Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I completely accept that. That is democracy, to allow the speaker to speak. I thank the Senator. Before explaining the purpose of each amendment I want to dispel any misconceptions surrounding these amendments. The purpose behind these amendments is to create a fairer, more just and rehabilitative focused justice system, not a let-off system. I could not make the last debate and I went back over some of the comments made. Some of Senator McDowell's comments confused me in regard to the reference to crack cocaine in Tallaght, which completely had no substance or basis. We are talking about people and addiction. The idea of a bad guy was referenced by one of the Senators. There is a very fine line, there is a cigarette paper between the idea of what a bad guy is, and what a victim is. Many people who perpetrate crime are also the victims of crime and of circumstance. We need to be able to show discretion in these situations. That is not to condone the acts of anybody, but usually there is a situation of duress, a situation of conditions or of intimidation in the background. There are so many factors that we will never know. That is why discretion is hugely important. These amendments are not written to enable the courts to go easier on crime, they are written to facilitate the rehabilitation of people who, by dint of their circumstances may have been more vulnerable to the crimes referenced within this Bill.

I will briefly walk through each amendment. Amendment No. 1 amends section 4 of the Bill. The purpose of adding this line is to remove presumptive minimum sentencing from the Firearms Act 1925. As both myself and Senator Black have said previously, adding this line will enable us to step towards a system which best supports a rehabilitative justice system. To do this it is crucial that we empower the Judiciary to sentence on a case-by-case basis. By accepting the amendment to section 4 of the Bill, we have the opportunity to support our Judiciary to make these circumstantial sentences and empower its members to make decisions which would best serve the offender in front of them, as well as society at large and public safety, rather than simply make decisions which the legislation allows them to make. By removing subsections (4), (4A), (5) and (6) from section 15 of the Firearms Act 1925 we offer society a more understanding justice system. By removing these subsections we would remove the legislation binding judges to a presumptive minimum sentence of ten years in prison and instead would insert an opportunity for judges to offer sentences which they believe will best rehabilitate the offender, not just in exceptional cases but in any case which the judge feels to be fit, based on the facts of the case.