Let’s put the fear back where it belongs, with the bad guys.

There are many discussions taking place currently about the sentences being handed out by the judiciary in this country. Recent cases seem to have awakened a curiosity in the general public about the criteria used by judges to assist them in reaching their decisions to award certain prison sentences.

As a retired policeman, I can tell you that there have been many occasions when I have scratched my own head while trying to figure out how some of these decisions were arrived at.

There is also some concern about the use or abuse of the free legal aid system and the cost to the tax payer for providing this service. The Minister for Justice has recently been quoted as saying that free legal aid is rigorously means tested and is only provided on merit.

I suspect that there are many who would dispute that.

The other issue of concern is the number of previous convictions that some offenders have that don’t appear to be taken into consideration when deciding the appropriate punishment. Giving offenders the opportunity to mend their ways and turn their lives around is all very well, but how far does that stretch?

If someone comes before the court having crossed a line and it can be determined that this action was out of character for the person, then certainly, that should be taken into account. Maybe that person made one mistake because of the circumstances they found themselves in at the time.

Where it can be shown that the offence in question is completely out of character for that individual and the likelihood of that person offending again is remote, then certainly the judge should be taking that on board.

But when a defendant stands before a judge with a string of previous convictions as long as his arm, then surely it should be time to consider a more serious punishment. If a criminal is hell bent on pursuing a life of crime and repeatedly comes before the court, then is it not time to suggest that maybe the guy is not going to reinvent himself?

Many defendants over the years have claimed that they had committed their offence because they were addicted to alcohol or drugs at the time. Then swear they have turned their lives around and have seen the light. They have become model citizens, apologise profoundly for the error of their ways and promise never to darken the doors of a courthouse again.

For a lot of these characters, that new leaf lasts until they leave the confines of the courthouse. As soon as they head out the door, they have a tendency to revert to type.

That happens largely because these guys just see the whole thing as a game. They pillage and plunder, play cat and mouse with the police, get caught every now and then and promise the judge they’ll be good. Then when the first opportunity presents itself, off they go again.

That is evidenced by the fact that so many of these criminals are repeat offenders with a long list of convictions. So, at what point do you say that enough is enough? Is there ever a point where these guys should get no more chances, can no longer qualify for free legal aid and get no more opportunities to offer the same old excuses?

There are certain guidelines that a judge must take into account when imposing a sentence. The overall consideration is that the sentence must be in proportion to the seriousness of the offence. In other words, it wouldn’t make sense to give someone life behind bars for stealing a bottle of wine from the local supermarket. Fair enough.

The judge must also consider potential mitigating factors such as whether there was a guilty plea. This is important too in so far as a guilty plea can save the victim from the stress of having to go through the ordeal of a trial and having to give evidence which can be daunting. It can also save a lot of money as trials can be expensive affairs.

They must also take into account whether the accused co-operated with gardaí; whether they expressed regret; whether they are a person of good character; and the personal circumstances of the accused such as age, health, family circumstances etc.

The impact of the offence on the victim must also be considered, as well as potential aggravating factors such as violent behaviour or abuse of a position of trust and if the accused has previous convictions.

It is then a delicate balancing act to try and achieve the appropriate sentence on the basis of this information.

The judge has the discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences if the accused is convicted of more than one offence. A concurrent sentence will usually apply where the offences formed part of the same event or course of conduct.

While all that makes perfect sense when you see it written down on paper, the way it transfers into actual reality in a courtroom setting can often leave many of us perplexed.

For example, there are career criminals using high-powered stolen cars to travel the length and breadth of the country to break into rural farmhouses and family homes. These homes are very often occupied by older people who are now living in fear.

Habitual criminals are abusing the system because they have little fear of it. They know that even if they do get caught, the odds are still in their favour, so the risk is worth the reward.

In the meantime, the lives of the victims have been changed forever and they are afraid to go to bed. That’s not right and it’s about time that the fear was put back where it belongs, with the bad guys.