Judge lets rapist walk free, again.

Capt'n Midnight

DublinWriter wrote:

I think the judge was playing a 'long-game' and was initially trying to make a point and push for mandatory sentencing as previous Irish case-law has been all over the shop when it comes to imposing penal sentances on those sucessfully convicted of rape when cases goes to appeal.

I'd like to say all's well that ends well, but yer-man will be back on the streets in 18 months and there won't be any major judicial review or overhaul of sentancing in such cases.

No it's the Judges who are all over the place on sentencing. Look at how few people receive mandatory disqualifications for drink driving or mandatory 10 years for certain drugs offenses. On the news today the prosecuters in dublin castle were going on about getting the govt' to create more mandatory scentences / better recomended ones.

cast_iron

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

No it's the Judges who are all over the place on sentencing. Look at how few people receive mandatory disqualifications for drink driving or mandatory 10 years for certain drugs offenses.

Hold on, the 10 years for drug offences is NOT mandatory in the literal sense of the word.

Also, I think you are misrepresenting the case with drink driving offences. I'm guessing you are referring to those who get away with it completely, as opposed to those who get 3 months instead of 2 years off the road?
If so, it's nothing to do with mandatory sentencing.

Sand

Littering has nothing to do with the activation of the sentence. That is taking a skewed and incorrect view of the judge's decision. It is something that the Herald plays up to though, not because it is true but because it sells papers who want to be outraged about anything a judge does.

I think its a pretty accurate summary of the sentencing in this case. The difference between him getting 3 years [still a pathetic sentence] and walking away with a scolding was throwing a cigarette on the ground. The judge leaps from a ridiculously lenient sentence to a draconian view over a spot of littering.

Justice needs to be done, and to be *seen* to be done, or the justice system is undermined. Why would a victim of rape come forward and seek the prosecution of his/her rapist when they see the so called justice thats on offer? 3 years suspended sentence? Whats the point?

You are assuming that because this may be true in one case that the whole system is faulty and judges should be put in their place. I don't think you should base an entire argument on sentencing based on the media's view of this one case. Besides, the matter is on appeal to the CCA.

Youre assuming that my views are based on this case alone...
It would be wonderful if we could have flexiability in sentencing without compromising justice, but many judges seem incapable of balancing the two demands. If mandatory sentencing is what is required to prevent judges handing down sentences that undermine justice, then sadly that is what is required.

johnnyskeleton

Sand wrote:

I think its a pretty accurate summary of the sentencing in this case. The difference between him getting 3 years [still a pathetic sentence] and walking away with a scolding was throwing a cigarette on the ground. The judge leaps from a ridiculously lenient sentence to a draconian view over a spot of littering.

He didn't throw it on the ground, he threw it at her. That's assault, not littering.

Sand wrote:

Justice needs to be done, and to be *seen* to be done, or the justice system is undermined. Why would a victim of rape come forward and seek the prosecution of his/her rapist when they see the so called justice thats on offer? 3 years suspended sentence? Whats the point?

Well there are two ways of looking at the activation of the suspended sentence - that it was an assault and showed that he was unrepentant on the one hand, and on the other there is your view that the sentence was activated because of littering. Now, if you take the first view, and explain to people why the sentence was activated, they begin to understand what a suspended sentence is and that it isn't merely a slap on the wrist. Thus confidence is restored. If you take the second view and go around telling people that the criminal justice system is a joke and only activated the sentence because of littering, you are undermining the system yourself and you might discourage victims from reporting offences - based on what is, in my view, a slanted and untrue account of the activation of the sentence.

Sand wrote:

Youre assuming that my views are based on this case alone...
It would be wonderful if we could have flexiability in sentencing without compromising justice, but many judges seem incapable of balancing the two demands. If mandatory sentencing is what is required to prevent judges handing down sentences that undermine justice, then sadly that is what is required.

Mandatory sentencing is, IMO, nothing more than a political ploy. It plays up to the PD/Fine Gael images of being tough on crime, but they are not very effective as a deterrent. In fact, they encourage recidivism (hence the origins of the phrase "you may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb"). Much of the current thinking on sentencing is, in my view, based on the idea that there should be light at the end of the tunnel and that the opportunity should be given for rehabilitation. Mandatory sentences gets rid of this.

Most judges (and Carney is no exception) are quite conservative and would be in favour of longer sentences. However, the possibility of rehabilitation should not be overlooked. In my view, if any particular victim of crime wants the offender to serve a longer sentence, they should turn up on the day of the sentence hearing and tell the judge how it has affected them. Even though there are victim impact statements, they are not as immediate or as evocative as the victim giving evidence in court.

I also believe (one of the very few areas where I agree with the Minister for Justice) that prosecution counsel should be entitled to make legal submissions on sentence. In some US states, many DAs can "go for the maximum" so to speak, and while I don't think that they should be as partisan as that,I think the prosecution should be allowed to resist an effort to suspend a sentence where they think it is appropriate.

Gobán Saor

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Mandatory sentencing is........not very effective as a deterrent.

This is an oft quoted phrase which is often used by those who are "liberal" on crime to argue for lighter sentences and a more "understanding" approach to criminals. I would suggest it misses the point somewhat. There are two other ways a prison sentence can reduce crime. One, the criminal might be rehabilitated and not go on to commit further crime - in reality a pretty forlorn hope. Two, there is the common sense notion that while a criminal is in prison he is not generally committing crimes against the population at large (mobile phone based crime excepted:rolleyes: )Thus a long sentence is a surefire guarantee of a reduction in crime from that particular criminal. This should be the maion factor driving sentences particularly for multiple repeat offenders.[/QUOTE]

johnnyskeleton

Gob&#225 wrote: »

This is an oft quoted phrase which is often used by those who are "liberal" on crime to argue for lighter sentences and a more "understanding" approach to criminals.

Or, it might be used by people who take a utilitarian view of the criminal justice, and ask at what point are you flogging a dead horse? In any case the argument shouldn't be polarised into liberals and PDs, but should instead focus on what is an appropriate sentence, and I feel that calls for mandatory sentences are a knee jerk reaction and are in many cases inappropriate. In many ways they seem to only be a political ploy to quell the calls for blood - kind of like the way US courts impose ridiculous sentences on terrorists - e.g. 240 years without parole.

I would suggest it misses the point somewhat. There are two other ways a prison sentence can reduce crime. One, the criminal might be rehabilitated and not go on to commit further crime - in reality a pretty forlorn hope.

I disagree on two counts. Firstly, a person is more likely to be rehabilitated from a drug treatment programme or under the auspices of the Probation and Welfare services or some other special kind of therapy than they would from a longer prison sentence. More time in jail can often make hardened criminals out of people who might be turned. Secondly, given that a large proportion of crimes are committed by drug users, staying off drugs can often equal not committing crimes.

Two, there is the common sense notion that while a criminal is in prison he is not generally committing crimes against the population at large (mobile phone based crime excepted:rolleyes: )

But then this argument goes against calls for mandatory sentences in crimes like rape - crimes which are often committed by a person with no previous convictions and no liklihood of reoffending.

Thus a long sentence is a surefire guarantee of a reduction in crime from that particular criminal. This should be the maion factor driving sentences particularly for multiple repeat offenders

This should be the main factor for imposing long sentences, not mandatory sentences. But I reiterate my point that if you know that you are going to be sentenced for a mandatory length, then there is no reason to plead guilty, no reason not to commit more crimes while on bail, and no reason to keep order when in jail.