Madam, - Mr Justice Paul Carney's comments in University College Cork further illustrate the extent to which he, as a judge, lives in a different world from ordinary citizens and victims of crime. In criticising Mrs Holohan, Judge Carney displayed a glaring lack of consideration for someone who has lost a child in incredibly difficult circumstances.
While the comments she made in court that day regarding semen may have been ill-judged from a strictly legal and objective viewpoint, she did so understandably as a mother who was disturbed by the prospect that proper justice would not be served on the killer of her son.
And she was not misguided in this fear given the lenient nature of the sentence imposed by Mr Justice Carney on Wayne O'Donoghue. Judge Carney, in turn, suggests her comments were driven by "obsessive grief", which is an awful term to use about a victim and again illustrates his disconnection with the victims of crime.
Judge Carney said it is not acceptable that a sentencing objective "be frustrated" by an "unwitting coalition between the victim and the tabloid press". Perhaps he would like to expand upon what he meant by this statement. Did he have in mind an even lesser sentence prior to the impact statement? He also referred to the potential negative impact that the statement had upon the "rehabilitation of the accused". Well, first and foremost, Judge Carney's job should be to seek maximum justice for the victim of such a crime and his misguided obsession with the "rehabilitation of the accused" should be challenged.
This is the same Judge Carney who handed down a suspended sentence to a man who broke into a family home and raped a mother in her bed while she slept. The victim had to endure the distress of encountering the convicted rapist at Ennis railway station. Obviously emboldened by Judge Carney's leniency, he flicked a cigarette butt in her direction in a triumphalist gesture.
Furthermore, the suspended sentence sent the wrong message out to all potential rapists: that the "rehabilitation" of the accused outweighs the incomprehensible damage done to a victim of such a heinous crime.
Mr Justice Carney would do well to reappraise his own approach to victims and their families in his court. - Yours, etc,
TOM WARD, Monastery Road, Dublin 22.
Madam, - First thing first. The victims of crime and their loved ones are absolutely entitled to our sympathy, concern and support. This cannot, however, be taken as a licence to abuse the legal processes which are designed to provide justice for society as a whole, rather than the individuals involved. Mr Justice Paul Carney has done us a tremendous service in his courageous remarks to bring this matter into the arena of public debate.
While victim impact statements may be useful in a therapeutic sense for victims of crime, they should have no role to play in the sentencing of offenders. Is it seriously contended that the more upset a victim is, the more heinous the crime must be? Forgive me if the question sounds flippant. It is far from being so.
Let us consider two hypothetical situations. In one, the 40-year-old widowed father of three young children is stabbed to death. He is an inspirational coach to the local camogie team, a respected teacher and a board member of a number of worthy charities. In the other, a 40-year-old homeless man is stabbed to death. He lost touch with his family 20 years ago and has led the life of an alcoholic loner on the streets since then. Only the manager of a soup kitchen can identify the body.
In both cases, the killers are apprehended and found guilty of manslaughter. Is one more morally culpable than the other? Should one necessarily serve a longer custodial sentence because a more emotional victim impact statement can be made? I, for one, sincerely hope not. - Yours, etc,
KEVIN McPARTLAN, Ranelagh, Dublin 6.