Sentencing

I

IliketoLMFAO:D

New member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Why do we think criminals often seem to get sentences that don't reflect what the public thinks is a suitable punishment?
This for example.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21499501

I'd have no qualms about putting that idiot in prison forever.
10 years?! Probably out in 5-7 years?
Does that seem right?

While I'm not critcising the justice system as a whole I often read stories and think "Well I'd have given him MUCH longer in prison than that".

Why isn't sentencing subject to some sort of public vote on suitability?
Not on individual cases but on types of crime?
 
I agree that tool should have gotten longer,

We got public outrage over here at the moment where a driver (i think he was a drunk driver but I may be wrong) mounted a curb and hit a mother and her young daughter, the kid was badly injured and the mum got brain damage yet the driver only got 50hrs community service.
 
As often as not prior caselaw, coupled with idiosyncracies of the individual case, will dictate the sentence

The whole system needs an overhaul to be blunt
 
I'm a very firm believer in the ideal that the justice system should be above emotional, knee jerk reactions and should be based on the harm/damage done. Not trying to satisfy base human desires for revenge basically. I also don't agree with retribution based justice over rehab etc. Those two things together normally make me disagree with most of the claims I hear about the court system being weak.

That story is a bit of a weirder one and I don't really agree with a ten year sentence. However I would say that to me he seems like an idiot, not an actual intended killer.


Because people are stupid and that multiples ludicrous amounts the more people are involved at any one time. My point at the start of the post is why I'm staunchly opposed to that idea. I've heard so many "if I was in charge I would of given him X mutilation punishment or let group Y of people do what they want to them" points for me to have any faith that that's a good idea.
 
I think it's about right. There was no intent to hurt anyone. Yes it was stupid, and he deserves to be jailed, but I think you have to consider the lack of intent (and the fact he seriously injured himself) in the sentencing.
 
Not sure where my book is to check (and I was only a gcse law student anyway) but I remember being told once that those cases come under a traffic law case and are seperate from normal murder ones?
 
I agree with Lefty. Although he killed a child with his stupid actions you have to make an obvious distinction between what he did and cold blooded murder. Maybe that should be raised?
Don't think he's going to have a nice time regardless
 
Please allow me to spell it out;

L.A.W.Y.E.R.


There is a fine line between manslaughter and murder

Even drunk drivers are charged with vehicular manslaughter or vehicular homicide.

You cant stop crazy, no gun, but something else will be used
 
Actually here the sentences for dangerous driving (and drunk driving) are much stiffer than that. I can't see that a similar case here wouldn't have involved a custodial sentence, even if it was suspended.
 
I'm gonna go ahead and play devils advocate here, because a couple of points didn't sit well with me. None of this is to say that I think people blowing stuff up is a good thing, merely that I don't 100% agree with the conclusions drawn.



You'd really start handing out lifetime sentences to people for being idiots? I agree that what happened is a tragedy and shouldn't be encouraged, but we're talking about a fairly significant portion of this mans life for an idiotic mistake. 10 years in any correctional facility is a very, very long time. The guy is obviously mentally unsound, he needs to be monitored for sure, but in a clinical setting.



You can't really think that's a good idea? We'd have lynchings back in a flash. The public is excitable, and the next time some moron accidentally killed a kid in a drunk driving accident or something he'd be hanged. Leaving these kinds of decisions to the public is a bad idea.

Edit: Beaten to the punch.
 
The real issue with sentencing in this country is that people who mug old ladies or commit burglary go free whereas single mums who don't pay their TV license get 6 months, and stealing a pair of trainers from Footlocker during a riot (or indeed talking about rioting on Facebook) gets you 3-5 years.
 
Absolutely. Britain has far too many of the "string 'em up brigade" for my liking.
I'm fully with you on that.
BUT...I think there should still be some sort of link with public perception on what is the right sort of sentencing.
I'm not suggesting we bring back birching and the right to retribution.
Just that the sentence accurately reflect the harm done and what that tells us about the criminal.



The fact he was injured should have no bearing at all on the sentence.
Why should it?
If I break my hand punching someone in the face unprovoked I wouldn't expect to get time off.
 
10 years (it will be less than that) really isn't that long. Not wishing to play the age card but when you're nearer to 40 than 20 (like me) you'll realise that 10 years can go past in a flash.
That's not a significant time for depriving a family of their child.
And it wasn't an idiotic mistake either. It was an entirely foreseeable outcome of his actions. It's not like he pressed the wrong button or lost concentration for a second. He cut the gas pipes and lit a cigarette.

But perhaps I didn't use the best example to open this thread. That is an odd case.
But my point still stands. There's often a public feeling that sentences aren't long enough.
I bet if we did a survey and disregarded the extreme outliers (hang 'em for shop lifting or give 'em a nice cup of tea for murder) you'd get a consensus on what was "right" for particular crimes.
A sort of guide for what was right that judges could use when sentencing perhaps?
 
Perfect statement from the link;

"You were aware of the risk but you chose unreasonably to take that risk,"
 
He cut the gas pipe while drunk the night before, then when he woke up turned the gas off and opened the windows. An unspecified time later he lit a cigarette.
I'd say 6 or 7 years in prison as a child killer will seem like a very long time.
 
Judges already have sentencing guidelines, they're routinely ignored. Remember the "carrying a knife will automatically put you in jail" promise?
Like I say, lack of consistency or reason is a big problem. Pushing a custard pie into Rupert Murdoch's face gets you time inside (should get you the BEM as far as I'm concerned) whereas punching an old lady and running off with her life savings gets you 200 hours community service.
We also have the "easier to secure a conviction" issue with the CPS. A friend of mine was stabbed in the chest by his girlfriend's ex 9 years ago. The guys WASN'T prosecuted for attempted murder, instead for something like malicious wounding with intent. Got 7 years, out in 4.
 
So how do sentences get reviewed or arrived at?
Why don't we keep more people in prison forever?

I mean...the guy that got killed in this story got 23 years for beating a 2 year old child to death.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-21506946

Why didn't he get put away forever? Why only 23 years?
Realistically someone that broken is always going to be a danger.
 
I'd like to see it as some sort of study becasue it'd be an interesting thing to see and compare the different groups and their answers. Giving it actual weight though? I dunno. Maybe I'm narrow minded but when poeple can't vote once every 5 years in an intelligent way, if at all, I don't really trust them to sit down and have a rational thinking session about how they feel about different crimes. They'd mostly be variations on "he's a criminal. Screw that guy!"


I came back to post about the time thing but looking at your post maybe its because I'm young that a ten year prison sentence still terrifies me.


Aware this makes me a terrible person but I think there could be an interesting (if impossible to control) debate about whether robbing a 2 year olds potential life is more damaging than taking someone's 30 actual years.


The ways its reported makes it sound like he was an idiot who didn't connect the two. I'd also add that someone who sends a text threatening to kill everyone because their girlfriend broke up with them is a more aggressive version of someone threatening suicide: If you meant it you would've just done it. Not sure its a cry for help like it would be if it was a suicide threat, but its certianly a sign to me that the dude isn't all there.


I believe you would. The point for debate however is the weight you should apply to that. Isn't the most popular reason for the creation of government in the first place being that left to self rule people are rather terrible?
 
As it should. It's half your life.
But it's only a quarter of mine and I can barely remember the last 10 years (that's a slight exaggeration of course...I can remember some of it).
 
He got life with a minimum tariff of 23 years. He may well have spent the rest of his life in prison (indeed he did).
 
Back
Top