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
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

Concurrent Sentencing

2

Comments

  • #32
    Tom Young
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,338 ✭✭✭Tom Young


    Discussed before, a bit: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=83758782

    Totality principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totality_principle


  • #33
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,976 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Tom Young wrote: »
    Discussed before, a bit: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=83758782

    Totality principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totality_principle

    From the Wiki article you linked to
    • Concurrent sentences: offences arise out of the same incident; there are a series of offences of the same or similar kind, specifically when committed against the same person.
    • Consecutive sentences: offences arise out of unrelated facts or incidents; offences that are of the same or similar kind but where the overall criminality will not sufficiently be reflected by concurrent sentences; one or more offence(s) qualifies for a statutory minimum sentence and concurrent sentences would improperly undermine that minimum.

    Surely the example the OP provided regarding the hit and run breaks this principle as the offences were not in any way related?


  • #34
    Tom Young
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,338 ✭✭✭Tom Young


    Yes, I see what you mean. It doesn't operate that way though.
    The principle has been stated many times in various forms: 'when a number of offences are being dealt with and specific punishments in respect of them are being totted up to make a total, it is always necessary for the court to take a last look at the total just to see whether it looks wrong'; 'when ... cases of multiplicity of offences come before the court, the court must not content itself by doing the arithmetic and passing the sentence which the arithmetic produces. It must look at the totality of the criminal behaviour and ask itself what is the appropriate sentence for all the offences.'


  • #35
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,976 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Tom Young wrote: »
    Yes, I see what you mean. It doesn't operate that way though.

    This applies when multiple offences come before the court for sentencing. I get that. This is not what happened in the example provided. It was a not a case of a burglar coming before the court charged with 50 burglaries. Whatever way you look at it the judges decision to award a concurrent sentence for a separate offence that occurred on a separate date and that was sentenced separately is just plain wrong.


  • #36
    Tom Young
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,338 ✭✭✭Tom Young


    Well, I wasn't planning on going here, but I will.

    The essential purpose of criminal law is the elimination of crime; Punishment is the means by which criminal law achieves this objective. Punishment facilitates the elimination of crime in a number of ways.

    Rehabilitation

    Usually punishment contributes to the rehabilitation of the offender. If rehabilitation occurs successfully, the offender should not re-offend. It is obvious that the absence of any decent or relapse back to criminal behaviour contributes to the elimination of crime.
     
    Deterrence
     
    Punishment usually acts as a deterrent to both the offender and would-be offenders, rendering them less likely to engage in criminal activity.
     
    Incapacitation
     
    Punishment that results in incarceration incapacitates the offender entirely. The offender should be unable to physically commit further offences during the duration of his incarceration. Other incapacitation might be, for example, signing on, curfew or attendance at treatment programmes.

    Our prison and sentencing system is far from utopian. Though, while I can see what the point the OP makes is, and I decry the unfairness of the system, I can also see some sense to it.

    See here by way of live example: http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/AB06F71F89A9AEB380257DA300590E8F

    There is often no statutory law relating to consecutive or concurrent sentences relevant to the circumstances of certain cases. It is often a matter for the common law.

    There are some cases which have referred to applicable principles. The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. G.McC. [2003] 3 I.R. 609 pointed out that it was the practice that a discretion in favour of consecutive sentences was to be exercised sparingly. The totality principle was also referred to: the overall sentence, after taking consecutive sentences into account, should be a just sentence.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,976 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Honestly, if you can see some sense in that particular decision well that beggars belief.

    I find it interesting that not once was the rights of victims mentioned.


  • #38
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,353 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    I don't understand the point of concurrent sentences when it has no effect on the time served that would be served anyway. Why bother?


  • #39
    Dublin Spur
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,317 ✭✭✭Dublin Spur


    the family of the deceased boy received no justice whatsoever
    the offender will pay no price for taking a life
    it really is that simple

    Are there any groups calling for/lobbying for new sentencing guidelines that would make it harder for Judges to apply these type of scandalous sentences ?


  • #40
    Zambia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Honestly, if you can see some sense in that particular decision well that beggars belief.

    I find it interesting that not once was the rights of victims mentioned.
    What are the victims rights?


  • #41
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Zambia wrote: »
    What are the victims rights?

    The right to life is a strong one.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,805 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    That is a right that is extinguished when you're dead. You cannot recover from death.

    The criminal justice system is supposed to work on behalf of public society, not individual victims. That said, we seem to be at some sort of halfway house now on that front with the consideration of victim impact statements becoming part of the sentencing process.


  • #43
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,976 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    hullaballoo wrote: »
    That is a right that is extinguished when you're dead. You cannot recover from death.

    The criminal justice system is supposed to work on behalf of public society, not individual victims. That said, we seem to be at some sort of halfway house now on that front with the consideration of victim impact statements becoming part of the sentencing process.


    The person who dies is not the only victim.


  • #44
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    Dublin Spur wrote: »
    Are there any groups calling for/lobbying for new sentencing guidelines that would make it harder for Judges to apply these type of scandalous sentences ?

    The vast majority of voters would like to see crimes punished in the harshest possible way, with prisons costing the tax payer the least possible amount.

    The lobby groups tend to want to look at alternatives to custodial sentances, and/or improve prison standards. Many people involved in this side of things, myself included, are well aware long sentances and harsh prison condistions ≠ a lower crime rate or safer society. In fact the majority of US states are held up as a total failure, and a vastly expensive one at that, in regards to crime.

    The Scandinavian model has some advantages and the Japanese model also works, for them, it would be unlikely to work here because of lack of societial shame and would be vastly unpopular becuase of it's extremely short sentances.

    With any discussion on sentances, lets cut to the chase - who pays?


  • #45
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    The vast majority of voters would like to see crimes punished in the harshest possible way, with prisons costing the tax payer the least possible amount.

    The lobby groups tend to want to look at alternatives to custodial sentances, and/or improve prison standards. Many people involved in this side of things, myself included, are well aware long sentances and harsh prison condistions ≠ a lower crime rate or safer society. In fact the majority of US states are held up as a total failure, and a vastly expensive one at that, in regards to crime.

    The Scandinavian model has some advantages and the Japanese model also works, for them, it would be unlikely to work here because of lack of societial shame and would be vastly unpopular becuase of it's extremely short sentances.

    With any discussion on sentances, lets cut to the chase - who pays?

    These are obstufcations. In the cases we are talking about -- serious crimes -- the guilty party is going to jail anyway. The question is for how long. The extra cost comes at the end of the sentence so it costs the future and the future is generally richer.

    Basically I agree that a sum total of minor crimes shouldn't add up to life but all serious crimes, from rape to murder to gbh should be consecutive. Otherwise it encourages mass killings or rapes when the perp knows he has one under his belt already.


  • #46
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    Eugene Norman wrote: »
    These are obstufcations. In the cases we are talking about -- serious crimes -- the guilty party is going to jail anyway. The question is for how long. The extra cost comes at the end of the sentence so it costs the future and the future is generally richer.

    Are you going for some sort of irony award with that?
    Eugene Norman wrote: »
    Basically I agree that a sum total of minor crimes shouldn't add up to life but all serious crimes, from rape to murder to gbh should be consecutive. Otherwise it encourages mass killings or rapes when the perp knows he has one under his belt already.

    That's simply, patently and to be honest, obviously untrue. In fact it's completely counter to what you're saying. If a life sentence is given for a single rape or murder, one might as well think in for a penny, in for a pound. Perhaps you're fundamentally misunderstanding how a life tariff works? A life sentence in the case of murder, the only sentence available in that case, means that when (if) the person is released they are released on licence and subject to recall. A more serious and dangerous offender is less likely to be released than someone who kills someone who, say, kills the rapist of their daughter.

    How do you think consecutive life sentences would work exactly?


  • #47
    Nermal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,854 ✭✭✭Nermal


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    With any discussion on sentances, lets cut to the chase - who pays?

    The US model fails because more than half the prison population are in there for drug offences. Stop imprisoning people for that, and double everyone else's sentence. Problem solved.


  • #48
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    Nermal wrote: »
    The US model fails because more than half the prison population are in there for drug offences. Stop imprisoning people for that, and double everyone else's sentence. Problem solved.

    While I agree with the first part (to a degree) actually by definition you just just make the problem exactly the same.


  • #49
    Dublin Spur
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,317 ✭✭✭Dublin Spur


    Does anyone think the family of the deceased boy received justice ?

    Simple yes or no will suffice.


  • #50
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,183 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Dublin Spur wrote: »
    Does anyone think the family of the deceased boy received justice ?

    Simple yes or no will suffice.

    What penalty would suffice? No penalty can remove the grief or the pain or the loss. That's why criminal sentencing isn't about the victim - it's about society as a whole.


  • #51
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Dublin Spur wrote: »
    Interesting points

    However I don't see how any of them would apply in the two sample cases I have referred to.

    I both cases I think consecutive sentencing was definitely the way to go.

    I really struggle with the idea that the rapist essentially ended up (in time terms) getting punished for only one of the rapes. A 2 for the price of one is a terrible message to be sending out to the public.

    I the hit and run case he will serve no time for that disgusting act and yet the family have a life sentence. It's just unfair but I appriciate your points.

    Shocked nobody yet agrees with me ? Funny old world eh ?

    You cant have consecutive life sentences. The fact that he is serving two is likely to lessen considerably his opportunity to be released on licence. Judges have no discrertion on this however.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    Are you going for some sort of irony award with that?



    That's simply, patently and to be honest, obviously untrue. In fact it's completely counter to what you're saying. If a life sentence is given for a single rape or murder, one might as well think in for a penny, in for a pound. Perhaps you're fundamentally misunderstanding how a life tariff works? A life sentence in the case of murder, the only sentence available in that case, means that when (if) the person is released they are released on licence and subject to recall. A more serious and dangerous offender is less likely to be released than someone who kills someone who, say, kills the rapist of their daughter.

    How do you think consecutive life sentences would work exactly?


    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.


  • #53
    234
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    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 never finish serving a life sentence.


  • #54
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    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.

    Okay, that makes no sense to me but you're entitled to your opinion. The overriding concern in the decision to release someone is risk assessment.


  • #55
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,976 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    234 wrote: »
    You never finish serving a life sentence.

    but you do finish being imprisoned.


  • #56
    234
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    but you do finish being imprisoned.

    Unless the government feels like putting you back in. In which case you go straight back inside.


  • #57
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    234 wrote: »
    Unless the government feels like putting you back in. In which case you go straight back inside.

    Just for the crack? or would it be for further offences or breach of release terms?


  • #58
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,805 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    It could be any reason. Someone who has looked at this might confirm but it's an executive power, so the cabinet can make the decision. It might be internally delegated to the Minister for Justice. Or, it might just be a power of that office, I can't remember exactly.

    Usually, there will be terms attached to any release that require good behaviour upon release. It's not quite like bail terms, as far as I understand, but it can be a fairly debilitating fettering of your liberty and rightly so.

    Edit: just to say, the government are unlikely to start rounding up released life-sentenced persons just for the hell of it. The cost of imprisoning someone is too high and the resources are too stretched. In theory, a government could re-imprison someone for political reasons but the President might deem that an appropriate reason to exercise her/his power to pardon.


  • #59
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,723 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #60
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,805 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    *prevented from ever leaving the EU, possibly.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,723 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


Advertisement