Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: Some Considerations
A petition asking for stronger sentences for convicted child sex abusers in Jersey has reached the 5,000 signature threshold, meaning it must be considered for a states debate:
“The people of Jersey are sick and tired of seeing paedophiles either found guilty of abusing, or attempting to abuse, our children being handed lenient prison sentences (if any prison sentence) by the Jersey courts. We therefore demand the States of Jersey implement mandatory minimum prison terms for such offences, starting from a minimum of 3 years and change the signing of the Sex Offenders Register to life.”
There are mandatory minimum sentences for a number of offences, but before extending it to sex offenders, I want to consider the arguments for and against mandatory sentencing, and secondly, looking in particular at the USA, how they approach mandatory sentencing for sex offences in a way which differentiates on the grounds of the severity of the offence.
Mandatory Minimums
Lenny Roth’s study “Mandatory sentencing laws”, for the NSW Parliamentary Research Service has an excellent summary of the case for and against mandatory sentencing:
The main arguments for these laws include:
1. The laws help to ensure that sentences reflect community standards and are not unduly lenient. In other words, to ensure that the punishment matches the crime. This is important for maintaining confidence in the justice system. Elected representatives are more sensitive to community concerns than appointed judges.
2. The laws help to reduce crime by acting as a stronger deterrent to would-be offenders. The laws (particularly those that target repeat offenders) also help to prevent crime by incapacitating offenders for longer periods of time. By lessening crime in these two ways, the laws reduce the costs associated with crime.
3. The laws can be drafted so that they do not result in excessively harsh sentences in some cases. For example, the laws can very specifically define the types of offences that will attract the minimum or fixed penalty. In addition, the laws might allow judges to depart from this penalty in “exceptional circumstances”.
The main arguments against these laws include:
1. The laws lead to injustice because of their removal of judicial discretion. Judges will not always be able to ensure that the punishment matches the crime. There will inevitably be cases where offenders receive excessively harsh sentences.
2. Increasing penalties does not deter people from committing crime. Most offenders do not act rationally; they act impulsively, and many are affected by alcohol or drugs. Laws that aim to incapacitate offenders for longer periods are unfair as they apply to some people who would not have re-offended.
3. The laws impose significant costs on the justice system. They are likely to lead to lower guilty pleas, and therefore more trials. They are also likely to result in higher prison costs, with more offenders being sentenced to imprisonment, and for longer periods.
4. Other less severe and costly alternatives can achieve the same objectives, including: presumptive sentencing laws, guideline judgements, and committing resources to apprehend offenders and to tackling the causes of offending.
The UK has tended to keep mandatory minimum sentences to just a few offences, but they do exist. Other countries take a much broader view.
A Few Cases from Around the World
USA: Mandatory minimum penalties generally relate to controlled substances, firearms, identity theft, and child sex offences (United States Sentencing Commission, 2011).
Australia: People smuggling is the only crime that attracts a mandatory minimum penalty under federal laws. In 2010, the law was amended to extend the mandatory minimum penalty provisions in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to apply the higher minimum sentence and non-parole period for a new aggravated offence of people smuggling involving exploitation or danger of death or serious harm and where a person is convicted of multiple people smuggling offences.
In the United Kingdom, upon conviction for murder, the court must sentence the defendant to life imprisonment. It also has three more mandatory minimum sentences for certain offences, namely: a minimum of 7 years' imprisonment for a person over 18 convicted of trafficking, supplying or producing Class A drugs for the third or subsequent time; a minimum of 5 years' imprisonment (for a person over 18) or 3 years' imprisonment (for a person aged 16–17) for possession, purchase, acquisition, manufacture, transfer or sale of a prohibited firearm or weapon for the first or subsequent time; and a minimum of 3 years' imprisonment for a person over 18 convicted of a domestic burglary for the third or subsequent time.
What appears to be the case, even where mandatory sentences are imposed are three matters:
Firstly, a distinction is often made between first offences and repeat offences. This is the same kind of distinction which is made with non-mandatory sentencing, and reflects the idea that a repeat offense, by its nature, should be treated more seriously than a first offence. Recidivism demonstrates a failure to be rehabilitated.
Secondly, where mandatory minimums do occur, there are degrees of sentencing within the broader scope of the offence. This will become apparent when we consider the USA and Sex Offences, which do carry a mandatory minimum sentence.
Thirdly, and this runs counter to the argument from the Minister that it is not custom to legislate for the judiciary on these mandatory minimum sentences, the fact that other countries have no problem with imposing mandatory minimums on offences, including sex offences, means that the legislature has decided, as sovereign in this matter over the judiciary, that this is both possible and beneficial.
The USA and Sex Offenses
Looking at the USA, a report on the statistics of sentencing, notes the very strong point that legal provisions establishing mandatory minimum penalties for certain offences typically remove any incentive an offender may have to plead guilty or to cooperate with the prosecution in such cases. It notes that:
"It is possible for the legislator to specifically create an exception to the strict application of mandatory minimum penalties for offenders who plead guilty at an early stage of the process, thus creating an explicit incentive for early guilty pleas. It is also possible for the legislator to provide offenders with an incentive for pleading guilty and collaborating with the prosecution by specifically creating an exception to the application of the mandatory minimum penalties for offenders offering assistance to the prosecution. This kind of exception (or “departure” from the mandatory minimum penalties) is found in the United States federal criminal law relating to certain drug offences."
If we apply a thought experiment to a fictitious but possible case under investigation regarding a paedophile ring. When interrogating one of the first suspects, leverage can be applied in the fact that probably (although not certainly) the court will take into consideration how he has helped the police in supplying information on other members of the gang. Mandatory minimum sentencing would reduce that incentive or take it away depending on how high it is set.
The USA has "Mandatory Minimums" for Sex Offenders, but not for all offences. A report notes that: "Offenders convicted of sex offences carrying a mandatory minimum penalty are sentenced to longer terms than those convicted of sex offences not carrying a mandatory minimum penalty"
"In fiscal year 2016, the average sentence for offenders convicted of a sexual abuse offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty was nearly three times longer than the average sentence for offenders convicted of a sexual abuse offence not carrying a mandatory minimum penalty (252 months compared to 86 months)."
"The average sentence for child pornography offenders who faced a ten-year mandatory minimum penalty because of a prior sex offence conviction (136 months) was substantially longer than the average sentence for those offenders who were convicted of a possession offence (without a prior sex offence), which does not carry a mandatory minimum penalty (55 months)."
"Child pornography offenders convicted of distribution (140 months) and receipt offences (93 months), which carry a five-year mandatory minimum penalty, also had a longer average sentence than offenders convicted of possession offences (55 months), who did not face a mandatory minimum penalty"
On the whole, I agree with the way the USA has done it, which is to say mandatory minimums but not for all sex offences. If the petition made that case - which I think is a sensible one - I would have agreed with it. The USA seems to take what (to me) is a common sense approach - in the same way, possession of drugs (for personal use) is different from possession of drugs for dealing. I think that sooner or later that may be the way to go. The rationale is almost certainly in part to ensure the more serious offences have far less mitigation.
The USA has recognised that there are “degrees’ of offence” and have taken a common sense approach. In may ways it is not too dissimilar to the tariff system in Jersey courts where the aggravating factors, and sometimes the age of the defendant, determine the sentence/penalty. Centeniers are given tariff tables for the sort of offences they deal with in the Magistrates Court as a guide to their own deliberations.
Registration for Life
On being on the registry for life, again a perusal of other countries shows that this is determined by the severity of the offence. For instance in Ireland, individuals are subject to these registration requirements for varying duration, based on a sliding scale of the severity of the sentence they received. This scale is as follows: Suspended or non-custodial, 5 years; 6 months or less, 7 years; 6 months to 2 years, 10 years; More than 2 years,Indefinitely.
Anyone who must report to the Gardaí indefinitely can apply to the Circuit Courtto cancel this requirement. They can only apply for this cancellation after at least 10 years have passed since they were released from custody. They apply to cancel the requirement on the grounds that the common good is no longer served by continuing to subject them to these requirements. They must notify the Garda Superintendent in the area where they live of their intention to apply to cancel these notification requirements.
The reason for the ability to have removal from the register comes from the fact that permanent inclusion breaches Article 8 of the European Convention on Human rights.
This came up in the UK in 2008, when two convicted sex offenders have won a ruling that being put on the sex offenders register with no chance of review breaches their human rights
It should be noted that in Ireland, the Dáil has voted in favour this year of a bill which sets out minimum sentences for convicted sex offenders who go on to re-offend.
The Minister bringing the legislation in said the judiciary was of course independent in sentencing and a trial judge could take into account all circumstances of a case and impose a proportionate sentence. However, he added that the Oireachtas was entitled to set out parameters for given offences to reflect what is considered to be the seriousness of that offence.
As the BBC reported:
The judges said the current system denied them the chance of proving they no longer posed a risk of reoffending.
The Home Office said it was disappointed with the judgement and was considering an appeal.
Lord Justice Latham, Mr Justice Underhill and Mr Justice Flaux ruled the scheme was incompatible with their Article 8 right to private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Justice Latham warned that an offender might find it very difficult to establish he no longer presented any risk of re-offending.
"But I find it difficult to see how it could be justifiable in Article 8 terms to deny a person who believes himself to be in that position an opportunity to seek to establish it," he said.
However, it should be noted that the less stringent attitude of the UK regarding the removal from the register has not been wise. The Irish restriction of allowing application only after ten years seems far more sensible.
In conclusion
This brief survey of arguments, mandatory sentencing laws, and the consequences of them can do no more than scratch the surface. Nevertheless, it is apparent from looking at least one other country – the USA – where sex offenses often (but not in every case( carry mandatory minimum sentences and imprisonment, that there is a need for a range of sentences based on the severity of the offense, and that there can be a provision exceptions made to mandatory sentencing.
It should also be noticed that some sentencing in the USA falls far below that required by the petition.
Some kind of mandatory minimum sentence is certainly feasible, but the petition is vague about the finer detail of what that might entail. What is clear from the USA is that it requires a clear and detailed framework of law, and cannot just be framed in simplistic terms.
And regarding permanent inclusion on the register, it should be noted that Jersey is a signatory to the European Convention on Human rights under the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000, and therefore currently it would be very difficult to implement that without breaching the convention. However it is important to note that mandatory minimum sentencing ensures that it breaks any failings whereby lesser sentences are leading on to light-touch supervision and a fast track off the register.
Appendix: Extract from Irish Hansard:
Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Charles Flanagan), speech in 2019 endorsing Irish Legislation
The role of legislators in sentencing is to set out the maximum sentence that can be imposed. It is then a matter for the courts to decide the appropriate sentence in any particular case taking into account all of the circumstances. Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the Judiciary, whose members apply sentences according to principles and the facts of the case, guided by what is provided for in legislation. Lest there be any doubt, I want to stress that the courts are wholly independent in the exercise of this judicial function. The court is required to impose a sentence which is proportionate not only to the crime but also to the individual offender, in that process identifying where in the sentencing range the particular case should lie and then applying any mitigating factors which may be present or any representations which might be made on the conclusion of the trial.
There are very few instances in which mandatory or minimum sentences are specified in law. There is a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder. Minimum sentences are also in place for a number of serious offences such as crimes involving drugs or firearms. The use of minimum sentences is intended to reflect the impact of such crimes on society as a whole as well as individuals, often traumatised families and indeed communities. This Bill sets out presumptive minimum sentences for repeat sex offenders. These provisions will apply to those who have been convicted of a serious sexual offence and received a sentence of at least five years. If those offenders go on to commit a further offence within ten years, a presumptive minimum sentence will apply. It should be acknowledged that many convicted sex offenders are effectively managed through the Probation Service and the Garda Síochána on their release from prison and do not go on to commit further offences. However, it is clear that some do go on to reoffend and often offend again and again. By putting these provisions in place the Government is recognising the impact of sexual offences, both on individual victims and on society as a whole. It is ensuring that appropriate measures are available to the Judiciary at sentencing in order to ensure that these crimes can be dealt with both appropriately and effectively.
Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin
The provisions in the Bill will, no doubt, mean more stringent sentences for repeat sex offenders. This is very much welcomed as sexual offences are among the most abhorrent of crimes. The leniency of sentences handed down to persons convicted of sexual offences has been consistently in the headlines and rightly so. The public is rightfully disgusted and angered about this. Behind the headlines are victims who are left feeling totally devastated by the system and who are negatively affected once again.
Deputy James Browne
The Bill before the House is urgently needed. We are all familiar with cases where the leniency of sentences handed down to sexual offenders has been called into question. Lenient sentences can have a damaging impact on survivors of sexual abuse. When people hear of cases where the sentence handed down is reportedly lenient, those who may have considered reporting a sexual offence are often deterred from doing so. There can be a perception that the criminal justice system is not on the side of the victim, and one area that certainly must be addressed is the matter of consistent sentencing.
References https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/mandatory-sentencing-laws/mandatory%20sentencing%20laws.pdf
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R42387.html
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/rr16_ex/rr16_ex.pdf
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-09-27/43/
A petition asking for stronger sentences for convicted child sex abusers in Jersey has reached the 5,000 signature threshold, meaning it must be considered for a states debate:
“The people of Jersey are sick and tired of seeing paedophiles either found guilty of abusing, or attempting to abuse, our children being handed lenient prison sentences (if any prison sentence) by the Jersey courts. We therefore demand the States of Jersey implement mandatory minimum prison terms for such offences, starting from a minimum of 3 years and change the signing of the Sex Offenders Register to life.”
There are mandatory minimum sentences for a number of offences, but before extending it to sex offenders, I want to consider the arguments for and against mandatory sentencing, and secondly, looking in particular at the USA, how they approach mandatory sentencing for sex offences in a way which differentiates on the grounds of the severity of the offence.
Mandatory Minimums
Lenny Roth’s study “Mandatory sentencing laws”, for the NSW Parliamentary Research Service has an excellent summary of the case for and against mandatory sentencing:
The main arguments for these laws include:
1. The laws help to ensure that sentences reflect community standards and are not unduly lenient. In other words, to ensure that the punishment matches the crime. This is important for maintaining confidence in the justice system. Elected representatives are more sensitive to community concerns than appointed judges.
2. The laws help to reduce crime by acting as a stronger deterrent to would-be offenders. The laws (particularly those that target repeat offenders) also help to prevent crime by incapacitating offenders for longer periods of time. By lessening crime in these two ways, the laws reduce the costs associated with crime.
3. The laws can be drafted so that they do not result in excessively harsh sentences in some cases. For example, the laws can very specifically define the types of offences that will attract the minimum or fixed penalty. In addition, the laws might allow judges to depart from this penalty in “exceptional circumstances”.
The main arguments against these laws include:
1. The laws lead to injustice because of their removal of judicial discretion. Judges will not always be able to ensure that the punishment matches the crime. There will inevitably be cases where offenders receive excessively harsh sentences.
2. Increasing penalties does not deter people from committing crime. Most offenders do not act rationally; they act impulsively, and many are affected by alcohol or drugs. Laws that aim to incapacitate offenders for longer periods are unfair as they apply to some people who would not have re-offended.
3. The laws impose significant costs on the justice system. They are likely to lead to lower guilty pleas, and therefore more trials. They are also likely to result in higher prison costs, with more offenders being sentenced to imprisonment, and for longer periods.
4. Other less severe and costly alternatives can achieve the same objectives, including: presumptive sentencing laws, guideline judgements, and committing resources to apprehend offenders and to tackling the causes of offending.
The UK has tended to keep mandatory minimum sentences to just a few offences, but they do exist. Other countries take a much broader view.
A Few Cases from Around the World
USA: Mandatory minimum penalties generally relate to controlled substances, firearms, identity theft, and child sex offences (United States Sentencing Commission, 2011).
Australia: People smuggling is the only crime that attracts a mandatory minimum penalty under federal laws. In 2010, the law was amended to extend the mandatory minimum penalty provisions in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to apply the higher minimum sentence and non-parole period for a new aggravated offence of people smuggling involving exploitation or danger of death or serious harm and where a person is convicted of multiple people smuggling offences.
In the United Kingdom, upon conviction for murder, the court must sentence the defendant to life imprisonment. It also has three more mandatory minimum sentences for certain offences, namely: a minimum of 7 years' imprisonment for a person over 18 convicted of trafficking, supplying or producing Class A drugs for the third or subsequent time; a minimum of 5 years' imprisonment (for a person over 18) or 3 years' imprisonment (for a person aged 16–17) for possession, purchase, acquisition, manufacture, transfer or sale of a prohibited firearm or weapon for the first or subsequent time; and a minimum of 3 years' imprisonment for a person over 18 convicted of a domestic burglary for the third or subsequent time.
What appears to be the case, even where mandatory sentences are imposed are three matters:
Firstly, a distinction is often made between first offences and repeat offences. This is the same kind of distinction which is made with non-mandatory sentencing, and reflects the idea that a repeat offense, by its nature, should be treated more seriously than a first offence. Recidivism demonstrates a failure to be rehabilitated.
Secondly, where mandatory minimums do occur, there are degrees of sentencing within the broader scope of the offence. This will become apparent when we consider the USA and Sex Offences, which do carry a mandatory minimum sentence.
Thirdly, and this runs counter to the argument from the Minister that it is not custom to legislate for the judiciary on these mandatory minimum sentences, the fact that other countries have no problem with imposing mandatory minimums on offences, including sex offences, means that the legislature has decided, as sovereign in this matter over the judiciary, that this is both possible and beneficial.
The USA and Sex Offenses
Looking at the USA, a report on the statistics of sentencing, notes the very strong point that legal provisions establishing mandatory minimum penalties for certain offences typically remove any incentive an offender may have to plead guilty or to cooperate with the prosecution in such cases. It notes that:
"It is possible for the legislator to specifically create an exception to the strict application of mandatory minimum penalties for offenders who plead guilty at an early stage of the process, thus creating an explicit incentive for early guilty pleas. It is also possible for the legislator to provide offenders with an incentive for pleading guilty and collaborating with the prosecution by specifically creating an exception to the application of the mandatory minimum penalties for offenders offering assistance to the prosecution. This kind of exception (or “departure” from the mandatory minimum penalties) is found in the United States federal criminal law relating to certain drug offences."
If we apply a thought experiment to a fictitious but possible case under investigation regarding a paedophile ring. When interrogating one of the first suspects, leverage can be applied in the fact that probably (although not certainly) the court will take into consideration how he has helped the police in supplying information on other members of the gang. Mandatory minimum sentencing would reduce that incentive or take it away depending on how high it is set.
The USA has "Mandatory Minimums" for Sex Offenders, but not for all offences. A report notes that: "Offenders convicted of sex offences carrying a mandatory minimum penalty are sentenced to longer terms than those convicted of sex offences not carrying a mandatory minimum penalty"
"In fiscal year 2016, the average sentence for offenders convicted of a sexual abuse offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty was nearly three times longer than the average sentence for offenders convicted of a sexual abuse offence not carrying a mandatory minimum penalty (252 months compared to 86 months)."
"The average sentence for child pornography offenders who faced a ten-year mandatory minimum penalty because of a prior sex offence conviction (136 months) was substantially longer than the average sentence for those offenders who were convicted of a possession offence (without a prior sex offence), which does not carry a mandatory minimum penalty (55 months)."
"Child pornography offenders convicted of distribution (140 months) and receipt offences (93 months), which carry a five-year mandatory minimum penalty, also had a longer average sentence than offenders convicted of possession offences (55 months), who did not face a mandatory minimum penalty"
On the whole, I agree with the way the USA has done it, which is to say mandatory minimums but not for all sex offences. If the petition made that case - which I think is a sensible one - I would have agreed with it. The USA seems to take what (to me) is a common sense approach - in the same way, possession of drugs (for personal use) is different from possession of drugs for dealing. I think that sooner or later that may be the way to go. The rationale is almost certainly in part to ensure the more serious offences have far less mitigation.
The USA has recognised that there are “degrees’ of offence” and have taken a common sense approach. In may ways it is not too dissimilar to the tariff system in Jersey courts where the aggravating factors, and sometimes the age of the defendant, determine the sentence/penalty. Centeniers are given tariff tables for the sort of offences they deal with in the Magistrates Court as a guide to their own deliberations.
Registration for Life
On being on the registry for life, again a perusal of other countries shows that this is determined by the severity of the offence. For instance in Ireland, individuals are subject to these registration requirements for varying duration, based on a sliding scale of the severity of the sentence they received. This scale is as follows: Suspended or non-custodial, 5 years; 6 months or less, 7 years; 6 months to 2 years, 10 years; More than 2 years,Indefinitely.
Anyone who must report to the Gardaí indefinitely can apply to the Circuit Courtto cancel this requirement. They can only apply for this cancellation after at least 10 years have passed since they were released from custody. They apply to cancel the requirement on the grounds that the common good is no longer served by continuing to subject them to these requirements. They must notify the Garda Superintendent in the area where they live of their intention to apply to cancel these notification requirements.
The reason for the ability to have removal from the register comes from the fact that permanent inclusion breaches Article 8 of the European Convention on Human rights.
This came up in the UK in 2008, when two convicted sex offenders have won a ruling that being put on the sex offenders register with no chance of review breaches their human rights
It should be noted that in Ireland, the Dáil has voted in favour this year of a bill which sets out minimum sentences for convicted sex offenders who go on to re-offend.
The Minister bringing the legislation in said the judiciary was of course independent in sentencing and a trial judge could take into account all circumstances of a case and impose a proportionate sentence. However, he added that the Oireachtas was entitled to set out parameters for given offences to reflect what is considered to be the seriousness of that offence.
As the BBC reported:
The judges said the current system denied them the chance of proving they no longer posed a risk of reoffending.
The Home Office said it was disappointed with the judgement and was considering an appeal.
Lord Justice Latham, Mr Justice Underhill and Mr Justice Flaux ruled the scheme was incompatible with their Article 8 right to private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Justice Latham warned that an offender might find it very difficult to establish he no longer presented any risk of re-offending.
"But I find it difficult to see how it could be justifiable in Article 8 terms to deny a person who believes himself to be in that position an opportunity to seek to establish it," he said.
However, it should be noted that the less stringent attitude of the UK regarding the removal from the register has not been wise. The Irish restriction of allowing application only after ten years seems far more sensible.
In conclusion
This brief survey of arguments, mandatory sentencing laws, and the consequences of them can do no more than scratch the surface. Nevertheless, it is apparent from looking at least one other country – the USA – where sex offenses often (but not in every case( carry mandatory minimum sentences and imprisonment, that there is a need for a range of sentences based on the severity of the offense, and that there can be a provision exceptions made to mandatory sentencing.
It should also be noticed that some sentencing in the USA falls far below that required by the petition.
Some kind of mandatory minimum sentence is certainly feasible, but the petition is vague about the finer detail of what that might entail. What is clear from the USA is that it requires a clear and detailed framework of law, and cannot just be framed in simplistic terms.
And regarding permanent inclusion on the register, it should be noted that Jersey is a signatory to the European Convention on Human rights under the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000, and therefore currently it would be very difficult to implement that without breaching the convention. However it is important to note that mandatory minimum sentencing ensures that it breaks any failings whereby lesser sentences are leading on to light-touch supervision and a fast track off the register.
Appendix: Extract from Irish Hansard:
Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Charles Flanagan), speech in 2019 endorsing Irish Legislation
The role of legislators in sentencing is to set out the maximum sentence that can be imposed. It is then a matter for the courts to decide the appropriate sentence in any particular case taking into account all of the circumstances. Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the Judiciary, whose members apply sentences according to principles and the facts of the case, guided by what is provided for in legislation. Lest there be any doubt, I want to stress that the courts are wholly independent in the exercise of this judicial function. The court is required to impose a sentence which is proportionate not only to the crime but also to the individual offender, in that process identifying where in the sentencing range the particular case should lie and then applying any mitigating factors which may be present or any representations which might be made on the conclusion of the trial.
There are very few instances in which mandatory or minimum sentences are specified in law. There is a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder. Minimum sentences are also in place for a number of serious offences such as crimes involving drugs or firearms. The use of minimum sentences is intended to reflect the impact of such crimes on society as a whole as well as individuals, often traumatised families and indeed communities. This Bill sets out presumptive minimum sentences for repeat sex offenders. These provisions will apply to those who have been convicted of a serious sexual offence and received a sentence of at least five years. If those offenders go on to commit a further offence within ten years, a presumptive minimum sentence will apply. It should be acknowledged that many convicted sex offenders are effectively managed through the Probation Service and the Garda Síochána on their release from prison and do not go on to commit further offences. However, it is clear that some do go on to reoffend and often offend again and again. By putting these provisions in place the Government is recognising the impact of sexual offences, both on individual victims and on society as a whole. It is ensuring that appropriate measures are available to the Judiciary at sentencing in order to ensure that these crimes can be dealt with both appropriately and effectively.
Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin
The provisions in the Bill will, no doubt, mean more stringent sentences for repeat sex offenders. This is very much welcomed as sexual offences are among the most abhorrent of crimes. The leniency of sentences handed down to persons convicted of sexual offences has been consistently in the headlines and rightly so. The public is rightfully disgusted and angered about this. Behind the headlines are victims who are left feeling totally devastated by the system and who are negatively affected once again.
Deputy James Browne
The Bill before the House is urgently needed. We are all familiar with cases where the leniency of sentences handed down to sexual offenders has been called into question. Lenient sentences can have a damaging impact on survivors of sexual abuse. When people hear of cases where the sentence handed down is reportedly lenient, those who may have considered reporting a sexual offence are often deterred from doing so. There can be a perception that the criminal justice system is not on the side of the victim, and one area that certainly must be addressed is the matter of consistent sentencing.
References https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/mandatory-sentencing-laws/mandatory%20sentencing%20laws.pdf
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R42387.html
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/rr16_ex/rr16_ex.pdf
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-09-27/43/
.jpg)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment