Willie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)

The Bill's provision for a database would provide a useful and valuable tool. As Deputy Howlin outlined, it would have several important uses, not least in its use in the sphere of judicial training. Information for judges could be dissipated from the High Court to the District Courts. It is important the public has confidence in judicial sentencing. I have deep reservations about mandatory sentencing or tariffs. As one practising in criminal law, no two cases I have encountered are the same. Neither can we make laws in response to frenzies or outcries. It must always be ensured that the law is consistent with the Constitution. It must be tested in a cool and rational atmosphere to ensure it withstands the attacks to which it may well be subject. These are the protections we have and why the separation of powers exists.

I accept mandatory sentencing for murder and various serious crimes. For lesser crimes, if a minimum sentence of five years were imposed, we would be flying in the face of the diktat which has been provided by the courts. The Court of Criminal Appeal has set out various indicia to which we and the lower courts must adhere. It always takes account of the nature and circumstances of the crime and the individual that committed it. Those matters have to be balanced when it comes to sentencing.

One problem with Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's Bill is that in mitigation, often when the defence counsel makes a plea, the judge considers it from the societal point of view taking into account the sentence acting as a deterrent and retribution. The judge then must consider the personal circumstances of the individual who committed the crime and his or her rehabilitation, the light at the end of the tunnel. We cannot just throw way the key or just put people into prison for the sake of it. Often people come out of prison with greater degrees of knowledge in how to pursue more vicious crimes than the one for which they were originally sentenced.

The failure to have a properly resourced rehabilitation system in the prison system is an absolute scandal. Society must be protected from the dangers of the particular crimes committed by individuals through the deterrence aspect of sentencing. However, since the 1970s the Supreme Court has laid down that there must be a rehabilitation aspect to sentencing. In this the State has failed miserably. The rehabilitation resources in the prison system are non-existent. I have known of individuals entering prison with psychiatric problems. Very often the psychiatrist is operating on already tight resources. This area must be focused on in the debate on sentencing. The points made by Deputies Jim O'Keeffe and Howlin are worthy of debate and should not be lightly dismissed.

See this speech in context