The Sentence Never Fits The Crime Ba$tards!

[/QUOTE]
(1) At no point have I suggested that judges are infallible - of course they are not .
Click to expand...

And where did I say you had, James?

(2)
It is absurd to suggest that sentencing shouldn't be questioned, I haven't done that . The right people to question an individual sentence are the defence if the sentence appears manifestly excessive and the Attorney General if it is unduly lenient . They are in possession of all the facts . Not the newspapers . Perhaps it is worth recalling the drunk driver whose sentence was unduly lenient but in respect of whom the Court of Appeal refused to increase the sentence because of a rabid campaign in the media that had led to his family being harassed and abused
Click to expand...

And you think that is a good example??? While I thoroughly agree that in many cases, the media are way out of line when latching on to some campaign or other, the alternative is far worse. Your premise that it is down to the Defence or the Attorney General to query suspect sentencing is again naive in the extreme. While I would love to believe that justice always prevails, I am far more likely to believe that money talks - justice costs money, as you well know James and it doesn't always serve those who need it most.

(3) Your point about there being extenuating mental problems is probably more than likely. However, if that were the case, surely the public could have expected a sentence involving a mental health institution stay, rather than community service.

I have no idea if your comment about all judges being soft was levelled at me per se but I can assure you that I certainly don't hold that view. However, as a citizen in a society that allegedly permits free-speech, then I uphold not only my right but that of any sector of the media to question whatever they like about the way our society operates, as long as they do so within the law as it stands....
 
Naive - meaning what exactly ? A sentence can be changed in one of two ways either on appeal by the defendant or on a reference by the Attorney General . Media campaigns about sentencing are counter productive . They can say what they like fortunately 99% of judges will ignore them and get on with the job according to the law and the sentencing guidelines . Of course it is open to anyone to comment on a sentence but they will nearly always be open to the criticism that they cannot rebut that they do not know all the facts .

The Defendant will have legal aid - the AG has plenty of cash . The AG will do what he is meant to do - consider the sentence - consider whether there is a case that it is unduly lenient and if so refer .That is how it works .

Although I don't do crime anymore lots of my colleagues do . I think I might know a bit more about the criminal appeal system works than you give me credit for despite my " naivety "
 
This what the Lord Chief Justice the late Lord Taylor said in R-v- Vano


An appropriate sentence at the time of the trial would have been six months imprisonment. However the matter of double jeopardy had to be taken into account, the offender had suffered depression tending towards the risk of suicide, he had been in receipt of hate mail by reason of the continuing publicity of the case in the press, he had had to move house and his children were being shunned by other children in the neighbourhood. Although the sentence was unduly lenient the court would make no further order as to sentence. The court also wished to stress that although the press were guardians of the public interest, to pursue a campaign of villification of someone who had been before the court in a way which caused him to receive hate mail and to compel his family to move house was doing no public service and was wholly misguided if it was intended to bring pressure to bear on the courts.
 
Naive in the context that many sentences won't go to appeal purely because funds are limited. You know as well as I do, James that (just like in the old days when supposedly anyone could go on to Higher Education via the means-tested grant system), thousands of cases will fall into that grey area where Legal Aid doesn't apply and where many simply give up because they don't have the means to follow the case through - in exactly the same way as the Judge in your illustration above imposed a lenient entence because of the defendant's family being the main sufferers.

I know full well you have a far superior working knowledge of the legal system than I do - it's along time since my University days - I wouldn't dream of challenging you on specifics but you can't disagree with the fact that money buys expertise in everything and our Justice system is no exception. In fact, I'd say the balance of expertise in this discussion is about on a par with my working knowledge of Farming and Rural Economics and yours in the context of hunting..... :P

It shouldn't be that way but it is and if the AG is as awash with cash as you suggest, then maybe we ought to tip off the Daily Mail to see if it's being distributed wisely..... B)
 
Since 1998 there has been no means test for criminal legal aid - a perverse system admittedly when people like van Hoogstraten can get legal aid despite their wealth. The reason being apparently that the administration of the system cost more than it saved . This has turned out to be rubbish and there is a Bill before Parliament reintroducing the means test now .
 
Another horrific case in Newcastle just been on the news
A monster ( his photo clearly illustrates) was jealous of his girlfriends 3 month old baby so he held the babies face to the gas fire for 10 seconds.
the baby has also suffered, a fractured skull, broken legs and broken ribs.

Can anyone give a reason why this person should live ? I hope he gets his just desserts in in prison.
 
Originally posted by Lee Chater@Feb 24 2006, 02:00 PM
Can anyone give a reason why this person should live ? I hope he gets his just desserts in in prison.
Click to expand...
2 wrongs don't make a right.
 
So the victims of crime should set the punishment? What a ridiculous idea. We will have rapists castrated, robbers killed and a huge over reaction from all concerned.
 
Originally posted by Lee Chater@Feb 24 2006, 01:00 PM

Can anyone give a reason why this person should live ? I hope he gets his just desserts in in prison.
Click to expand...
Oh he will. Once fellow cons find out an inmate is in for offences against children the shit hits the fan bigtime.
 
Originally posted by Venusian@Feb 24 2006, 05:44 PM
What sentence has been handed out to the charmer who raped his dying stepdaughter?
Click to expand...
Anal sex with mr big from f wing with sand as lubricant.





hopefully.
 
Originally posted by PDJ@Feb 24 2006, 05:32 PM
So the victims of crime should set the punishment? What a ridiculous idea. We will have rapists castrated, robbers killed and a huge over reaction from all concerned.
Click to expand...
That would never happen, I trust. I am in favour, in principle, of victims confronting their offenders to tell them how badly their actions have hurt them but I'd worry about the possibility of Oscar-deserving lawyers putting on a sensationalist show with a view to maximising the sentence or the added hurt a remorseless reply from the criminal might cause.
 
I am all for the death penalty but would much prefer them to put something back into society, I would lock them up and ensure that they were fit and nourished so that they could then take the place of all the animals that are being experimented on.
 
Originally posted by Venusian@Feb 24 2006, 05:44 PM
What sentence has been handed out to the charmer who raped his dying stepdaughter?
Click to expand...
Nine years, but as is suggested on here they'll have to keep him away from any other prisoner if he expects to walk out one day.
 
I am in favour, in principle, of victims confronting their offenders to tell them how badly their actions have hurt them
Click to expand...

Me too. A problem with that, however, is that the more abhorrent the crime, the more likely it is to have been committed by someone incapable of feeling remorse (i.e. a psychopath, in the true sense of the word) and to whom such a confrontation would at best be meaningless and at worst satisfy their ego.
 
Back
Top