Yet another shocking case of justice denied
YET again the Irish Daily Mail finds itself in the depressing position of having to draw attention to inadequate and inconsistent sentencing. For a number of years now, we have been highlighting the scandal of overly lenient penalties being handed down in the courts of law.
We have seen countless cases where violent criminals walked free after inflicting serious injuries on their victims. This is all the more unacceptable due to other instances in which people were sent to prison, even though their offences involved no physical or psychological harm.
On this occasion, though, we are talking about a particularly egregious example of lenient sentencing. The basic facts of the case are straightforward. A man has been found guilty of 33 counts of indecent assault and four counts of sexual assault his own son. The abuse began when the boy was just nine years old, the man said.
By any definition, that amounts to a sustained and relentless campaign involving one of the most awful crimes imaginable.
It is absolutely horrifying that the culprit was told he faces nine months in jail, especially given that standard remission means he will be free again six months from now. Nor should it need spelling out that such a derisory jail term sends out a completely wrong message to our broader society.
The fundamentals of the criminal justice system are quite simple. People accused of wrongdoing can only be sentenced after a guilty verdict has been returned. At that stage, an appropriate punishment should be handed down – regardless of the felon’s age or other side issues.
Quite apart from the sentence itself in this case, there was another element which the victim found even more distressing. The court refused the victim’s request to have his father publicly identified because, according to the presiding judge, such a move would only compound a family rift that has opened up over the case.
It is of course very sad to see a family torn apart in such circumstances – but if the injured party wanted to see his attacker named and shamed, then his wishes should have been respected. The DPP should now appeal this sentence forthwith, to correct the terrible message it sends out and – more importantly – so the victim receives the justice he deserves.