Sir, - With the outcome of the Michael Bambrick case, which you reported in commendable depth (July 27th), the criminal justice system has once again failed Irish women by giving such an inadequate sentence and sending out wrong messages about violence against women and how this State responds to abusive men.
The DPP should explain immediately why a manslaughter plea was accepted in the light of the offences, and what was known of Bambrick's history of abusive behaviour which led to the deaths of Patricia McGauley and Mary Cummins. As Mr Justice Carney made clear, because he was left without the option of imposing a life sentence, Bambrick will be subject to release on remission without controls. It is tragically ironic that this should occur in a week during which the Dail brought in new measures to combat serious crime. Yet even when the most dangerous offenders are apprehended, the system fails to maximise the kind of sentencing which can ensure the future protection of women.
Mr Justice Carney clearly was left to make the most of inadequate sentencing parameters for such heinous crimes. However, his comment that to impose a sentence of, say, 30 years and claim that it was a lesser sentence than life imprisonment would be "both judicially dishonest and populist" grates. Surely a little populism in much a case, within a flawed judicial system, can be justified.
In other respects, the reporting of the case underlines just how biased attitudes remain against abused women and the cultural context in which such crimes off violence are downgraded from murder to mere manslaughter. Mairead Carey informed us (July 27th) that the first marriage of Patricia McGauley, who was slain by Bambrick, was "characterised by violence", and that she and Bambrick "regularly fought about, drinking and about Bambrick getting a job". A garda close to the investigation is quoted as saying that "Patricia was an unfortunate sort of person. She left one violent relationship and went on to another".
The use of such language blurs the lines of responsibility and implies that somehow these women were culpable in their own demise because of a supposed propensity to enter "violent relationships".
These are just the kinds of justifications that abusive men routinely use for their violence, trying to implicate the woman as somehow to blame for "provoking them" and being brutalised.
Abused women do not in fact live in relationships "characterised by violence", but with violent men who make decisions to abuse and violate them. Unless our language and justice making fully and unequivocably reflect the reality of abusive men's total and absolute responsibility for their behaviour, violent men will continue to manipulate the system and even the most henious crimes against women will go on being minimised and downgraded by the criminal justice system. - Yours. etc.,
Senior lecturer,
Department of Applied
Social Studies,
University College, Cork.