Why is Ireland's justice system so lenient?

walshb

Strumms wrote: »

SF would be mega lenient on violent crime, any crime they’d just blame the lack of opportunity for people... blahh blahhh

They’d reduce the number of prison places too to deter judges from handing out custodial sentences and to appeal further to the criminal classes and the nerdowells, who vote for SF...

SF would be an absolute disaster....the have nots would be given everything free gratis and the actual ‘WORKING’ people would be taxed to and through the bôllocks for daring to make something of and for themselves as well as contributing to the state and its running... theyd have fûck all to gain from a SF government... only scratchers, criminals and ner - do well chronically repeating hand out merchants who know and want no different would be winners.

The thoughts of SF and protecting society from crime makes me queasy...

They are anti the country for one thing, and have contempt for AGS!!

McCrack

CucaFace wrote: »

Its a pity we can't sue the judges.

I mean if i or someone close to me was seriously assaulted or worse by someone with 40 convictions and they were only on the streets to commit this crime because the last judge decided to once again that they should be given yet another chance, then i would feel that the judge should be held accountable to some degree for their poor decision that led to the next crime to be committed.

If judges were to be held to account, you would see how quickly things would change.

Of course judges sentencing are held to account... Appeal courts and also Dpp can appeal undue lienancy

Judges can only work within sentencing parameters which is a combination of what the legislature itself fixes for offences and crimes and a whole other body of sentencing principles and caselaw

Strumms

CucaFace wrote: »

Its a pity we can't sue the judges.

I mean if i or someone close to me was seriously assaulted or worse by someone with 40 convictions and they were only on the streets to commit this crime because the last judge decided to once again that they should be given yet another chance, then i would feel that the judge should be held accountable to some degree for their poor decision that led to the next crime to be committed.

If judges were to be held to account, you would see how quickly things would change.

Totally, when is the last time a judge was sanctioned ? Can they be ?

walshb

Wanderer78 wrote: »

No conclusive evidence to support, jailing more for longer, actually truly reduces crime, and it's bloody expensive

For one: proper jail terms would at least keep some of this scum away from society to stop them repeat offending..

And, proper serious sentences for serious crimes would absolutely make people think before committing it..

Take home invasion: you honestly telling me that people would not stop and think about committing it IF on conviction a minimum 30 years sentence?

Take being a member of crime gang: you honestly telling me that people would not stop and think about being a member IF on conviction a minimum 30 years?

Take armed robbery: same. Minimum 40
years on conviction...

Criminals know that we hand down sentences that they can live with...

This is the problem..

We need serous tough sentences to tell these scum that their actions will be punished heavily.

joeguevara

CucaFace wrote: »

Its a pity we can't sue the judges.

I mean if i or someone close to me was seriously assaulted or worse by someone with 40 convictions and they were only on the streets to commit this crime because the last judge decided to once again that they should be given yet another chance, then i would feel that the judge should be held accountable to some degree for their poor decision that led to the next crime to be committed.

If judges were to be held to account, you would see how quickly things would change.

In the scenario given, what is the 40 convictions the person had and what was the reason why they should not have been free and was it likely that they would have committed the serious assault against your close friend.

Like if 30 convictions were road traffic, petty theft and public order, is it the judges fault for the assault.

If a person had convictions of actual violence then it very unlikely that they would be free. Bail is difficult. Firstly we have the concept of innocent until proven guilty. So if no reason to deny bail which are high proofs then it is possible for someone to be free until they are found guilty
But if the person is a repeat offender then they will likely not be allowed bail.

So the scenario outlined is not likely but people focus on the amount of convictions without looking at the type of convictions.

Mimon

rossie1977 wrote: »

Left and far left lol

That one aspect of communism that still applies in China/North Korea/Cuba today is how lenient they are on crime and how few people are in prison in those countries.....

Irelands political options left wing holy f**k

Couldn't be arsed replying with a long reply as you will probably just stick with your black and white, non nuanced view of the world.

doublejobbing 2

Daragh1980 wrote: »

The Left in Ireland only care about locking people up for
1 White collar crime
2 Violent crime but only if the perp is middle / upper class

3- Gardai using justifiable or/ and deserved, violence in defending themselves or/ and apprehending an offender.

Neagra

i am not sure if anyone has corrected the misunderstanding regards legal aid
free legal aid allows for the smooth operation of the courts system and the judges and courts staff do not have to worry the system falling apart.

but legal aid for the solicitors is not working.
more and more firms will not touch it as the rates are so poor, the wait time for payment is long and 20% withholding tax is deducted at source.
as an example a good firm with one senior and one junior solicitor and a secretary working exclusively on legal aid could take in 175,000 legal aid a year EX VAT.
that will barely pay those staffs wages never mind a share of office expenses.

and dont get me started on the free legal aid for family law - chicken feed

2 issues really. Lack of death penalty and concurrent sentences.

I don't agree with the death penalty but it unfortunately lowers the ceiling and all the rest fall along with it.

Concurrent sentences for completely separate crimes is a complete nonsense. The American nonsense of 15 charges for stealing a car is too far the other way but 100 crimes over a few months getting the same sentence as just the worst one is a nonsense.

A third slight issue and slightly related to the death penalty is the idea of proportionality goes in a stupid direction. If 5 murders is life then how can 4 murders be the same? Or 4, or 3, or 2, or 1. Should a single heinous crime get the same sentence as multiple? And so it trickles down.

mdwexford

Neagra wrote: »

i am not sure if anyone has corrected the misunderstanding regards legal aid
free legal aid allows for the smooth operation of the courts system and the judges and courts staff do not have to worry the system falling apart.

but legal aid for the solicitors is not working.
more and more firms will not touch it as the rates are so poor, the wait time for payment is long and 20% withholding tax is deducted at source.
as an example a good firm with one senior and one junior solicitor and a secretary working exclusively on legal aid could take in 175,000 legal aid a year EX VAT.
that will barely pay those staffs wages never mind a share of office expenses.

and dont get me started on the free legal aid for family law - chicken feed

Genuine lol at this.

joeguevara

walshb wrote: »

Ok,

But can you point to sentences that are tough and lengthy and deserving?

There are so many examples of the opposite

Not to mention non stop repeat offenders

Persons with dozens and dozens of convictions in and out. And some very serious convictions

When you can murder someone and go for release/parole after 7 years, you know damn well your country is fooked! The most heinous and serious of crimes on our books!!

And it trickles down..

The exact same thing that is constantly spouted on tabloids or far right and left social media.

But it is out of date since the parole act 2019 which raised the first time for parole from 7 to 12 years. Not that it makes any difference as the majority serve over 18 years.

Now I'm surprised that it hasn't been mentioned that our most heinous criminal is likely to be released this year because of how his trial was built on data Illegally retrieved from a mobile phone. Yes Graham dwyer will be back in society. T

jimmycrackcorm

weldoninhio wrote: »

1) Build more prisons.
2) Bring in mandatory sentencing for certain crimes, with no loopholes.
3) Ban concurrent sentencing.
4) Remove automatic remission.
5) Courts to deal with the facts of the case only, no sob stories about the criminals upbringing.
6) After X amount of strikes automatic jail sentence i.e. You were caught stealing a bicycle, this is your 10th crime, automatic 6 years.

I believe that remission is granted based on good behaviour to incentivise inmates from running amok.

But I would add that in many minor cases, or in sentence reductions, that using tech such as ankle bracelets under house arrest would ease the burden for the state dramatically.

It would put a virtual end to crimes while on bail.

doublejobbing 2

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I believe that remission is granted based on good behaviour to incentivise inmates from running amok.

Remission is guaranteed no matter what. Out after 3/4ths of your sentence i.e. you're sentenced to 7 years, 2 suspended, therefore you've got 5 years, or 60 months to serve, of which you will do 45 months.

It will also generally be backdated to when you entered prison on remand.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gilligan-guilty-of-threatening-to-have-prison-officers-killed-26045941.html

Gilligan was convicted of threats while in prison, and still got his remission! (28 year sentence was brought down to 20, was released after 15)

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

Lads, you’ll hear one case out of hundreds everyday where it appears to be lenient.

Anyone who thinks the system is lenient in the main hasn’t a clue. Yes it can be very disheartening to hear about these in the paper, but that’s exactly why they’re printed; to cause outrage.

If you had every sentencing or every ruling printed every day then the newspaper would be like a novel.

I spent many years as a photojournalist and, as a result, spent many a day sitting in court. The system is as lenient as you can imagine.


I am genuinely struggling to recall, either from personally being in a court, or even just hearing in the news, a sentence where I thought it was too harsh. It's so rare that you hear of anyone being done for anything outside of rape or murder, and even then the sentences are too often too light-handed.

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Put your details into politcal compass and let us know.

Seems I'm the ultimate middle of the road fence sitter

fritzelly

Urquell wrote: »

I always wonder if cost is a problem. If we had to take 5000 scumbags off the street , some for up to 10 years, how much?

How much does it cost for the legal fees we pay for every time they're in front of a judge?

Nothing more sickening than hearing a crime report on the news where someone has killed, maimed, raped etc someone while on bail - like WTF are they allowed to roam the streets with the string of conviction behind them saying this person is a serious threat to society - I think that is what galls people more

Add every single case has mental issues, had a hard life, daddy didn't love them enough - FFS stop listening to the pathetic excuses

Or the admittance of guilt - fair cop, will you let me go now - go feck off

And the media are not innocent in this - anyone up to age 30 is classed as a teenager or young adult as if to garner sympathy - normal people are working, building a family and getting on with their lives by 20, not going round robbing old folk and battering them to death because they had no father figure

joeguevara

I am going to be honest here. I am the biggest believer of the concept of its better than 1000 guilty people walk free than 1 innocent person incarcerated. I am also a believer of any flaw in the investigation will make all fruits from it
Inadmissible (have professional experience as a devil and my master the prosecution in seeing someone who wS guilty walk free because of a defect. This will be a deterrent for the investigators to abide by the law.

I never had an issue with any sentence I saw. Any lenient sentence was appealed. People are often made to believe a falsehood by the media. Judges in the circuit up are experts and their sentences work (one exception but not really into that discussion).

But then I open Facebook and first post I see is that the poor lady walking home from work has passed Away due to the injury inflicted by a 14 year old on a bike and I go, f uck it hang draw and quarter him.

walshb

joeguevara wrote: »

The exact same thing that is constantly spouted on tabloids or far right and left social media.

But it is out of date since the parole act 2019 which raised the first time for parole from 7 to 12 years. Not that it makes any difference as the majority serve over 18 years.

Now I'm surprised that it hasn't been mentioned that our most heinous criminal is likely to be released this year because of how his trial was built on data Illegally retrieved from a mobile phone. Yes Graham dwyer will be back in society. T

Yes. Had feeling it was raised to 12. Wasn’t sure it had officially gone through.

7 was disgusting. 12 is disgusting

And the average 18 is disgusting..

Richard Hillman

Concurrent sentencing is a big one.

Concurrent sentencing is supposed to be just say you go into a shop for an armed robbery, you steal the till takings, a rake of cigarettes, a Mars bar, a can of Coke and a packet of crisps, so you lump it into one crime.

Not you did a load of drugs, stole a car, ran somebody over, held up a shop, battered the shop keeper and then got caught with a **** load of drugs too. Then they lump it all to be served at the same time.

weldoninhio

joeguevara wrote: »

In the scenario given, what is the 40 convictions the person had and what was the reason why they should not have been free and was it likely that they would have committed the serious assault against your close friend.

Like if 30 convictions were road traffic, petty theft and public order, is it the judges fault for the assault.

If a person had convictions of actual violence then it very unlikely that they would be free. Bail is difficult. Firstly we have the concept of innocent until proven guilty. So if no reason to deny bail which are high proofs then it is possible for someone to be free until they are found guilty
But if the person is a repeat offender then they will likely not be allowed bail.

So the scenario outlined is not likely but people focus on the amount of convictions without looking at the type of convictions.

You, and people like you, are part of the problem.

weldoninhio

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I believe that remission is granted based on good behaviour to incentivise inmates from running amok.

But I would add that in many minor cases, or in sentence reductions, that using tech such as ankle bracelets under house arrest would ease the burden for the state dramatically.

It would put a virtual end to crimes while on bail.

You believe wrongly. It's automatic. Unless you start a prison riot, you get your remission.

weldoninhio

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Concurrent sentencing is a big one.

Concurrent sentencing is supposed to be just say you go into a shop for an armed robbery, you steal the till takings, a rake of cigarettes, a Mars bar, a can of Coke and a packet of crisps, so you lump it into one crime.

Not you did a load of drugs, stole a car, ran somebody over, held up a shop, battered the shop keeper and then got caught with a **** load of drugs too. Then they lump it all to be served at the same time.

In Ireland it's more like you did a load of drugs, stole a car, ran somebody over, held up a shop, battered the shop keeper and then got caught with a **** load of drugs too, got bail, then when out on bail attacked someone at a bus stop, robbed an elderly neighbour and ram raided a police station. Then they lump it all to be served at the same time.

The Oort Cloud

weldoninhio wrote: »

1) Build more prisons.
2) Bring in mandatory sentencing for certain crimes, with no loopholes.
3) Ban concurrent sentencing.
4) Remove automatic remission.
5) Courts to deal with the facts of the case only, no sob stories about the criminals upbringing.
6) After X amount of strikes automatic jail sentence i.e. You were caught stealing a bicycle, this is your 10th crime, automatic 6 years.

The most intelligent post so far on this thread.


The justice system is completely broken especially when you see the like of 50 or more previous convictions. I'll just say it this way... If god forbid that myself or my family were seriously injured by some scumbag, that person or persons would be dead with a picaxe sticking out of their head, if the justice system is not working then I would most definitely take the law into my own hands. Prison would not bother me in the least. In saying this, if the justice system was working correctly then I would not do as I said. ****ing scumbags.

RandRuns

I wonder if anyone has ever done a financial comparison between;

Jailing a repeat offender for say, 5 years, for an assault or other serious crime

and

The cost of the current system i.e. short sentence/suspended sentence, followed by multiple repeat crimes resulting in more short or suspended sentences over the same time frame.

Scenario 2 would have to take into account Garda time, free legal aid, court time, cost to the victims, etc.
The results might make for interesting reading.

My feeling, just based on a hunch, is that prison is possibly a cheaper option, even ignoring the good of society. Especially if we stop jailing people for non-payment of fines, minor motoring offences, personal drug use etc.

thecretinhop

Manuela killer in galway killed another guy in eyre Square. how was that animal ever let out again. leftie do gooder clowns were quiet on that one...

walshb

thecretinhop wrote: »

Manuela killer in galway killed another guy in eyre Square. how was that animal ever let out again. leftie do gooder clowns were quiet on that one...

Yep

And wait for it...give it a little time and some bleedin' hearts will be looking for release....he's fixed, he's grand, he's rehabilitated...

Peter Whelan, who attacked the two girls in Cork in 2002 I think it was, is looking to get out...he has had day releases n all

Absolute monster...

It's disgusting to think what some people can do to others and our laws can even think about these type releases...

Richard Hillman

I know a guy that stabbed somebody 17 times in 2013, not even remotely in self defence or anything, got manslaughter and is possibly already out. He is due out this year with remission but he has been on Facebook in recent months and could possibly be out now. He has a couple of Christmas releases in that time.

Murder somebody in cold blood and you get 7-8 years. He's 35 and probably has about 40-50 years left in life and all he missed was about 1/10th of his life after ending somebody else's.

Mike Murdock

thecretinhop wrote: »

Manuela killer in galway killed another guy in eyre Square. how was that animal ever let out again. leftie do gooder clowns were quiet on that one...

And he was out on bail after raping another foreign girl.

The Oort Cloud

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I know a guy that stabbed somebody 17 times in 2013, not even remotely in self defence or anything, got manslaughter and is possibly already out. He is due out this year with remission but he has been on Facebook in recent months and could possibly be out now. He has a couple of Christmas releases in that time.

Murder somebody in cold blood and you get 7-8 years. He's 35 and probably has about 40-50 years left in life and all he missed was about 1/10th of his life after ending somebody else's.

I know, it's crazy stuff. I just do not understand why judges are giving such low sentencing especially with previous convictions for hard crime, ah I suppose it's just one of life's mysteries and I just cannot understand it at all as to why judges give these absurd sentences, community work etc... Something needs to be done very soon with our justice system, it's broken, completely broken. I might send a letter to the justice minister but to be honest it will probably be just binned as per usual.

Brian?

portlygent wrote: »

I'm genuinely astounded when I read the news. Its not uncommon for someone who has committed a serious assault to be given a fully suspended sentence, despite numerous previous convictions.

Is it due to over-packed prisons? If so, why haven't we built more, or even re-start the Thorton Hill prison, which was planned before the crash?

Is it an ideology that has changed? Have we become a soft touch?

It isn't that lenient. We have developed a system focused on rehabilitation and not punishment, which is a good thing.