Sex attack sentences - Fines should not replace jail terms

Every society has a set of mores around sex, every society has a code of behaviour and if it is breached there are usually pretty severe consequences.

These constraints vary from society to society. Some are influenced by religious beliefs or, at the opposite end of the spectrum, a liberalism that champions the individual’s freedoms, rights and, occasionally, responsibilities.

Despite diversity, nearly all societies, no matter how prudish or non-judgmental, have rules rooted in one objective — the protection of the vulnerable, nearly always women, from violent attack by sexual predators.

Any society worth supporting recognises that it has to sometimes give real meaning to the opprobrium it feels towards sex attackers by imposing a penal censure. Usually that involves a custodial sentence that satisfies three basic objectives; punishing the offender, acknowledging the wrong done to the victim and protecting society from a convicted offender.

In recent weeks our courts observed that rationale by imposing sentences of 12 years on a man for raping his daughter, 15 years on another man for raping his mother and, in a third case, increasing a seven-year sentence to nine-and-a-half years for a random rape.

Parallel to those terms, judges have imposed financial penalties on sex offenders and, in one case, ruled that publishing a sex offender’s name, was sufficient punishment. The judges ruled that non-custodial sentences answered justice, that the victim’s ordeal was properly recognised and that they had discharged their duty to protect society.

Earlier this week Judge Martin Nolan imposed a four-year sentence, which he suspended in full, on a man who sexually attacked a teenager. Graham Griffiths will not go to jail if he pays €15,000 — just over a month’s wages for Judge Nolan — to his victim. Both Griffiths and Judge Nolan have form in this area. Griffiths has been convicted of assault four times, so no one should be surprised if he re-offends.

Judge Nolan, convicting Aidan Farrington for abusing two of his adult nieces recently, said the publication of his name was punishment enough. Previously, he earned some infamy for jailing a garlic importer for seven years over a VAT fraud.

In another ruling, Judge Desmond Hogan imposed a six-year sentence for a sexual assault on Anthony Lyons, but five-and-a-half years were suspended if Lyons paid €75,000 to his victim.

Apart at all from the inconsistency, these sentences ignore the idea of protecting society by confining criminals, offering offenders supervised treatment or, most importantly, showing victims that their trauma has been recognised. Worse, they make punishment for a serious crime a kind of commercial transaction rather than one where justice and protection are the paramount ideas. It gives money, the idea of paying a fine, a finality and authority it does not warrant. There may be some merit in a financial penalty if only to cut the cost of keeping someone in jail but it should not replace a period behind bars for sex attackers.

Judges are independent but that does not mean they can be unanswerable to the society they represent. Imposing fines for serious sexual assaults is unacceptable and judges presiding over these tragic cases should recognise that and reflect the values of this society more accurately than they have in some recent cases.