Sentencing Guidelines

[Tezcatlipoca]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/21/law.ukcrime

Originally Posted by The Guardian

# Clare Dyer, legal editor
# The Guardian,
# Thursday February 21 2008

So-called "happy slappers" who attack vulnerable victims and film the assaults should get stiffer sentences than they would for an unrecorded attack, the body which advises judges on sentencing decisions said yesterday. Their sentences should be even tougher if they humiliate the victim further by posting the images on the internet, the Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC) said in its guidance on sentencing for assaults.

Acting in gangs, carrying a weapon, being under the influence of drink or drugs, targeting vulnerable victims such as elderly or disabled people, and attacking in an isolated place are all aggravating factors which should increase the sentence.

The council, chaired by the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, said injuries inflicted in connection with an attempted honour killing or forced marriage should also carry heavier penalties, because they involve an abuse of a position of trust. Attacks on firefighters, nurses or others in the public sector or providing a service to the public will also merit stiff sentences.

(snip)

[Derek]

So they now get a finger wagging as well as the telling off?

Attacks on firefighters, nurses or others in the public sector or providing a service to the public will also merit stiff sentences

Good. Getting a conviction under the Emergency Workers Act is one of the few ways to virtually guarantee a spell in pokey. Hopefully the Police will get the same cover although seeing most of the legal authorities seem to think we should put up with a certain amount of verbal and physical abuse doing our jobs I'm not holding my breath.
I've seen someone walk away from court after being admonished for kicking an Inspector in the jaw during a gang fight recently.

[BBKing]

That wouldn't be the same Lord Phillips who's regularly traduced as soft on crime?

The SGC is a Blunkett idea to move power over sentencing from the judiciary to political appointees (including a mixture of judges, policemen and various other worthies) - generally they've tended to up the tariffs, which was the point. Unfortunately, he forgot that if you increase jail terms it might be wise to consider the effect on prison numbers. Also, none of the frothing string-em-up loons noticed, which since it was done for their benefit*, is a pity.

* As opposed to the benefit of, say, society as a whole, which would benefit from a justice system that produces fewer criminals.

Any attack on emergency services personnel should have a minimum 5 year sentence end of story. Some of the best people in this country shouldn't have to worry about being attacked while they are out and about serving their communities by mindless morons of which we seem to have plenty.

[BBKing]

Any attack on emergency services personnel should have a minimum 5 year sentence end of story.

Any? Verbal abuse (which can class as assault)? Off duty rumble in a pub, maybe normally a fine or a caution but the other chap was a paramedic, so that's five years, mate, if we can find a cell.

Hard cases make bad law. Which isn't to say that deliberate assaults on emergency responders shouldn't attract strong sentences, just that it needs proper definition, possibly as an aggravating factor like racial or homophobic assaults.

I really should know by now to be totally specific. i don't count verbal abuse as an attack i count a physical interaction as an attack be it a punch a brick or any other implement. No of course it does not apply to off-duty personnel that would be totally stupid. If someone attacks a member of the emergency services while in the execution of their duty as an emergency services member they should be subject to a 5 year minimum sentence for that. I think you know exactly what i meant but i know you never pass an oppurtunity to make a point BB no matter how slender.