The findings revealed in the Prime Time special on crime and sentencing, broadcast on Tuesday night, were fascinating and disturbing, writes Noel Whelan
For the first time, we got a snapshot of what the public thinks about sentencing. The programme presented results of a survey conducted and recorded two weekends ago at the studio in Montrose. The exercise involved a representative sample of 100 adults recruited for RTÉ by the marketing firm TNS/mrbi.
Participants were given an outline of the facts of various crimes and then watched a reconstruction of the sentencing hearings. These reconstructions were based on court transcripts from the cases (with some amendments to protect the identity of injured parties) and included evidence from the investigating garda, the victim and the accused.
At the outset, having heard only a bare outline of the facts of the case, participants were asked what sentence they thought was appropriate. Then, at different points in the exercise and on receipt of additional information, the participants were again asked to indicate what they then felt the appropriate sentence was. At the end, they were told the actual sentence imposed by the judge in each case.
The survey's findings were striking in that an overwhelming majority of respondents, even at the end of the process, suggested a sentence which was at least double that imposed by the court. The fact that the public favours harsher sentences than those which judges impose was not unexpected. However, the scale of the divergence between the public and judicial view was surprising.
The programme was a useful contribution to the debate about crime and sentencing currently raging in the lead up to the election. It shows that when the public - as represented in this exercise - receives an outline of a case and details of the accused's background as well as the impact on the victim, they still favour harsher sentences than those imposed by the courts.
Of course, there are limitations to an exercise such as the one embarked upon by the programme. Only a handful of cases were presented to the audience and the sentences imposed in the cases were arguably unusual. For example, the sentence of 4½ years imposed in the rape case was presumably because of its circumstances, whereas in general a rape of this nature would attract a sentence of some 10 years.
We were not told how the cases presented were chosen or whether there were other details or evidence which might have been relevant to a sentencing which the sample did not hear. However, it would be too easy to dismiss the overall message of the exercise because of perceived flaws in the methodology
Only one of two conclusions is possible. Either sentences imposed by judges are too lenient or the public are misguided when concluding what sentence is appropriate for violent crime.
This divergence between the judicial and public view is worrying and, if left unchecked, will serve to undermine public confidence in the system. Judges cannot be detached from what society regards as the appropriate punishment for crime.
Much of the recent media and political outcry about sentencing has arisen because politicians and editors are pandering to a general public which is misinformed. It had been assumed that the public clamour for harsher sentencing was because most people only hear or read a partial account of what happened in individual cases or because media coverage of sentencing in the criminal courts focused on high-profile cases where a light sentence was imposed.
Others argued that the public does not appreciate the complex exercise involved in weighing up the various considerations to which judges must have regard to in deciding the appropriate sentence.
However, in the exercises reflected in the programme the participants heard most of the relevant sentencing details, including an extensive outline of the accused's background.
They also considered the case relatively calmly and in some detail. Having done so, most of the participants either stuck with the long sentence they had suggested at the outset or, in some instances, increased them further.
If the findings of the Prime Time exercise reflect, even to some extent, the degree to which the public feels that judges are too soft in sentencing then it should give all who work in the justice system, the political system and indeed the media pause for thought.