System gives criminals a sporting chance while victims count the cost

OUR system of justice is more concerned about the rights of criminals than those of their victims.

Operation Anvil plans to target gun crime by trying harder. But it is only trying to tackle the symptoms, not the real problems.

The gardaí will be given more money, but if money could solve this problem the US would have solved it years ago. They have spent billions on their war on drugs and organised crime. Yet there are more drugs on the streets, and organised crime is stronger than ever.

We have tried such measures before, but the gains were just short term. Some criminals were taken off the streets, but this just made room for others because no effort is being made to stop the massive profits that can be made from drugs. Moreover, the imbalance in our laws seems to protect the criminals by giving them a sporting chance, as if the whole thing was a game.

We have been witnessing a horrific situation in Belfast in relation to the murder of Robert McCartney. Anyone there who wished to know who murdered him had little difficulty in finding out. The PSNI has known since the murder, but its hands are tied because witnesses have been intimidated and criminals can hide behind the right to silence.

The rise of gun crime in this State has undoubtedly stemmed from the violence in the North.

The murder of Joseph Rafferty in Dublin last month is comparatively similar in that many witnesses have been intimidated. It is not just that criminals have a right of silence; they can also effectively silence witnesses and thus ensure that they can get away with even the most heinous crimes.

The right of silence supposedly protects the innocent, but innocent people don’t need a right of silence, especially with the advent of modern technology. All police interviews can be videotaped to protect both the accused and their interrogators. If a child is accused of wrongdoing, responsible parents will not allow that child to refuse to answer questions. Why should the State allow its citizens to do so?

The McCartney and Rafferty phenomena are not really that new.

When Veronica Guerin was killed in June 1996, the authorities knew who was responsible. “We know who killed her - and he is untouchable,” the Irish Independent declared in a front-page editorial.

And the then Justice Minister Nora Owen admitted at the time: “The sad, awful reality is that these people feel that they can do this without any answerability on their part.”

It was a contemptible act. Veronica was shot in broad daylight on her way back from an appearance in court in Naas where she was fined for a speeding offence. The Special Criminal Court heard in 2000 how John Gilligan had threatened to kill Veronica and sodomise her young son if the journalist did not desist from writing stories uncovering his gang’s criminal activities. This was the ultimate in intimidation.

The proverbial dogs in the streets knew who was behind her murder. The internet site, Cogair, made allegations about three named individuals.

The American TV network CBS covered the murder on its popular ‘60 Minutes’ programme. It somehow got hold of a home-made video of Gilligan and a couple of other thugs sunning themselves on the Caribbean island of St Lucia. “Here’s one for Veronica Guerin,” one of them toasted. “Yeah,” another said, “crime doesn’t pay!” They all laughed.

These people were thumbing their noses at civilised society and the outrage at home was palpable. The Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) was established and it arrested Gilligan, Holland and Meehan. Meehan was also convicted of the murder, as was Paul Ward.

All were convicted and jailed for long periods for involvement in the importation or distribution of cannabis. However, Gilligan was acquitted of murder, Meehan is appealing his murder verdict, and Ward has had his murder conviction overturned in the courts.

IN 1963, Charlie Haughey introduced a bill doing away with the death penalty for all but what was called ‘capital murder,’ such as the killing of a garda or a politician. The big issue at the time was not so much whether capital punishment should be abolished for most crimes, but whether it should be completely abolished.

In the previous 17 years there had been an average of less than five murders a year, and half of them were committed by people who were considered mentally insane. For instance, there were 82 murders in those 17 years, and 73 people were arrested. Of those, 34 were considered mentally unfit to plead, and another seven were found guilty but insane. Eighteen were convicted of murder and sentenced to death.

Only three men were executed - one in 1947, one in 1948, and the third in 1954. The other 15 had their sentences commuted to life in prison. The average term served by those 15 was just six years - the shortest was three years and the longest 11.5 years. Would anyone consider six years a real deterrent?

What kind of message was the country sending when it abolished the death penalty and substituted it with what amounted to an average of six years in jail? This is not to suggest the re-introduction of the death penalty, but that there should be a fixed terms to act as a deterrent. Should we be surprised that murder spiralled in the following years.

A couple of years ago Justice Minister Michael McDowell told the Dáil there were 144 people in jail who had been sentenced to life. Fifty convicted murderers had been released in the previous 10 years, after serving an average of 13.5 years in jail. Fourteen of those were released in line with the Good Friday Agreement, which would have lowered the average term somewhat, but even that did not really reflect the average now being served because it did not take account of the fact that nine prisoners then incarcerated had been in jail for over 20 years. If the terms they will serve were included, the average sentence would be distinctly higher.

People may well ask if it is justice that some people are serving more than 20 years while the average term served by the 50 who were released was less than 14 years? Of course, the real question that they should be asking is whether it was justice that so many people were released early.

People sentenced to life in prison are entitled to be considered for parole after seven years. What kind of message is that sending to society about the value of human life? The system is in need of reform, not just cosmetic tinkering.