowing the facts.

One post of a proper answer would have taken you less time.

El Weirdo

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Ok so, dont lock up burglars because there are other who will burgle the house anyway? So it's a free reign for burglars? Thats essentially what you're saying.

Do you have problems with comprehension? Do you just read half the post and then hit reply?

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Ok so, dont lock up burglars because there are other who will burgle the house anyway?

No, not at all. But I think we should look at alternative measures because imprisonment is very expensive and it doesn't seem to work.

So why don't we ask ourselves if there's any cheaper punishment that could achieve a better outcome? Better still why don't we ask ourselves how we can fix the root causes of criminality to begin with, so we can avoid wasting money on ineffective punishments at all? That would be a good start I think.

nokia69

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No, not at all. But I think we should look at alternative measures because imprisonment is very expensive and it doesn't seem to work.

how does it not work

it works for us when scum are off the streets

thebaz

The judges seam to be so out of sync with whats happing on the streets - everyone has rights , including victims of crime - I have lost faith in our legal system , life has become cheap , and bullies realise the courts will look favourably on them - and it is not just the judges , you have to question the morals of those that defend the perpetrators of heinous crimes, and get them off on legal technicalities.