Sentences must be seen to fit the crime

Sentences must be seen to fit a crime, both for a victim’s family and society, writes John O’Keeffe

MURDER is the most horrific of crimes as it leaves families of victims with a life sentence.

Besides having to deal with the immediate bereavement, the trauma of the crime continues for families who have to go through a court process, reminders about their loss on family and social occasions and the release of the offender. Throughout each of these stages, families are forced to relive these emotions, which take their toll.

Unfortunately we have seen a number of horrific murders at home and abroad in recent times such as the tragic loss of Jill Meagher in Australia; Catherine Gowing in the UK; and closer to home, Jolanta and Enrika Lubiene in Kerry.

The cases of Ms Meagher and Ms Gowing have focused the spotlight on sentencing in Ireland.

In the case of Ms Gowing, Clive Sharp received a minimum sentence of 37 years, and in the case of Ms Meagher, Adrian Bayley has to serve at least 35 years in jail before being considered for parole.

In many homicide cases in Ireland, families of victims will never see these types of sentences handed down. In fact, in a recent research study of victims’ families 65% said they were not satisfied with the length of sentence given to the perpetrator in their cases.

Often times, this is due to the fact that the rationale behind the length of the sentence has not been explained to them. In other situations, it is because the hands of the judiciary are tied. For example, Martin Toland was sentenced to just nine years in prison for the manslaughter of Alan Nolan and was also sentenced to a concurrent seven years in prison for seriously injuring James Carroll during the same incident.

The presiding judge, Justice Barry White, wanted to impose a longer sentence of 14 years, but was constrained by the Court of Criminal Appeal from doing so.

There are also other issues which arose during Ms Meagher’s case around bail laws in Australia, which also highlight the inadequate bail laws in Ireland. In our own research, it was found that some homicides occurred because the perpetrators had not received consecutive sentencing for earlier crimes or were out on bail for other criminal offences at the time of the offence. Had they done so, the families affected believe their loved ones would still be alive today.

In the debate about sentencing for unlawful killings, we have to recognise that it continues to be the case that the rights of the accused are placed above those of the victim.

As a result, after the trial families often complain that they are the ones serving the real life sentence and their faith in the justice system is fundamentally undermined.

We must not forget that in all of these cases a human life has been taken in violence. As a society we are entitled to feel protected from violence. It is incumbent on our criminal justice system to respond by sending the strongest message that this most serious of crimes will attract long sentences.

This situation will not come about until genuine reform is introduced. We believe the main reform that should be introduced is that the charge of murder by degree, whereby minimum tariffs are associated with homicide offences, needs to be introduced. In the same research study, 63% of victims’ families also said they would like to see minimum sentencing introduced for homicide.

Under this system, the appropriate level of approbation would be handed down and families would have a clear picture of how long offenders would serve. This would do away with the charge of manslaughter; the title of which belittles the fact that someone’s life has been lost. It also follows a similar system which exists in Britain.

What is worrying, however, is that the only reform our politicians talk about is actually weighing the system further in favour of killers. For example, in the context of the proposed penal reforms where it is recommended to increase remission from a quarter to a third of the sentence and to transfer prisoners convicted of homicide to an open prison towards the end of their sentence to aid with their rehabilitation into society.

The very idea of remission, that a convicted killer would automatically see their sentence reduced by a quarter, is repugnant. The fact that it is proposed to increase this to a third defies logic.

Similarly the proposal that killers should be transferred to open prisons towards the end of their sentence is also appalling. We see reports of killers absconding from open prisons in Ireland every year, so the idea that we will increase the number of offenders in these types of prisons is absurd.

FAMILIES of victims of homicide have been very vocal on both these points, with 71% rejecting the proposed increase in remission and 93% strongly opposed to the transfer of prisoners convicted of homicide to an open prison, at any stage of their sentence.

We must not allow a situation where penal reforms are dictated by cost. Every discussion centres around a growing prison population, which effectively translates into financial concerns about maintaining it, as opposed to a real conversation about reform. If the Government was genuinely concerned it would invest in areas to steer our young people away from a life of crime instead of resorting to measures which will see criminals back on our streets sooner, rather than later.

Conversations around homicide sentencing mistakenly revolve around the use of long sentences as a deterrent to future offenders. We believe that this overlooks the fact that the sentencing is of the upmost importance to the victim’s family and society as a whole in terms of justice being seen to be served.

There are a range of reforms that we believe should be introduced in order to rebalance the justice system. These include introduction of minimum tariffs for homicide offences; reform of our bail laws; and introduction of legislation to ensure that consecutive sentencing for offenders will operate on a statutory basis and is written as a presumption into law.

Implementation of these recommendations would result in a fair and equitable system, where justice is seen to be done by the wider community and the rights of prisoners are no longer placed above those of the victim.

*John O’Keeffe is special adviser to Advic