Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Punishment, Public Opinion and Politics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Killing Time

  • 273 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines the range of factors, other than risk, that parole decision-makers expressed as influencing their deliberative process. A positive assessment indicating that a life sentence prisoner is at a low risk of reoffending is not the only obstacle that must be overcome in order to secure release. Parole decision-makers appear to be trying to provide meaning to the life sentence through incorporating theories of punishment into their decision-making. How parole was perceived externally was also important when making decisions as well as the impact of the political nature of the process on individual decision-makers. Many of the factors identified by parole decision-makers provide understanding into the punitive shift in terms of parole outcomes for life sentence prisoners. The chapter also gives an insight into the perspectives of a number of former Ministers for Justice and the factors influencing their decision-making process.

Anyone who says they wouldn’t have a political agenda, or a sort of a public perception or agenda in the back of their mind is talking horseshit to be honest, you know?

Minister for Justice 2

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adler, F. (1983). Nations not obsessed with crime (50). Littleton: FB Rothman.M

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. (2009). Criminal law, human rights and preventative justice. In B. McSherry, A. Norrie, & S. Bronitt (Eds.), Regulating deviance: The redirection of criminlaisation and the futures of criminal law (pp. 87–108). Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, N., & O’Keeffe, C. (2012, September 20). Macarthur release was held up politics. Irish Examiner. Retrieved from http://www.irishexaminer.com

  • Behan, C., & O’Donnell, I. (2008). Prisoners, politics and the polls: Enfranchisement and the burden of responsibility. British Journal of Criminology, 48(3), 319–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bottoms, A. (1995). The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing. In C. Clarkson & R. Morgan (Eds.), The politics of sentencing reform (pp. 17–49). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, C. (1974). Guardians of the peace: Irish police. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breaking News. (2006, March 24). McDowell: Gangland killers must spend 15 years minimum in jail. Breaking News. Retrieved from http://www.breakingnews.ie

  • Campbell, L. (2010). Responding to gun crime in Ireland. British Journal of Criminology, 50(3), 414–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavadino, M., & Dignan, J. (2006). Penal policy and political economy. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6(4), 435–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavadino, M., & Dignan, J. (2007). The penal system: An introduction. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Central Statistics Office. (2010). Crime and victimisation, quarterly national household survey. Dublin: Central Statistics Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Central Statistics Office. (2013). Homicide offences. Central Statistics Office. Retrieved from http://www.cso.ie/Quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=cja01c1.asp&TableName=Homicide+Offences&StatisticalProduct=DB_CJ

  • Central Statistics Office. (2016). Crime and victimisation, quarterly national household survey. Dublin: Dublin Central Statistics Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Justice and Equality. (2014). Report of the independent review group on the Department of Justice and Equality. Dublin: Department of Justice and Equality.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnellan, E. (2002, August 31). No decision yet on who may rule on Macarthur. Irish Times, p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friendship, C., & Thornton, D. (2001). Sexual reconviction for sexual offenders discharged from prison in England and Wales: Implications for evaluating treatment. British Journal of Criminology, 41(2), 285–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and modern society: A study in social theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. A. (2005). Public opinion versus public judgment about crime: Correcting the ‘comedy of errors’. British Journal of Criminology, 46(1), 131–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, D. (2014). The politics of parole: Discretion and the life sentence prisoner. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University College Dublin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, D., & O’Donnell, I. (2012). The life sentence and parole. British Journal of Criminology, 52(3), 611–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, C. (2014). Reconceptualising penality: A comparative perspective on punitiveness in Ireland, Scotland and New Zealand. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, K. (1983a). Thinking about legal decision-making. In J. Shapland (Ed.), Decision-making in the legal system, Issues in criminological and legal psychology (Vol. 5). Leicester: British Psychological Society for the Division of Criminological and Legal Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, K. (1983b). Assessing evil: Decision, behaviour and Parole Board justice. British Journal of Criminology, 23(2), 101–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, D. (2010). The dynamics of desistance: Charting pathways through change. Cullompton/Devon/Portland: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hebenton, B., & Seddon, T. (2009). From dangerousness to precaution: Managing sexual and violent offenders in an insecure and uncertain age. British Journal of Criminology, 49(3), 343–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heylin, G. (2001). Evaluating prisons, prisoners and others. Studies in Public Policy Retrieved from http://www.tara.tcd.ie/handle/2262/60511

  • Hood, R., & Shute, S. (2000). Parole decision-making: Weighing the risk to the public. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, R., Shute, S., & Wilcox, A. (2000). The parole system at work: A study of risk based decision-making. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, R., Shute, S., Feilzer, M., & Wilcox, A. (2002). Sex offenders emerging from long-term imprisonment. A study of their long-term reconviction rates and of parole board members’ judgements of their risk. British Journal of Criminology, 42(2), 371–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irish Penal Reform Trust. (2007). Public attitudes to prison. Dublin: Irish Penal Reform Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irish Times (1983a, January 13). Macarthur gets life for murder of nurse. Irish Times, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irish Times (1983b, July 23). No disclosure on rulings possible, DPP maintains. Irish Times, p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, O. (2004, July 13). Macarthur release discussed with families. Irish Times, p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerrigan, G. (2012, September 23). A sensational and startling case in a time of innocence. Irish Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.ie

  • Kilcommins, S., O’Donnell, I., O’Sullivan, E., & Vaughan, B. (2004). Crime, punishment and the search for order in Ireland. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühnrich, B., & Kania, H. (2005). Attitudes towards punishment in the European Union: Results from the 2005 European Crime Survey (ECSS) with focus on Germany. Freiburg: Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lally, C. (2004, January 31). Parole board to get books of evidence access. Irish Times, p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lally, C. (2006, March 9). McDowell defends length of murder sentences. Irish Times, p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law Reform Commission. (1993). Consultation paper on sentencing. Dublin: Law Reform Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malsch, M., & Duker, M. (2016). Incapacitation: Trends and new perspectives. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maruna, S., & King, A. (2009). Once a criminal, always a criminal? Redeemability and the psychology of punitive public attitudes. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15(1–2), 7–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, R. (2005). The myth of punitiveness. Theoretical Criminology, 9(2), 175–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauer, M., King, R. S., & Young, M. C. (2004). The meaning of ‘life’: Long prison sentences in context. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, T. J., & Ludwig, J. (2007). The silence of the lambdas: Deterring incapacitation research. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23(4), 287–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, B., & Roberts, J. V. (2011). Sentencing for murder: Exploring public knowledge and public opinion in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology, 52(1), 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, C. (2012). A perfect storm: Parliament and prisoner disenfranchisement. Parliamentary Affairs, 66(3), 511–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murtagh, P. (1982, August 20). Taoiseach may face action over TV remark. Irish Times, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash, M., & Williams, A. (2010). Introduction: Assessing and managing risk. In M. Nash & A. Williams (Eds.), Handbook of public protection (pp. 83–86). Oxon: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Crime Council. (2009). Worry about crime and its impact on quality of life. Dublin: Department of Justice and Equality.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelken, D. (2009). Comparative criminal justice: Beyond ethnocentricism and relativism. European Journal of Criminology, 6(4), 291–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, C. (2011, November 15). Temporary release programme sanctioned for killer Macarthur. Irish Times, p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, M. (1999). Is Irish public opinion towards crime distorted by media bias? European Journal of Communication, 14(2), 191–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, I. (2001). Prison matters. Irish Jurist, 36(1), 153–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, I. (2004). Imprisonment and penal policy in Ireland. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 43(3), 253–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, I. (2005). Crime and justice in the Republic of Ireland. European Journal of Criminology, 2(1), 99–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, I. (2011). Crime and punishment in the Republic of Ireland: A country profile. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 35(1), 73–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, I. (2012, March 12). More scrutiny needed of life sentences. Irish Times, p. B6.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, I., & Jewkes, Y. (2011). Going home for Christmas: Prisoners, a taste of freedom and the press. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 50(1), 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, I., & O’Sullivan, E. (2001). Crime control in Ireland: The politics of intolerance. Cork: Cork University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, I., & O’Sullivan, E. (2003). The politics of intolerance—Irish style. British Journal of Criminology, 43(1), 41–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, I., Baumer, E. P., & Hughes, N. (2008). Recidivism in the Republic of Ireland. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 8(2), 123–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, T. (2003). Sentencing values and sentencing structures. Judicial Studies Institute Journal, 3(1), 130–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, T. (2006). Sentencing law and practice. Dublin: Thomson Round Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, T. (2011). Sentencing: Towards a coherent system. Dublin: Round Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, T. (2016). Sentencing law and practice. Dublin: Thomson Round Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olden, J. (2001). Report of Mr John Olden on the management of the sentences of Thomas Murray, life sentence prisoner. Dublin: Department of Justice and Equality.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padfield, N., Liebling, A., & Arnold, H. (2000). An exploration of decision-making at discretionary lifer panels. Home Office research report no. 213. London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parole Board. (2002–2015). Annual reports. Dublin: Parole Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer, C., Windzio, M., & Kleimann, M. (2005). Media use and its impacts on crime perception, sentencing attitudes and crime policy. European Journal of Criminology, 2(3), 259–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prison Service. (2014–2016). Annual reports. Dublin/Longford: Irish Prison Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. V. (1992). Public opinion, crime, and criminal justice. Crime and Justice, 16, 99–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. V. (2003). Public opinion and mandatory sentencing: A review of international findings. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(4), 483–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, P. H. (2001). Punishing dangerousness: Cloaking preventive detention as criminal justice. Harvard Law Review, 114(5), 1429–1456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogan, M. (2015). The policy making process and penal change. In D. Healy, C. Hamilton, Y. Daly, & M. Butler (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Irish criminology (pp. 434–449). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sample, L. L., & Bray, T. M. (2006). Are sex offenders different? An examination of re-arrest patterns. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17(1), 83–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. (1998). Managing the monstrous: Sex offenders and the new penology. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 4(1–2), 452–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. (2007). Governing through crime: How the war on crime transformed American democracy and created a culture of fear. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tavares, C., Thomas, G., & Bulut, F. (2012). Crime and criminal justice, 2006–2009. Brussels: Eurostat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M. (1996). Sentencing matters. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M. (2001). Symbol, substance, and severity in Western penal policies. Punishment and Society, 3(4), 517–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M. (2007). Determinants of penal policies. Crime and Justice, 36(1), 1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Travis, J., & Lawrence, S. (2002). Beyond the prison gates: The state of parole in America. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hirsch, A., & Ashworth, A. (Eds.). (1998). Principled sentencing: Readings on theory and policy. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hirsch, A., Ashworth, A., & Roberts, J. V. (Eds.). (1998). Principled sentencing: Readings on theory and policy. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walmsley, R. (2016). World prison population list. Essex: International Centre for Prison Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, E. (2003, April 20). O’Dea vetoes Macarthur release. Irish Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.ie

  • Zimring, F., & Hawkins, G. (1995). Incapacitation: Penal confinement and the restraint of crime. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimring, F. E., & Johnson, D. T. (2006). Public opinion and the governance of punishment in democratic political systems. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 605(1), 265–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Table of Legislation

Table of Cases

    Ireland

    Table of Parliamentary Debates

    • 528 Dáil Debates Col. 311: John O’Donoghue, 12 December 2000.

      Google Scholar 

    Download references

    Author information

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

      Diarmuid Griffin

    Authors
    1. Diarmuid Griffin
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    Copyright information

    © 2018 The Author(s)

    About this chapter

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this chapter

    Griffin, D. (2018). Punishment, Public Opinion and Politics. In: Killing Time. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72667-0_5

    Download citation

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72667-0_5

    • Published:

    • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

    • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72666-3

    • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72667-0

    • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

    Publish with us

    Policies and ethics

    Search

    Navigation