Seanad debates

Wednesday, 22 November 2017

Minimum Custodial Periods Upon Conviction for Murder Bill 2017: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

11:30 am

Photo of Joe O'ReillyJoe O'Reilly (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, to the House and wish him well in his role. I have not had occasion to speak in the House when he was here in the past. I wish him continued success. I also join the Leader in welcoming the victims' families in the Gallery. Our hearts go out to them, they are very welcome here and we absolutely understand where they are coming from on this issue.

I congratulate Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell on bringing forward this legislation, which is greatly to her credit. Members bringing forward legislation like this is exactly what an active and successful Oireachtas Chamber should be about. I agree with the Leader that this Bill and its worthy content should not be lost; it should become part of the debate. I understand that both the Law Reform Commission and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice and Equality are carrying out ongoing work on this matter and this Bill should be part of that equation.

This Bill, if I have understood it correctly, would establish minimum custodial sentences from the very start, that is from the day of the judgment, of 40, 30 or 25 years in the most serious categories. We currently have a life sentence with the potential for parole which tends to be granted after 18 or 20 years. Having heard Senator Black's contribution on my way in, I feel that we must leave sufficient flexibility in the system and I say this with the greatest of respect to my good friend and colleague, Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell. The current system dictates a minimum life sentence, amounting to life or virtually life in most cases, but there has to be flexibility in the system to allow for rehabilitation, restorative justice, and personal and psychiatric development programmes.

Murder is a horrific crime and nobody is suggesting otherwise. I do think, however, that we have to leave within the system the potential for rehabilitation and for the restoration of the person, though I understand that it must be very hard for the families in the Gallery to get their head around such a concept. Without getting overly sanctimonious or righteous, it is inherent in our Christian ethos that the potential for redemption should always be possible for every human being in every scenario. Believing in the redemptive potential for every human being is part of what we are.

The current system dictates a custodial life sentence for murder and then that the person serves 18 or 20 years. The potential is there for a rehabilitative and restorative programme. A certain flexibility has to be left in the system. Having said that, as Senator Buttimer said, there is potential to incorporate and to examine some of the concepts contained in the Bill. There may in some instances be anecdotal evidence to the contrary but I am not personally aware of many if any instances of what is popularly understood to be unfortunately early releases. I fully understand Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell's concerns over this, but I am concerned that we not build too much rigidity into the system.

Let us take, for example, the first and very serious category, namely, the 40-year sentence.That effectively in most instances would mean the potential for release would never exist for that person. Senator O'Donnell's categories could be looked at with regard to further refinement, but the second category is a 30-year sentence and this is similar. The third category of 25 years is quite close to the current situation and it is not that different to what exists. There may be too many rigidities in the Bill. It may stave off the potential for rehabilitation.

I was interested in Senator Black's point. I am not sure of her evidence, and I am not aware of the evidence around it, but it was an interesting point. It is one I can relate to and see sense in. This is the point Senator Black made that there is no evidence that completely mandatory sentencing necessarily has any beneficial effect on crime figures. There is no evidence it has any benefit for the individual.

We have absolute empathy with the people in the Gallery. Our hearts go out to them. The crime of murder is a horror that is contrary to everything the best of the human condition stands for. I understand there must be very long custodial sentences, that there must be a statutory protection of such a thing and there never can be any degree of discretion that would allow premature release of people.

Having said that, within the system there must be the potential for redemption, restoration and rehabilitation. What we must achieve is a marriage of these three objectives. To some degree, it is my humble contention, the present process probably best marries the three but it could well be open to modification. In this debate, Senator O'Donnell's Bill is very helpful. Senator Buttimer got it right when he said we should not lose the objectives of the Bill in the debate. Perhaps it is a conservative instinct, but I do not yet have evidence, anecdotally, empirically or at any level, to suggest to me that the present system, with all its faults, is not working reasonably well.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.