Jail Sentence for Multiple Rape

P

PMI

Registered User
Messages
96
The Judge in a case last week gave a sentence of 13 years for multiple rape. He regreted that it was not life but this sentence in previous cases were sucessfully appealed.
As far as I know this man was convicted of a few crimes and got concurrent sentences. If the Judge wanted a longer sentence, why did he not make the sentences consecquative.
This confuses me all the time. Can anybody tell me what is the use of giving concurrent sentences at all and in what circumstances would a Judge consecquative ones.
 
agree totally with you,its a disgrace.concurrent sentanceing means that one could rape then kill and serve time for just one of those crimes ,it is an incentive to do as much damage as possible and still get concurrent a sentance..
its the same with the bail laws. when someone is out on bail,they may as well comimit as many crimes as possible due to this loophole..or what ever it is.
I think that each offence that would carry a jail term should be implemented,ie you rape someone ,thats say 15 years,if you then murder them,thats for example 20 and they should serve 35 years ,and not just have them run concurrently,this may then serve as some sort of a deterrent,
 
The Hegarty case is yet another example ( and there are many ) of farcical sentencing. He received a joke of a sentence of 10 years in Feb 2000 for raping two women on different days in Oct. 1998. To add insult to injury to the two victims this guy was released in 2006 . Had he been made to serve the full 10 year term ( a light sentence for a double rape anyway imo ) he wouldn't have been able to rape for a third time in May 2008. So we now jail the serial rapist for 13 years which, on past form, will see him back on the streets in around 7 years ! How can any right thinking legal system believe that this is fair and just to the victims? This guy should never ever be allowed in to society again imo - there should be no chance that this guy can reoffend. Life imprisonment with no parole is the appropriate sentence for Hegarty imo. I suppose the system will release , jailed for 15 years in 2001, fairly soon too if he's been a good boy in prison :rolleyes:. When are that powers that be going to cop on?
 
Is this the case in Cork? It wasn't a case of multiple rape. He was in Court for one incidence of rape after being released from prision for two cases of rape so they were seperate incidents and he couldn't be tried again for past offences. To be fair to Justice Carney, his hands were completely tied.

As for concurrant versus consecutive sentances, while the Judge has a certain level of freedom, the total sentance still has to be appropriate for the incidents so their hands are often tied for the same reason that Justice Carney couldn't give a life sentance in the above case. I do agree though that the law stinks sometimes. The guy doesn't deserve another chance.
 
I think they should get rid of concurrent jail time.

If they knew they would only serve 6 years for multiple crimes, no deterrent not to commint multiple crimes.

I would suggest if for example you carried out a few different crimes

crime 1-6 years

crime 2-5 years

crime 3-5 years

make them serve first 11 years and them in final part of jail time give them good behavour based on last 5 years they have to serve. no concurrent time.
 
It's a nasty, nasty business; but judges have to ask themselves, all the time, 'what is the worst the convicted person could have done in committing this offence and in meeting these charges' then, they have to look at the maximum sentence. Then they have to give a discount off the maximum for everything that makes the case less awful than the worst possible.

So, for example, a quick guilty plea must be rewarded. If it isn't, you create a system where there is no incentive to plead guilty.

And if life in prison is the automatic outcome of conviction for a violent rape, or even for a second or third violent rape, is there a danger that you will create a situation where the perpetrator has little to lose by permanently silencing the victim ( who is also the main prosecution witness) during the offence?.

"Lock 'em up forever" is an entirely understandable attitude. But it does not make for a coherent and judicious sentencing policy.

And no, I am not happy with it. And no I don't have the answers.
 
I think these guys should be sentanced to whatever term and be forced to serve it in one of those mexican or south american prisons (set up an embassy like prison, somehow agree extradition clauses for criminals).

Double plus for Taxpayers and law abiding citizens. Saves us serious money and really punishes those who commit such awful crimes. Might make them think twice!

I know there would be some sort of legal issues with doing it but surely when they break the law they should lose the right to decide their punishments!
 
if concurrent sentencing is to contuinue then it makes a mockery of the justice system.
For example if;
man A, ) kidnapps a person and holds them prisioner for a month..

jail time could be say 10 years

Man B ) ,commits a rape

jail time say 10 years.

Man C ) ,murders someone

Jail time say 10 years.

In total these 3 men would serve 30 years, however if one man commits all three crimes..he would get..3x 10 years to run concurrently ie;10 yrs or less,theres something rotten about this....
 
I have to admit to being mystified by sentencing practice in Ireland, which might not be surprising as I know even less about sentencing policy or plea bargaining (read "early guilty plea" here).

My understanding is that the prosecution cannot refer to previous convictions during a trial and that these only come into play when the judge hands down the sentence after victim impact statements and pleas on behalf of the accused.

In other jurisdictions the serial or repeat offender, "three-time loser" in TV-speak, seems to be subject to the maximum tariff where the current crime is viewed as the latest in a sequence of similar offences (assault, robbery, rape, embezzlement, or whatever).

Surely when sentencing in this country judges should not have to try and second-guess the appeals processes when handing down a sentence and be sure that their colleagues will support them in their view that society needs protection from the repeat offender?

Alternatively, for serial offenders, what about making it a condition of any discount off a sentence, that a reoffender must immediately serve the discounted time in prison with no possibility of remission before facing charges relating to the new offence, including any plea-bargained discounts?

I am not trying to bring about a situation where an offender's civil and human rights are trampled on, but there has to be some means of balancing their rights, which seem to usurped all others recently, with the rights of the victims of horrendous crimes and society generally.
 
It does beg the question, who are the Judiciary in this country more loyal to-is it the Constitution, or the general public?? If a convicted felon is considered an ongoing danger to society or to a section of society,should this not also be taken into account in sentencing?? Anyone can express "apparent remorse" if it means a few years off their sentence.,I mean only the psychotic and the pathologically stupid wouldn't! It seems to me that crimes of a sexual nature don't seem to be regarded with the seriousness that they deserve in this country, which may account for the relatively low reportage rate of these types of crimes here

daithi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top