Failure to change the law on life sentences for murder.

political analyst

In this week's edition of The Sunday Times, Brenda Power wrote:

'In 2013, the Law Reform Commission recommended that judges should be able to set minimum terms in murder cases. Helen McEntee's justice plan last year proposed discretionary minimum terms of 30 years or longer for the most "heinous" murders, but that appears to have slipped down her list of priorities behind hate-speech legislation.'

Brenda believes that a simple change in the law to give judges discretion to impose minimum tariffs on convicted murderers would have spared Ashling Murphy's family more trauma, i.e. Puska's inevitable appeal against his conviction and his entitlement to apply for parole in 12 years' time.

Keeping murderers in prison for longer certainly won't damage a governing party's performance in a general election. So why was the the recommendation to give judges the power to impose minimum tariffs on life sentences not acted upon 10 years ago? Why have successive governments not done anything about this issue?

There is a big difference between the life of a gangland criminal who was killed in a feud and the life of Ashling Murphy. So why would both cases be treated the same in the eyes of the law?

PS: As with my OP on defamation law, I've put this OP in the Politics forum because it is about the power of legislators to change the law.

L1011

Why do you think a minimum would stop appeals? It would likely make them even more common.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121366740#Comment_121366740

Fair point.

political analyst

Previously, the government said that the system of setting minimum tariffs for life sentences that is used in England might not be compatible with the Constitution but didn't say how that was the case.

According to a newspaper article in 2016, none of Ireland's main political parties was willing to deal with the issue of the parole application system.

I don't see how a party in government would regard the idea of giving a murder victim's family the peace of mind of not having to write to the Parole Board every 2 years to keep the murderer in prison as a 'hot potato'.

The life of a child or a young woman who was only jogging or walking home is more important than the life of a member of a criminal organisation who is killed in an internecine feud, e.g. the murdered dissident republican Peter Butterly.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121380438#Comment_121380438

Unfortunately, the victim or their family, do not form part of the justice system, and they do not have any right to dictate whether the resultant sentence handed down, or served, is just or justice.

However, that they are not consulted, or part of the sentence review process, does not appear to be right.

The parole board should make a determination, after refusing parole to a prisoner, when the time would be appropriate for the next time an application for parole can be made by the particular prisoner involved.

Some prisoners should never be released, but also, they should not be deprived of the hope of release.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121380992#Comment_121380992

I never said they should have a right to dictate whether the sentence is just. Why would the main parties have been afraid to deal with the issue? It's not like they would have lost votes over it.

political analyst

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/gangland-murder-victim-brandon-ledwidge-28149948

The man who was shot dead in Dublin last weekend was a scumbag. Why is there a lack of political will to regard the lives of innocent people as being more important than the lives of gangland criminals? It's obvious that Brandon Ledwidge brought it on himself.

Varik

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121366740#Comment_121366740

Even for the current setup I doubt there's many who choose not to appeal as it is for the longer sentences.

High minimums mean that they can't appeal on the basis of overly harsh sentencing.