View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

sentence andpart suspendedsentence as follows:
“I suppose that when I order a suspended sentence, I feel that he or she does not deserve prison
just yet and they should be given another chance. When I impose a prison sentence and then I
suspend part of it, it’s in the hope that they would be rehabilitated sufficiently in prison or would
mend their ways. We just wait and see what happens… [It’s] really in the hope that the
rehabilitation process will continue. Basically it is to keep the person out of prison for as long as
you possibly can. If you take the scenario for example of 6 years and suspending the final 2, what
you are really thinking of then is (a) he has paid for the penalty; (b) he will have learned his lesson
with the custodial sentence; (c) if he misbehaves when he is released from custody, he will be
brought back”. A3J1CC.
This approach to making the suspended sentence suggests a test of the future behaviour of
the offender which test is subject to the conditions of compliance. The offender’s
behaviour is usually monitored by a probation officer and may be returned to Court if the
offender is non-compliant. This view contrasts somewhat with O’Malley’s expression of
the suspended sentence where both the sentence of imprisonment and the period of
suspension are considered essentiallypunitive in character. In the surveyof judges on this
point, the punitive element, while present, was rarely identified by them. Instead, judges
tended to gravitate invariablyto the controlling and rehabilitative functions offered bysuch
suspended sentences. Quite a fewof the Judges characterised their use of the suspended
sentence as giving the offender “a chance” or “one last chance” before theywould actually
impose a custodial sentence.
The search for the rationale for the suspended sentence in Ireland presents distinct
difficulties because the rationale must be gleaned from a series of conflicting cases which
rarely if ever address the purpose of the sanction other than the issue of proportionality.
In addition, the inaccessibility of decisions of sentencers in the lower criminal courts,
where most suspended sentences are imposed, contributes to the difficulty in extracting a
clear and singular rationale for the sanction. There is a distinct possibilitythat the purpose
for the suspended sentence if stated at all in the superior courts may differ from the
purpose for which the sentencing judges in the lower courts deploy the sanction. On the
task of extractingthe rationale for sentencing Osborough has observed:
"The jealousy with which the Irish sentencer has viewed and thus sought to protect
his individual prerogatives has not helped to create a climate of opinion favourable
229