More reasons for mandatory sentencing

So as far as I see it, and taking the reasonable yet wishful post of Purple earlier into account, the issue is this:

The DPP would rather aim for a 'quick win' of a lesser charge uncontested than pursue a more serious charge which the evidence points to. Judicial discretion further lowers the sentence because they pled guilty.
Why is this? Is it a matter that the criminal (and I don't mean suspect, I mean criminal. They are definitely guilty of doing something bad, and the rest is symantics) now has to be seen with pity rather than contempt ?

Human Rights lawyers have jumped the fence from arguing for correct treatment of prisoners, to asking for favourable sentences (because he's a nice lad, Judge, and shure he's awful sorry for what he done) for those guilty of the death/stabbing/shooting or rape of another person, and not by accident.

Also, I do believe that (to paraphrase Billy Connolly) young scumbags invariably grow up to be adult scumbags. Unfortunately, there is no fear of the Guards giving you a thump any more, as the cop would be suspended and the little scumbag could probably sue them too. I'm not advocating free rein but a little more clouts given to young scumbags might make them a little less likely to try it again in case they're caught. Related to this is the social issue of the family defending their child in the face of evidence. My parents would have shook the hand of a cop if he caught me doing something and gave me a thump. I certainly wouldn't be going to sue him. This is 20 years ago, not 50)

Concurrent sentencing by judges must also stop as it really is worth "getting hung for a sheep as a lamb" now.
As for the murders and rapes committed in prison ? Well, if you're in a block with murderers and rapists, then you take your chances with your peers. Obviously, I don't include non-cons in this.
 

You could see it like that or it could be that the DPP feel there is reasonable doubt or insufficient evidence for the more serious charge and to guarantee a conviction take up the offer. Unless those who judge a person's guilt based on media reports are happy for a person to be charged with the higher offence, a massive and expensive trial, but then they're found not guilty and are free?
 
I'm always amused (or even bemused) to see the 'armchair experts' here on AAM coming up with back-of-the-envelope solutions. There are indeed serious problems in our criminal justice system, but I have this strange feeling that those who know most about this system are best positioned to come up with effective solutions, not those who read a few newspaper articles on the topic.
 
censuspro said:
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?
Click to expand...
No, I don't.
censuspro said:
Point is that violent and repeat offenders belong in prison!
Click to expand...
The theory is fine. Are we as a society prepared for the increased taxes arising from locking people up and throwing away the key?

Firefly said:
If murderers and rapists were segregated from other prisioners then I wouldn't lose any sleep
Click to expand...
They tried that approach when the Dublin & Limerick gangs were picking each other off. Ah sure as long as they are shooting each other, it doesn't really matter. It didn't work out too well for [broken link removed]and Shane Geoghan.
 

I’m always amused by people who come on to discussion forums and express bemusement that people are discussing things and offering opinions, arguments and counter-arguments. Part of what we do as a species to inform and develop our views is to talk about them. We offer an opinion and listen to counter opinions and, if we are smart enough, we listen to those counter opinions and use them to learn more about the topic at hand and change or hone out own views.
What adds nothing to the discussion are those who offer no opinion or counter-argument beyond questioning the intellect or right of others to air their views.

We all have a right to air our views, even those of us who are not members of the leftwing intelligentsia.
 
Complainer said:
but I have this strange feeling that those who know most about this system are best positioned to come up with effective solutions,
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha ha!! Get over yourself will you! Has crime increased or decreased over the years? The people at the top know how to deal with it! Good one!
 
As I've said on another thread, the jury should do the sentencing. Trial by jury is the core of our justice system. The jury, after having considered all the facts, decide if someone is guilty. They are also best placed to decide the sentence - they know what factors they took into account when reaching the verdict. It seems a big disconnected to have the people reaching the verdict not deciding on the sentence. Sentences imposed by juries would also more closely reflect societies view of a fair sentence for the crime. Judges could tell a jury that a particular crime carries a sentence of e.g. 2-5 years if there are sentences specified in legislation, but the jury should decide the punishment within this range.
 
Trial by Jury and sentencing by Jury? Sure that would give an element of power back to the people.
Never going to happen!
 
redbhoy said:
Has crime increased or decreased over the years? The people at the top know how to deal with it! Good one!
Click to expand...
Reductions in 13 of the 14 crime categories at the latest count - see [broken link removed]

And just for the record, I didn't refer to 'people at the top'.
 
Complainer said:
They tried that approach when the Dublin & Limerick gangs were picking each other off. Ah sure as long as they are shooting each other, it doesn't really matter. It didn't work out too well for [broken link removed]and Shane Geoghan.
Click to expand...

The separation of criminals inside a prison is a completely separate issue to ignoring their activities outside of prison.
 
I'm sure the relatives of Pawel Kalite and Marius Swajkos are delighted with those statistics.
 
Complainer said:
Reductions in 13 of the 14 crime categories at the latest count - see http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Ahern%20welcomes%20reductions%20in%2013%20of%2014%20crime%20groups

And just for the record, I didn't refer to 'people at the top'.
Click to expand...

Apologies, I would have thought that the people who know most about the system are the people at the top. But you're probably right. They woudlnt have a clue stuck in their Ivory Towers somewhere. Local Judges and Juries should be used to try criminals.

Statistics by the CSO for the Dept of Just us? I reckon they might be true?
If theres been such a reduction then why are we getting extra Gardaí?
 

Those who know most about the system could in turn be a part of the problem if the system is flawed. When it boils down to it, we are all affected therefore we should all be listened to.
 
DB74 said:
The separation of criminals inside a prison is a completely separate issue to ignoring their activities outside of prison.
Click to expand...

So how do you seperate criminals from prison staff inside a prison?

MrMan said:
Those who know most about the system could in turn be a part of the problem if the system is flawed. When it boils down to it, we are all affected therefore we should all be listened to.
Click to expand...

Indeed, many of those in the system may well be part of problem. But do have a think about the value of interested amatuers in any profession. For your own job, would you get many useful proposals from random posters on bulletin boards?
 
Complainer said:
Indeed, many of those in the system may well be part of problem. But do have a think about the value of interested amatuers in any profession. For your own job, would you get many useful proposals from random posters on bulletin boards?
Click to expand...


I obviously mis-understood the whole point of the letting off steam forum on askaboutmoney. I thought it was where people could go vent about various topics However, it seems like it is where Government policy is formulated so I would ask anyone who is not an expert on the topic being discussed to refrain from offering any sort of opinion as it might be taken seriously and entered into law.
 
Complainer said:
So how do you seperate criminals from prison staff inside a prison?
Click to expand...

That's not the point.

The original poster stated that he wouldn't care if murderers and rapists were segregated from other prisoners and you replied that this didn't work because Anthony Campbell & Shane Geoghegan were murdered on the outside.

As regards prison staff, when was the last time an Irish prison officer was murdered inside one of our prisons.


The problem is 3-fold as I see it

1. The DPP is too keen to accept plea-bargains for a lesser crime rather than pursue what would appear to be the correct conviction for the type of crime committed. The case of the death of the 3yo girl already given is one example while the death of an Estonian man dragged from his car and kicked to death is another (DPP accepted a manslaughter plea in this case rather than pursue the murder conviction)

The DPP should place more trust in the jury system of this country because the vast vast majority of people are sick of the crime rate in this country and will convict as they see fit. The case of the Mayo farmer is a testament to this. People want criminals convicted and ordinary people left along to live their lives.


2. The judiciary in this country are so far removed from reality it beggars belief. Concurrent and suspended sentences are the norm now in the courts (even Sean Keogh had 6 months of his 54-month sentence suspended for God's sake) and Judges rarely if ever hand down the "mandatory" sentences in drug cases.

IMO we need a new system for appointing judges. It should not be a job for life and the judiciary should be answerable to the Dail or even the people on a regular basis. They are there to serve the people.


3. The legal system seems more interested in ensuring that the rights of the suspect are not infringed rather than ensuring that justice is done.

The Judge Brian Curtin case is an example. The Gardai were one-day late with their warrant and so the seizure of the computer was deemed illegal and the case was thrown out.

Why can we not have a system whereby the case can still go to trial and, if a conviction is acquired, then this illegality can result in a reduced sentence
 

I presume you mean that they will convict once they are 100% sure of the persons guilt?

Elected judges are a terrible idea.
 
Complainer said:
No, I don't.

The theory is fine. Are we as a society prepared for the increased taxes arising from locking people up and throwing away the key?.
Click to expand...

Complete misrepresentation to say that locking people up for longer will lead to an increase in taxes. Plus, you're not taking into account the money that will be saved from processing repaet offenders through the judicial system and cost that criminal activity causes businesses and individuals i.e. robbery, vandalism, public order etc.


Complainer said:
They tried that approach when the Dublin & Limerick gangs were picking each other off. Ah sure as long as they are shooting each other, it doesn't really matter. It didn't work out too well for [broken link removed]and Shane Geoghan.
Click to expand...

Again, a completely unrelated incident. How is the murder of Shane Geoghan related to increased mandatory prison sentences. On the contrary, it is more likely that if we had mandatory sentencing Shane Geoghan would still be alive.
 
Sunny said:
I presume you mean that they will convict once they are 100% sure of the persons guilt?
Click to expand...

You don't have to be 100% - just beyond reasonable doubt AFAIK.

I mean that the DPP should have the courage to go with the greater charge if he/she thinks that it may stick.

I would have been surprised if a jury didn't convict Sean Keogh of murder, but we'll never know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register