Legal System Broken?

234

Bepolite wrote: »

That said I think 234 hit it on the very first response that we have a system in place to deal with sentences that are unduly lenient.

Well I'm flattered, really, but I'm afraid I can't take credit for a post that never happened (unfortunately).

My one thought on this topic is that we would all benefit from some debate or discussion on the proper role that should be accorded to the victim in our justice system (has the LRC looked at this yet?). The fact that some of want sentences to predominantly reflect the impact that the crime had on the victim, rather than reflect the danger that the defendant represents to society, suggests that the current use of victim impact statements is either insufficiently understood, or not accomplishing what some people want.

Pro Hoc Vice

234 wrote: »

Well I'm flattered, really, but I'm afraid I can't take credit for a post that never happened (unfortunately).

My one thought on this topic is that we would all benefit from some debate or discussion on the proper role that should be accorded to the victim in our justice system (has the LRC looked at this yet?). The fact that some of want sentences to predominantly reflect the impact that the crime had on the victim, rather than reflect the danger that the defendant represents to society, suggests that the current use of victim impact statements is either insufficiently understood, or not accomplishing what some people want.

Victim impact statments have not done as intended and to some extent been hijacked. I have long advocated that in some crime the victim should be represented in court to some extent. Legal aid should be granted where necessary or in fact in all cases.

In many serious cases the victim is assisted through the process by a person from AGS and in some cases a person from a victim organisation. But to have a legal team, who can prepare the person, for all a trial entails is something in my opinion should at least be looked at.

234

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Victim impact statments have not done as intended and to some extent been hijacked. I have long advocated that in some crime the victim should be represented in court to some extent. Legal aid should be granted where necessary or in fact in all cases.

In many serious cases the victim is assisted through the process by a person from AGS and in some cases a person from a victim organisation. But to have a legal team, who can prepare the person, for all a trial entails is something in my opinion should at least be looked at.

What role would you assign to their legal representative? I assume that they would only be involved at the sentencing stage as they have absolutely nothing to offer on liability.

Pro Hoc Vice

234 wrote: »

What role would you assign to their legal representative? I assume that they would only be involved at the sentencing stage as they have absolutely nothing to offer on liability.

The role would be more advisory and to explain but we already allow in certain cases for the victim to be advised during a cases and to be involved during a case. That is in cases of rape where certain allegations are being made as against the victim.

234

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The role would be more advisory and to explain but we already allow in certain cases for the victim to be advised during a cases and to be involved during a case. That is in cases of rape where certain allegations are being made as against the victim.

I see. I can certainly see the benefit in that but I'd imagine that some people would have difficulties with that being paid out of the public purse if you were going to have a solicitor sit with the victim throughout the entire trial.

Beano

234 wrote: »

I see. I can certainly see the benefit in that but I'd imagine that some people would have difficulties with that being paid out of the public purse if you were going to have a solicitor sit with the victim throughout the entire trial.

not as much as the difficulty they have with career criminals getting free legal aid time after time after time.

Bepolite

Beano wrote: »

not as much as the difficulty they have with career criminals getting free legal aid time after time after time.

The system can't work otherwise. People have to have a defence and in most cases there isn't a reportable income. What's needed is a much stronger CAB.

Seridisand

Thread has derailed somewhat, apparently the Judge in this case has some form for being, lets call it an "erratic" sentencer:

Three year sentence(successfully appealed as lenient) for "baby-puncher":
http://www.wexfordecho.ie/2014/02/03/man-who-punched-and-threw-10-month-old-in-truly-horrific-case-to-serve-extra-two-years/

Seven years for assault with a slash hook, against a guy who had earlier assaulted him and then confronted him later - self defense dismissed by jury:
http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local-news/limerick-man-jailed-following-slash-hook-attack-1-5853285

Pat Mustard

Seridisand wrote: »

Thread has derailed somewhat, apparently the Judge in this case has some form for being, lets call it an "erratic" sentencer:

Three year sentence(successfully appealed as lenient) for "baby-puncher":
http://www.wexfordecho.ie/2014/02/03/man-who-punched-and-threw-10-month-old-in-truly-horrific-case-to-serve-extra-two-years/

Seven years for assault with a slash hook, against a guy who had earlier assaulted him and then confronted him later - self defense dismissed by jury:
http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local-news/limerick-man-jailed-following-slash-hook-attack-1-5853285

Realistically, two cases don't show the form of a judge who been sitting on the bench for years.

Beano

Bepolite wrote: »

The system can't work otherwise. People have to have a defence and in most cases there isn't a reportable income. What's needed is a much stronger CAB.

Oh i understand that. But i reckon that if people are willing to tolerate free legal aid for career criminals they would be willing to tolerate legal aid for victims. After all people are more likely to find themselves on the victim side of the fence than the defendant side.

DubVelo

Seridisand wrote: »

Three year sentence(successfully appealed as lenient) for "baby-puncher":
http://www.wexfordecho.ie/2014/02/03/man-who-punched-and-threw-10-month-old-in-truly-horrific-case-to-serve-extra-two-years/

:eek:
'king hell! Kill it! Kill it with Fire!

I would be fine with legal aid for victims, I'm very not okay with legal aid for people with hundreds of convictions. It's mental that there are people with hundreds of convictions back in court in the first place. It's more evidence that our system is very broken.

Seridisand

The Mustard wrote: »

Realistically, two cases don't show the form of a judge who been sitting on the bench for years.

Of course ..but I was also trying to highlight the discrepancies that appear for sentencing in what I would consider extremely violent crimes, with both perpetrators having previous convictions, both pleading guilty but a major difference in the sentence

Pat Mustard

Seridisand wrote: »

Of course ..but I was also trying to highlight the discrepancies that appear for sentencing in what I would consider extremely violent crimes, with both perpetrators having previous convictions, both pleading guilty but a major difference in the sentence

I can understand that. However, the newspaper reports leave out lots of relevant details. One guy could have many previous convictions and the other guy might not, for instance.

Bepolite

DubVelo wrote: »

I would be fine with legal aid for victims, I'm very not okay with legal aid for people with hundreds of convictions. It's mental that there are people with hundreds of convictions back in court in the first place. It's more evidence that our system is very broken.

What do you suggest? I'm not fully aware of the current figures but it's over €60K a year to keep someone in prison, so simply locking them up forever doesn't add-up.

Little CuChulainn

Bepolite wrote: »

What do you suggest? I'm not fully aware of the current figures but it's over €60K a year to keep someone in prison, so simply locking them up forever doesn't add-up.

But if someone has hundreds of convictions how much of the 60k would be spent anyway? Victim support, insurance, police costs, legal aid, court costs. Not to mention the non-financial benefits of having a prolific criminal off the street.

Bepolite

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

But if someone has hundreds of convictions how much of the 60k would be spent anyway? Victim support, insurance, police costs, legal aid, court costs. Not to mention the non-financial benefits of having a prolific criminal off the street.

Hundreds of convictions relates to petty crime, I doubt there are more than a handful of people in the country. What people are generally referring to is 'multiple convictions' the three strike system has been proven not to work. I'm happy to spend more on prisons but it needs to be in rehabilitation and not making the situation worse.

Little CuChulainn

Bepolite wrote: »

Hundreds of convictions relates to petty crime, I doubt there are more than a handful of people in the country. What people are generally referring to is 'multiple convictions' the three strike system has been proven not to work. I'm happy to spend more on prisons but it needs to be in rehabilitation and not making the situation worse.

I have to disagree with you. I've seen many criminal records in my time and many of the people with hundreds of convictions have plenty of convictions for serious crimes such as assault causing harm, robbery and burglary amongst them. Sure, things like traffic offences can beef up the number but it's rarely hundreds of petty crimes alone. Even if it was, in many cases that means hundreds of victims too. At a certain point you have to say enough is enough and give an extremely lengthy spell inside to that person for the good of society.

Pro Hoc Vice

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

But if someone has hundreds of convictions how much of the 60k would be spent anyway? Victim support, insurance, police costs, legal aid, court costs. Not to mention the non-financial benefits of having a prolific criminal off the street.

Hundreds of convictions are in fact rare, having also seen many in my time. In any event in many cases the large multiple convictions are of a minor nature often public order and road traffic, also a person can pick up multiple convictions from the one event especially road traffic. Also in many cases the Judge may only request that relevant past convictions be given to the court, so while the Garda might say 95 convictions the Judge may say what relevant convictions in some cases the answer to that question may be none.

A serious conviction especially of a sexual or violent nature will in most cases lead to a prison sentence. I would advice any person to sit in a Circuit Court criminal court and watch the sentences, listen to all the information and ask what you think of the sentence.

Pro Hoc Vice

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I have to disagree with you. I've seen many criminal records in my time and many of the people with hundreds of convictions have plenty of convictions for serious crimes such as assault causing harm, robbery and burglary amongst them. Sure, things like traffic offences can beef up the number but it's rarely hundreds of petty crimes alone. Even if it was, in many cases that means hundreds of victims too. At a certain point you have to say enough is enough and give an extremely lengthy spell inside to that person for the good of society.

I have to disagree with you a person with multiple serious convictions related to the offence will in most cases lead to prison time.

Little CuChulainn

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Hundreds of convictions are in fact rare, having also seen many in my time. In any event in many cases the large multiple convictions are of a minor nature often public order and road traffic, also a person can pick up multiple convictions from the one event especially road traffic. Also in many cases the Judge may only request that relevant past convictions be given to the court, so while the Garda might say 95 convictions the Judge may say what relevant convictions in some cases the answer to that question may be none.

A serious conviction especially of a sexual or violent nature will in most cases lead to a prison sentence. I would advice any person to sit in a Circuit Court criminal court and watch the sentences, listen to all the information and ask what you think of the sentence.

Maybe where you work they are rare but not where I do.

Pro Hoc Vice

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Maybe where you work they are rare but not where I do.

Having appeared in the Circuit Court in Dublin, Cork, Waterford, and Limerick and sat through and run many sentences I think it's a broad church so to speak. While hundreds of convictions do of course happen, my own personal view is many of such cases have serious underlying issues which most people accept the prison system is not the solution.

johnnyskeleton

Bepolite wrote: »

What's needed is a much stronger CAB.

Yikes!

Bepolite

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yikes!

I know don't tell Langwallner I said that.