OPINION:THE CONVICTION of two of Stephen Lawrence's murderers in Britain has raised a number of important societal issues beyond race crime.
Not least of these are the sentences received by Gary Dobson (15 years and two months) and David Norris (14 years and three months). Virtually all sections of the print media in Britain were unanimous in their surprise at such lenient sentences being handed down, leading to the charge that justice delayed in this instance was, indeed, justice denied.
The surprise felt on this side of the water has been of a somewhat different nature. Most will not regard these sentences as excessive though many will at least feel that a sufficient period of time will now elapse for the convicted men to at least reflect, if not apologise for their actions. Both were juveniles at the time of the murder so the court’s hands were tied. Had they been 18 at the time they could have expected to serve 30 years each for their crime.
In this State the mandatory sentence for murder is life which, in 99 per cent of cases means nothing of the sort.
Rather, convicted murders here can expect to serve between 12 and 15 years with many more being released on licence at an earlier date. Such offenders can be considered for release as early as seven years into their sentence by the Parole Board’s Sentence Review Group. A victory perhaps for a confused public fed on an ill-informed agenda that sees no further than forgiveness and rehabilitation, but a very poor day for justice in the round.
The stark reality is that Britain has moved on when it comes to sentencing by virtue of their Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Although this legislation has not been without its critics, when it comes to sentencing, it hits many of the buttons for a society sick of the mantra of one rule for the offender (inexplicable leniency) and another for the victim and their families (inexplicable disregard).
Their legislation sets out the “starting points” by which the judge must consider a sentence. This is critical. No such legislative starting point exists in Irish law. Judges simply hand down a mandatory life term for murder and the rest is down to good behaviour, co-operation and a sympathetic parole board with the final decision being left to, with respect, a mere politician.
Judges in Britain must give reasons for increasing or reducing the minimum offence for a murder, but the onus is then on them to explain a decision.
Committing murder while under 18 carries a minimum of 12 years in prison – a similar sentence to what many murderers serve in the Republic. Murder of a police officer carries a minimum 30-year term and t he same if a murder was racially motivated, or if it involved a sexual element. A convict will remain behind bars for life in Britain if he or she has murdered previously, or murdered a child.
Defined minimum sentences are not new in Britain or indeed in this State. Here, for example, we already have a minimum 10-year sentence for possession of drugs above a certain value. Similarly, there are a number of offences in relation to firearms which carry minimum sentences.
It is not beyond the Coalition to publish a Bill taking the best of British law and working it into our own. Urging longer determinate sentences for murder does not mean such offenders are regarded as irredeemable. Rehabilitation must also accompany any new laws. But justice must be recalibrated so that offenders, victims, their families and society are treated equally in the system.
Retribution and rehabilitation can be used in the same sentence. We deserve both if we are to call ourselves civilised.
John O’Keeffe is a criminologist and adviser to AdVIC (Advocates for Victims of Homicide). He is also visiting professor at the School of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin.