View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

generallyare reluctant to activate sentences when asked to do so or mayvarythe penaltyto
avoidthe full severityof the original sentence.
As noted, the Irish judges tend to allow an inflation of the sentence by extending the
custodial period to be served which is then suspended for perhaps a longer period.
Contrary to O’Malley’s estimation of the dual punitive effect of both the sentence and the
period of suspension, the Irish judges, the writer has argued, attach a premium to the
sentence because it is to be suspended. Such premium of penalty acquires, it is argued, a
quasi contractual character where the court is prepared to forego the extraction of
punishment in exchange for a bond entered into freelyand in good faith bythe offender to
keep the peace, be of good behaviour and abide by whatever extra conditions may be
specified. In the event of breach, some judges stated that the full “price” will then be
extracted.
While the rationale for the Irish suspended sentence has proved difficult to locate, it has
been argued here that the primary function of the sanction is to seek to control the future
conduct of the convicted person rather than to avoid sending such person into immediate
custody. Although these two issues are clearly related, the controlling function of the
sentence is the salient characteristic in the disposal.
The controlling function is readily identified in the conditions which are attached to the
bond or recited in the spoken order as the case may be. Moreover, the consent of the
convicted person to abide bythe conditions attached to his/her bond whether theyseek to
limit his/her criminogenic tendencies or to promote an individualised therapeutic
intervention, suggest an agreement between the court and the offender that endeavours to
change or control his/her behaviour. While such conditions maybe intended to interrupt
the offender’s criminal lifestyle, they should not be so onerous as to break the principle of
proportionality.
The literature discloses that judges who are invested with the jurisdiction to impose
suspended sentences tend to utilise the sanction both as a decarcerative measure and also
as an instrument in criminal policy to lessen the incidents of crime. A certain flexibility is
assumed by judges when they make suspended sentences which would not be the case
when an immediate custodial sentence is to be imposed. This may result in both a
266