Rationale for concurrent sentences?

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Is there one at all?
Are Irish judges bound to impose concurrent sentences instead of consecutive ones?

I think they are a serious undermining force in our justice system. Anyone who has committed a serious crime might as well go on the rampage as they will probably spend the same amount of time in prison anyway.

Look at Joseph McColgan - he received 238 years for a number of different offences and only served 9 because of concurrent sentencing. Someone who has committed such a large amount of serious crimes to be sentenced to such a lengthy prison sentence should not only have to serve the time of whichever sentence was longest.

Tom Young

I think this was dealt with before here. The search function might lead to an answer.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

I did have a quick look but it was mostly just people giving out... no actual explanation as to why it's used. I'll have another look!

Stereomaniac

Is our biggest problem not that life should mean life in this country? I mean no harm in this.

benway

Stereomaniac wrote: »

Is our biggest problem not that life should mean life in this country? I mean no harm in this.

Nope.

Less than 10% of those sentenced to life reoffend, even for minor offences, and lifers serve an average of 17 years before they see the outside of a prison, even on temporary release.

If you don't mind me saying, you seem to be grossly overestimating the ability of harsh punishment to deter behaviour that's primarily the result of social conditions in our communities.

Personally, I don't think that policing and prisons will ever significantly reduce crime rates, although it has been shown ... in the studies I've seen ... that a high likelihood of being caught is more of a deterrent than a harsh sentence when you are caught, so more, better trained, better equipped Gardaí would probably be a better investment than greater prison capacity.

Procrastastudy

We should probably just lock people up until they can satify that they won't reoffend. At €100,000 a year its an absolute bargin! In actual fact we should increase income tax to 75% and spend billions on new prisons - make them palaces of education and rehabilitation. We should lead the world!

Alternatively we could just line them up on O'Connel street and shoot them - much cheaper.

Why do people think that prison is really any sort of deterant? The issue is a lack of fundamental provisions such as spent convictions, proper rehabiliatation services and the fact that if they weren't on drugs when they went in the are by the time they get out!

Look I know there are some evil scumbags out there - some, such as sexual offenders, really should be locked up indefinately - but treated with compassion and an attempt made to render them no threat when relased. Locking up the local hoods becuase of anti-social behaviour is a total waste of resources when what is needed is a sense of community and watching out for each other.

NoQuarter

Audrina Strong Liqueur wrote: »

Is there one at all?
Are Irish judges bound to impose concurrent sentences instead of consecutive ones?

I think they are a serious undermining force in our justice system. Anyone who has committed a serious crime might as well go on the rampage as they will probably spend the same amount of time in prison anyway.

There are many variables in sentencing someone but the reason most are sentenced concurrently is that the judges must have regard to what is knows as the "totality principle". Give it a quick google and have a read!

To answer your second question, no judges are not bound to give concurrent sentences in most situations, only in events like where an offence is committed while the accused is on bail or in prison.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Why do people think that prison is really any sort of deterant? The issue is a lack of fundamental provisions such as spent convictions, proper rehabiliatation services and the fact that if they weren't on drugs when they went in the are by the time they get out!

Look I know there are some evil scumbags out there - some, such as sexual offenders, really should be locked up indefinately - but treated with compassion and an attempt made to render them no threat when relased. Locking up the local hoods becuase of anti-social behaviour is a total waste of resources when what is needed is a sense of community and watching out for each other.

It can be a deterrent, I know a fella personally (relative of an old friend of mine) who straightened himself out after a stretch years ago in Pentonville (in England) for armed robbery and assault, purely because he didn't want to go back to prison. It wasn't his first offence either, he had been in and out of a young offender's institution before that years ago.
You need to take the whole 'it's not their fault it's society, prison is no good they need to be rehabilitated and cuddled' thing with a pinch of salt.

I'm not really talking about young lads smashing windows and loitering etc., I'm talking about people who are given multiple convictions for fairly serious crimes and then only have to serve the one sentence. A fella could go on a spree and rape 20 women (god forbid of course) and he'd only serve the sentence for one.

NoQuarter wrote: »

There are many variables in sentencing someone but the reason most are sentenced concurrently is that the judges must have regard to what is knows as the "totality principle". Give it a quick google and have a read!

To answer your second question, no judges are not bound to give concurrent sentences in most situations, only in events like where an offence is committed while the accused is on bail or in prison.

Thanks for a straight answer!

While I can't agree that a single 9 year sentence is an appropriate sentence for a multitude of offences warranting 250 odd years in separate convictions, I have to concede that I'm not a judge and haven't got the experience on me to make such a decision. I just think that in cases where there has been a total disregard for the law/other people and multiple offences have taken place, the perpetrator should get consecutive sentences.

NoQuarter

Audrina Strong Liqueur wrote: »

. A fella could go on a spree and rape 20 women (god forbid of course) and he'd only serve the sentence for one.


While I can't agree that a single 9 year sentence is an appropriate sentence for a multitude of offences warranting 250 odd years in separate convictions, I have to concede that I'm not a judge and haven't got the experience on me to make such a decision. I just think that in cases where there has been a total disregard for the law/other people and multiple offences have taken place, the perpetrator should get consecutive sentences.

For your first point, when sentencing judges will consider the events themselves. Generally how it works is if there is one victim with multiple crimes, the sentence will be concurrent. BUT, if there are multiple victms and multiple crimes, they can sentence consecutively. In the case of two different women being raped, a consecutive sentance would be likely. However, again, the judge will have regard to the totality principle and might lessen each sentence so that the total sentence is not proportionate. There is more to it and it can get somewhat complex.

For your second point, I mean clearly sentencing to 250 years is pointless. Or anything over 20 years really. The purpose of prison is also rehabillitation so if a person was given literally the rest of his life in prison, why bother being well behaved in prison? why not just kill anyone who comes near him including prison guards etc?? The judges try offer a "light at the end of the tunnel" so to speak for offendes to give them the opportunity to turn their life around.

Right or wrongly, they are the principles and the train of thought behind it. You might not agree but this is how it has been done for years and by people with a lot of experience so perhaps if you were in the same position you would see the merits of it.

The_Minister

benway wrote: »

Nope.

Less than 10% of those sentenced to life reoffend, even for minor offences, and lifers serve an average of 17 years before they see the outside of a prison, even on temporary release.

If you don't mind me saying, you seem to be grossly overestimating the ability of harsh punishment to deter behaviour that's primarily the result of social conditions in our communities.

Personally, I don't think that policing and prisons will ever significantly reduce crime rates, although it has been shown ... in the studies I've seen ... that a high likelihood of being caught is more of a deterrent than a harsh sentence when you are caught, so more, better trained, better equipped Gardaí would probably be a better investment than greater prison capacity.

Do you have a citation for those two figures?
Very interesting if true.

benway

The_Minister wrote: »

Do you have a citation for those two figures?
Very interesting if true.

Last Parole Board annual report and an article by Ian O'Donnell in UCD - Recidivism in the Republic of Ireland, or possibly the sourcebook on criminal justice edited by the same author - can't remember which ... will re-check later when I get the chance.

Procrastastudy

Audrina Strong Liqueur wrote: »

It can be a deterrent, I know a fella personally (relative of an old friend of mine) who straightened himself out after a stretch years ago in Pentonville (in England) for armed robbery and assault, purely because he didn't want to go back to prison. It wasn't his first offence either, he had been in and out of a young offender's institution before that years ago.

It's generally accepted that many people simply grow out of it at around 25. Which only makes educating and reintergrating these people more pressing.

Audrina Strong Liqueur wrote: »

You need to take the whole 'it's not their fault it's society, prison is no good they need to be rehabilitated and cuddled' thing with a pinch of salt.

As does the Daily Mail alarmist attitude to something that isn't going to be solved by making prison sentances longer. In your example it seems that a short sharp shock would have done. Reducing his sentance by say 5 years would have saved the tax payer €500,000 and by getting him into a job would have saved even more in benefits + had him contributing tax.

The Japanese model is very instructive here - some of the shortest sentances in the developed world and one of the lowest crime rates. In the case of rape as an example its 4 times lower than the US. While it can be argued that Japanese society is very different from ours you only need to look at the corilation between longer sentances and harsher conditions and reoffending rates. Generally the more you treat people like scum they more they act like it.

Sorry for my spelling I really need to fix that checker widget!

benway

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

It's generally accepted that many people simply grow out of it at around 25.

And there's actually hard evidence for this:

http://scholar.harvard.edu/sampson/files/1992_ars_laub.pdf
http://ann.sagepub.com/content/602/1/12.full.pdf (login required)
http://scholar.harvard.edu/sampson/content/crime-and-life-course

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

the Daily Mail alarmist attitude.

Saw an ad for "Lawless Ireland" on TV3 while I was waiting for Vincent Browne last night - absolutely disgraceful, is it any wonder that people have a skewed view of criminal justice with horsesh!t like that doing the rounds?

ldxo15wus6fpgm

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

It's generally accepted that many people simply grow out of it at around 25. Which only makes educating and reintergrating these people more pressing.

As does the Daily Mail alarmist attitude to something that isn't going to be solved by making prison sentances longer. In your example it seems that a short sharp shock would have done. Reducing his sentance by say 5 years would have saved the tax payer €500,000 and by getting him into a job would have saved even more in benefits + had him contributing tax.

The Japanese model is very instructive here - some of the shortest sentances in the developed world and one of the lowest crime rates. In the case of rape as an example its 4 times lower than the US. While it can be argued that Japanese society is very different from ours you only need to look at the corilation between longer sentances and harsher conditions and reoffending rates. Generally the more you treat people like scum they more they act like it.

Sorry for my spelling I really need to fix that checker widget!

He was 18 or 19 when he went to prison. And if his sentence had been reduced by 5 years he would have walked out of court a free man, he only did 3 and 1/2 or so. Getting someone capable of armed robbery into a workplace with people after a very short stint in prison is not something I would be too happy with and indeed I doubt you'd be too confident yourself if you were to work with him.
While according to benway's evidence most crime is committed by adolescents, if we were to remove minor offences and anti social behaviour (especially those associated with alcohol) such as assaults, driving offences, vandalism, drunk and disorderly etc. and leave crimes like aggravated assaults, rapes, manslaughter, robberies, major drug offences and the likes I have a feeling the numbers in age groups would even up considerably.

There is plenty of evidence on recidivism especially amongst the working class who fill up the majority of places in our prisons (which fuels alot of the rubbish about it being society and not the offender's fault - let's not forget the majority of the country is working class too). Why then would you want to reduce sentences for a repeat offender when it would be better for society if he is incapacitated and cannot break into someone else's home / rape another woman / beat another person to within an inch of their life.

Where is the evidence that rates of re-offending drop significantly after rehabilitation? The US tried rehabilitation for offenders and it didn't work so they dropped it in 1989 (Mistretta v US) because it wasted time, money and ended up with serious offenders walking out of prison early and committing more crimes.
Japanese sentences are short because the majority of their convictions are based on confessions. They also have an extremely high conviction rate because of this. It encourages those on trial to confess and get a much lighter sentence. A confession makes much more of a difference than it would here in regards to their sentence. You seem to have omitted that they sentence a lot of convicts to hard labour and also use the death penalty (hanging). You've also skipped the fact that they give much harsher sentences to repeat offenders. Note I am not suggesting that the use of the death penalty results in their 'lower' crime rate. It does explain the absence of a few long term sentences however.

By the way, your 'lower' crime rates are based on convictions. Only very serious offences are tried in Japan because of the overloading of state prosecutors. The Harvard law school published a paper (here) on their conviction rates - I believe its about 99% of all trials due to the lack of a jury, commonplace confessions and the fact that prosecutors will not bring cases which have even the smallest chance of failure because they simply don't have time. They have 1/10th the amount of prosecutors as the US with 1/3 of their population. As a result only something like 17 or 18% of arrests in Japan result in a prosecution.

Procrastastudy

To be fair you seem to know your stuff even if you are a devout classicist. Have you looked at other European models v the Anglo (UK, Ireland, US model)? What would be your conslusions in there prisons v their crime rate?

I think its already been pointed out people rarely get concurent sentances for rape and murder.

Manslaughter is a tricky one becuase the situations are so varied.

Voilent Assults - I'd have to look into this more before making any comment, although again the situation would be very important.

Whats left? Petty crime and traffic offences. Petty crime I think we've established there is a reason for concurrent sentances.

Traffic offences - dont get me started on this :P

Drugs offences (which I forgot) is a ridiculous construct of modern society. Legalise it all then you wont have any problems with people being in possesion of large amounts of it.

PS I'd personally have no problem working with someone with an armed robbery conviction.

Pkiernan

Shame noone could answer the OP's original question.

YAAAAWWNNNNNNN

NoQuarter

Pkiernan wrote: »

Shame noone could answer the OP's original question.

YAAAAWWNNNNNNN

I answered it exactly. The rational for concurrent sentences is to stay in keep with the totality principle.

InReality

Does the US use concurrent sentences as much as we do ?

Procrastastudy

No - look at the mess they're in.

Raisins

As another poster stated google "the totality principle". Essentially the rationale of concurrent sentencing is that it would be against common sense for judges just to do the arithmetic in cases of multiple offences. For example, if someone is guilty of multiple driving offences, in the same episode, adding them up might lead to a conviction on a par with one for armed robbery.


An excellent account is given in "Sentencing and Criminal Justice" [2010) by Ashworth which is in google books- fifth result on page. Explains origins, rationale, difficulty in implementation etc.