The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)

[etccarmageddon]

and if you're in the process of trying to evade the police you get a KFC!

all the wrong signals are being sent out these days re sentencing and the softly softly approach.

[BBKing]

the softly softly approach.

Which, for the nth time, is a complete myth. Perhaps you can enlighten me where you get it from.

Let's see who gets the kneejerk no research award in this thread:

Salu kicks us off with "whereas we give them 5 years in a jail", which is untrue.
unlimited ducks out of it with "Here we give them holidays and perks and a slapped wrist if there really bad", which is untrue.

And now the smart guy awards for being switched on:
Xaccers, with "Notice how Labour (who introduced the guidlines) are trying to blame the judges!", which is perfectly true.
carlingman is spot on too, good work fella.
luvclub makes some good points, but although you correctly quote Article 2 of the ECHR, we've also signed up to Protocol 13 which abolishes the death penalty in all cases. It's worth noting that Sweeney wouldn't have been hanged for his offences since at least 1861, when the capital crimes were reduced to four (chocolate biscuit to anyone who knows them without cheating).

Special award of a nice lie down and a cup of Horlicks for budwieser who thinks that "all the judges who should be incarcerated". Why will this help, exactly? See Xaccers' point above.

Right. Fact time. The changes introduced by Labour since 2003 were a kneejerk response to the last 'lenient-judges-put-perverts-on-our-streets' campaign by the News of the World in 2001. Prior to this, judges in the Court of Appeal set the sentencing guidelines and judges had a bit more discretion. However, prior to this the Tories had knocked a big whole in the concept of 'life' sentences by introducing two-strikes-and-you-must-get-life for things like GBH, for which a shortish sentence (5-10 years perhaps) is adequate and judges should be allowed discretion. So the problem stems back to Michael Howard and, yes, another tabloid campaign. Spot the trend?

As a result of Howard's idiocy judges now had to give life for offence that patently didn't warrant it, and set out what they actually wanted in the tariff. This results in 'lifers' getting parole at the point they probably would have done anyway, or possibly slightly later. This has come home to roost in the '53 lifers out since 2000' non-story. I think it's too late for 'life' sentences, which are now so muddled that you've got to rename them, which is the suggestion of the highly impressive Lib Dem Home geezer Nick Clegg, who's impressed me recently.

Back to sentencing guidelines. Having been scared into action by the tabloids, the ghastly garden gnome Blunkett (who's a friend of the Sun's editor) sought some better headlines with the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which took over the sentencing guidelines from judges and put them in the hands of a quango of academics, ex-judges, policemen, prosecutors and various others (check them out on their website) *directly appointed* by Cabinet ministers (mostly the Lord Chancellor, but five are directly appointed by the Home Secretary, which he probably doesn't want anyone to notice, particulary since they include victims' groups already*). These people then issued the guidance for the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, which is what was used in the Sweeney case. Judges have been effectively cut out of the sentencing loop already *because* of a tabloid campaign, so the Sun blaming them now is nonsensical and highly irresponsible, as well as being an outright lie - the current system was partly brought about by their pressure.

Other facts - average sentence served by a lifer is 14 years, more than it was ten years ago, which presumably includes the aforementioned lifers who should be given normal custodial sentences, so criminals who deserve life are definitely serving a lot longer. The softer bits of the CJA 2003 have been postponed indefinitely (custodyplus) while the hard bits are already implemented. Really, anyone who still believes we're in any way soft on serious criminals is living in a pink fluffy cloud on Venus.

It seems to me that there's only one conclusion: however draconian and non-discretionary sentencing policy is made, the tabloids still won't be appeased, therefore we have to quietly tell them to go f*ck themselves and sort things out sensibly and professionally. This means getting politicians out of the loop and letting judges judge again. If the tabloids start it up again, we need brave men and women to point out their stupidity, ignorance and lies. This is unlikely at present owing to the absurd and undemocratic hold Murdoch has over the Blair government, which he can effectively bring down when he wants by swinging the Sun behind Cameron (he's already hinting at this), plus the evident incompetence and power-craze of the Home Office, which needs reform and preferably splitting into more manageable chunks with Cabinet level ministers in charge of justice (that's the Tories' idea, and one which Blunkett vetoed back in 2001 in favour of running the lot himself, which he proceeded to do very badly).

Overcrowding? It's getting worse and worse, mainly because of people being jailed for petty offences who previously wouldn't have been and probably shouldn't be there. There's always enough room for lifers, who are a relatively small part of the population.

* "Teresa Reynolds is Head of Policy at Victim Support where she has worked since 1990. In her role, she is responsible for developing policy and promoting the interests of victims and witnesses of crime in criminal justice and social policy. Teresa is the co-author of The Rights of Victims of Crime and has since worked successfully to see it adopted by the Government through the Victimââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s Charter and subsequent developments." - SGC website.

[SlackDad]

Fantastic post BBKing

[Salu]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Which, for the nth time, is a complete myth. Perhaps you can enlighten me where you get it from.

Let's see who gets the kneejerk no research award in this thread:

Salu kicks us off with "whereas we give them 5 years in a jail", which is untrue.
unlimited ducks out of it with "Here we give them holidays and perks and a slapped wrist if there really bad", which is untrue.

And now the smart guy awards for being switched on:
Xaccers, with "Notice how Labour (who introduced the guidlines) are trying to blame the judges!", which is perfectly true.
carlingman is spot on too, good work fella.
luvclub makes some good points, but although you correctly quote Article 2 of the ECHR, we've also signed up to Protocol 13 which abolishes the death penalty in all cases. It's worth noting that Sweeney wouldn't have been hanged for his offences since at least 1861, when the capital crimes were reduced to four (chocolate biscuit to anyone who knows them without cheating).

Special award of a nice lie down and a cup of Horlicks for budwieser who thinks that "all the judges who should be incarcerated". Why will this help, exactly? See Xaccers' point above.

Right. Fact time. The changes introduced by Labour since 2003 were a kneejerk response to the last 'lenient-judges-put-perverts-on-our-streets' campaign by the News of the World in 2001. Prior to this, judges in the Court of Appeal set the sentencing guidelines and judges had a bit more discretion. However, prior to this the Tories had knocked a big whole in the concept of 'life' sentences by introducing two-strikes-and-you-must-get-life for things like GBH, for which a shortish sentence (5-10 years perhaps) is adequate and judges should be allowed discretion. So the problem stems back to Michael Howard and, yes, another tabloid campaign. Spot the trend?

As a result of Howard's idiocy judges now had to give life for offence that patently didn't warrant it, and set out what they actually wanted in the tariff. This results in 'lifers' getting parole at the point they probably would have done anyway, or possibly slightly later. This has come home to roost in the '53 lifers out since 2000' non-story. I think it's too late for 'life' sentences, which are now so muddled that you've got to rename them, which is the suggestion of the highly impressive Lib Dem Home geezer Nick Clegg, who's impressed me recently.

Back to sentencing guidelines. Having been scared into action by the tabloids, the ghastly garden gnome Blunkett (who's a friend of the Sun's editor) sought some better headlines with the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which took over the sentencing guidelines from judges and put them in the hands of a quango of academics, ex-judges, policemen, prosecutors and various others (check them out on their website) *directly appointed* by Cabinet ministers (mostly the Lord Chancellor, but five are directly appointed by the Home Secretary, which he probably doesn't want anyone to notice, particulary since they include victims' groups already*). These people then issued the guidance for the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, which is what was used in the Sweeney case. Judges have been effectively cut out of the sentencing loop already *because* of a tabloid campaign, so the Sun blaming them now is nonsensical and highly irresponsible, as well as being an outright lie - the current system was partly brought about by their pressure.

Other facts - average sentence served by a lifer is 14 years, more than it was ten years ago, which presumably includes the aforementioned lifers who should be given normal custodial sentences, so criminals who deserve life are definitely serving a lot longer. The softer bits of the CJA 2003 have been postponed indefinitely (custodyplus) while the hard bits are already implemented. Really, anyone who still believes we're in any way soft on serious criminals is living in a pink fluffy cloud on Venus.

It seems to me that there's only one conclusion: however draconian and non-discretionary sentencing policy is made, the tabloids still won't be appeased, therefore we have to quietly tell them to go f*ck themselves and sort things out sensibly and professionally. This means getting politicians out of the loop and letting judges judge again. If the tabloids start it up again, we need brave men and women to point out their stupidity, ignorance and lies. This is unlikely at present owing to the absurd and undemocratic hold Murdoch has over the Blair government, which he can effectively bring down when he wants by swinging the Sun behind Cameron (he's already hinting at this), plus the evident incompetence and power-craze of the Home Office, which needs reform and preferably splitting into more manageable chunks with Cabinet level ministers in charge of justice (that's the Tories' idea, and one which Blunkett vetoed back in 2001 in favour of running the lot himself, which he proceeded to do very badly).

Overcrowding? It's getting worse and worse, mainly because of people being jailed for petty offences who previously wouldn't have been and probably shouldn't be there. There's always enough room for lifers, who are a relatively small part of the population.

* "Teresa Reynolds is Head of Policy at Victim Support where she has worked since 1990. In her role, she is responsible for developing policy and promoting the interests of victims and witnesses of crime in criminal justice and social policy. Teresa is the co-author of The Rights of Victims of Crime and has since worked successfully to see it adopted by the Government through the Victimââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s Charter and subsequent developments." - SGC website.

That's all very interesting but do you feel the punishment of these child abusers befits the crime?

Originally Posted by BBKing

Salu kicks us off with "whereas we give them 5 years in a jail", which is untrue.

I was quoting the Independant newspaper. I'm sure they will appreciate being corrected by you.

Originally Posted by Independant Newspaper

Mr Reid made the move just hours after Craig Sweeney, 24, was given a life sentence at Cardiff Crown Court for snatching the girl from her home in Cardiff and sexually assaulting her three times, but was told he must serve a minimum sentence of just five years and 108 days before being considered for parole.

[BBKing]

Does it befit the crime? I have no idea, I wasn't in court and I don't have years of legal training. Neither were the people who drew up the guidelines, which is why I humbly suggest leaving it to the damn judge, that's what we pay him for.

As for the Independent, you've misread them and misunderstood the idea of life sentences with minimum tariffs*. I'd write more, but it would be unfair. Instead, go and read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5086978.stm

I suspect all this is moot.I reckon with all the publicity that he's unlikely to be allowed parole after the minimum period set..I think it will be a lot longer before he achieves parole of any kind as he will be now viewed as being extremely dangerous around children for a very long time.

but I could wrong..I seem to remember a case recently where someone was released by mistake after having their parole deferred.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Does it befit the crime? I have no idea, I wasn't in court and I don't have years of legal training. Neither were the people who drew up the guidelines, which is why I humbly suggest leaving it to the damn judge, that's what we pay him for.

If that was your child that had been horrendously abused, what would your opinion on the length of the sentence, takiung into condsideration that he was only reecently freed after sexually attacking ANOTHER child?

As for the Independent, you've misread them and misunderstood the idea of life sentences with minimum tariffs*. I'd write more, but it would be unfair. Instead, go and read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5086978.stm

He hasn't misread anything - the disgusting pervert COULD BE eligible for parole within 5 years and 3 months. Free to attack another child.

[etccarmageddon]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I suspect all this is moot.I reckon with all the publicity that he's unlikely to be allowed parole after the minimum period set..

I think in 5 years it'll all be forgotten about and he'll be freed and then he may or may not go off and attack/murder or rape another child. I think it's likely he will as I believe this is not something that can be controlled for the rest of his life - at some point he will fail to control the urge if at all he wishes to control it.

[Salu]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Does it befit the crime? I have no idea, I wasn't in court and I don't have years of legal training. Neither were the people who drew up the guidelines, which is why I humbly suggest leaving it to the damn judge, that's what we pay him for.

As for the Independent, you've misread them and misunderstood the idea of life sentences with minimum tariffs*. I'd write more, but it would be unfair. Instead, go and read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5086978.stm

I wasn't asking you for a legal judgement but if you "felt" that the punishment fitted the crime. You seem very capable of giving your opinion on everything else.....

Originally Posted by BBking

As for the Independent, you've misread them and misunderstood the idea of life sentences with minimum tariffs*. I'd write more, but it would be unfair. Instead, go and read this:

I haven't misread anything. You have misread me. I was commenting on that fact that he has recieved 5 years, whether you call it "life" or not it's still a ridiculous punishment for what he has done. I havn't mentioned anything about a life sentence in this thread....

By the way your posting style can come across as very arrogant, hopefully I am misreading it....?

Originally Posted by BBKing

which is why I humbly suggest leaving it to the damn judge, that's what we pay him for.

Then in that case i want my part of his very large wage back as in my opinion he made a complete hash of it. In 5 years time when this man is up for parole how many other young children will have been attacked by pedophiles who have been let out early by our over paid judges who dont know what they are on about half the time. And you can bet the same idiotic judges will be making the same mess ups as this one did in years to come.

---------- Post added at 16:51 ---------- Previous post was at 16:45 ----------

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

I think in 5 years it'll all be forgotten about and he'll be freed and then he may or may not go off and attack/murder or rape another child. I think it's likely he will as I believe this is not something that can be controlled for the rest of his life - at some point he will fail to control the urge if at all he wishes to control it.

well said.

There is no doubt in my mind that this man will be out within 7 years at the most.

[etccarmageddon]

Labour set the guidelines for this - ultimately they're responsible?

[Xaccers]

There are several issues here, the biggest of which is the media's portrayal and the public image of the judicial system, which in many cases is incorrect.

Another issue is the fear that parole boards will release people who they deem fit to return to the general populus, who then go on to commit despicable crimes (although this is rare, once is once too many).

If there was public confidence in parole boards, then the idea of this person being ellegable for parole wouldn't worry people, because they would know that there's no chance of him getting out unless it was safe.

Unfortunately, due to those incorrectly assessed early releases which have lead to deaths, people cannot be certain that this man will not be out in 5 years.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

There are several issues here, the biggest of which is the media's portrayal and the public image of the judicial system, which in many cases is incorrect.

Another issue is the fear that parole boards will release people who they deem fit to return to the general populus, who then go on to commit despicable crimes (although this is rare, once is once too many).

If there was public confidence in parole boards, then the idea of this person being ellegable for parole wouldn't worry people, because they would know that there's no chance of him getting out unless it was safe.

Unfortunately, due to those incorrectly assessed early releases which have lead to deaths, people cannot be certain that this man will not be out in 5 years.

Although I agree with your points Xaccers, unfortunately the parole board, surely, are always going to make an occasional mistake, which may or may not lead to a tragic and highly reported crime. However, does this mean the whole system is necessarily flawed, (with or without public confidence)?

[BBKing]

Couple of interesting quotes have come my way from judgements where the Court of Appeal judges have tried to make sense of the stuff imposed by the Government:

It would be inappropriate to conclude these proceedings without expressing our sympathy with all those sentencers whose decisions have been the subject of appeal to this Court. The fact that, in many cases, the sentencers were unsuccessful in finding their way through the provisions of this Act, which we have already described as labyrinthine, is a criticism not of them but of those who produced these astonishingly complex provisions. Whether now or in the fullness of time the public will benefit from sentencing provisions of such complexity is not for us to say. But it does seem to us that there is much to be said for a sentencing system which is intelligible to the general public as well as decipherable, with difficulty by the judiciary

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2005/2864.html

Today's application takes this Court to a related but different area of this legislation, namely the obligations of a Youth Court when dealing with a potentially dangerous offender. Here the provisions are not merely labyrinthine, they are manifestly inconsistent with each other and we have every sympathy with lay Justices, their clerks and District Judges who are having to grapple with them....

...So, yet again, the courts are faced with a sample of the deeply confusing provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and the satellite Statutory Instruments to which it is giving stuttering birth. The most inviting course for this Court to follow would be for its members, having shaken their heads in despair to hold up their hands and say: "the Holy Grail of rational interpretation is impossible to find". But it is not for us to desert our judicial duty, however lamentably others have legislated. But, we find little comfort or assistance in the historic canons of construction for determining the will of Parliament which were fashioned in a more leisurely age and at a time when elegance and clarity of thought and language were to be found in legislation as a matter of course rather than exception.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2005/2864.html

The second one in particular can be summed up in the football chant 'YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING'.

[Escapee]

The public have the perception that the legal system is a farce, because quite frankly it is. Sure the serious crimes like the one in this thread go to court, and often sentencing is too low for the crime committed.

The less serious crimes however dont seem to get to court, I was in the police station this afternoon making a statement (No, I'm not in trouble) and the police officer agreed that the public in general are fed up of criminals not being persued or dealt with effectively if there is the odd chance they are.

His comment was quite ironic because the reason for my visit was an 8:30am phone call asking if they could have a statement, this was all to do with a crime committed back in April. They didn't appear to bothered to take a statement then, but it appears a few backsides have been kicked into action.

I expect the crime statistics have started to creep up again, so they need a little action to bring the figures down.

I also note in my local rag this week a known sex offender has been jailed for 18 months, they didn't manage to get a conviction for the alleged assault on 2 teenage girls, so they have put him in prison for not providing his new address for the sex offenders register.

He apparently received a five and a half year sentence for ten sex offences with children under the age of 16 in 1997, the offences that he was recently in Court for were claimed to be in 2004. Looking at the dates, it appears he came straight out of prison and moved to this area (from up north) failed to comply by registering his address and committed the alleged offences.

Edit:Corrected mistake