I wish, first of all, to say I deplore and regard as contemptible the suggestion by Senator Quinlan that political considerations enter into this matter in any way. I shall outline briefly for the benefit of the House what happens in a case where a prisoner serving a life sentence has the balance of his sentence remitted at a particular point of time.
The initiative always comes from the prison, where the prisoner has been under constant observation from the point of view of his progress, his conduct, his rehabilitation. Any suggestion of this kind has always emanated from within the prison. The case is reviewed in all its aspects. This includes consideration of the original crime and, if possible, the trial judge is consulted. Police reports are procured. Finally, the proposal is put not to the Minister for Justice but to the Government. It is an Executive function.
To suggest that any responsible Minister for Justice would make a recommendation in regard to a prisoner serving a life sentence on any but the most legitimate grounds is to talk nonsense. The Government have before them the whole case from its very beginning. Every aspect in regard to the progress of the prisoner is brought before them and in the light of the full information, they make their decision.
I have never encountered any suggestion of pressure from the public. Indeed one aspect of the situation that rather amazes me is that, while at the time a murder is committed public excitement is intense, from the moment the prisoner is sentenced the public lose interest in the case. As far as the public are concerned, I have never seen any evidence of any pressure on the Government or the Minister for Justice to commute the sentence.
As Senator Sheldon has rightly pointed out, unless we are to do away with the prerogative of mercy, this amendment means absolutely nothing: if we are to retain the prerogative of mercy, this amendment is simply a waste of time. I repeat that the decision must be one for the Executive. This, it must be appreciated, is not the sort of decision to be left in the hands of the courts whose duty is to fix responsibility for a crime and impose the sentence laid down in laws passed by the Oireachtas. The normal court procedure is not suitable for the exercise of this function particularly having regard to the desirability of avoiding publicity.
The prerogative of mercy is not something that should be exercised by the courts. In any country in the world I know of this function is with the Executive.
Many Senators have been concerned about the short length of sentences that have been served in this country. I agree there is some cause for concern there. I feel sure the average length of sentence for murder in this country came as a surprise to a lot of people. I should, however, point out again that each case is considered on its merits. I believe that where a prisoner has been completely rehabilitated and is no longer a menace to society in any way there is no justification for keeping him in prison to the point where he will become degenerate, either physically or mentally, or both, and where the process of rehabilitation will be undone. At this point he may be unfit for anything but to remain in prison for the remainder of his natural life.
Senators have been concerned about the short sentences which have been served and with the implications of such short sentences on the desirability of protecting society against the recurrence of the crimes which the criminals concerned had committed. The facts, however, do not show such concern to be necessary. In no case since 1925 has the release of a prisoner resulted in his again committing a similar type of crime and there is no evidence that the commutation and remission of sentences has, in fact, had any effect on the protection of society.
When a Government considers the question of releasing a prisoner all these circumstances are taken into account — the original nature of the crime, the culpability of the prisoner, his mentality, the whole question of whether there is any possibility of a recurrence of the crime, the effect of continued imprisonment on the prisoner, the environment into which he is going to be released and, of course, the necessity for ensuring that the sentence does have a deterrent effect. All these factors are taken into account. It is only when the Government are satisfied a person is fully able to take his place again, in society, without the slightest risk to that society, that he is released.
Does any Senator seriously suggest that when a man has expiated his crime, rehabilitated himself and is ready to take his place again in society, he should be kept for any period of time in prison simply and solely that he may be further punished? I appreciate that when a crime has been committed and when a person has served four, five or six years and the question of his release comes before any Executive, there is a tendency to forget the enormity of the crime and consider on humanitarian grounds only the human being seeking to be released. Nevertheless, I would like to quote the following occurrence as an indication of how objectivity can be achieved.
On one occasion the Government in commuting a death sentence to penal servitude for life, said in effect: "We feel we should commute this sentence, but we also consider this man should serve a long sentence. We want, if ever the question of his release from custody comes before a future Executive, to have this opinion of ours brought to their notice." I think that type of decision could be taken more often and could go a considerable way towards meeting the objections Senators have to the comparatively short sentences which down the years have been served by people who have had their sentences commuted.
This is not a matter which should be brought into this Bill in any shape or form. The exercise by the Government of their prerogative is something for which the Government can be criticised in the ordinary way by the Oireachtas. If the Seanad or Dáil feel the Executive are overlenient as a matter of policy in this matter, then the Executive can be criticised and brought to task by the Oireachtas for maladministration of one of its particular functions. I think we can do no more than that. It will certainly go out now from this House and from the Dáil to Executives of the future that the Oireachtas are perturbed about the comparatively short sentences served in the past and future Governments will have regard to that. In deciding any particular case they will keep in mind the long-term effects of comparatively short sentences.
I think Senator Fitzpatrick has really achieved his purpose by the discussion which has been evoked here on his amendment. As far as there is public opinion on this matter, we will have to rely on that public opinion to ensure that Governments from time to time exercise this prerogative in a reasonable way.
Finally, I want to say that I agree completely with those who maintain that the primary purpose of all punishment should be rehabilitation and that, where a person has fully rehabilitated himself and is ready again to take his place in society as a useful citizen without any danger to that society, it is nothing more than inhuman cruelty to keep him in prison.
