Prison Sentences

[David McKeown]

Rico everyone knows the death by dangerous driving sentences are a farce. In my opinion death by dangerous is the same as manslaughter and should be treated as such. Sentencing in NI generally seems to be lower than the rest of the UK for some strange reason.

Sentences for Dangerous Driving here are on a par with England and Wales and have increased significantly in recent years. I'd say the average starting point is about 7.5 years for a first time offender convicted after trial with the more serious culpability cases having a starting point of anything up to 14 years which is the maximum sentence allowed by parliament.

It's very hard to compare it to manslaughter where the range is sentences is just so wide because the degree of culpability is so wide.

Also it really depends on the offence whether or not sentences are lower here. For example supply of drugs cases carry higher sentences here than in England and Wales. We also have to factor in the effect the troubles had on prison sentences.

[Insane Bolt]

I don't see any deterrent.....bar conjugal rights what does a prisoner not have? They have access to medical/dental treatment, education, gyms, tv, mobile phones, 3 meals a day, no worries about heat....many pensioners/people don't have that. Some deterrent 😡

If it's such a holiday camp, why don't more people go and rob a bank and get themselves fixed up with such cushy accommodation?

I give up....tell us the answer oh wise one🤡

[Insane Bolt]

What's the issue with it. A combination order and extended ban for drink driving seems appropriate to me from what's described in the article.

16 months for killing two people.....you think that's appropriate?

Oh sorry I thought you were referring to the subsequent drink drive sentence 6 years later. That's what I was referring to. In so far as the sentence you were talking about there's a few things that strike me about that. Firstly it was death by careless driving which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years and in fact has only carried prison at all for the last ten years. With a starting point of a non custodial sentence after trial for a first time offender. That will obviously depend on the culpability of the driver. In that regard therefore the sentence he got would have been on the harsher end of the usual sentence for such an offence. That said the article seems to suggest that the driving was very poor and possibly should have been dangerous driving which would have carried a likely sentence of 7-8 years.

So before I could really comment I'd need to know a bit more about the original case in terms of why careless, was it a plea or a jury decision etc

Incredible that these are the sentences handed out for causing death. I dread to think how the families of the deceased feel.

[David McKeown]

What's the issue with it. A combination order and extended ban for drink driving seems appropriate to me from what's described in the article.

16 months for killing two people.....you think that's appropriate?

Oh sorry I thought you were referring to the subsequent drink drive sentence 6 years later. That's what I was referring to. In so far as the sentence you were talking about there's a few things that strike me about that. Firstly it was death by careless driving which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years and in fact has only carried prison at all for the last ten years. With a starting point of a non custodial sentence after trial for a first time offender. That will obviously depend on the culpability of the driver. In that regard therefore the sentence he got would have been on the harsher end of the usual sentence for such an offence. That said the article seems to suggest that the driving was very poor and possibly should have been dangerous driving which would have carried a likely sentence of 7-8 years.

So before I could really comment I'd need to know a bit more about the original case in terms of why careless, was it a plea or a jury decision etc

Incredible that these are the sentences handed out for causing death. I dread to think how the families of the deceased feel.

That's the way our politicians have decided it is to be. For careless driving it's a maximum sentence on indictment of 5 years and a maximum if prosecuted in the Magistrates Court (where a lot are) of 6 months. 11 years ago the offence didn't even carry custody.

[nrico2006]

There has been some crazy sentences handed out over the years.  As mentioned previously though, the one last week where a fella who raped two children was freed from jail after just 3 weeks because he's too 'vulnerable' in prison.  He only got 1 year too.

Or cases like someone on here mentioned the other day where sentences are downgraded for some reason.  I remember one in Lurgan years ago where a few known hoods savagely beat and threw a schoolboy (on his way home) off the top of a block of flats and got manslaughter and was released after just 3 years I think.

[brokencrossbar1]

There has been some crazy sentences handed out over the years.  As mentioned previously though, the one last week where a fella who raped two children was freed from jail after just 3 weeks because he's too 'vulnerable' in prison.  He only got 1 year too.

Or cases like someone on here mentioned the other day where sentences are downgraded for some reason.  I remember one in Lurgan years ago where a few known hoods savagely beat and threw a schoolboy (on his way home) off the top of a block of flats and got manslaughter and was released after just 3 years I think.

The thing is when you say that someone got our in 3 years that means they likely got a 6 year sentence.  There is an entitlement to get 50 % remission on all sentences apart from Life sentences but if someone commits a crime within the period of the sentence they will generally have to serve the rest of the sentence in jail. Also any time spent of remand in the prison is taken off any sentence.  So for example the case you refer to they assailants could have spent 18 months to 2 years in prison waiting on their trial.  This is then taken into account when they are sentenced and knocked off their original sentence.  So for example, 2 years on remand.  Person gets 10 years.  They then spend 3 more years as a sentenced prisoner and that accounts for the 10 year sentence.

[Hardy]

The older 3 strike policy in California didn't seem to work as a deterrent, where if you had been caught on a third time for even a misdemeanour you would get a life sentence.

25 years for stealing a bike seems like it should have been a strong deterrent, as a society we're better off trying to solve why these people are turning to crime than paying for them to sit in cells for the rest of their lives, both cost money but I know which is my preferred option.

That has always been my argument with people when discussing the criminal law system. It is an industry in itself anyway and governments have created a 'security' sectors which absolves them of any real responsibility. The breakdown of the social system at a very base level is the biggest contributor to crime than anything and if more money was invested in the ground level
I'm deprived areas then there would be a significant drop in crime in my very humble opinion

The profit-making prison system here in the states is an abomination. Private corporations make money from warehousing human beings like cattle, there's no incentive to rehabilitate them, and they get paid more according to how many people they lock up and for how long. So off they go lobbying their friendly politicians who are happy to ramp up longer and longer mandatory minimum sentences for lesser and lesser offenses, and before you know it the prison population is the biggest in the world.

If I had my way the system in the US would have the following features:

1 - Private prisons should be illegal, the state is well able to take care of this service.
2 - Prison wardens and staff should be given performance-related pay based on how low their recidivism rates are. If you're running a place that cranks out safer citizens, you get paid more. If you're running a "tough on crime" hell-hole that works as a crime academy and just churns out more hardened criminals, you get paid less or better still you get eliminated. Prisons are supposed to improve public safety, not undermine it.
3 - Mandatory minimums should be abolished. Let the judges decide, not politicians or voters.

The Corrections Corporation of America, the biggest private prison corporation, effectively WRITES MANY OF THE LAWS in many states to ensure a continuing (and growing - corporations must grow or die) supply of prison fodder for their operation. They do this through ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, which is a forum ostensibly to allow businesses to make representations to state politicians, but effectively results in corporations overwhelming local legislative inputs and writing the laws for state politicians to rubber stamp.

This is a pretty good exposition of how profoundly undemocratic American "democracy" has become:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyTU9RbOEJo

[David McKeown]

There has been some crazy sentences handed out over the years.  As mentioned previously though, the one last week where a fella who raped two children was freed from jail after just 3 weeks because he's too 'vulnerable' in prison.  He only got 1 year too.

Or cases like someone on here mentioned the other day where sentences are downgraded for some reason.  I remember one in Lurgan years ago where a few known hoods savagely beat and threw a schoolboy (on his way home) off the top of a block of flats and got manslaughter and was released after just 3 years I think.

The thing is when you say that someone got our in 3 years that means they likely got a 6 year sentence.  There is an entitlement to get 50 % remission on all sentences apart from Life sentences but if someone commits a crime within the period of the sentence they will generally have to serve the rest of the sentence in jail. Also any time spent of remand in the prison is taken off any sentence.  So for example the case you refer to they assailants could have spent 18 months to 2 years in prison waiting on their trial.  This is then taken into account when they are sentenced and knocked off their original sentence.  So for example, 2 years on remand.  Person gets 10 years.  They then spend 3 more years as a sentenced prisoner and that accounts for the 10 year sentence.

50% remission now only applies to sentences shorter than 12 months. Since 2008 if the sentence is longer the Judge sets the length of the custodial period and the length of the licence period. Unless the offender is assessed as dangerous (ie poses a significant risk of serious harm) the custodial period can not exceed the licence period and most of the time the split is 50/50 unless there's a good reason for a different split. There's no remission on any part of the sentence and the offender is liable to be recalled at any point during the licence period if their risk becomes unmanageable. I think it's about 30% of non dangerous and 80+% of dangerous prisoners are recalled at least once.

[Tover28]

50% remission now only applies to sentences shorter than 12 months. Since 2008 if the sentence is longer the Judge sets the length of the custodial period and the length of the licence period. Unless the offender is assessed as dangerous (ie poses a significant risk of serious harm) the custodial period can not exceed the licence period and most of the time the split is 50/50 unless there's a good reason for a different split. There's no remission on any part of the sentence and the offender is liable to be recalled at any point during the licence period if their risk becomes unmanageable. I think it's about 30% of non dangerous and 80+% of dangerous prisoners are recalled at least once.

Is that the way it is in the North? A bit different to how it is down here. Normally you do 75% of the sentence but the last 25% is time off for good behaviour.remission and dont think people get recalled like that unless they get arrested for some new offence and then go through the court again for that but dont have to serve the rest of the old sentence,

I remember being in jail in Boston and alot of the inmates there were in for parole violations so that is probably more like the being on license set up.

[nrico2006]

Nobody knows how it works up here. Inconsistent, lenient sentences are the norm. You even get a chance to skip jail if you are fat. Even those out on license are confusing; I remember a few years ago Torrens knight battered two sisters while out on licence, however his licence wasnt revoked and he did a lock of weeks. Yet there are others who get their license revoked for a lot less.

[David McKeown]

Nobody knows how it works up here. Inconsistent, lenient sentences are the norm. You even get a chance to skip jail if you are fat. Even those out on license are confusing; I remember a few years ago Torrens knight battered two sisters while out on licence, however his licence wasnt revoked and he did a lock of weeks. Yet there are others who get their license revoked for a lot less.

Yeah you aren't too far wrong to be fair. The system we have here is at times inconsistent. It strikes me as a very bad attempt to copy the system in England. There recalls are time limited to 28 days and you are automatically rereleased inside 28 days unless you are dangerous. Here you can be recalled and may not have you case considered for months. Also it's harder to be recalled and easier to be released if you are a more dangerous offender. I don't agree that lenient sentences are the norm though.

[MoChara]

There has been some crazy sentences handed out over the years.  As mentioned previously though, the one last week where a fella who raped two children was freed from jail after just 3 weeks because he's too 'vulnerable' in prison.  He only got 1 year too.

Or cases like someone on here mentioned the other day where sentences are downgraded for some reason.  I remember one in Lurgan years ago where a few known hoods savagely beat and threw a schoolboy (on his way home) off the top of a block of flats and got manslaughter and was released after just 3 years I think.

The thing is when you say that someone got our in 3 years that means they likely got a 6 year sentence.  There is an entitlement to get 50 % remission on all sentences apart from Life sentences but if someone commits a crime within the period of the sentence they will generally have to serve the rest of the sentence in jail. Also any time spent of remand in the prison is taken off any sentence.  So for example the case you refer to they assailants could have spent 18 months to 2 years in prison waiting on their trial.  This is then taken into account when they are sentenced and knocked off their original sentence.  So for example, 2 years on remand.  Person gets 10 years.  They then spend 3 more years as a sentenced prisoner and that accounts for the 10 year sentence.

50% remission now only applies to sentences shorter than 12 months. Since 2008 if the sentence is longer the Judge sets the length of the custodial period and the length of the licence period. Unless the offender is assessed as dangerous (ie poses a significant risk of serious harm) the custodial period can not exceed the licence period and most of the time the split is 50/50 unless there's a good reason for a different split. There's no remission on any part of the sentence and the offender is liable to be recalled at any point during the licence period if their risk becomes unmanageable. I think it's about 30% of non dangerous and 80+% of dangerous prisoners are recalled at least once.

Is this what was going on with the Tony Taylor case? or is it different because he was let out as art of the GFA?

I know he was returned to jail by the office of the secretary of state is this just the terms/words used for everyone on license getting brought back in?

[David McKeown]

There has been some crazy sentences handed out over the years.  As mentioned previously though, the one last week where a fella who raped two children was freed from jail after just 3 weeks because he's too 'vulnerable' in prison.  He only got 1 year too.

Or cases like someone on here mentioned the other day where sentences are downgraded for some reason.  I remember one in Lurgan years ago where a few known hoods savagely beat and threw a schoolboy (on his way home) off the top of a block of flats and got manslaughter and was released after just 3 years I think.

The thing is when you say that someone got our in 3 years that means they likely got a 6 year sentence.  There is an entitlement to get 50 % remission on all sentences apart from Life sentences but if someone commits a crime within the period of the sentence they will generally have to serve the rest of the sentence in jail. Also any time spent of remand in the prison is taken off any sentence.  So for example the case you refer to they assailants could have spent 18 months to 2 years in prison waiting on their trial.  This is then taken into account when they are sentenced and knocked off their original sentence.  So for example, 2 years on remand.  Person gets 10 years.  They then spend 3 more years as a sentenced prisoner and that accounts for the 10 year sentence.

50% remission now only applies to sentences shorter than 12 months. Since 2008 if the sentence is longer the Judge sets the length of the custodial period and the length of the licence period. Unless the offender is assessed as dangerous (ie poses a significant risk of serious harm) the custodial period can not exceed the licence period and most of the time the split is 50/50 unless there's a good reason for a different split. There's no remission on any part of the sentence and the offender is liable to be recalled at any point during the licence period if their risk becomes unmanageable. I think it's about 30% of non dangerous and 80+% of dangerous prisoners are recalled at least once.

Is this what was going on with the Tony Taylor case? or is it different because he was let out as art of the GFA?

I know he was returned to jail by the office of the secretary of state is this just the terms/words used for everyone on license getting brought back in?

I don't know enough about it to comment specifically but generally the proceedure is as follows: if on licence then you can be recalled if your risk of harm increases and can no longer be managed in the community (if a DCS prisoner ie not a dangerous prisoner) or if your risk of serious harm in all other cases. The recall decision is ultimately made by the Offender Recall Unit which is a part of the DOJ. I've often seen that be described as the Secretary of State. If recall your case is then sent to the Parole Commissioners who are independent and will periodically review the case. If the individuals risk can be managed the Parole Commissioners will direct release.

[Wildweasel74]

There shouldn't be 50 remission full stop! IOnly there cause they don't want to pay for holding them behind bars!

[David McKeown]

Hard to disagree but prison sentences recognise its existence. So if it went you'd probably see shorter sentences.