[article] Are you of 'good stock' and should it matter?

johnnyskeleton

nacho libre wrote: »

ah but the point is before they reoffended they were considered to be men of good stock who because of their background were unlikely to reoffend.

Yes, and everyone is entitled to this presumption. It would be completely unworkable if a judge were to say "you have been convicted once, therefore I assume that you will offend again" without anything to indicate either way. Where a person has the support structures of a family, job, or someone (anyone) who will take an interest in them, their chances of reoffending are dramatically reduced.

While you may point to instances where people from otherwise good backgrounds reoffend, you may find many others where they only ever commit one offence.

johnnyskeleton

blue shimmering wrote: »

Yes I am suggesting that the victims or their family should have a say in the issue of sentencing, they are the one's who have been wronged! The offender has the whole court case to paint a picture of how "good" he is

That's wrong. The court case (whether it be a trial or a summary of the facts where the person pleads) is an opportunity for the DPP to outline the seriousness of the offence. The defence are limited to raising a doubt about whether the offence actually happened or not. They do not lead evidence as to how good a person the accused is.

blue shimmering wrote: »

- mostly the family of the victim/victims do not get a chance to contribute to the court case at all and are left with a lot of unanswered questions!

That's a separate issue, and the reason they do not get a chance to contribute to the court case is that they are not bringing the court case, the state is. However, private prosecutions do occasionally happen.

blue shimmering wrote: »

In most situations the victim would have a fairly good idea if the perpertrator was remorseful or not, I have seen cases where the victim or his/her family have pleaded with the judge for a lenient sentence - even in the bible it is "an eye for an eye", I do know that forgiveness is there to but you have to look for forgiveness to get it!

I agree.

blue shimmering wrote: »

All the same I do know that these cases are very complicated and it is very difficult to generalise, there is always the human aspect in there - but my view on murderers and rapists is - put them in somewhere and throw away the key! Sometimes jail is too good for them although maybe they will not get things their own way while in there and also could end up getting raped themselves, at least then they would know how it feels!

Two wrongs don't make a right. But in any event a judge must do what is best for society, not what makes the specific victims feel good about themselves. It is not in society's best interest to lock people up and throw away the key without any attention to the specific circumstances.

blue shimmering wrote: »

I know you are now thinking how cruel is that but they are lucky I don't have a say because even if it was someone I knew well etc., liked and respected if in my heart and soul I knew they had done the terrible crime, I WOULD NEVER WRITE A CHARACTER REFERENCE FOR THEM EVEN IF THEY WERE MY OWN FAMILY!

I don't think that is cruel, but I don't believe that it's true either.

johnnyskeleton

nacho libre wrote: »

I was making a general comment on stats relating to the number of incidents of abuse that don't make it to court and drawing a correlation with this case as to why many of them never make it to court.

The reasons why there is such a high attrition rate for sexual cases are well known and I think you're aware of them too so I won't recite them here. However, political intervention is not one of them, nor has anyone previously suggested that character references from public figures discourages people from proceeding with criminal trials.

The issue of societal attitudes towards sexual offences has meant that until recently, abused children have not been believed by the authorities (and even by their own relatives). That has changed in recent years, but even still that was due to the way people didn't believe (or didn't want to believe) that such things could happen. It was nothing to do with an attitude of covering it up or to do with politics etc, so I don't see how this connects the low conviction rate to the present case.

So while I accept that there is a low rate of conviction to complaints in sexual offences (three noteworthy facts on this are that Ireland has a higher ratio that a lot of other countries, there are more proven false allegations in this area than in others, and even still sexual offences does not have the lowest ratio of this kind - I believe burglary does) I do not in any way see how that is connected to what is discussed herein.

nacho libre wrote: »

Such letters should also have no bearing in determining sentencing for serious crime.

I've already answered this, but I don't see the distinction to be made for serious offences. Everyone has the right to be heard, even if it makes little difference to the sentence.

nacho libre wrote: »

as an example. let's say you have a wealthy barrister, who donates regularly to charity and gives blood, and a person who is poor and a latycho, are up on the exact same charges for sexual abuse and both enter a guilty plea. the wealthy barrister has character references from his distingushed peers entered in mitigation

should not both receive the same sentence regardless of their position in socity and background. i would see it as a gross dereiction of duty by the judge if the barrister got a lighter sentence. I concede that the Barrister is probably less likely to offend.

I think the barrister should get a lesser sentence on the basis of (a) his charity work and, more importantly, (b) the lesser liklihood of reoffending.

Equally, if it was the second person who donates to charity and gives blood, and on the evidence he would be the less likely candidate for re-offending, then he should properly be given the lesser sentence.

The character references will only go to a very limited extend in showing a likelihood of never re-offending. I would also add that in reality the second person is just as likely (if not more likely) to get character references from people in the local community, even if they are not as well known.

blue shimmering

Two wrongs don't make a right. But in any event a judge must do what is best for society, not what makes the specific victims feel good about themselves. It is not in society's best interest to lock people up and throw away the key without any attention to the specific circumstances.

Maybe they don't make a "right" but the way our prison's are filling up what we are doing at the moment doesn't seem to improve the situation at all! These men or indeed women don't seem to be too worried about going to jail, I think our judicial system is much too soft on criminals irrelevant to how many times they have offended in the past or if they are of "good or bad stock"!

johnnyskeleton

blue shimmering wrote: »

Maybe they don't make a "right" but the way our prison's are filling up what we are doing at the moment doesn't seem to improve the situation at all! These men or indeed women don't seem to be too worried about going to jail, I think our judicial system is much too soft on criminals irrelevant to how many times they have offended in the past or if they are of "good or bad stock"!

Your first sentence sounds like you realise prison doesn't solve any problems it just sweeps it under the carpet, but then your second sentence seems to contradict that.

Do you think 13 years is too soft a punishment? On what basis? Or is this an amorphous attack on the judiciary based on newspaper headlines "Shocking judge lets murderer walk free for not paying his tv licence" "Judge lets rapist walk free after he serves 5 years in prison" and the like.

I would suggest that you are incorrect as regards people not being worried about jail - most of the time crimes are committed impulsively, passionately or due to an addiction, and they don't think of the consequences at all. Suggesting longer prison sentences as a deterrent is 19th century thinking, because it doesn't really work.

AngryBadger

nacho libre wrote: »

It doesn't seem to be the case when it comes to sex crimes. As i can attest to several cases in my aera where men from 'good stock' were convicted for reoffending. However, you'll quite likely cite these instances as exceptions to the rule.

I don't have to cite them as anything since you pulled that proxy-implication out of thin air.

I didn't say people from certain demogrpahics will never re-offend, or will always re-offend.

I said the likelihood was irrefutably tied to their background.

However, you'll quite likely just make up some other totally random point and redpond to that instead of responding to what I actually said.

blue shimmering

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Your first sentence sounds like you realise prison doesn't solve any problems it just sweeps it under the carpet, but then your second sentence seems to contradict that.

Do you think 13 years is too soft a punishment? On what basis? Or is this an amorphous attack on the judiciary based on newspaper headlines "Shocking judge lets murderer walk free for not paying his tv licence" "Judge lets rapist walk free after he serves 5 years in prison" and the like.

I would suggest that you are incorrect as regards people not being worried about jail - most of the time crimes are committed impulsively, passionately or due to an addiction, and they don't think of the consequences at all. Suggesting longer prison sentences as a deterrent is 19th century thinking, because it doesn't really work.

Yes I do think 13 years was a long sentence but he/or his family were trying to get this lessened down, I do not know if he had other offences committed or if this was his first but I do know that these two young girls will be scarred for life! It doesn't really matter to them whether it is his first or subsequent offences their lives will never be the same again.

I do agree that prison doesn't seem to really work for these offenders and a lot of the time they come out a lot worse than when they went in, but what alternative is there? Could they contribute in some way to the community rather than costing the taxpayers and communities a lot of money?

I don't read tabloid papers so I am only going on what is in this thread and also what is in the more influencial papers - The Times and Independent! I do think all the same that the victims and the impact on their lives should in some way be considered before the convicted criminal!

johnnyskeleton

blue shimmering wrote: »

Yes I do think 13 years was a long sentence but he/or his family were trying to get this lessened down, I do not know if he had other offences committed or if this was his first but I do know that these two young girls will be scarred for life! It doesn't really matter to them whether it is his first or subsequent offences their lives will never be the same again.

It doesn't really matter (or at least it shouldn't) whether he gets a 5 year sentence or a 13 year sentence, but I honestly believe that in recent years the victims of crime have been told by the media and by people like yourself (even if it is with a good intention) that a 5 year or even a 10 year sentence is a mild punishment, and that makes the victims feel like they haven't been served by justice. When there is outcry over a sentence, I doubt the victims create it so much as the media whips it up into a frenzy. But if it doesn't really matter to them whether it is his first or subsequent offence, do you understand that that matters quite a lot to the sentencing judge?

blue shimmering wrote: »

I do agree that prison doesn't seem to really work for these offenders and a lot of the time they come out a lot worse than when they went in, but what alternative is there? Could they contribute in some way to the community rather than costing the taxpayers and communities a lot of money?

If someone who is unlikely to reoffend is given a lesser sentence or a part suspended sentence (e.g. 13 years with the last 5 suspended) they can then go on to work, have a family, do charity work, tell others not to follow their example, and as such will be a benefit to society. But this of course will inevitably be seen by the media as the judges wanting to let criminals walk free (whatever reason a judge might have to let a criminal walk free undeservedly is beyond me). So your point highlights one of the factors a judge will consider which will be twisted out of context by the media.

blue shimmering wrote: »

I don't read tabloid papers so I am only going on what is in this thread and also what is in the more influencial papers - The Times and Independent! I do think all the same that the victims and the impact on their lives should in some way be considered before the convicted criminal!

1) The indo is a rag I'm afraid.
2) If you don't read the tabloids, you make the same point that they make I'm afraid.
3) What evidence do you have (in the specific case or in general) that suggests that the court did not consider the victims before the criminal? I would infer that quite the opposite happened here in that the judge imposed 13 years which places a lot of emphasis on the seriousness of the offence and little emphasis on the letter that sparked the whole controversy.
4) You have to remember as well that while this case is one of the most serious cases of the second most serious offence in Ireland, the victims of more minor offences might also seek to have their pound of flesh, and if for example, a victim of a minor assault (no injuries) wanted the person to be locked up for 13 years it is simply not going to happen. So while judges do have regular regard to the victim and to the seriousness of the offence in general, it is only one factor of many to be considered.

carolmon

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It doesn't really matter (or at least it shouldn't) whether he gets a 5 year sentence or a 13 year sentence,



If someone who is unlikely to reoffend is given a lesser sentence or a part suspended sentence (e.g. 13 years with the last 5 suspended) they can then go on to work, have a family, do charity work, tell others not to follow their example, and as such will be a benefit to society.

It sure as hell matters to the victim how long the sentence is...........
and to society cos there is a guarantee there is no re-offending whilst the perpetrator is locked away.

(And I note the work "unlikely" - not a call I'd be willing to make.)


RE offenders becoming involved in charity work/ aiding society by publicly declaring their wrongdoing - how "likely" is that?
I would think it is more "likely" they will re-offend if you view the stats on recidivism.


Also re the issue of offenders going on to lead productive lives, have families/ career

often victims of crime are not able to achieve all this, in the cases of sexual abuse family life and relationships will be indelibly affected, work options may be damaged if there is ongoing mental health issues after the assault (depression and anxiety are well documented symptoms and can be persistent)

I feel the concern and support belongs with the victim but unfortunately from the very outset the victim is not as important in the system, a witness in a court case, given no legal representation of their own.

Offenders have support systems when leaving prison, there is help with housing, employment and counselling / addiction services.

Victims are left to sink or swim.

johnnyskeleton

carolmon wrote: »

It sure as hell matters to the victim how long the sentence is...........
and to society cos there is a guarantee there is no re-offending whilst the perpetrator is locked away.

Good work selectively editing my post. If you accept that it matters to society that an offender to get the appropriate sentence, do you not accept that that would override the victim's need for vengeance?

I honestly don't believe it makes much difference to a victim of crime whether the offender gets 5 years or 15 years, although from time to time some will say "I want a greater/lesser sentence". But in the last few years the press have gone on a crusade so now everyone is saying that victims want high sentences, to the extent that they have become a political football, and it almost shames victims into wanting higher sentences. But ultimately if a person is convicted and sentenced appropriately, this satisfies most victims.

carolmon wrote: »

(And I note the work "unlikely" - not a call I'd be willing to make.)

Then don't, but by the same token don't therefore decide that all convicted persons are likely to reoffend. We have a long tradition of giving people the benefit of the doubt, a second chance, and support in rehabilitating themselves.

carolmon wrote: »

RE offenders becoming involved in charity work/ aiding society by publicly declaring their wrongdoing - how "likely" is that?

Very, and the majority of recidivists are for minor offences or are drug/alcohol addicts.

carolmon wrote: »

I would think it is more "likely" they will re-offend if you view the stats on recidivism.

Post your stats if you want to debate them (one very cogent argument is that we have very little in the way of rehabilitation facilities in Ireland, hence the recidivist rate), but you're missing the point entirely. To impose a higher sentence because of a statistic rather than due to the particular circumstances of the offender is a very callous way to look at things. It would be like saying that because statistically men cause more serious accidents then all men should be taken off the road.

carolmon wrote: »

Also re the issue of offenders going on to lead productive lives, have families/ career

often victims of crime are not able to achieve all this, in the cases of sexual abuse family life and relationships will be indelibly affected, work options may be damaged if there is ongoing mental health issues after the assault (depression and anxiety are well documented symptoms and can be persistent)

Misery loves company eh? What exactly is achieved by denying the offender a normal life because they denied someone else theirs? It's pure revenge - in fact it's worse than revenge, it's pure mathematics. This is another problem that seems to be growing in our culture. If you're life hasn't been destroyed by the violent or sexual crime perpetrated against you, you're not a real victim. It's like suggesting that there is no incentive for the victims of crime to get their life back on track, because then they will be denied their pound of flesh.

We want our criminals evil and our victims destroyed. Nothing else will do for the red tops.

carolmon wrote: »

I feel the concern and support belongs with the victim but unfortunately from the very outset the victim is not as important in the system, a witness in a court case, given no legal representation of their own.

Firstly, would you care to state exactly what you mean by concern and support? In sexual cases the complainants are invariably treated with concern and support from the judge.

Secondly, in rape cases and in private prosecutions, the complainants do have their own legal representation.

Thirdly, when someone is brought on trial, they are presumed innocent. This is a bone of contention with victims advocacy groups, and looked at from their point of view it makes sense, but if we were to adopt their views (i.e. that all persons who make a complaint should be believed and no doubt should be cast upon them) as a realistic approach then it is a presumption of guilt, and we would have more false complaints than genuine ones.

To give an example, the new victims rights bill states that when being questioned in court a victim (note not "alleged victim" or "complainant" it is presumed that they are a victim) cannot be asked anything that might undermine their dignity. Calling someone a liar is to undermine their dignity, but what if they actually are a liar?

Fourthly, who should the victim be more important than? The Director of Public Prosecutions? The Judge? The Jury? Or do you mean the accused? To be honest, most accused persons would happily trade places with a complainant any day of the week.

Finally, what do you think they need legal representation for?

carolmon wrote: »

Offenders have support systems when leaving prison, there is help with housing, employment and counselling / addiction services.

Victims are left to sink or swim.

You've never heard of any victims support groups? RCC, 4in1, CARI, etc?

Ultimately, no one is advocating the rights of criminals over victims (or the rights of criminals at all). This debate is divided between victims rights advocates who only look at one side on the one hand, and people who are trying to look at the criminal justice system as a whole on the other. To say that my views are cold is probably correct, but I'd rather have a cold dispationate view of the Criminal Justice system than a biased unreasonable one.

And the one thing that does make me quite passionate in this debate are the people who claim to champion victims rights, because the majority of them are pursuing their own agenda and are only using victims as a means of getting public sympathy. I object to victims being used for such a cynical purpose, and I object even more strongly to the way in which this point of view ultimately negatively impacts victims rather than improving their lot.

nacho libre

AngryBadger wrote: »

I don't have to cite them as anything since you pulled that proxy-implication out of thin air.

I didn't say people from certain demogrpahics will never re-offend, or will always re-offend.

I said the likelihood was irrefutably tied to their background.

However, you'll quite likely just make up some other totally random point and redpond to that instead of responding to what I actually said.

Yawn.
I conceded this already when i mentioned those cases were likely to be exceptions. You purposely missed that of course or didn't understand what i meant. By stating they were exceptions i was acknowledging that background does play a major part in whether a person is likely to reoffend. I also acknowledged this in my reply to johnnyskeleton when i gave the example of a barrister..

To clear a few other thing ups: I was not suggesting political interference was
stopping incidents of sex crimes coming before the courts rather societal attitudes were.
To conclude, while background is a good indictor as to whether someone will likely reoffend, in my opinion, it should be the gravity of the offense and the accused plea that solely determines the length of the sentence handed down.

AngryBadger

nacho libre wrote: »

I conceded this already when i mentioned those cases were likely to be exceptions.

I wasn't making an addition point/argument in my last post, I was responding to points you inferred I was making that weren't contained in the relevant post.

Well done on spelling "yawn" though, shows real maturity.

nacho libre

To repeat..when i finished off my post by saying "....you'll likely cite those cases as exceptions", i was acknowledging i was wrong in my assertion and that your statement is correct. I was not inferring anything else.

Also, I was expressing exasperation(by using the word "yawn") at the somewhat abrasive and patronising nature of your replies. Neither are necessary.
You are right though i was wrong to respond in the manner i did.

AngryBadger

nacho libre wrote: »

To repeat..when i finished off my post by saying "....you'll likely cite those cases as exceptions", i was acknowledging i was wrong in my assertion and that your statement is correct. I was not inferring anything else.

Also, I was expressing exasperation(by using the word "yawn") at the somewhat abrasive and patronising nature of your replies. Neither are necessary.
You are right though i was wrong to respond in the manner i did.

Fair enough, it's not my intention to cause offence in my posts, but I generally respond with what I thinkis a appropriate tone given the nature of the post I respond to, if someone is making an informed point (or even an uninformed one in a manner I consider to be reasonable and courteous then I respond in kind.

Your posts I found to be one-sided and juvenile, so I responded in what i considered to be an appropriate manner, and you found it abrasive/patronising.

Maybe we were both wrong. at any rate, you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine, and we both obviously feel strongly about what we're saying.

So let's just agree to disagree

Deep Easterly

mike65 wrote: »

Full Story



I am, but not posh

Whatever about the crass invertention by a local TD in a matter of law, the use of such a term as Good Stock makes me wonder about if the spirit of a republic actually counts for much in this republic.

Does Kathleen Lynch judge all interventions on the percieved "quality" of members of the public?

.

"Quality" in her terms, are those from middle class, financially secure, and brain washed, sociatal deluded idiots. In sum, those who are just like herself.

Those with the lack of "quality", are forced to be that way by deliberate financial oppression, sociatal oppression, social exclusion; the lack of social power etc etc etc.

How dare she judge who is of "quality" and who isn't. She is deluded, and deluded by a contrived political/social construct that means absolutely nothing.

I have spoken.:mad:

(well, written, but you know what I mean..:D)