Courts' sentences too lenient on violent criminals?

[patslatt]

The dramatic rise in violent crime and murder publicised every week on the media should prompt the justice system to reexamine its policies and strategies for tackling criminal violence.Should it take a hardline approach to sentencing violent criminals? Should it target them for intense surveillance when they are on probation or out on bail? Should it even adopt the approach of many American states of "three strikes and your'e out"?

The American public's vengefulness against criminals is seen at its absurd worst in California's "three strikes and you're out law" which calls for a mandatory life sentence for conviction on as little as three petty crimes. While this is going to extremes,maybe Irish sentencing guidelines should advise judges that two violent assaults with a weapon causing serious bodily harm or one violent assault with a weapon causing major bodily harm should be punished with sentences ranging from,say,seven to twenty years,with no more than a fifteen percent sentence reduction for good behaviour.

Ireland's softly,softly approach to sentencing is at the other extreme from California's. Often,media stories of murder and violent assault reveal that the criminals had previous criminal records of dozens of serious crimes. It makes you wonder why some judge along the line didn't apply long sentences.


As well,the courts seem to be doing a poor job of identifying professional career criminals and violent criminals likely to commit murder or maim their victims for life. Once identified as such,these criminals need to be jailed for long periods until they reach an age,probably in their late thirties at the earliest, when they are less likly to commit violent crimes.

[RUMOUR MONGER]

Imagine if CIE brought in three strikes and your out.

[Garda]

I agree with the above, sentencing is too lenient however the strangest thing I see in court is that drug offences get the harshest sentence whereas a sexual crime seems to be viewed as 'minor'. How can someone that abuses a child get a suspended sentence? It beggers belief.

[Roy Walsh]

I agree with the above, sentencing is too lenient however the strangest thing I see in court is that drug offences get the harshest sentence whereas a sexual crime seems to be viewed as 'minor'. How can someone that abuses a child get a suspended sentence? It beggers belief.

You are absolytly right, the cause is that sex-offenders have social work types providing character reference and excuses as to why they behave in this way, I know from experience they have no experience of being victim of childhood sexual abuse.
It could be dealt with throughn removal of segration.
I heard the story of the child sex offerder, sent to prison prior to segration where the ODC's made a special 'nail' in the workshop and nailed his head to the door, sounds like a plan.

[popper]

The dramatic rise in violent crime and murder publicised every week on the media should prompt the justice system to reexamine its policies and strategies for tackling criminal violence.Should it take a hardline approach to sentencing violent criminals? Should it target them for intense surveillance when they are on probation or out on bail? Should it even adopt the approach of many American states of "three strikes and your'e out"?

The American public's vengefulness against criminals is seen at its absurd worst in California's "three strikes and you're out law" which calls for a mandatory life sentence for conviction on as little as three petty crimes. While this is going to extremes,maybe Irish sentencing guidelines should advise judges that two violent assaults with a weapon causing serious bodily harm or one violent assault with a weapon causing major bodily harm should be punished with sentences ranging from,say,seven to twenty years,with no more than a fifteen percent sentence reduction for good behaviour.

Ireland's softly,softly approach to sentencing is at the other extreme from California's. Often,media stories of murder and violent assault reveal that the criminals had previous criminal records of dozens of serious crimes. It makes you wonder why some judge along the line didn't apply long sentences.


As well,the courts seem to be doing a poor job of identifying professional career criminals and violent criminals likely to commit murder or maim their victims for life. Once identified as such,these criminals need to be jailed for long periods until they reach an age,probably in their late thirties at the earliest, when they are less likly to commit violent crimes.

It may be an extreme but it is a reaction to the extreme liberalism of the late 60s and early 70s when violent crime escalated out of proportion. Many of the worst places then have improved.

[returning officer]

Are there any statistics demonstrating the leniency of Irish Courts viz-a-viz a similar European country such as the UK, Denmark or Holland, or do we just rely on those cases highlighted by Joe Duffy and then compare them with the US?

[odie1kanobe]

Getting you head kicked in and watch yobbo get a fine and laugh at you must be the most horrible experience for anyone.

Whatever about the negatives for a 3 strikes and you are out it clearly sends a message that habitual offendors who don't give a F*** about themeselves or anybody else offer nothing to society.

If they want to continually offend then why should good people have to suffer it.