THE Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) has welcomed the commission's proposal to abolish the mandatory life sentence for murder which the ICCL's cochairman, Mr Michael Farrell, described as "a blunt instrument which does not allow for flexibility".
"The ICCL has always been opposed to mandatory sentencing on the grounds that it doesn't leave sufficient discretion to take into account the individual circumstances of the offence and degrees of culpability."
Mr Farrell said the current law on mandatory life sentences for murder almost prevented the courts from indicating the seriousness of the offence. "There are circumstances in which a life sentence is inappropriate in a murder case and a situation where it is open to the courts to impose a life sentence where that is appropriate."
Mr Farrell also welcomed the report's emphasis on non custodial sentences, such as probation or community service orders, and its reference to prison as a sanction "of last resort".
At the "lower end of the spectrum", particularly for first time offenders or minor offences it was better to keep people out of prison and such a move was not a "soft option".
He said little was gained by sending such offenders to prison and "in fact it recruits them into a culture of crime whereas sanctions, like probation, can have a rehabilitative effect".
The ICCL has made submissions to the United Nations Committee on Human Rights on the 40 year sentence for the murder of a garda which Mr Farrell said was "completely inappropriate" because it did not appear to allow for remission or review. The murder of a member of the security forces was open to the same sort of considerations that apply to citizens in terms of ranging degrees of responsibility and culpability, he said.
He added that the "general drift in the report for greater consistency in sentencing and setting out the criteria to be taken into account is a very valuable way to proceed and is likely to produce consistency in sentencing which is very important and should be tempered with humanity".
The Irish Association for Victim Support said it was disappointed that the report had "failed to move beyond general platitudes about the rights of victims". Its national administrator, Ms Ann Meade, said the report was "out of touch" with victims; who were central to the criminal justice system and whose belief in it was at an all time low.
She said the organisation disagreed with the report's statement that victim impact statements were used by judges to enable them to pass an appropriate sentence which took account of the effect of the crime on the victim.
"From our work with victims; over 11 years, this isn't what the victim impact statement is about. The primary importance is the psychological impact on victims, that the victim can see themselves and the impact of the crime being made known to the court.
"Overall, victims' interests seem to be peripheral once again and the report centres on the offender. Victim Support doesn't have a problem with rehabilitation of offenders, but what about rehabilitation of victims?"
She said the seriousness or heinousness of the crime should be the over riding factor in sentencing. Punishment was central in sentencing. "We feel that serious offenders need to be removed from society and put in jail. Community service orders have a place in sentencing for less serious crime."