Sentencing, Murder and Hate Crimes

She wasn't referring specifically to murder, she was referring to any crime motivated by hate. The implication being that if someone is punished more harshly the first time, then they may not go on to commit worse crimes motivated by the same hate.

Like you say, you can't get a worse punishment for murder regardless of motivation. We do have mandatory life sentences for murder.

I'm not in favour of a "life without parole" sentencing option, though I would like to see considerably more transparency around how and why murderers are released in the first place.

If we don't believe that someone is capable of change, then why lock them up at all? Why not a bullet in the head and be done with it? Because the justice system is based on the reality that people can change and it is incumbent on society to show moral superiority and give people that chance.

No, but if you are both men you could randomly be beaten up, or worse, on a night out in Dublin.

Yes, you are morally superior to a murderer. Which is why you don't execute them for murder.

Anyway, I can see you're mostly here for the rant. Nobody gets five years for murder in Ireland, and the fact of the matter is that murderers have one of the lowest recidivism rates there are. It is very, very rare for someone to be convicted of murder after being released. Of the small number who fall foul of the law again, it's usually public order offences or road traffic offences rather than violent crime.

There is no basis for "life means life" sentences for murder, nothing extra to be gained. It won't make people less likely to commit murder and won't stop crime.

There is one thing extra to be gained, if somebody is locked up for life, or executed (although I know that's a subject for another thread!) then there's no way they can commit a crime directly against any person outside that jail ever again. In that regard, life meaning life, or indeed execution, has a recidivism rate against the general public of 0%.

I think we'd probably agree on far more than we'd disagree judging by your post but thought that was one thing worth mentioning.

No

The person wasnt targeted because of their sexual orientation.

Both. The crime itself and the impact on the victim. If you still 200 Euro off Elon Musk it wont have the same effect as stealing 200 euro off a homeless person. The crime itself doesnt happen in a vacuum where there are no consequences.

Why do you think we now have victim impact statements read out in court.

I think your first point is just heading towards reductio ad absurdum there, it's not really needed with me, but I know that some of the posters on here can drive anyone in that direction! 😀

There's rarely a 'Gothca' in anything to do with such a crime, thankfully murder itself being a very rare and violent crime.

The gain to Irish society is justice itself being done. I accept that justice is a concept and as such harder to point at and say 'Hey look, there's some justice' but allowing someone to return to free society, without restriction after perpetrating what most of us would agree is the very top, top end of the crime scale seems... unjust?

Huh? In the second scenario it was the burglar, not the person who disturbed them, that was the assailant. How can being the burglar entitle you to kill someone and claim self defence? Maybe that would work in America but they're all mad, Ted.

I'd disagree with you on that, I believe that the crime itself is the most important factor to be considered by the judge/jury/whoever, rather than the impact. The impact is secondary, and by it's very nature, emotional. I've been very lucky, have not had many crimes committed against me, but the last one I can remember, I was absolutely furious, I would have done anything to feel like I was getting justice. But that doesn't make for good laws/justice. Emotion shouldn't come into law making/sentencing.

I saw a program on a murder in london. Bunch of scrotes went out to cause mayhem one night. They killed a guy who worked in a local bar before assaulting a few others. https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/happy-slap-killer-freed-after-4-years-6804596.html

during the program the police said they were looking at it as hate crime until they gang went on to assault the homeless guy who was straight apparently.

It struck me that if they didnt assault the second guy they would be in more trouble for the first crime coz it could be judged to be a hate crime. I mean thats totally illogical. Makes no f*cking sense.

so I guess after the crime in sligo if fair game to go after the men of ireland again like happened when that poor woman was killed in offaly. This time the media will go after ...straight white men ....or as they know them - the real enemy!

Was this thread set up in response to the Sligo incidents this week? There is no thread about the murders?

The reporting by RTE is suggesting some form of hate crime is going on here, I am confused. The minister just this afternoon referenced a difficult week for LGBT in relation to the murders.

Are we to interpret from this reporting that these two men were gay and were murdered for that reason? I am not making light of it, just trying to read between the lines. There is also reference to meeting people online. Piecing this together then, are we dealing with a murderer who is lurking on gay cruising sites and has lured two men to their deaths? We have a problem if that is what is going on and that needs to be nipped quickly.

Not all murders are equal and if your law is like US law then somewhere in your sentencing laws there is a line about a punishment being something along the lines of "sufficient, but no greater than necessary" - sentencing law takes into account that not all crimes are truly equal and that severity of crimes must match the punishment and so there is a grading scale of crime and punishment. Sentencing enhancements are one part of that philosophy, eg. Murder is punishable by up to life in prison, an enhancement is the death penalty if the victim is a police officer, etc.; murder for premeditation (1st degree murder) and murder for prejudice (hate crimes) are other types of enhancement. While I imagine many younger civilizations simply had mandatory death penalties etc. for most crimes, clearly modern sensibility is to be more precise and proportional.

Yes.

they were a full 10 minutes in to the story on the news before they mentioned that it might have been a homophobic attack

it appears that the people who bang on the most about hate crimes tend to be weak when it comes to general justice and policing so it seems more like power play. In law there is already the concept of Mens rea or intention behind a crime.

but its redundant as it cant have any deterrence effect.

Anyone that commits a serious crime of any sort has generally committed a series of crimes leading up to it , and looking into these crimes will tend show unwarranted leniency etc. There is an "80/20" principal at play. You want it statistically to be safer going about your business then look into habitual criminals and longer sentences.

This may be true of other crimes but, in fact, it's much less true of murder. A lot of murders happen in families where there may be seriously dysfunctional relationships over a long period, but no actual criminality until someone snaps and it all kicks off. Then there are murders where a row outside a pub escalates; drink or other intoxicants may be involved. Frequently the perpetrator has no criminal record.

Of course there are also murders associated with criminality - gang murders, for instance, and murders arising out, e.g., robberies gone wrong. The perpetrators of these often do have criminal records.

There's no evidence at all that what you term "unwarranted leniency" in previous sentencing increases the likelihood of further crimes being committed. There are various factors that have statistical links to criminality or increased criminality, but this isn't one. And the matter has been exhaustively investigated, because populist right-wing politicians frequently enter into office convinced that it is one, and looking for verification so that the they can tailor sentencing legislation accordingly.