Sentencing of serious crimes

Overheal

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

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

Than China? :pac:

johnnyskeleton

Overheal wrote: »

Than China? :pac:

The US death penalty is no more democratic than the Chinese death penalty. Or to put it another way, being killed in the interests of a fair and democratic society is no different to being killed by a tyranical and oppressive society to the person who is to be killed.

walshb

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

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



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



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.



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".

Hey, chill out. You want an alternative from me as regards sentencing. Okay, here's one example I would give. Murderers cannot under any circumstances (unless proven later as innocent) be released before 40 years behind bars. There's one alternative, although seeing as you see no problem with a measly 17 years, I reckon this will fall on deaf ears.

As for the person who received a four ****ing years sentence very recently for 189 sex crimes against children, forget links, if you don't know about it, that's not my problem.

walshb

Ah here you are:

http://www.kilkennypeople.ie/news/Four-year-sentence-for-Curry.6015410.jp

Poor man was lonely and did say sorry, so I guess that makes it not too bad

So, here's another alternative for you. The judge who handed down this sentence should be made
explain to the public why he handed down such a lenient sentence and IF the reason doesn't cut it, which
is likely, then he should be removed from office.

Oh, and another alternative to this sentence? How about the rest of the mans life behind
bars as some sort of justice to the many lives he ruined. 21 years he was ruining lives. That's
a hell of a long time to be so heinous. The judge in this case had a chance to get justice for the
many people devastated by Curry; the judge failed them miserably.

Laminations

Johnnyskeleton, can you enlighten us as to the thinking behind giving ten 18 year sentences and three 3 year sentences to run concurrently. I never said reduction, I said compression. Technically it is 189 yrs. He got 18. Whats the justification for that? You may think that saying the government is crap because we are in a recession is not useful but it doesnt make it untrue. The idea that you must first have a solution before you point out a problem is ridiculous. You quote the value of qualifications at one stage but then common sense at another. If people do not think that sentences are fitting then it is up to the judiciary to explain the criminal justice system.

Walshb is not suggesting an alternative to prison, he like myself is suggesting sentences that fit the crime.

johnnyskeleton

walshb wrote: »

Hey, chill out. You want an alternative from me as regards sentencing. Okay, here's one example I would give. Murderers cannot under any circumstances (unless proven later as innocent) be released before 40 years behind bars.

What part of that's a matter for the minister for justice not for sentencing judges do you not understand? If you are arguing for judges to be allowed to set a minimum tarif of years to be served (like in the UK) then that would be a matter for sentencing.

If you are advocating a strict approach of mandatory sentencing then, while I would welcome that development on one level, I don't think it is a very fair system. When imposing sentence, a trial judge has to take into account the nature and seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the accused. If there was a mandatory sentence of 40 years for murder, juries might bring in verdicts of manslaughter not because they didn't think it was murder, but because they feel sympathy for the accused (or indeed the family) involved. Irish juries are like that, and it would be very difficult to secure murder convictions if there was a mandatory sentence of 40 years.

Furthermore, while mandatory sentencing is fine for certain types of offences such as murder i.e. where the offence is always very serious and the convicted person must of necessity intended to commit such a serious offence, there is such a different range of severity and personal circumstances that mandatory sentencing would result in unfair decisions in all but a very few cases (i.e. the most serious offences would be underpunished and the least serious would be overly punished).

walshb wrote: »

There's one alternative, although seeing as you see no problem with a measly 17 years, I reckon this will fall on deaf ears.

That's not an alternative, that's just one suggestion, and it doesn't even relate to sentencing. You said that sentencing in the country was crazy, but you haven't suggested how it should be done better as a system.

Equally, the fact that you think 17 years in chokey is measly suggests that you won't listen to reason either.

walshb wrote: »

As for the person who received a four ****ing years sentence very recently for 189 sex crimes against children, forget links, if you don't know about it, that's not my problem.

Ah here you are:

http://www.kilkennypeople.ie/news/Four-year-sentence-for-Curry.6015410.jp

Poor man was lonely and did say sorry, so I guess that makes it not too bad

So, here's another alternative for you. The judge who handed down this sentence should be made
explain to the public why he handed down such a lenient sentence and IF the reason doesn't cut it, which
is likely, then he should be removed from office.

Oh, and another alternative to this sentence? How about the rest of the mans life behind
bars as some sort of justice to the many lives he ruined. 21 years he was ruining lives. That's
a hell of a long time to be so heinous. The judge in this case had a chance to get justice for the
many people devastated by Curry; the judge failed them miserably.

Apart from anything else, the maximum sentence for indecent assault prior to 1981 was 5 years imprisonment.

Laminations wrote: »

Johnnyskeleton, can you enlighten us as to the thinking behind giving ten 18 year sentences and three 3 year sentences to run concurrently. I never said reduction, I said compression. Technically it is 189 yrs. He got 18. Whats the justification for that?

I don't know, I wasn't there. But as to the issue of having sentences run concurrently, the idea is that the overall sentence should reflect the severity of the offence and the circumstances of the accused. If he was sentenced individually for each offence they might have been lower amounts. The judge must have been of the view that 18 years was the appropriate setence overall in the case.

Laminations wrote: »

You may think that saying the government is crap because we are in a recession is not useful but it doesnt make it untrue. The idea that you must first have a solution before you point out a problem is ridiculous.

Saying the government is crap can not be true (unless they are physically composed entirely of faces) or false. It is a matter of opinion. If you are criticising something without reference to why it is wrong it is mere baseless opinion. In order to have some validity or persuasiveness to that opinion, you have to show what the system is lacking. To do that, you have to point to an alternative, one way or another.

Laminations wrote: »

You quote the value of qualifications at one stage but then common sense at another.

Ha. What I said about common sense is that it is a moveable feast i.e. it can be whatever you say it means.

Laminations wrote: »

If people do not think that sentences are fitting then it is up to the judiciary to explain the criminal justice system.

No, it's up to society as a whole to decide this surely? But as with everything, political decisions must be rational, practical and transparent. It is futile suggesting longer prison sentences for all if you are not prepared to pay for it. Likewise, it is merely rhetoric to take an absolute stance on the percieved deterrent aspect of sentencing without regard to any of the other factors involved. Apart from anything else, there is little proof that increased sentences alone have much of a deterrent effect on serious and violent offences.

Laminations wrote: »

Walshb is not suggesting an alternative to prison, he like myself is suggesting sentences that fit the crime.

I agree that sentences should fit the crime, but throwing out a few random examples does not amount to an argument that sentences overall do not fit the crime. There are approximately 3,000 crimes tried on indictment each year in Ireland. To select a handful as being unduly lenient does not amount to a criticism of the system as a whole.

Laminations

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

a trial judge has to take into account the nature and seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the accused.

So its not all a matter for the minister. This is where we want explanations. The judiciary should justify their sentences, for example the man with 72 previous convictions I mentioned earlier in this thread. How were his previous convictions grouped and why? how many concurrent sentences did he serve. At what point, if any, did his previous convictions seriously impact the sentences he received for his latter crimes? After all these convictions was a 10 year sentence for stabbing a man (because he wanted him to leave his flat) justified. We want explanations.

Laminations

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't know, I wasn't there. But as to the issue of having sentences run concurrently, the idea is that the overall sentence should reflect the severity of the offence and the circumstances of the accused. If he was sentenced individually for each offence they might have been lower amounts. The judge must have been of the view that 18 years was the appropriate setence overall in the case.

All fine and dandy, all I want is a public justification of the bit in bold. The judge hands down a sentence, he explains why its of a certain length.