24 Hours In Police Custody

[Bluesince1979]

Dont think anyones suggesting he shouldnt be punished.
But my firm opinion is that the sentences shouldve been reversed.
What hes been through was punishment enough (the stress etc) and a fine and community service wouldvr sufficed. He wont do anything like that ever again.

Wheres as the 2 scum bags wont even turn up for the community service , and will py the fine at a fiver a month

 

[Kompany Car]

Agree it seems light, and I can’t comment on the particulars of any mitigation, but that will have been sentenced separately and the fact the offence was inchoate will have been a significant factor.

it’s a familiar refrain that sentencing is too soft but sentences have increased significantly in the last ten years and hugely over the last 30, and yet it doesn’t seem to be having the desired effect, and yet people still cry for tougher and tougher sentencing. What was it Einstein said?…

One of the problems is cases like this and the way they are reported as the norm; they are not. All they do is reinforce people’s perception that the system is too soft, rather than isolated examples frequently taken out of context.

A custodial sentence for repeat offenders is probably the best thing that you could do as it gives a chance to reform the individuals. The real issue is that the reform that we provide doesn’t fix the underlying issues which on the whole are related to addiction, mental health and poverty (often as a result of no education).

As regards doing the same thing over and over which is often misquoted as being said by Einstein and prior to that Benjamin Franklin; maybe you’re right it does need an alternative approach.

The question then comes as to which direction to move, the current status quo doesn’t achieve the desired results. Some people will cite the low rates of reoffending in Norway and their liberal approach to prison, but considering you can get a short custodial sentence for driving under the influence or exceeding the speed limit by more than 50% it does skew the figures.

Likewise you could also look at Saudi Arabia that also has low reoffending rates, but it’s difficult to continue your offending with a missing hand or even harder without a head.

It’s undoubtedly a complex issue, however, regardless of which approach you take, the general public need to have faith in what is being done and at its heart the rule of law is being applied in a “fair play” manner (as the president of the Law Society recently noted). The courts are a public body and just as politicians, they are there to serve the people.

 

[domalino]

I sincerely hope I am and in such a case.

Not claiming I would do. If I decide the bloke isn't guilty in my mind then as a member of a jury I have the right to vote that way.

No, actually you don't. You're legally bound to give a true verdict based on the evidence.

This line right here -

I'd have voted not guilty as sending him to prison served no real purpose.

That's a criminal offence. You don't have the right to return a non guilty verdict because you don't want someone to go to jail for something they've done.

 

[Bluesince1979]

I sincerely hope I am and in such a case.

Not claiming I would do. If I decide the bloke isn't guilty in my mind then as a member of a jury I have the right to vote that way.

I think the judge was the bigger ****. I dont theres a doubt he was guilty , the jury did the job of deciding that. But there was no need to send him to prison, thats on the judge

 

[paulchapo]

What were the well meaning intentions here?

"I'm going to fuck up the bastards who tried to steal my bike" isn't a good intention.

No, the good intentions were , " The scumbags are trying to break into my property I'm going to try and stop them getting away."

I sincerely hope you're put in a similar position Mr self righteous let's see how that works out for you.

 

[paulchapo]

No, actually you don't. You're legally bound to give a true verdict based on the evidence.

This line right here -



That's a criminal offence. You don't have the right to return a non guilty verdict because you don't want someone to go to jail for something they've done.

If it is, which I doubt, do you think I'd be stupid enough to cite that as a reason? I'd just vote not guilty.

 

[paulchapo]

I think the judge was the bigger ****. I dont theres a doubt he was guilty , the jury did the job of deciding that. But there was no need to send him to prison, thats on the judge

Not sure but his hands might have been tied on that for the offence once he was found guilty.

 

[Bluesince1979]

Agree it seems light, and I can’t comment on the particulars of any mitigation, but that will have been sentenced separately and the fact the offence was inchoate will have been a significant factor.

it’s a familiar refrain that sentencing is too soft but sentences have increased significantly in the last ten years and hugely over the last 30, and yet it doesn’t seem to be having the desired effect, and yet people still cry for tougher and tougher sentencing. What was it Einstein said?…

One of the problems is cases like this and the way they are reported as the norm; they are not. All they do is reinforce people’s perception that the system is too soft, rather than isolated examples frequently taken out of context.

It is the norm , i live in a nice enough area and there are burglaries and car thefts on a nightly basis.
My pal had his van nicked last night, rang police and because he doesnt have cctv they wont even come out. I understand totally why not, what have they got to go on? But it enforces my point that it is pretty normal now and barely worth reporting

 

[mancityvstoke]

If it is, which I doubt, do you think I'd be stupid enough to cite that as a reason? I'd just vote not guilty.

Just do what the burgling masked up scumbags do

No comment...

 

[Bluesince1979]

Not sure but his hands might have been tied on that for the offence once he was found guilty.

Maybe , but does he not have leeway?