At least there is consensus on minimum sentences — six years
MOST people are in agreement — convicted rapists should spend at least six years behind bars. The Irish Examiner/Red C poll also reveals that almost two-fifths (39%) of respondents feel a life sentence is the most appropriate punishment for a rapist.
However, a little less than half agree with the sentencing framework laid out by Mr Justice Peter Charleton last year when he said rapists should spend between three and 10 years in prison.
The Irish Examiner/Red C poll asked people what was the appropriate sentence for a convicted rapist.
It found 38% considered a six to 10-year sentence should be handed down. One in 10 said rapists should spend between three and six years in prison. In every age category men demanded stricter punishments than women.
This was especially true among adults under the age of 25 where more than half called for life sentences. No male in this age category thought prison for anything less three years would insure a man guilty of a sex crime served his debt to society.
Women were more likely to seek fixed jail terms with imprisonment from six to 10 years the most popular choice. Although, one in five women thought a rapist would be sufficiently punished if he was locked up for between three and six years.
The results follow yesterday’s opinion poll in the Irish Examiner, which showed over-55s are far more likely to attach blame to the victim of rape based on how she dressed, where she walked or what she had to drink.
Similarly today’s figures show the same age group believes in lighter jail terms for convicted sex criminals.
Demands for more severe sentences were strongest among 18- to 44-year-olds — 44% said rapists should be jailed for life.
However, the fact that a little more than half of people surveyed opted for moderate jail terms reflect the patterns of rape sentencing shown in the Court Service’s 2006 report. It said 80% of convicted rapists were jailed for between five and 12 years.
The public’s views also fit in with the sentencing model laid out by Mr Justice Charleton after he conducted a study of all recent decisions of the Central Criminal Court.
The judge gave the details of his findings in the sentencing of Waterford rapist Wayne Drought who attacked a student on her way home from a city nightclub.
Mr Justice Charleton was analysing the debate on sentencing after the outrage that followed his colleague Mr Justice Paul Carney’s decision to suspend the jail term of Adam Keane who broke into a house in Ennis, Co Clare, and raped a mother in her bed.
The confusion goes back to a 1988 trial, referred to as the Tiernan case. It introduced the prospect of rapists availing of suspended sentences on condition there were “wholly exceptional circumstances”.
The extent to which this caveat can be stretched has been argued by defence barristers and judges for the past 20 years.
In his study of the rape trials Mr Justice Charleton said he was happy this option was not being exploited and he refused to consider it in the case of Drought.
Drought’s victim had been drinking throughout the day with nothing to eat and she was asked to leave a club because she was too drunk.
She walked home alone and on the way met Drought who she agreed to kiss but nothing more.
Drought ripped off her clothes, pushed her to the ground and pressed himself on her. Medical evidence showed she had been forcibly subjected to rape.
Yesterday, the Irish Examiner revealed that more than 8% of people said a woman who is drunk or who walks home though a dangerous area is totally responsible for being attacked.
Sentencing Drought to seven years, Mr Justice Charleton said that after studying all of the verdicts handed down in recent years, he accepted suspended sentences were a very uncommon option.
He said these suspended sentences could not be justified by arguments commonly put forward such as the defendant made an early guilty plea or had no previous convictions.
“[The cases examined] indicate that a suspended sentence can only be contemplated where the circumstances of the offence are such as to be so completely exceptional as to allow the court to approach sentencing for an offence of rape in a way that deviates so completely from the norm established by the case law.”
Mr Justice Charleton outlined what he believed was the correct precedent for rapists:
* When sentences between three and six years were handed down they almost always involved an early guilty plea. The victim and the perpetrators were strangers and the attack did not involve extreme violence or threats to kill. There were usually no previous convictions, perpetrators were young and there was no additional humiliation or perversion other than the act of rape itself.
* Sentences of six to eight years had more severe characteristics. The use of violence pushed sentencing into that bracket even if the man pleaded guilty. There was evidence the rape had a worse-than-usual effect on the victim. There are multiple assaults, especially if the rapist abuses a position of trust or is a member of the victim’s family.
* Sentences that went from nine years to 14 years had the most severe circumstances. They included multiple victims, particularly children, and offences spanning a number of years. Accused men often pleaded not guilty, so their victims had to endure trial proceedings. Mr Justice Charleton said prison sentences in this bracket should emerge from crimes with unusual levels of violence, premeditation or the decision to violate and humiliate victims.
* Life imprisonment was a sentence Mr Justice Charleton found had been reserved for the most extreme crimes. These involve gang rapes; the assault was spread over a number of hours; the victim was either very young or very old; and the violence involved had particularly degrading traits. The Court of Criminal Appeal in its recent ruling on the Keane case took Mr Justice Charleton’s analysis on board and abided by this as a guide for sentencing.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
