More reasons for mandatory sentencing

Sunny said:
You have working on that idea for awhile!
Click to expand...
No, it required very little work; in all honesty it was inspired by this and another similar thread, which was in turn I believe inspired by potential chip-wrapping / attic-insulation material.
 
The courts, Judges, solicitors, Barristers are just looking after their customers like any other business would. If all their customers(criminals) were given long sentences then their business would dry up. You need to have repeat business in order to survive. What's the point of giving somebody a 10 year sentence when you could give them 10 one year sentences. You get paid 10 times one way and only once the other..
 
mathepac said:
No, it required very little work; in all honesty it was inspired by this and another similar thread, which was in turn I believe inspired by potential chip-wrapping / attic-insulation material.
Click to expand...

But you've yet to come up with an alternative arguement other than insuate that those in favour of mandatory sentencing are working class stiffs who read tabloid papers, watch reality TV shows and don't really know what they're talking about.

Why don't you tell us why minimum mandatory sentencing would be a bad thing without referring to "mitigating circumstances" or "discretion"?
 
Sunny said:
I was replying to someone who said that tougher sentences would lead to lower crime rates. There is no evidence of that.

Britain tried getting tough with mandatory sentencing and taking away judges descretion a few years ago. They had to reverse that within a couple of years due to the amount of life sentences given and prison overcrowding.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer if they didn't have the oppurtunity to rack up 60 or 70 convictions. If criminals have 60 or 70 previous convictions how many crimes have they committed. Even if they got caught half the time it's still too much.

Nobody should be allowed to rack up more than 10 convictions.

Prison overcrowding is no excuse. If we need more prisons we should build them. Plenty of builders out there.
 
If there was a simple answer then someone would have come up with it and we’d all be doing it but there isn’t.
There are three issues here and they are all being rolled into one.

Prevention
Since the vast majority of criminals come from the same socio-economic group (i.e. a few Dublin postal areas) it is clear that particular environments breed and/or perpetuate criminals. The solution to this is early educational intervention and massive social supports for parents. It might seem like a waste of money but spending an extra €10’000 per year per child for 10 years is cheaper than spending €150’000 per year keeping them in prison as adults. When you add to this the chance of breaking the culture of criminality and producing future generations of productive members of society it’s a no-brainer.
Good policing which results in a belief that there is a probability of being caught for your criminal act is more of a deterrent than draconian sentences which the perpetrator believes he/she will never face. That doesn’t mean that reasonable sentencing policies should not be in place.

Rehabilitation.
It is better that someone who has served their sentence, upon release from prison, has a changed (improved) attitude to society. This will be helped if they have acquired skills while in prison which they can use to gainfully and legally provide for themselves.


Punishment.
Part of the reason for putting people in prison is to punish them for the crimes they have committed. This is the key issue being discussed in this thread. Talking about prevention or rehabilitation are off topic and cloud the issue. The key question is are the judges giving sentences which adequately punish offenders for the crimes the commit, especially in cases where the offender has a long criminal record.
 
Ok, let's use the disgusting example of child abuse. At the moment, the Judge can reduce the sentence if I plead guilty and spare the child having to testify. Remove that discretion from the judge and alot more victims will have to relive their experiences in a court room because there would be no reason to plead guilty. Might as well take your chances in trial.

That's just one example of why descretion is important.
 
censuspro said:
But you've yet to come up with an alternative arguement other than insuate that those in favour of mandatory sentencing are working class stiffs who read tabloid papers, watch reality TV shows and don't really know what they're talking about.

Why don't you tell us why minimum mandatory sentencing would be a bad thing without referring to "mitigating circumstances" or "discretion"?
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing for anything, just against a poorly thought-out solution to a perceived problem.

The real problem IMHO is multi-faceted;

  • sentencing policy
  • minor transgressions (fines !!) that carry an incarceration tariff
  • our wholesale adoption of the infamous US plea-bargaining system in criminal matters
  • a judiciary insulated and removed from the reality of 21st century life in Ireland
  • poverty
  • ghettoisation of certain areas / people
  • etc.
You might want to re-read my posts; I haven't used most of the words or concepts you quote and attribute to me in your post above.
 
Sunny said:
Ok, let's use the disgusting example of child abuse. At the moment, the Judge can reduce the sentence if I plead guilty and spare the child having to testify. Remove that discretion from the judge and alot more victims will have to relive their experiences in a court room because there would be no reason to plead guilty. Might as well take your chances in trial.

That's just one example of why descretion is important.
Click to expand...

But should child rapists ever get a suspended sentence?
 
Purple said:
But should child rapists ever get a suspended sentence?
Click to expand...

God no.

I was on a jury for a child abuse case where the guy pleaded not guilty. Seeing what the child (young woman by then) went through on the stand was the most disturbing and upsetting thing I have ever had to endure.
 
Purple said:
... The key question is are the judges giving sentences which adequately punish offenders for the crimes the commit ...
Click to expand...
I disagree and would phrase the issue as "Are judges giving sentences which adequately punish offenders for the crimes they are found guilty of?"

There seems to be confusion about the differences between what the rabble-rousing Star (for example) prints, what appears to happen in court-cases in Coronation St Land or CSI: Belmullet and what actually happens in an Irish court of law.
 
mathepac said:
I disagree and would phrase the issue as "Are judges giving sentences which adequately punish offenders for the crimes they are found guilty of?"

There seems to be confusion about the differences between what the rabble-rousing Star (for example) prints, what appears to happen in court-cases in Coronation St Land or CSI: Belmullet and what actually happens in an Irish court of law.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your point.
 
Complainer said:
Ah I see now - the life of a prisoner (or prison officer, or prison visitor, or prison teacher) is worth less than other lives - is that your position?
Click to expand...

This is draging the debate off topic. But I'll answer your question with a question; do you see the life of a law abiding citizen to be worth less than the life of a con?

Point is that violent and repeat offenders belong in prison!
 
Purple said:
I don't understand your point.
Click to expand...
In some people's eyes the woman killed her child and in their view she seems to be guilty of murder. In court she was convicted of "wilful ill-treatment of her daughter" after entering a guilty plea; the state dropped the manslaughter charge.

She stands convicted of "wilful ill-treatment of her daughter" and the judge sentenced accordingly; despite all his rhetoric in reviewing the evidence, he can only impose a sentence based on the crime she was found (pleaded) guilty of, not people's perception of what crime she actually committed or the crime she was originally charged with.

Is that any clearer?
 
mathepac said:
In some people's eyes the woman killed her child and in their view she seems to be guilty of murder. In court she was convicted of "wilful ill-treatment of her daughter" after entering a guilty plea; the state dropped the manslaughter charge.

She stands convicted of "wilful ill-treatment of her daughter" and the judge sentenced accordingly; despite all his rhetoric in reviewing the evidence, he can only impose a sentence based on the crime she was found (pleaded) guilty of, not people's perception of what crime she actually committed or the crime she was originally charged with.

Is that any clearer?
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely. I wasn't talking about that case but as it has come up she is only guilty of the crime which she was convicted of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top