12.08.2013 Views

View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

sentencing Judge did not impose custodial sentences for first time drunk-driving cases, or<br />

where upon breach of community service for the same offences the same Judge did not<br />

impose an ultimate custodial penalty as specified in his order. It might be observed that<br />

any attempt to access the true intentions of the sentencing Judge as to the intention to<br />

incarcerate or not before considering community service in the examples put forward by<br />

Walsh and Sexton (1999) might prove to be an impossibility. Senator O’Leary’s<br />

observation that District Justices threaten to do one thing but do quite another and the<br />

observations byProbation Officers that certain cases would not have warranted a custodial<br />

sentence may be an indication that community service in Ireland is used in a manner<br />

inappropriately and wider than that intended by the legislation. However, any attempt to<br />

give a definitive answer on this question must remain speculative. It does however bear<br />

upon the true issue of consent that an offender is consenting to community service in lieu<br />

of a real sentence of imprisonment in the alternative.<br />

Had the Minister for Justice in the Senate Debate Third Stage accepted the amendment of<br />

Senator O’Leary, requiring that any sentencing court specify, on the making of a<br />

communityservice order, the alternative period in custody, the legislation would have been<br />

improved further. As 96% of community service orders are made in the District Court<br />

(Walsh and Sexton 1999) the offender will invariably know the specified alternative<br />

custodial penalty although Walsh and Sexton claim that “the reality, of course, is that not<br />

every individual served with a CSO would have served time in prison if CSOs were not<br />

available”. (Walsh and Sexton 1999:77). This latter claim might put in doubt the<br />

consensual nature of the “contract” to perform community service by an offender when<br />

voluntary work in the community is exchanged for a custodial sentence which may never<br />

have been in contemplation bythe sentencingjudge.<br />

In the interviews with the judges for this study one judge when asked what was the most<br />

important feature of communityservice replied:<br />

“I would think that the most important aspect of it is that the defendant knows that he has been<br />

sentenced and this is an alternative to that and that he has come very close to actual incarceration.”<br />

A2J1DC<br />

153

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!