Proposal to remove mandatory life term will get heated response

IF CRIME and the operation of the criminal justice system was not already a topic high on the public agenda, it certainly should be over the next few days.

Later today, the Law Reform Commission will turn up the heat on the debate about crime by publishing a report containing a number of controversial recommendations.

Most likely to arouse a certain degree of ire is the LRC’s proposal to abolish the mandatory life sentence for persons convicted of murder — a legal standard common to many countries in the developed world.

The commission’s recommendation would see judges being given discretionary powers to decide how long a convicted murdered should spend behind bars.

While the LRC acknowledges that there are strong arguments for and against a mandatory life sentence for murder, it came down in favour of change on the basis that the notion of a life sentence is “illusory”.

In reality, most convicted murderers have their sentence reviewed by the Parole Board after seven years and subsequently every three years. The Minister for Justice retains ultimate control over the release of such prisoners and can accept or reject the recommendations of the board.

An analysis of murder convictions from 1996 to 2006 reveals the average “life” term of imprisonment is thirteen-and-a-half years.

“The discretionary power of judges is an inherent part of many trials as it allows them to reflect the fact that all cases differ. It is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system. However, mandatory sentencing ensures that all murders are treated in the one uniform category in terms of moral wickedness,” explains LRC spokesman and UCD law lecturer, Prof Finbarr McAuley.

He added: “It makes no distinction between a fight between two loved ones which results in a death at one end of the scale and a contract killing at the other extreme.”

However, the LRC is on less certain ground with its assertion that the abolition of mandatory life sentences for murder “would not necessarily be a blow to public confidence in the criminal justice system”.

Victim support groups have frequently expressed concern about lenient sentences handed down in serious, non-murder cases.

In a separate move, the commission has proposed introducing a new criminal offence of “assault causing death” in recognition that there are various degrees of involuntary manslaughter.

The main rationale behind this proposal is a concern that cases where “low levels of deliberate violence” result in a death should not lead to a prosecution for manslaughter.

“In many ‘single-punch’ type cases, there would be no prosecution for assault had a fatality not occurred,” explains Prof McAuley.

The suggestion that the new offence of “assault causing death” might strike a balance between the gravity of a manslaughter conviction and the traumatic effect for the families of victims if their killer was only charged and convicted of an assault is unlikely to receive popular support.

Either way, neither this proposed offence nor calls for the abolition of mandatory life sentences is likely to be endorsed by politicians conscious of public anger. If any further proof was needed of the realpolitik of the situation, a similar recommendation on mandatory life sentences by the LRC from 1996 has remained intact on a dusty shelf over the past 12 years.