More reasons for mandatory sentencing


Recent case law in the UK would suggest that this pretty much means you have to be sure of someone's guilt. To be honest, I wouldn't convict someone unless I was 100% sure.

I agree that it seems like the DPP takes the easy road but he knows more than I know and understands how he is more likely to get a conviction.

Sean Keogh was found not guilty of murder by the Jury as far as I know. Could be wrong on that though.
 
... Sean Keogh was found not guilty of murder by the Jury as far as I know. Could be wrong on that though.
Correct and he was then tried on the assault charges, so it seems the jury did its very difficult job. No-one has explained yet how mandatory sentencing would have changed any of these outcomes.
 
Fair enough so - I stand corrected.

I presumed the DPP bottled the murder charge - never realised the jury did!
 
Correct and he was then tried on the assault charges, so it seems the jury did its very difficult job. No-one has explained yet how mandatory sentencing would have changed any of these outcomes.

I'll explain it again. If we had mandatory sentencing for repeat and serious offenders. Sean Keogh would have been in prison at the time of the murder on the basis of his 75 prior convictions. This is why I advocate mandatory sentencing, because if a repeat offender with 75 prior convictions is in prison where they belong they are not in a position to commit crime against innocent members of society.
 
Is this a Charlie McCreevy-type back-of-the-envelope cost benefit analysis? Please let's not base public policy on this kind of stuff any more. It has got is into serious messes in the past. If you want to make an arguement about cost/benefits, let's see some real serious data.

Prison officers are assuaulted on a regular basis, about three assaults each week last year. It mightened get much press coverage, but it does still hapen.

I just wanted to point out that the flawed thinking of 'sure they're only killing each other' doesn't work, inside or outside prison. Somebody else is going to hurt or gets killed.
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.



I've never tried to prevent discussion here on AAM. I just want to challenge the view that seems to think the country should be ruled by the bar-stool experts here on AAM. Let's face it, posters here don't have the basic facts right on the cases they are argueing. They weren't in court to hear everything that the jury heard. But they still feel empowered to pronounce their verdict based on the couple of press reports that they read. By all means, let the discussion continue, but let's not kid ourselves that it is anything more than pub talk.
 
... Sean Keogh would have been in prison at the time of the murder on the basis of his 75 prior convictions. ...
As the man in question was found not guilty, it would have made no difference whether he was locked up or not. The finding of the jury, who heard all the evidence formally presented in court and who listened to the judge's input, was that he didn't do it.
 

It does make a difference because he would have been in prison and Pawel Kalite may still be alive, same goes for David Curran.
 


Hang on a second complainer, it was you who raised the issue of cost and increased taxes...

 

It is also uniformed imply that people who's opinion is different to yours is based upon ignorance, as unless we are employed by the courts service or the law enforcement , we can only base our opinions upon what the courts actually decide. The actual means of reportage are irrelevant.
 
It does make a difference because he would have been in prison and Pawel Kalite may still be alive ...
It seems you have additional information that wasn't available to the Guards or the DPP and that wasn't presented to the jury in order to guide their decision-making. Maybe you could post it here in order to clarify how you conclude that the prior incarceration of someone found not guilty of a crime could have prevented the crime in question.
 
The actual means of reportage are irrelevant.
Smart guys like O'Reilly, O'Brien, Maxwell and Murdoch pay out large sums of money because they know that the means of reportage are very, very important. These guys are more powerful that most politicians, because they control the means of reportage.

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Hang on a second complainer, it was you who raised the issue of cost and increased taxes...

It's a fair cop.

It is also uniformed imply that people who's opinion is different to yours is based upon ignorance, as unless we are employed by the courts service or the law enforcement , we can only base our opinions upon what the courts actually decide.

I presume that this should read 'uninformed to imply'. For the record, it is nothing to do with whether your opinions differ to mine or not. I'm first to admin that my own opinions on these matters are based largely on ignorance.
 

The judge is quoted as saying

“A decision was made, which I’m convinced was to the effect in Seán Keogh’s mind to get the men involved,”


which seems to imply that Keogh was a major factor in getting Curran involved in the incident

http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives...th-assault-on-murdered-polish-men-458262.html
 

If Keogh was incarcerated for his 75 prior convictions he would have been unable to participate in the murder as he could not be in two places at the one time.

Remeber that this debate is about mandatory sentencing and not the details of Sean Keogh's trial. The point that I'm making in relation to this particular case is that if we had a form of mandatory sentencing for repeat offenders people like Sean Keogh and David Curran would be in prison where they would belong and would be unable to commit crime against innocent members of society and the murder of Pawel Kalite could have possibly been avoided.

Throughout this entire thread you have not given one reason as to why we should not introduce mandatory sentencing other than trying to pick apart individual posts.
 
... “A decision was made, which I’m convinced was to the effect in Seán Keogh’s mind to get the men involved,”


which seems to imply that Keogh was a major factor in getting Curran involved in the incident ...​
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think the judge's opinion and commentary after the jury had delivered its verdict constitutes evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and your "which seems to imply" rider is hardly good enough as evidence either.
... he would have been unable to participate in the murder as he could not be in two places at the one time.
The jury decided he didn't participate in murder, hence its verdict. You seem to know better so as I asked before, what additional information do you have?
 

What additional information do you have?
 
Looks like it's not just readers of red top tabloids who feel there is something wrong with the penal system.

[broken link removed]
 
Building bigger jails and filling them with criminals for the rest of the living days.

Prisons are there to protect the law abiding public from criminals.
Has that worked anywhere else? Presumably the vacuum in criminal circles just gets filled up by younger (and more reckless, more violent) up and coming criminas.
 
Has that worked anywhere else? Presumably the vacuum in criminal circles just gets filled up by younger (and more reckless, more violent) up and coming criminas.

Yes it has worked. It has worked in the sense that career criminals are safely locked away where they cannot ply their trade on the rest of society.