Sentencing of serious crimes

Laminations

Less than 5 yrs includes suspended sentences, fines, community service, and (obviously) sentences less than 5 yrs (i.e. less than 2 and 2-5). Sentences above 5 years are collated from 5-10 and 10+ in length.

Figures collated from http://www.courts.ie/courts.ie/library3.nsf/WebPageCurrentWeb/5017c38ceeb19934802575f20038270d?OpenDocument&Start=1&Count=1000&Collapse=2

I understand that there may be large variability in the seriousness of the crimes that fall under the umbrella 'assault' or 'drugs' but whats the deal with the short sentences for gun crimes?? If you look at the locations of these crimes they are mostly Dublin and Limerick.

Anyone have any more figures on this that maybe separates out the types of drug offences, assaults or gun crimes??

Laminations

Here's the breakdown which highlights that a large percentage of the people committing these crimes are being given suspended sentences. They are being found guilty and then given a suspended sentence...

Choke

I remember walking in on the sentencing of a Polish(-looking) man who had been convicted of gun possession.

The judge accepted, and the Gardaí agreed that he was not involved in any gang.
He had, AFAIR, no criminal record.
There was no suggestion that he intended to use it for a crime.
The judge also acknowledged that he came from a country who's more sympathetic to gun possession.

He was sentenced to several years, but they were suspended.

Should he have gone to jail?

Overheal

Do you have prison capacity statistics?

zootroid

Choke wrote: »

I remember walking in on the sentencing of a Polish(-looking) man who had been convicted of gun possession.

The judge accepted, and the Gardaí agreed that he was not involved in any gang.
He had, AFAIR, no criminal record.
There was no suggestion that he intended to use it for a crime.
The judge also acknowledged that he came from a country who's more sympathetic to gun possession.

He was sentenced to several years, but they were suspended.

Should he have gone to jail?

Yes.

Coming from a country that's more "sympathetic" to gun possession is no excuse, he should have been familiar with the laws and possible consequences here. I would do the same when travelling to a foreign country.

In my opinion, the sentences handed down in this country are far too lenient. In the news recently was the case of a man who received a 10 year sentence for manslaughter. Even though he had 72 previous convictions, he received a 10 year sentence for taking the life of another man. He only pleaded guilty at the last minute, which indicates that he did not co-operate fully with the investigation and only did so for his own interests. Do you think 10 years is enough for taking the life of another person? And what are the chances of him serving the full sentence?

The comment about prison capacity statistics, while relevant, is an entirely different problem.

97i9y3941

zootroid wrote: »

In my opinion, the sentences handed down in this country are far too lenient. In the news recently was the case of a man who received a 10 year sentence for manslaughter. Even though he had 72 previous convictions, he received a 10 year sentence for taking the life of another man. He only pleaded guilty at the last minute, which indicates that he did not co-operate fully with the investigation and only did so for his own interests. Do you think 10 years is enough for taking the life of another person? And what are the chances of him serving the full sentence?

i remember that case,the Office Public Prosecutions gave him the ace he needed,they where willing to accept an manslaughter plead which was outrageous,and no 10 year wont be served,expect the usual time deducted from been spent in custody along with good behaviour reward etc..

ArmaniJeanss

Choke wrote: »

I remember walking in on the sentencing of a Polish(-looking) man who had been convicted of gun possession.

If it was old army pistol being kept as a souvenir, or a family heirloom or some such, and he had no prior criminal record, then I think a suspended sentence is correct.
Insisting on a (not suspended) jail sentence in such a case would seem very harsh.

ei.sdraob

Overheal wrote: »

Do you have prison capacity statistics?

anyone watch Charlie Bird in USA before Frontline last night ?


remember that scene with the poor immigrants being made wear pink underwear and being put in tents in middle of the desert, their crime? trying to improve their families lives


that made me think
why are these people suffering while the serious offenders here who commit robbery, murder or deal in drugs get nice pampered treatment in expensive to run prisons

put up a few tents in any of the uninhabited islands out the west, and put any:
* rapists
* murderers
* burglars
* drug dealers

and make them wear pink underwear while they soak in the Irish weather

Laminations

Choke wrote: »

I remember walking in on the sentencing of a Polish(-looking) man who had been convicted of gun possession.

The judge accepted, and the Gardaí agreed that he was not involved in any gang.
He had, AFAIR, no criminal record.
There was no suggestion that he intended to use it for a crime.
The judge also acknowledged that he came from a country who's more sympathetic to gun possession.

He was sentenced to several years, but they were suspended.

Should he have gone to jail?

Ignorance of irish law is no excuse. The least he should have gotten is community service. Why did he have the gun? Was this the guy caught in the truck? Like someone said above just because its accepted in his country does not justify leniency in the courts- female genital mutilation comes to mind but there are countless other examples. You cant accidentally have a gun so it should be mandatory sentencing.

As for that guy getting 10 years with 70 odd previous convictions, how many convictions does it take to sufficiently influence a sentence upwards? Prison capacity is no excuse, they can find space for fine dodgers or protesters quick enough.

Mal-Adjusted

doing something once is bad enough, but I think repeat offenders should get mandatory 1.5 times their original gaol term and instant revocation of all perks, suspended time for good behavior, visitors etc.

walshb

The only thing worse than the law and the trials and the evidence etc is the sentencing of criminals for serious crime. Take a life and you may be out of jail in a few years. Murderers can get out in 10 years. We have a crazy system here. Parole eligibility is after 7 years I believe

Laminations

The stabbing guy had 72 previous convictions, including several convictions for assault and one for possession of a knife. If he had been committing crime since 15 (he is currently 33) he would need to be getting 4 convictions a year for that figure!! I am aware the convictions can come in groups but each conviction must have come with (on average) less than 3 months in prison (or a whole lot of concurrent sentences). They let this guy out time and time again until he murdered someone. He should have been under lock and key for his own protection as well as to protect society as a whole.

We have his conviction record, I'd like to see his sentencing record.

97i9y3941

i know we dont have enough prisons,so i guess we never see the three strike rule like they have in the usa

Laminations

Here is another example of a lenient sentence that isn't even served until the end. It was highlighted on the radio today.

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/serial-rapistrsquos-release-sparks-security-alert-1824984.html

(The serial rapist) was given 10 concurrent terms of 18 years and three concurrent terms of three years.

Thats 189 years altogether. He got out after 13

kraggy

Can someon tell me whose responsibility it is to increase/decrease the minimum and maximum sentences that can be given for each crime.

Is it politicians or who?

johnnyskeleton

walshb wrote: »

The only thing worse than the law and the trials and the evidence etc is the sentencing of criminals for serious crime.

So you're saying we shouldn't sentence people who commit serious crimes to jail? Let them walk free and unhindered because you have a dislike for law and order and are sick of trials and evidence.

walshb wrote: »

Take a life and you may be out of jail in a few years. Murderers can get out in 10 years.

I love made up statistics. 73% of people would disagree with you.

walshb wrote: »

We have a crazy system here.

Would you care to elaborate on this? Please first explain the system we have here, then explain why it is crazy, and then tell us what your alternative is. If your answer is "we should hang em all without a trial based on who I (as in you) think is guilty" then fair enough, but otherwise I fail to see how you can make a sustainable argument that the system we have is crazy.

johnnyskeleton

Laminations wrote: »

Here is another example of a lenient sentence that isn't even served until the end. It was highlighted on the radio today.

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/serial-rapistrsquos-release-sparks-security-alert-1824984.html

Thats 189 years altogether. He got out after 13

If that's a lenient sentence, what's a harsh sentence?

If your complaint is in relation to him getting out after 13 years, take it up with the Minister for Justice as it has nothing to do with sentencing.

Kraggy wrote:

Can someon tell me whose responsibility it is to increase/decrease the minimum and maximum sentences that can be given for each crime.

Is it politicians or who?

The oireachtas. They make the laws (subject to parameters set by the EU and the terms of the constitution).

walshb

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So you're saying we shouldn't sentence people who commit serious crimes to jail? Let them walk free and unhindered because you have a dislike for law and order and are sick of trials and evidence.




I love made up statistics. 73% of people would disagree with you.



Would you care to elaborate on this? Please first explain the system we have here, then explain why it is crazy, and then tell us what your alternative is. If your answer is "we should hang em all without a trial based on who I (as in you) think is guilty" then fair enough, but otherwise I fail to see how you can make a sustainable argument that the system we have is crazy.

Who said hang them?

I said that the sentences for serious crime in this country is an absolute disgrace. Do you 10-12-14-16-18 years or murder is okay?

You a judge or defence lawyer by any chance?

Also, where did I say that we shouldn't jail people for serious crime?

Made up statistics? There are instances of murderes being released from jail after 10 years. The law as far as I know allows a murderer to apply for parole after 7 years.If this doesn't strike you as disgusting, then good luck.

Average time spent in jail in Ireland or the most heinous of crimes, murder, is 17 years.
Crazy? You better ****ing believe it.

Though, as to specifics, it's those who let the filth of society out who are
the problem. The initial sentence, say LIFE is okay, but in practice it
never really means life.

How about the mandatory sentencing for those caught with drugs up
to a certai amount. Wasn't it supposed to be ten years? How many times was
this implemented? I am guessing lmost never

97i9y3941

might aswell be bringing back the death penalty since we cant afford to build any prisons and most only serve a fraction of their sentences..

Overheal

Fred83 wrote: »

might aswell be bringing back the death penalty since we cant afford to build any prisons and most only serve a fraction of their sentences..

You cant afford executions if you cant afford more prisoners. Executions cost 10 to 100 times more money due to litigation.

theg81der

There is no deterant to crime in this country, if you really want to kill someone here is definetely the place, if you had to pick. I think anyone who has any doubt needs to go sit in court for a day, its literally a joke.

Might have something to do with how far removed from real life our judges are. Ok they might be enlightened as to the plight of these "poor" individuals with limited resources and no access to education. How do you change that? Well I think, assuming they are as witless as assumed, its a bit like a dog or a young child you don`t give them a treat if they bite someone do you???

We need investments in poorer areas, and I don`t mean the BS of the last few years of meeting about it and paying expert to devise expensive plans which are never implimented, and alot more access and powers for social services. You know its nearly like the whole system is set up to promote the growth of crime, but thats one for conspiracy theories. I think its more the fear of being non-pc.

Laminations

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If that's a lenient sentence, what's a harsh sentence?

If your complaint is in relation to him getting out after 13 years, take it up with the Minister for Justice as it has nothing to do with sentencing.

A 189 year sentence condensed down to 18 is a lenient sentence in my eyes. Whats a harsh sentence? I dunno, he did rape a bunch of girls, he IS a convicted serial rapist. A harsh sentence would be something silly like capital punishment or daily whippings. If the man had a problem serving the rest of his life in prison then maybe he shouldn't have raped those girls. You might argue it was a compulsion, a sexual urge, beyond his control. Well if you argue he didn't have a choice in his behaviour then he is even more dangerous to society, a similar life sentence would apply.

Anyway whats your point? you'd prefer to see a person convicted of a serious crime get a lenient rather than a harsh sentence?

The judge in the case stated he was giving him this with the intention he serve the full 18 years.

Laminations

theg81der wrote: »

We need investments in poorer areas

I live in one of these poorer areas, a so-called crime spot. Its an insult to the law abiding citizens (me included) to suggest that 'lack of facilities' is an excuse for crime. I agree funding needs to go in (to keep kids in school mostly) but what facilities exactly would stop someone joyriding? You think they'd go for a nice swim instead? In Dublin any amount of facilities you can think of are just a bus ride away. Local facilities are usually available too but the problem is 'unsavory youths' congregate and vandalise and make them dangerous areas for the majority of good people in these areas.

You can't contiue to pour water into a bucket until you patch up the holes. Throwing money into an area (the magic regeneration schemes) wont rehabilitate the trouble makers, it'll just give them a nicer area to ruin.

Sorry theg81der, I know I'm quoting only a small part of your post, most of which I completely agree with but you get others who use this 'lack of facilities' argument as if it justifies crime.

kraggy

kraggy wrote: »

Can someon tell me whose responsibility it is to increase/decrease the minimum and maximum sentences that can be given for each crime.

Is it politicians or who?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The oireachtas. They make the laws (subject to parameters set by the EU and the terms of the constitution).

So why the hell don't the politicains increase minimum sentences for murder, rape and other violent crimes?

Why does everything have to wait until it's too late?

johnnyskeleton

walshb wrote: »

Who said hang them?

Well what's your alternative, since you appear to think that prison is not sufficient punishment?

walshb wrote: »

I said that the sentences for serious crime in this country is an absolute disgrace. Do you 10-12-14-16-18 years or murder is okay?

Not 10 or 12, but 14, 16, 18 depending on the circumstances yes. But the amount of time they serve first time round is not the full story - life means that the Minister for justice can keep them imprisoned for life if he or she wishes, and if they are released after a certain amount of time they can be put back in at a moments notice.

walshb wrote: »

You a judge or defence lawyer by any chance?

You still don't seem to understand the pretty simple concept that the amount of time actually spent in prison for convicted murders has nothing to do with the judicial system or lawyers, but is an executive function conferred on the Minister for Justice (and the President on consultation with the ministers, but that's a different story) which is usually exercised by the parole board. When a judge sentences someone to life, as far as he is concerned that person will serve life in prison unless there is intervention by the Minister for Justice.

How difficult is this to understand? If you took some time to actually understand how the Irish criminal justice system worked (instead of simply decrying it on any scrap of evidence) then you would realise that this is true and the whole premise of your post, that trials, evidence and sentencing (and by implication, the whole judicial process) are crazy does not stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.

And while you're entitled to your views, in a democratic society it is vital that we have fair trials for all. If you don't recognise this that is your democratic right to free expression, but it is a very short sighted view in my opinion.

walshb wrote: »

Also, where did I say that we shouldn't jail people for serious crime?

You said that the only thing worse than trials and evidence was sentencing. I'm not sure that you're actually going so far as to say that we should do away with trials and sentencing, but if you are then the two alternatives are to not punish people for committing crimes, or to punish people on capricious perceptions held by those who are in power. Neither in my view is particularly attractive.

Is that a fair synopsis of your view? If not, tell me, what's your alternative, the absence of which is a fairly significant flaw in your entire diatribe against the current judicial system.

walshb wrote: »

Made up statistics? There are instances of murderes being released from jail after 10 years.

If these are not made up statistics, let's see your numbers then.

walshb wrote: »

The law as far as I know allows a murderer to apply for parole after 7 years.If this doesn't strike you as disgusting, then good luck.

A right to apply? That strikes you as disgusting? They are perfectly entitled to apply, can you name a single instance of someone being granted parole after 7 years when serving a life sentence for murder?

walshb wrote: »

Average time spent in jail in Ireland or the most heinous of crimes, murder, is 17 years.
Crazy? You better ****ing believe it.

Not that crazy. Someone commits murder aged 21 gets out aged 38 after 17 harrowing years of living in a cell. If you have no particular political axe to grind, that's a good mix between punishment, rehabilitation and reducing the overall cost to the country.

walshb wrote: »

Though, as to specifics, it's those who let the filth of society out who are
the problem. The initial sentence, say LIFE is okay, but in practice it
never really means life.

You're almost, but not quite, starting to see my point. What you have yet to realise is that the person responsible for letting people out when serving a life sentence are politicans, not judges or lawyers.

walshb wrote: »

How about the mandatory sentencing for those caught with drugs up
to a certai amount. Wasn't it supposed to be ten years? How many times was
this implemented? I am guessing lmost never

After calling you up for making up statistics I'm not going to make up some of my own. It is not mandatory but presumptive for a first offence. Sometimes it is imposed, other times it is not. I don't think we would disagree that it is not imposed more often than it is. But I would disagree that it is almost never imposed.

Furthermore, it's all very well to sit on the sidelines and say this should be mandatory across the board, but the reality in the specific instance of s.15A is that a lot of the people who are convicted of it are not drug dealers but down and out drug addicts, people with large debts and no legitimate way to pay it, and foreigners, some of whom are trafficed into the country as mules. So it's all very well to take a black and white view of it, but it's another to actually look at the reality of the sitution.

johnnyskeleton

Overheal wrote: »

You cant afford executions if you cant afford more prisoners. Executions cost 10 to 100 times more money due to litigation.

Except in China.

theg81der wrote: »

There is no deterant to crime in this country, if you really want to kill someone here is definetely the place, if you had to pick. I think anyone who has any doubt needs to go sit in court for a day, its literally a joke.

Again, what's your alternative and what country has imperically reduced the level of crime by an increase in penalties? Can we stop with the generalised insults towards the criminal justice system? You don't like it, fine, but a little more constructive feedback if you please.

theg81der wrote: »

Might have something to do with how far removed from real life our judges are. Ok they might be enlightened as to the plight of these "poor" individuals with limited resources and no access to education. How do you change that? Well I think, assuming they are as witless as assumed, its a bit like a dog or a young child you don`t give them a treat if they bite someone do you???

Those judges could equally say that you are the one removed from reality.

Laminations wrote: »

A 189 year sentence condensed down to 18 is a lenient sentence in my eyes.

It wasn't reduced down to 18, nor was it ever 189 years.

But I can see how facts often get in the way of a good bit of outrage.

johnnyskeleton

kraggy wrote: »

So why the hell don't the politicains increase minimum sentences for murder, rape and other violent crimes?

Why does everything have to wait until it's too late?

Why would they, when they have done such a good job of convincing the less well informed members of society that it is all the work of a bunch of evil and out of touch judges. Besides, this tactic saves the taxpayer millions in prison spaces etc.

Overheal

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Except in China.

Indeed, the outrageous cost of Democracy and Freedoms.

theg81der

Laminations I was not talking about facilities, you may as well burn money! I`d invest in the young women in these areas, I don`t see any other way of changing the cycle.

Johnyskeleton so you see no realationship betwen our rising crime rates and our lack of consiquences? Have you sat in court for a day recently, I have? I`ve lived in one of these areas I`m not out of touch with reality but these bloated, pampered judges are. Any one of them not from a privilaged backround? The outlay involved in getting into the profession is a barrier to entry for the majority of people. I think its fair to say so that they are a bit removed from normal life if only sheerly based on their pay level they are going to frequent different places than the majority of people and so encounter different people etc.
Your right I can`t prove it but its common sense.

walshb

johnny, you serioulsy see nothin' wrong with a convicted murderer having the right to apply for parole after ****ing 7 years? Are you taking the piss.

You also think 17 years is a decent time for a murderer. Jeez, I hope to god nobody close to you is a victim of a serious crime, because if you are thinking that they will receive a stiff sentence, you will be sorely mistaken. Though, 17 years is okay, no?

And I know well that it is NOT the judges who release scum early. I know this.
BUT, it is judges who hand down sentences, some of which are disgusting and far
too lenient.

The most recent, the man convicted of 189 ****ing sex acts/crimes. What does he get? 4 years. Now, are you gonna' defend
or argue this one?

johnnyskeleton

Overheal wrote: »

Indeed, the outrageous cost of Democracy and Freedoms.

Yes, but it's not like the US death penalty is any more democratic.

theg81der wrote: »

Johnyskeleton so you see no realationship betwen our rising crime rates and our lack of consiquences?

What lack of consequences?

theg81der wrote: »

Have you sat in court for a day recently, I have? I`ve lived in one of these areas I`m not out of touch with reality but these bloated, pampered judges are. Any one of them not from a privilaged backround? The outlay involved in getting into the profession is a barrier to entry for the majority of people. I think its fair to say so that they are a bit removed from normal life if only sheerly based on their pay level they are going to frequent different places than the majority of people and so encounter different people etc.
Your right I can`t prove it but its common sense.

How exactly does living in "one of those areas" (whatever the hell that means) qualify you to make generalisations about the criminal justice system? Besides, inteligence (and ignorance) knows no geographic or demographic boundaries. To suggest, if it is what you really are suggesting, that a person who has a number of academic qualifications in law and many years working in the area knows less about the criminal justice system because they come from a low crime area (say tullamore) than someone who has no training, qualifications or experience of the criminal justice system but comes from a high crime area, say Moyross, is not a very cogent argument. I can only assume you think that there are roving bands of criminologists throughout the high crime areas distributing informative brochures to those people while maintaining an intricate system of disinformation in the lower crime areas.

Common sense is a moveable feast - you can use it to say anything.

walshb wrote: »

johnny, you serioulsy see nothin' wrong with a convicted murderer having the right to apply for parole after ****ing 7 years? Are you taking the piss.

Look, if you're not even going to read my posts I'm not going to reply to you any more.

walshb wrote: »

You also think 17 years is a decent time for a murderer. Jeez, I hope to god nobody close to you is a victim of a serious crime, because if you are thinking that they will receive a stiff sentence, you will be sorely mistaken. Though, 17 years is okay, no?

Yes I do. I hope to god nobody close to you is a victim of a serious crime, both generally (I wouldn't wish that on anyone) but also because you would end up being kicked around the internet as a cheap political football.

Can you not discuss things rationally without saying "are you taking the piss" and implying that the victims of serious crime and their family memebers are all sitting at home shouting "Oh Waily Waily Waily, only 17 years for my poor johnny's life".

If you want to talk in real terms fine. Otherwise I see no merit in anything that you say, because it is not debate or argument, it is just blind assertion.

You still haven't said what your alternative is.

walshb wrote: »

The most recent, the man convicted of 189 ****ing sex acts/crimes. What does he get? 4 years. Now, are you gonna' defend
or argue this one?

I don't even know what you are talking about. Please provide links or better yet, start another thread. These anecdotes are not advancing the argument.

Can you please stop avoiding the question and set out what you think is a fairer alternative? You haven't put forward one cogent argument to back up your views that the current system is a joke. Surely, if you think the current system is a joke you must have experience of other systems which work better? Tell us about them. Then, and only then will you have the right to criticise the criminal justice system. Otherwise, your argument is about as useful as saying "the government is crap because we are in a recession".