The sentencing lottery

Two men last week pleaded guilty to assaulting police officers. They received suspended sentences. A convicted fraudster was back in court for the second time in two months accused of defrauding people of up to €750,000. He was bailed. A man chased his wife as she ran in fear to the local police station before proceeding to seriously injure an officer as he resisted arrest. He received a suspended sentence.

A father of six on minimum wage placed a dog in a garbage bag and threw it in a skip. He received a one year jail sentence and a €20,000 fine. Given he is highly unlikely to have the means to pay the fine, he will spend even more time in jail. Something, somewhere is very wrong.

It is important to make clear from the outset that animal cruelty is a terrible crime and it should not be tolerated. And though we are in no way criticising that sentence in isolation, it does stick out sorely when women-beaters, thieves and thugs get away with much less for doing much worse. Blatant inconsistency in sentencing is happening often enough to be described as a problem.

There are two issues to be addressed. The first concerns the sentencing limits imposed by the law since members of the judiciary must act within these parameters. It is time that a comprehensive review of statutory sentences takes place – proposing raising the level of certain crimes for sentencing purposes and, if need be, reducing the level for others.

When it comes to the latter, the case of Sugeidy Castillo, a Dominican mother of two, is a case in point. She was jailed for 14-and-a-half years for importing heroin.

What she did was wrong, but in all probability she was a desperate-for-money mule for a bigger fish. There is little purpose to placing her in prison for such a long period other than ruining her life and her children’s. She is a victim of society. The same certainly cannot be said for many others who commit violent crime.

The second point relates to members of the judiciary, since too many for comfort seem to sentence on the basis of their personal opinion. This could be because the best legal minds are not being attracted to the Bench – we have already made clear our position that salaries must rise – but there is also a deeper problem, which is a lack of sentencing policy.

Nobody wants to see the judiciary bound in a statutory sentencing straightjacket. It is of vital importance that they have discretion within the sentencing structure to enable them to assess each case on its merits and deliver the most appropriate punishment. Only the judge or magistrate presiding over the case is in a position to do this.

However, there does need to be a guide that is followed – ideally established by senior members of the judiciary – which sets tariffs for specific offences. This would hopefully also spell out that the use of the suspended sentence, considered by several legal systems to be an exception when it comes to punishment, is used much more sparingly than is the case today.

The object of sentencing tariffs would not be to remove discretion in sentencing, but rather to provide an effective guideline which would make it more consistent. This in turn would increase public confidence in our justice system.

If members of the judiciary want the public to be sympathetic to their claims for better conditions, they must take the necessary steps to create better conditions for society.