Murder prison sentences

SEDM · 08-10-2012 2:27am #1

Does anyone think a pertetion should be started up regarding murder/manslaughter sentences currently been handed down by irish courts to get it changed?

Currently "Life" sentence means about 11 years average for killing someone but having a load of drugs can get you 24 years (John Gilligan). I feel "life" should mean life period as the victim and the victims family have a true life sentence.

This would stop alot of killings assoicated with gang land or at least more convictions in this area as people that have information are to afraid to tell gardai in fear of retalation for doing so as person that did it will be out in a decade.

Also their should be a seperate prision built in ireland for murderers/ rapists that is self sustaining growning own food ect. with minimum costs to tax payers with them banged up for remainder of their natural life.

What does everyone else think?

BornToKill · 08-10-2012 2:58am

I think serious crime prisoners and serial recidivists should be sent off to jail in Serbia, Albania, Bulgaria or the like. Obviously we would have to pay but less than the €80,000 p.a. cost per prisoner here. Far lower cost, miniscule chance of escape. They are tagged up here and returned when the sentence expires. Outsourcing - same effect but far cheaper. Probably less likely to reoffend too if you reckon a spell in Calcutta may await you next time. Its win win.

Jimdagym · 08-10-2012 3:02am

SEDM wrote: »

Does anyone think a pertetion should be started up regarding murder/manslaughter sentences currently been handed down by irish courts to get it changed?

Currently "Life" sentence means about 11 years average for killing someone but having a load of drugs can get you 24 years (John Gilligan). I feel "life" should mean life period as the victim and the victims family have a true life sentence.

This would stop alot of killings assoicated with gang land or at least more convictions in this area as people that have information are to afraid to tell gardai in fear of retalation for doing so as person that did it will be out in a decade.

Also their should be a seperate prision built in ireland for murderers/ rapists that is self sustaining growning own food ect. with minimum costs to tax payers with them banged up for remainder of their natural life.

What does everyone else think?

I don't think that longer sentences would either reduce the number of murders or increase convictions.

SEDM · 08-10-2012 3:24am

Jimdagym wrote: »

I don't think that longer sentences would either reduce the number of murders or increase convictions.

Do you not think that it should be more than 11 years?

Peregrinus · 08-10-2012 3:52am

I'm sceptical. I don't see murderers doing a cost-benefit analysis of the crime and, to the extent that they do, they are much more influenced by the perceived risk of detection and punishment than by their expectations of what sentence they will receive. The US has dramatically more severe sentences than we do, yet its murder rate is 3 to 4 times higher than ours.

Imprisonment is hugely expensive (the OP's notion of a self-financing prison is just nonsense on stilts) and the longer you imprison someone for the more expensive it gets. The OP's proposal involves a massive expenditure of resources in what is know to be a pretty inefficient way. I can't help thinking that, if we were prepared to spend that kind of money, we would acheive a better result (in terms of reducing the murder rate) if we put it into policing and detection work, or into addressing the factors that contribute to murder in the first place, than we would if we spent it on locking people up for longer.

TheChizler · 08-10-2012 3:56am

If life gets changed to actually mean life I imagine that ~x years will just be given out instead.

apologyst · 08-10-2012 4:02am

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm sceptical. I don't see murderers doing a cost-benefit analysis of the crime and, to the extent that they do, they are much more influenced by the perceived risk of detection and punishment than by their expectations of what sentence they will receive. The US has dramatically more severe sentences than we do, yet its murder rate is 3 to 4 times higher than ours.

Imprisonment is hugely expensive (the OP's notion of a self-financing prison is just nonsense on stilts) and the longer you imprison someone for the more expensive it gets. The OP's proposal involves a massive expenditure of resources in what is know to be a pretty inefficient way. I can't help thinking that, if we were prepared to spend that kind of money, we would acheive a better result (in terms of reducing the murder rate) if we put it into policing and detection work, or into addressing the factors that contribute to murder in the first place, than we would if we spent it on locking people up for longer.

I like SEDM's approach better,much better.

Peregrinus · 08-10-2012 4:04am

apologyst wrote: »

I like SEDM's approach better,much better.

Daydreams are always more attractive than reality, aren't they?

jill_valentine · 08-10-2012 4:26am

As far as I understand, dollar for dollar, detection is a bigger deterrent than the severity of the punishment overall.

However, when the punishment for garlic tax evasion is more severe than for violent or even lethal crimes, I have to wonder about the integrity of the system as a whole. Something's wrong when there's no apparent relationship whatsoever between the impact of a particular crime and the sentence it incurs.

When sentencing is as arbitrary as it seems to be lately, it's bad for public faith in the system and it undermines the authority of the legal system in the eyes of potential criminals, however subconsciously. And I know from talking to gardai that it shoots their morale to pieces to know that they can keep up their end of the bargain and bring somebody as far as the court system, only to see that time and time again, for all practical purposes, they needn't have bothered.

chops018 · 08-10-2012 7:11am

Already been discussed extensively by professionals.

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rMurderandInvoluntaryMS.pdf

TL;DR

http://www.lawreform.ie/2008/290108-report-on-homocide-murder-and-involuntary-manslaughter.180.html

Indricotherium · 08-10-2012 7:27am

SEDM wrote: »

Jimdagym wrote: »

I don't think that longer sentences would either reduce the number of murders or increase convictions.

Do you not think that it should be more than 11 years?

Do you really think that someone about to commit a murder sits down and thinks about the likely punishment?

In this prison that all the murdererers and rapists are locked up in with no hope of ever being released, what do you envisage the prisoners behaviour being like?

Procrastastudy · 08-10-2012 7:31am

Great Link Chops - to be fair he is asking what us Joe Soaps think.

Longer prison sentences simply don't work and just cost money. The only argument they have going for them is incapacity. The inmate is locked away so can do no more crime, the massive issue there is cost. The solutions put forward are usually equally as poorly thought out.

(i) Self sustaining prisons - You still have to guards, heat and light the place.
(ii) Execution - If California stopped all executions it would save the state $170 million a year
(iii) out sourcing - I'm amazed that no prisoner has taken the State to the ECtHR over conditions in Irish prisons. The current bill Scotland is paying is around £90 million last time I checked. Supposing there is somewhere 'worse and cheaper' we can put someone is nonsense on stilts.*

The fact is current system is working, after a fashion. It's very unlikely longer sentences would act as any sort of deterrent. What would work would be proper rehabilitation of offenders over that 11 or 12 years. The reason why people are getting longer sentences for drugs is because of statutory sentences which lead to all sorts of knock on effects and injustices. Statutory sentences are only there because it's popular with your average voter to be 'tough on crime'.

When are we finally going to have politicians and a government that 'deals with crime' - is 'Smart on crime'? Will we ever get off our own fat lazy arses and help tackle crime in our won communities though the little things like bringing up our children properly and looking out for each other.

*great phrase, shamelessly stolen!

EDIT: I would support somewhere like Coalinga for sex offenders. A relatively short custodial sentence followed by committal to an institution like Coalinga would be the idea scenario in my view. That said it was costing $200,000 per inmate according to one inmate. They could be risk assessed and released once they posed a minimal threat.

Peregrinus · 08-10-2012 7:39am

Procrastastudy wrote: »

. . . nonsense on stilts.*

*great phrase, shamelessly stolen!

Although I used the phrase earlier in this thread, honestly compels me to admit that it's not mine. It's from Jeremy Bentham's Anarchical Fallacies.

ResearchWill · 08-10-2012 8:16am

SEDM wrote: »

Do you not think that it should be more than 11 years?

MacArthur was only recently released from prison, he got a life sentence he had served over 30 years. The average tarrif according to this Article is 17.5 years. http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2012/0813/ireland/life-term-for-killers-equals-175-years-in-jail-203897.html

Ireland has one of the lowest myrder rates in the world, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

The OP's statement re 11 years would seem to be incorrect. Also the 24 year sentence for Drugs is far from the norm, the usually sentence for a 15(a) is I would guess 7 years with about 5 served.

krd · 08-10-2012 4:44pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm sceptical. I don't see murderers doing a cost-benefit analysis of the crime

They do, do cost-benefit analysis. Gangland killings tend to be based very much on cost-benefit analysis. Trade disputes, that kind of thing.

I believe the retirement of Alan Ryan, was a collaborative effort. The underworld equivalent of being given a gold watch and plaque.

and, to the extent that they do, they are much more influenced by the perceived risk of detection and punishment than by their expectations of what sentence they will receive.

Gangland killings can be for different reasons, but in the instance of a feud, it might be the case of you having to kill someone before they get to you. So, in that instances, the prospect of prison is not really where your mind is concentrated.

And something funny. I've heard it said a few times, that had John Gilligan not been in prison he would have been long dead by now.

I believe Alan Shatter said something the other day along the line of gangland figures shouldn't be given police protection (which by the way they are - if it's known someone in imminently going to be assassinated, they'll give them around the clock security.) I think Alan might be in favour of the self-cleaning oven approach.

chops018 · 08-10-2012 5:10pm

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Great Link Chops - to be fair he is asking what us Joe Soaps think.

But we're scholars of the law Procras

. Ah I suppose it was a bit short ended of a reply but I've always liked the law reform commissions proposals, and I feel that it's a good article, even if it is huge, but you can just look up some of the main points on murder in it. I particularly like their criticism of the jury's role in that they have too much discretion.

In my brief humble opinion: a penalty for murder should not be mandatory, there is no one sentence for murder, there is many circumstances that come into play and sending someone to prison for life is a huge thing to do. We have to think about the accused too and maintain his due process rights and balance this with the rights of the citizens and the need for crime control. It should be a very well thought out process involving both judge and jury with all the factors that can possibly be taken into account viewed extensively. Which is why I feel a sentence for a murder verdict should be discretionary and apply to the facts of each particular case, and which is why I like the idea of a maximum life sentence and not a mandatory one.

MagicSean · 08-10-2012 6:00pm

krd wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm sceptical. I don't see murderers doing a cost-benefit analysis of the crime

They do, do cost-benefit analysis. Gangland killings tend to be based very much on cost-benefit analysis. Trade disputes, that kind of thing.

I believe the retirement of Alan Ryan, was a collaborative effort. The underworld equivalent of being given a gold watch and plaque.

and, to the extent that they do, they are much more influenced by the perceived risk of detection and punishment than by their expectations of what sentence they will receive.

Gangland killings can be for different reasons, but in the instance of a feud, it might be the case of you having to kill someone before they get to you. So, in that instances, the prospect of prison is not really where your mind is concentrated.

And something funny. I've heard it said a few times, that had John Gilligan not been in prison he would have been long dead by now.

I believe Alan Shatter said something the other day along the line of gangland figures shouldn't be given police protection (which by the way they are - if it's known someone in imminently going to be assassinated, they'll give them around the clock security.) I think Alan might be in favour of the self-cleaning oven approach.

I think Shatter was referring to the practicality of protecting someone who actively tries to avoid you and won't cooperate.

Procrastastudy · 08-10-2012 6:03pm

chops018 wrote: »

But we're scholars of the law Procras

The more I learn the more I realise I know very little. People here did try and warn me

Still enjoying the process though, and ogling the totty!

krd · 08-10-2012 6:54pm

MagicSean wrote: »

I think Shatter was referring to the practicality of protecting someone who actively tries to avoid you and won't cooperate.

These people are professional criminals.

I'm sure they're glad of the protection, but for the kind of enterprise they're in, it's very difficult to run a business, with a checkpoint on your street, and the armed response unit milling around.

Shatter should shut up, really. It's a little more complicated than I think his tiny little privately educated right-wing mind is capable of comprehending. What the garda are doing is stopping the violence from escalating, simultaneously, they make business very difficult. So, they encourage people to conduct their business less conspicuously and with less shooting of each other.

AlarmBelle · 08-10-2012 9:54pm

SEDM wrote: »

Does anyone think a pertetion should be started up regarding murder/manslaughter sentences currently been handed down by irish courts to get it changed?

Currently "Life" sentence means about 11 years average for killing someone but having a load of drugs can get you 24 years (John Gilligan). I feel "life" should mean life period as the victim and the victims family have a true life sentence.

This would stop alot of killings assoicated with gang land or at least more convictions in this area as people that have information are to afraid to tell gardai in fear of retalation for doing so as person that did it will be out in a decade.

Also their should be a seperate prision built in ireland for murderers/ rapists that is self sustaining growning own food ect. with minimum costs to tax payers with them banged up for remainder of their natural life.

What does everyone else think?

would that not contribute tio killing people?

Carawaystick · 09-10-2012 1:10am

AlarmBelle wrote: »

would that not contribute tio killing people?

I was prescribed for a while a potentially fatal drug, Aulin
The manufacturers or sellers of that were never punished, for the deaths of people taking that drug

The people who made Thalidomide, or sold it never got adequately punished

John Gilligan is in jail firstly for having a lot of cannabis ( he's been subsequently convicted of being a very naughty boy)
but Cannabis doesn't kill anyone outside of increasing the cancer risk of people who smoke it.

Tobacco and alcohol kill more people in Ireland than all other drugs combined....

It's my understanding that diamorphine is not allowed for pain relief in the 26 counties, but is used in the 6 up north. Jim McDaid used to prescribe it to patients of his and told them to get if from across the border. I haven't heard of turf wars among the pharmaceutical industry up there over the large amounts of diamorphine, but I have heard paramilitary thugs taking issue with non-pharmacists selling the same drug aka heroin

As for mandatory murder sentences, they aren't any: a judge gave a 15/16 year old girl a 18 month suspended sentence for the murder in the Sacco trial
in '99

Tom Young · 09-10-2012 1:13am

I'm in favour of reinstatement of the death penalty as an option with minimum mandatory sentencing for life of 20 years with no remission. Increasing S.3 murder by 10 years.

belcampprisoner · 09-10-2012 1:34am

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0827/1224323030406.html

krd · 09-10-2012 2:44am

Snip

Procrastastudy · 09-10-2012 7:16am

Tom Young wrote: »

I'm in favour of reinstatement of the death penalty as an option with minimum mandatory sentencing for life of 20 years with no remission. Increasing S.3 murder by 10 years.

I would never have guessed you are a proponent of the death penalty. May I ask what you think it might achieve? It doesn't give any financial benefits to the states that operate it, quite the contrary. It certainly doesn't act as a deterrent. Furthermore it would lead to a knock on effect of hardened criminals being more likely to kill Gardai in a last desperate attempt to avoid being caught. There is also the ever present possibility of a miscarriage of justice.

Tom Young · 09-10-2012 8:05am

I suggest increasing the penalty for S.3 murder above.

Why you ask? This piece pretty much summarises it: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/why-we-must-bring-back-the-death-penalty-1945383.html

Procrastastudy · 09-10-2012 4:48pm

Tom Young wrote: »

I suggest increasing the penalty for S.3 murder above.

Why you ask? This piece pretty much summarises it: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/why-we-must-bring-back-the-death-penalty-1945383.html

At the risk of sounding like a suck up you appear to be quite intelligent and well informed with considered opinions. While to me your position is abhorrent I always leave open the possibility I have missed something. (EDIT: its clear I'm answering 'Why do you ask? rather than your rhetorical. Sometimes I wish I could read! Sorry.)

I can not refute the deterrent aspects of that article, I simply do not have enough knowledge to attempt to go toe-to toe with the two authoritative authors - and I will take what is said re the studies as fact. I would say that when you look at the Innocence Projects running in the US - many of them DNA based - I do disagree with the point of an innocent person being sent to die. Even if I did not it's not worth one person being wrongly killed by the state.

krd · 09-10-2012 7:08pm

Tom Young wrote: »

I'm in favour of reinstatement of the death penalty as an option

There are far more arguments against than for.

There's no argument to say that it has achieved anything in the "pro-death penalty, anti-abortion" belt of the US.

Abject and total failure, might be a better description.

Deterrents and incentives have to be better thought out. Intuitively (to those without much of a brain) armed police, in theory would act as a deterrent to gun crime, in reality the effect is the opposite.

Similarly, people would think that stiffer sentences for rape might deter more rapists - where it might have the effect of incentivising murder.

krd · 09-10-2012 7:28pm

Procrastastudy wrote: »

At the risk of sounding like a suck up you appear to be quite intelligent and well informed with considered opinions. While to me your position is abhorrent I always leave open the possibility I have missed something.

Or he is missing something.

He backs up his claim with a link to an opinion piece in the Sindo. Right-wingers have lots of opinions. That's what gives them their charm. Their indignation.

While there are people who commit acts which may make them very worthy of execution. The death penalty is so problematic from so many angles, it's really not worth doing. (I have to say, I would like to see every member of Fianna Fail and their friends the NAMA developers executed - I would do my duty as a citizen of Ireland, and strangle them with my own bare hands if called upon to do so. But I have to admit - from historical precedents, it's hard to stop once you get going. Then maybe that might not be a bad thing.)

Something interesting about the hanging penalties of the 19th century....The sheep or goat ones. They had to be abandoned, because juries wouldn't convict................Would you?.........If you could be up before the beak in the next week for having a capra aegagrus hircus in your possession that did not absolutely belong to you. Of course you just found it walking along the side of the road - didn't we all.

Procrastastudy · 09-10-2012 7:37pm

To be fair krd - I think he was just doing me the courtesy of pointing me in the direction of a summary.

enfant terrible · 09-10-2012 7:40pm

krd wrote: »

(I have to say, I would like to see every member of Fianna Fail and their friends the NAMA developers executed - I would do my duty as a citizen of Ireland, and strangle them with my own bare hands if called upon to do so. But I have to admit - from historical precedents, it's hard to stop once you get going. Then maybe that might not be a bad thing.)

Pretty stupid statement

Murder prison sentences

Comments