Justice denied

[odyssey06]

On what basis?

I don't follow, because he has not "suffered" in other ways, prior to his offense, he should be subject to the prison system for all its shortcomings that you reference? I don't think this reflects Timpson's views at all.

In fact, it seems to me to be entirely opposite. The risk of recidivism seems quite low in this case. I don't see how society would be safer with him behind bars? It seems a far greater risk to society is to place what was a seemingly functional member of society, into a system that can only disimprove his social functioning the longer he is in it.

There is no basis for your statement that "the risk of recidivism seems quite low".
Quite just as easily argue, if he got away with one such attack without any real consequence, it would be a signal to him he could get away with others.
The consequences should involved time behind bars.

 

[Itchy]

There is no basis for your statement that "the risk of recidivism seems quite low".
Quite just as easily argue, if he got away with one such attack without any real consequence, it would be a signal to him he could get away with others.
The consequences should involved time behind bars.

The basis is that he had held down a job that he performed well in. No discipline issues, professionally. Has not been in contact with the justice system prior to this. These are explicitly mitigating factors as outlined in the sentencing guidelines I posted earlier. There is also no evidence of any other character issues that would indicate violent tendencies, social disadvantage or health issues that indicate he would offend again. He also has a three year suspended sentence so he could not "get away with others". That said, the judge himself said the sentence was marginally under the threshold for a custodial.

There are consequences for putting people behind bars too. There could be a real risk that society is worse off if low risk individuals are exposed to such an environment for an extended period of time. This the view of the James Timpson, who does not subscribe to the punitive first principle.

*Just to clarify also, i'm not defending this individual. The circumstances and the reaction to this case are interesting to me, in the context of understanding how the system is working. More importantly, I'm interested in the victims who are no less deserving of justice, than the victim in this case, who are not clapped by the people who oversea the system who they themselves say failed and cannot generate the publicity or engagement from the people who are exercised about this case.

 

[odyssey06]

The basis is that he had held down a job that he performed well in. No discipline issues, professionally. Has not been in contact with the justice system prior to this. These are explicitly mitigating factors as outlined in the sentencing guidelines I posted earlier. There is also no evidence of any other character issues that would indicate violent tendencies, social disadvantage or health issues that indicate he would offend again. He also has a three year suspended sentence so he could not "get away with others". That said, the judge himself said the sentence was marginally under the threshold for a custodial.

There are consequences for putting people behind bars too. There could be a real risk that society is worse off if low risk individuals are exposed to such an environment for an extended period of time. This the view of the James Timpson, who does not subscribe to the punitive first principle.

*Just to clarify also, i'm not defending this individual. The circumstances and the reaction to this case are interesting to me, in the context of understanding how the system is working. More importantly, I'm interested in the victims who are no less deserving of justice, than the victim in this case, who are not clapped by the people who oversea the system who they themselves say failed and cannot generate the publicity or engagement from the people who are exercised about this case.

I don't think someone who exhibits this sort of use of violence meets your description above. The violent tendencies are demonstrated in the act.
This is someone who was trained in the use of violence and controlling aggression, who knew exactly the implications of each punch.
That is not someone low risk.

There's enough reports of people "getting away" with multiple suspended sentences, so yes, in Ireland in 2024 it could well mean that. It should not, but it does.

There is also the message it sends out to other such potential offenders.

 

[mathepac]

The basis is that he had held down a job that he performed well in. No discipline issues, professionally. Has not been in contact with the justice system prior to this. These are explicitly mitigating factors as outlined in the sentencing guidelines I posted earlier. There is also no evidence of any other character issues that would indicate violent tendencies, social disadvantage or health issues that indicate he would offend again. He also has a three year suspended sentence so he could not "get away with others". That said, the judge himself said the sentence was marginally under the threshold for a custodial.

As I see it the purpose of the justice system is to protect society from wrong-doers. The most immediate and effective manner of doing this is to jail those convicted of crimes that carry custodial sentences. All the other stuff about retraining, rehabilitation, and producing better citizens on release from jail play no part in protecting society in the short to medium term. Use victim impact statements at this stage as input to the judges' decisions to increase sentences above the minimum tariff.

I could easily be persuaded that all the foreplay with reports and references from every dog and divil with an invoice to submit or an axe to grind is a waste of taxpayers' money and prevents the justice system from fulfilling its purpose. Leave all the reports and references to be evaluated after imprisonment by what used to be the Probation & Welfare Service.

In the case in point, if the soldier's behaviour on the night could not have been predicted, how can anyone predict his behaviour in the future?

But please bear this in mind: If the justice system jails an intoxicated driver, potentially a sick person, is that person suffering from substance abuse syndrome being punished for having a mental illness?

 

[Purple]

The basis is that he had held down a job that he performed well in. No discipline issues, professionally. Has not been in contact with the justice system prior to this. These are explicitly mitigating factors as outlined in the sentencing guidelines I posted earlier. There is also no evidence of any other character issues that would indicate violent tendencies, social disadvantage or health issues that indicate he would offend again. He also has a three year suspended sentence so he could not "get away with others". That said, the judge himself said the sentence was marginally under the threshold for a custodial.

There are consequences for putting people behind bars too. There could be a real risk that society is worse off if low risk individuals are exposed to such an environment for an extended period of time. This the view of the James Timpson, who does not subscribe to the punitive first principle.

*Just to clarify also, i'm not defending this individual. The circumstances and the reaction to this case are interesting to me, in the context of understanding how the system is working. More importantly, I'm interested in the victims who are no less deserving of justice, than the victim in this case, who are not clapped by the people who oversea the system who they themselves say failed and cannot generate the publicity or engagement from the people who are exercised about this case.

In a general discussion about sentencing guidelines I agree with you but in this specific case the complete lack of remorse by the individual concerned leads me to believe that he was not actually acting out of character but rather he was demonstrating it and so he is deserving of a custodial sentence.

 

[Leo]

As I see it the purpose of the justice system is to protect society from wrong-doers. The most immediate and effective manner of doing this is to jail those convicted of crimes that carry custodial sentences. All the other stuff about retraining, rehabilitation, and producing better citizens on release from jail play no part in protecting society in the short to medium term. Use victim impact statements at this stage as input to the judges' decisions to increase sentences above the minimum tariff.

If the purpose was simply to protect society from wrong doers, then you're talking the death sentence for all such offences, after all, prison sentences are is in most cases temporary and short to medium term.

 

[mathepac]

then you're talking the death sentence for all such offences

You're talking something but I won't mention what it is. I never mentioned capital punishment and made it clear that I was referring only to custodial sentences.

What do you think the purpose of the justice system is?

 

[Purple]

What do you think the purpose of the justice system is?

It's to protect society, punish offenders and rehabilitate those who have been convicted of crimes.

 

[Leo]

You're talking something but I won't mention what it is. I never mentioned capital punishment and made it clear that I was referring only to custodial sentences.

Yeah, but custodial sentences without rehabilitation is essentially pointless right? That or they need to be jailed forever. Otherwise your proposal is only a very temporary protection for society, and likely worse in that incarceration without rehabilitation only creates worse offenders.

What do you think the purpose of the justice system is?

It's purpose is to achieve justice for all. Crime prevention is a significant portion of that, of which there are two components, deter people from committing crime, but also to intervene with offenders to reduce the likelihood or re-offending.