Sex attacker spared jail ... because he’d lose his job?!

Watch
legalhelp
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#21
Report 4 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
No, because the ranges decided by the government are adequate, it’s the judgement of where the sentence falls in that range that are not.
I’m going to have to disagree with you there. There will always be outliers, but generally speaking I think judges strike a fair balance. As I said above, this person was absolutely on the borderline of immediate custody, and I think he would have gone in if he hadn’t pleaded. The judge may also have had his hands tied to some extent by the CPS’ decision on the appropriate offence to charge. He would have had much more latitude if the charge had been, for example, attempted rape. But clearly the CPS felt the evidence didn’t fit that, and opted for a lesser charge (potentially in order to secure a plea). It’s really complicated, and those who bleat about “tougher sentences” tend to (1) lay all the blame at the judiciary’s door (which isn’t fair), and (2) not understand all the sentencing process in any great detail.
1
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#22
Report 4 weeks ago
#22
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
I don’t agree. If they were politicised they would be handing out tougher sentences. Useless, weak, hopeless. That’s more like it.
Politicised as in they are acting on their own 'politicised ' beliefs... But without the constraints of needing to be electorally popular.

Liberals have this delusion that judges and civil servants etc become completely objective when then they work. This is is obviously not true. When you have a strong monoculture and homogeneous population you can get away with it but in a liberal multicultural society these cracks and biases begin to show.

This could well be why the US has elected judges
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 weeks ago
#23
(Original post by legalhelp)
I’m going to have to disagree with you there. There will always be outliers, but generally speaking I think judges strike a fair balance. As I said above, this person was absolutely on the borderline of immediate custody, and I think he would have gone in if he hadn’t pleaded. The judge may also have had his hands tied to some extent by the CPS’ decision on the appropriate offence to charge. He would have had much more latitude if the charge had been, for example, attempted rape. But clearly the CPS felt the evidence didn’t fit that, and opted for a lesser charge (potentially in order to secure a plea). It’s really complicated, and those who bleat about “tougher sentences” tend to (1) lay all the blame at the judiciary’s door (which isn’t fair), and (2) not understand all the sentencing process in any great detail.
Who should people hold accountable for the perceived lack of 'tougher sentences'? If no one ,why and what can be done to change this?

What are your views on an elected judiciary like in the US?
0
reply
ANM775
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#24
Report 4 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by legalhelp)
One, he seems to have pleaded guilty rather than been convicted at trial. This means he would have got a discount on his sentence of up to 1/3, depending on exactly when he pleaded. Secondly, and relatedly, the longest sentence you can suspend is two years. So say he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, and got the full 1/3 credit, the full sentence had he gone to trial and been convicted would have been 3 years, not 2, which the judge would not have been able to suspend. So it looks like he avoided custody at least in part because of his (smart) decision to plead.

you don't live up to your username.

he got a 6 month sentence, suspended for 2 years.

How is a 3 year sentence being reduced to a 6 month sentence for pleading guilty??

If his sentence had been reduced, then his original sentence would have been 9 months using your logic of him getting 1/3 off for pleading guilty.
1
reply
legalhelp
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#25
Report 4 weeks ago
#25
(Original post by ANM775)
you don't live up to your username.

he got a 6 month sentence, suspended for 2 years.

How is a 3 year sentence being reduced to a 6 month sentence for pleading guilty??

If his sentence had been reduced, then his original sentence would have been 9 months using your logic of him getting 1/3 off for pleading guilty.
You’re quite right, I misread the earlier comment as being a 2 year suspended sentence. Thank you for pointing that out.
0
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#26
Report 4 weeks ago
#26
A terrible decision with vile implications.
I wonder how long the convicted sex offender will remain in continuous well paid employment without attracting some very hostile attention.
Likely to be absolutely terrifying for the victim and local families with children & women living in the sex offender's neighbourhood.
Not to mention the catastophic potential for his employer responsible for ensuring the safety of his staff, customers and all on his premises.

I'm usually firmly of the view that almost all physically capable incarcerated felons & ex-cons that have served time should earn a lawful living rather than living off welfare funds or getting in the habit of viewing pre & post conviction incarceration as a convenient means of taxpayer funded accomodation with free meals.
But as regards this sexual offender, the sentencing decision and its precedent absolutely horrifies me.
Despite the pandemic and additional costs to the public purse of meeting the daily needs of the uk's prison population.
0
reply
ANM775
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#27
Report 4 weeks ago
#27
(Original post by londonmyst)
A terrible decision with vile implications.
I wonder how long the convicted sex offender will remain in continuous well paid employment without attracting some very hostile attention.
Likely to be absolutely terrifying for the victim and local families with children & women living in the sex offender's neighbourhood.
Not to mention the catastophic potential for his employer responsible for ensuring the safety of his staff, customers and all on his premises.

I'm usually firmly of the view that almost all physically capable incarcerated felons & ex-cons that have served time should earn a lawful living rather than living off welfare funds or getting in the habit of viewing pre & post conviction incarceration as a convenient means of taxpayer funded accomodation with free meals.
But as regards this sexual offender, the sentencing decision and its precedent absolutely horrifies me.
Despite the pandemic and additional costs to the public purse of meeting the daily needs of the uk's prison population.
How long would you like to see him jailed for?
0
reply
legalhelp
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#28
Report 4 weeks ago
#28
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Who should people hold accountable for the perceived lack of 'tougher sentences'? If no one ,why and what can be done to change this?

What are your views on an elected judiciary like in the US?
All sensible questions. But your first is premised on “tougher sentences” being a panacea for all the problems in the criminal justice system. They really aren’t. We are already one of the harshest sentencing nations in the Western world in terms of likelihood of receiving a custodial sentence, and length of custodial terms. Just making those sentences longer and longer is unlikely to have any meaningful effect either on the prevalence of first-time offending, or recidivism. If our ultimate goal here is to reduce crime and make the public safer (which I’m sure you would agree with), longer sentences are not the silver bullet that many people think. It does nothing to address the underlying causes of offending, or to prevent reoffending. We have to think more creatively about how to achieve this goal without reverting back to this tiresome, knee-jerk reaction of “longer sentences”.

Having said that, our prisons are disgracefully overcrowded. Most of us in criminal practice acknowledge that a judge’s assessment of whether or not to impose custody might be marginally different if he or she knew that there were plenty of places available to send them too. And if you want someone to blame for prison funding cuts, look no further than the government. Plus, many offenders know that for one reason or another their crime will never be detected (by an underfunded police service), or prosecuted (by an underfunded CPS and court system). Guess who is also responsible for allocating funds to those two services?

On your final question: this strikes me as a horribly slippery slope, particularly when you have (as the US do) political appointees in the final court of appeal. That’s not something I would want for this country personally.
Last edited by legalhelp; 4 weeks ago
1
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#29
Report 4 weeks ago
#29
(Original post by legalhelp)
All sensible questions. But your first is premised on “tougher sentences” being a panacea for all the problems in the criminal justice system. They really aren’t. We are already one of the harshest sentencing nations in the Western world in terms of likelihood of receiving a custodial sentence, and length of custodial terms. Just making those sentences longer and longer is unlikely to have any meaning effect either on the prevalence of first-time offending, or recidivism. If our ultimate goal here is to reduce crime and make the public safer (which I’m sure you would agree with), longer sentences are not the silver bullet that many people think. It does nothing to address the underlying causes of offending, or to prevent reoffending. We have to think more creatively about how to achieve this goal without reverting back to this tiresome, knee-jerk reaction of “longer sentences”.

Having said that, our prisons are disgracefully overcrowded. Most of us in criminal practice acknowledge that a judge’s assessment of whether or not to impose custody might be marginally different if he or she knew that there were plenty of places available to send them too. And if you want someone to blame for prison funding cuts, look no further than the government. Plus, many offenders know that for one reason or another their crime will never be detected (by an underfunded police service), or prosecuted (by an underfunded CPS and court system). Guess who is also responsible for allocating funds to those two services?

On your final question: this strikes me as a horribly slippery slope, particularly when you have (as the US do) political appointees in the final court of appeal. That’s not something I would want for this country personally.
I think the primary goal of the justice system is to Punish Criminals. Whilst there may be other considerations that should be the primary focus. I do not believe it is or should be the job of the justice system to be social workers. Nor does it have (or will have) the budget or resources to be.

It is a point of fact that if a criminal is in prison (or executed) they are incapable of commiting crimes on the public. Nonces, rapists and murderers should never be let out.

I also think there is also a strong societal need for the public to see or at least know criminals get punished.

I think one option would be for criminals to choose between getting a light prison sentence or getting flogged.
0
reply
legalhelp
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#30
Report 4 weeks ago
#30
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
I think the primary goal of the justice system is to Punish Criminals. Whilst there may be other considerations that should be the primary focus. I do not believe it is or should be the job of the justice system to be social workers. Nor does it have (or will have) the budget or resources to be.

It is a point of fact that if a criminal is in prison (or executed) they are incapable of commiting crimes on the public. Nonces, rapists and murderers should never be let out.

I also think there is also a strong societal need for the public to see or at least know criminals get punished.

I think one option would be for criminals to choose between getting a light prison sentence or getting flogged.
I think we will struggle to see eye to eye if you are seriously advocating for flogging as a form of punishment in a civilised society. That’s barbaric.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#31
Report 4 weeks ago
#31
(Original post by legalhelp)
I think we will struggle to see eye to eye if you are seriously advocating for flogging as a form of punishment in a civilised society. That’s barbaric.
Meh, don't be so precious. Most people would choose flogging over incarceration for a number of months or year. Prison isn't ideal and has potentially far more damaging results than minor bodily harm.

A professor of criminology and former police officer wrote a book on it if you're interested:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lZYm_YVvruA
0
reply
legalhelp
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#32
Report 4 weeks ago
#32
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Meh, don't be so precious. Most people would choose flogging over incarceration for a number of months or year. Prison isn't ideal and has potentially far more damaging results than minor bodily harm.

A professor of criminology and former police officer wrote a book on it if you're interested:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lZYm_YVvruA
I’m certainly not precious. I prosecute all the time, and I’d venture to say I have more knowledge and experience of dealing with offenders than you do. I just think it’s a stupid idea, as well as being morally and socially backward. Why would we want to offer something that, by your own admission, many offenders would prefer to do than spend time in custody? What possible additional deterrent effect could that have on either that offender, or other potential future offenders?
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#33
Report 4 weeks ago
#33
(Original post by legalhelp)
I’m certainly not precious. I prosecute all the time, and I’d venture to say I have more knowledge and experience of dealing with offenders than you do. I just think it’s a stupid idea, as well as being morally and socially backward. Why would we want to offer something that, by your own admission, many offenders would prefer to do than spend time in custody? What possible additional deterrent effect could that have on either that offender, or other potential future offenders?
Well for one thing it's a much cheaper alternative than bunging some young hoodlum into prison:

-He gets punished.
-He may be deterred from doing it again
-He won't associate with worse criminals in prison.
-He can get on with his life.
-The public are happy he got punished.
-The state saves a fortune.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#34
Report 4 weeks ago
#34
(Original post by Billy Butlins)
Here we go again... Whilst I think it is wrong that a young woman was forced upon by a pervert, who wrongfully spared jail, I think all men will pay the price for this crime.
In what way exactly?
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#35
Report 4 weeks ago
#35
(Original post by legalhelp)
I think we will struggle to see eye to eye if you are seriously advocating for flogging as a form of punishment in a civilised society. That’s barbaric.
Compared to what goes on in Britains jails, and the jails in general, it seems fairly innocuous to be honest :lol: then again, it rather depends on what one considers barbaric. One personally doesnt care that much for corporal punishment as opposed to state executions.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (145)
4.88%
Uncertainty around my education (438)
14.73%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (334)
11.23%
Lack of purpose or motivation (414)
13.93%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (139)
4.68%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (180)
6.05%
Loneliness (255)
8.58%
Financial worries (109)
3.67%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (121)
4.07%
Exposure to negative news/social media (135)
4.54%
Lack of real life entertainment (161)
5.42%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (261)
8.78%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (281)
9.45%

Watched Threads

View All