Sentencing policy a threat to status of judiciary

LET me see if I have this right.

A convicted rapist receives a three-year suspended prison sentence for raping a mother of three in her own home.

Then this same rapist flicks a cigarette butt in the direction of his rape victim and has the suspended sentence of three years activated.

Both of these judgements are astonishing.

Is it not a fact that sentences handed down in the courts are supposed to reflect society’s abhorrence of certain crimes?

Is it not also a fact that sentences handed down reflect what the judiciary regard as serious crimes and what they do not and, therefore, set standards of behaviour in society?

There has long been a tradition of constitutional legal and judicial independence in this country guaranteed under article 35.2 of the constitution which, by and large, has served us well.

However, recent sentences which have mystified many citizens — not least the ignoring by the judiciary of the mandatory minimum sentences for specified drug offences — puts that independence under threat.

Tom Cooper

Delaford Lawn

Knocklyon

Dublin 16