Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Uses and Consequences of a Criminal Conviction pp 125–155Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Sentencing on Criminal Record

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 243 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines the impact of criminal convictions upon the sentencing process and focuses upon explaining when past convictions are taken into consideration by a sentencing judge, the justifications for this, the relevance of past records, and the effect that its use has upon the offender. There is a particular emphasis upon documenting the increased use of mandatory minimum sentencing provisions in Ireland that focus upon repeat offenders. In recent years, there has been a notable increase in legislative attention to the use of criminal records in sentencing and the implications of this are explored in this chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   89.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    People (DPP) v McCormack [2000] 4 I.R. 356, per Barron J.

  2. 2.

    Persistent Offender Accountability Act 1994.

  3. 3.

    California Penal Code West 1999.

  4. 4.

    California Proposition 36 now requires the third offence to be a serious or violent felony, although this clause does not apply to defendants previously convicted of rape, murder, or child molestation. California Proposition 36 also facilitates a review process to commute lesser sentences for those currently serving life sentences as a result of non-violent or non-serious third strike offences.

  5. 5.

    Ewing v California (2003) 538 U.S. 11.

  6. 6.

    Lockyer v Andrade (2003) 538 U.S. 63.

  7. 7.

    In line with such rationales, the 2003 Act also introduced Indeterminate Public Protection sentences for dangerous offenders, which have now been abolished under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

  8. 8.

    Part 5 of the 2006 Act introduces the new mandatory provisions for firearm offences, which include a mandatory sentence of 5 years for possession of a firearm while stealing a vehicle (s.57(8) inserted into s.26(8) of the Firearms Act 1964) and a 10-year mandatory minimum for the use of firearms to assist an escape (s.58(8) inserted into s.27(8) of the Firearms Act 1964).

  9. 9.

    Section 82 of the 2006 Act inserts a new offence of importing controlled drugs in excess of €13,000 (s.15(b) of 1977 Act) and s.84 of the 2006 Act inserts mandatory minimum sentences for a second offence under s.27 of the 1977 Act (as amended by s.5 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999).

  10. 10.

    Speech given to the Dail, 28 March 2006, available at http://www.justice.ie.

  11. 11.

    The offences to which the rule applies are listed in Schedule 2 in the 2007 Act and include offences under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 (causing serious harm (s.4), threatening to kill (s.5), and false imprisonment [s.15]), offences under the Explosive Substances Act 1883 (ss.2–4), firearm offences under the 1925 (s.15) and 1964 Acts (s.26–27), aggravated burglary under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 (s.13), drug trafficking offences and organised crime under the Criminal Justice Acts of 1994 (s.3(1)) and 2006 (s.71–73), respectively, and blackmail and extortion under the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 (s.17).

  12. 12.

    Adult as opposed to juvenile; provisions in the US and UK do not require the triggering offence to be committed by an adult. The Irish provisions on the other hand require both the initial and subsequent offence to be committed by an individual over 18 years of age.

  13. 13.

    ‘Mandatory sentencing of criminals “an expensive mistake” Irish Independent, 16 June 2016.

  14. 14.

    A Justice Policy Institute Report published in 2004 revealed the effects of the three strikes law in the US and the most significant finding was that in California where the rule most aggressively applied, there had not been any reduction in crime, and in fact, states without the rule seemed to fair better in terms of falling crime rates than states that invoked the rule (Ehlers et al. 2004).

  15. 15.

    The Irish judiciary have expressly acknowledged this: DPP v P. O’C [2009] IECCA 116, the Court of Criminal Appeal commented that “[t]he previous convictions and sentences are relevant to the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the [offender].”

  16. 16.

    The State (Stanbridge) v McMahon [1978] I.R. 314, per Gannon J.

  17. 17.

    Canadian Criminal Code section 718 (1).

  18. 18.

    The Eighth Amendment states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

  19. 19.

    Rummel v Estelle (1980) 100 U.S. 113.

  20. 20.

    Solem v Helm (1983) 463 U.S. 277.

  21. 21.

    Justice Powell, delivering the opinion of the court expressed the view that “the principle that punishment should be proportionate to the crime is deeply rooted and frequently repeated in common law jurisprudence” Solem v Helm (1983) 463 U.S. 277, pp. 284–285.

  22. 22.

    Both cases of Ewing v California (2003) 538 U.S. 11 and Lockyer v Andrade (2003) 538 U.S. 63 distinguished the case of Solem v Helm on the ground that in that case the sentence was one of life without the possibility of parole. Thus a life sentence with the possibility of release, regardless of how far into the future, did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

  23. 23.

    The People (AG) v O’Driscoll (1972) 1 Frewen 351; State (Healy) v Donoghue [1976] I.R. 325.

  24. 24.

    People (DPP) v C (W) [1994] 1 I.L.R.M. 321.

  25. 25.

    People (DPP) v C (W), per Flood J.

  26. 26.

    People (DPP) v M [1994] 3 I.R. 306.

  27. 27.

    This is a legislative requirement under s.11(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1984, as amended by s.10 of the Bail Act 1997.

  28. 28.

    People (AG) v O’Driscoll (1972) 1 Frewen 351; People (DPP) v Tiernan [1988] I.R. 250; People (DPP) v M [1994] 2 I.L.R.M. 541.

  29. 29.

    People (AG) v O’Driscoll (1972) 1 Frewen 351.

  30. 30.

    In Ireland, the Children Act 2001 reflects the desire to apply non-custodial sanctions to offences committed by juveniles. Age can also be relevant on the other end of the scale: People (DPP) v JM, unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, 22 February 2002, where ailing health and old age were deemed mitigating factors.

  31. 31.

    Per Denham J in People (DPP) v M [1994] 3 I.R. 306.

  32. 32.

    People (DPP) v Kelly [2005] 1 I.L.R.M. 19 (Hardiman J).

  33. 33.

    People (AG) v McClure [1945] I.R. 275.

  34. 34.

    R v McCormack [1981] V.R. 104.

  35. 35.

    See O’Malley (2006) op. cit., at p. 141.

  36. 36.

    The People (AG) v Farrell, unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, 21 July 1990.

  37. 37.

    People (DPP) v NdeP and VZ (Unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, 19 December 2008).

  38. 38.

    Reported in the Irish Times, 15 March 2016.

  39. 39.

    Lockyer v Andrade (2003) 538 U.S. 63.

  40. 40.

    R v McDonald (1994) 120 A.L.R. 629.

  41. 41.

    Some commentators have argued for such a solution not simply on the basis that it is inherently unjust to take past record into account but also on the basis that it would lead to greater consistency in sentencing (Edney and Bagaric 2007, p. 236).

  42. 42.

    People (DPP) v S (P) [2009] I.E.C.C.A. 1.

  43. 43.

    People (DPP) v K (G) [2008] I.E.C.C.A. 110.

  44. 44.

    The People (DPP) v Carmody [1988] I.L.R.M. 370.

  45. 45.

    DPP v O.R. [2017] IECA 61, para. 25, per Edwards J.

  46. 46.

    DPP v M.M. [2016] IECA 282.

  47. 47.

    DPP v Walsh [2017] IECA 187.

  48. 48.

    The People (DPP) v Renald, unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, 23 November 2001.

  49. 49.

    One can argue that prior sentence is certainly relevant and that in particular those who have been sentenced to imprisonment in the past are more likely to receive a custodial sentence in the future. This bears down most heavily upon offenders from the lower socioeconomic classes.

  50. 50.

    Rehabilitative aims are important for a number of reasons, including risk probability and incentivising. It may be argued that there is little difference in the recidivism risk between a first-time offender and one who has not offended for a significant period of time. Reducing the penalty in such circumstances can also be an incentive for the offender to refrain from further offending. Roberts, 1997, p. 335; Ashworth 1983, p. 225.

  51. 51.

    The United States Committee for the Study of Incarceration favoured the adoption of this policy (Von Hirsch 1976). The UK is another country where the desert policy has been the preferred sentencing policy (Ashworth 2017, HMSO 1990).

  52. 52.

    Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton, MP, Parliamentary Debates: official reports, Vol. 5, 1821.

  53. 53.

    People (DPP) v OD (R) [2000] 4 I.R. 361. See also Renshaw v DPP (1996) 67 S.A.S.R. 139 and People (DPP) v Eccles, ex tempore, Court of Criminal Appeal, 8 October 2005.

Bibliography

  • Ashworth, A. (1983). Sentencing and Penal Policy. London: Weidenfield & Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. (2017). Deserved Criminal Sentences. London: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beccaria, C. (1963). On Crimes and Punishments (H. Paolucci, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bottoms, A. E., & Brownsword, R. (1982). The Dangerousness Debate After the Floud Report. British Journal of Criminology, 22, 229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doob, A., & Webster, C. (2003). Sentence Severity and Crime: Accepting the Null Hypothesis. Crime and Justice, 30, 143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edney, R., & Bagaric, M. (2007). Australian Sentencing; Principles and Practice. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehlers, S., Schiraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (2004). Still Striking Out: Ten Years of California’s Three Strikes Law. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, R. A., & Swigert, V. L. (1978). Prior Offence Record as a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. Law & Society Review, 12(3), 437–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, C. (2008). Californication of Irish Sentencing Law. Irish Criminal Law Journal, 18(2), 42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floud, J., & Young, W. (1981). Dangerousness and Criminal Justice. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H. L. A., & Gardner, J. (2008). Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • HMSO, White Paper. (1990). Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public: The Governments Proposals for Legislation. Cm965. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hough, M., Jacobson, J., & Millie, A. (2003). The Decision to Imprison: Sentencing and the Prison Population. London: Prison Reform Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. B. (2015). The Eternal Criminal Record. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T., & Newburn, T. (2006). Three Strikes and You’re Out: Exploring Symbol and Substance in American and British Crime Control Politics. British Journal of Criminology, 46, 781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • McGuire, J. (Ed.). (2002). Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment: Effective Programmes and Policies to Reduce Re-offending. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monahan, J. (2004). The Future of Violence Risk Management. In M. Tonry (Ed.), The Future of Imprisonment. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, G. (2007). An Analysis of Sentencing Provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Judicial Studies Institute Journal, 1, 60–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ni Raifeartaigh, U. (1993). The Law Reform Commission Consultation Paper on Sentencing. Irish Law Times, 11, 101.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, T. (2006). Sentencing Law and Practice (2nd ed.). Dublin: Round Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, T. (2016). Sentencing Law and Practice (3rd ed.). Dublin: Round Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. V. (1997). The Role of Criminal Record in the Sentencing Process. Crime and Justice, 22, 303–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. V., & Yalincak, O. K. (2014). Revisiting Prior Record Enhancement Provisions in State Sentencing Guidelines. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 26(3), 177–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, S. (2010). Rethinking Recidivist Enhancements: The Role of Prior Drug Convictions in Federal Sentencing. U.C. Davis Law Review, 43, 1135–1182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spohn, C., & Holleran, D. (2002). The Effect of Imprisonment on Recidivism Rates of Felony Offenders: A Focus on Drug Offenders. Criminology, 40, 329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Law Reform Commission. (LRC CP 6-1993). Consultation Paper on Sentencing. Dublin: Law Reform Commission.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M. (2004). Punishment and Politics: Evidence and Emulation in the Making of English Crime Control Policy. Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M. (2014). The Questionable Relevance of Previous Convictions to Punishments for Later Crimes. In J. V. Roberts & J. V. Von Hirsch (Eds.), Previous Convictions at Sentencing. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Travis, J. (2002). Invisible Punishment: An Instrument of Social Exclusion. In M. Mauer & M. Chesney-Lind (Eds.), Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment. New York: The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hirsch, A. (1976). Doing Justice: The Choice of Punishments. New York: Hill and Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hirsch, A. (1981). Desert and Previous Convictions in Sentencing. Minnesota Law Review, 65, 591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hirsch, A. (2002). Record-Enhanced Sentencing in England and Wales. In S. Rex & M. Tonry (Eds.), Reform and Punishment: The Future of Sentencing. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hirsch, A. (2005). Proportionate Punishments. In A. Von Hirsch & A. Ashworth (Eds.), Principled Sentencing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Von Hirsch, A. (2009). Incapacitation. In A. Ashworth, A. Von Hirsch, & J. Roberts (Eds.), Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy (3rd ed.). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hirsch, A. (2014). Proportionality and the progressive Loss of Mitigation: Some Further Reflections. In J. V. Roberts & J. V. Von Hirsch (Eds.), Previous Convictions at Sentencing. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hirsch, A., Bottoms, A. E., Burney, E., & Wikstrom, P. O. (1999b). Criminal Deterrence and Sentencing Severity. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hirsch, A., & Roberts, J. V. (2004). Legislating Sentencing Principles: The Provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Relating to Sentencing Purposes and the Role of Previous Convictions. Criminal Law Review, 639

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, D. (1986). Introduction, On Crimes and Punishments. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimring, F. E., Hawkins, G., & Kamin, S. (2001). Punishment and Democracy: Three Strikes and You’re Out in California. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

    Margaret Fitzgerald O’Reilly

Authors
  1. Margaret Fitzgerald O’Reilly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Fitzgerald O’Reilly, M. (2018). Sentencing on Criminal Record. In: Uses and Consequences of a Criminal Conviction. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59662-8_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59662-8_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-59661-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-59662-8

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation