lcfc_jme Posted 4 September 2006 Posted 4 September 2006 As I was doing in the other thread (about the pedo and the 11 year old), I'll just again state that the way the law works in this country encourages people to plead guilty, make an appeal, show "remorse" (even if it is an act) for their actions, and behave like a "changed person" whilst inside. This all adds up to an early release, usually after serving a third or less of the actual sentence. Pathetic.
Stuliasz Posted 4 September 2006 Posted 4 September 2006 What a joke. The victim's family's lives have been changed forever and he gets four bloody months. If I ever see him in Sheff I'll knock his lights out
Head Honcho Posted 4 September 2006 Author Posted 4 September 2006 What a joke. The victim's family's lives have been changed forever and he gets four bloody months. If I ever see him in Sheff I'll knock his lights out
lcfc_jme Posted 4 September 2006 Posted 4 September 2006 What a joke. The victim's family's lives have been changed forever and he gets four bloody months. If I ever see him in Sheff I'll knock his lights out Love to see you try .. Maybe in a group??
Daggers Posted 4 September 2006 Posted 4 September 2006 It's high time that 15 months meant fifteen damn months!
lcfc_jme Posted 4 September 2006 Posted 4 September 2006 It's high time that 15 months meant fifteen damn months! Not looking to get involved in another legal debate with you in this thread DB, but criminals are having it easy in terms of sentencing and getting out in this country under current rules and laws. Like I said, if a criminal is well-behaved, shows a bit of compassion and remorse (even though it won't bring the family justice, satisfaction or the deceased back from the dead) and they promise to change, they are set free early, usually after serving between a third to half of their sentences (on some occasions, this is less).
Daggers Posted 4 September 2006 Posted 4 September 2006 Not looking to get involved in another legal debate with you in this thread DB, but criminals are having it easy in terms of sentencing and getting out in this country under current rules and laws. Like I said, if a criminal is well-behaved, shows a bit of compassion and remorse (even though it won't bring the family justice, satisfaction or the deceased back from the dead) and they promise to change, they are set free early, usually after serving between a third to half of their sentences (on some occasions, this is less). Yup. I haven't heard any interviews with those who are close to this matter, but I can imagine there would be a number of very angry people tonight. Hammed was given a sentence...and our approach to how sentences are carried out are simply too lenient. I don't see why parole should exist; if you were guilty enough to receive a period of incarceration then that is what should happen unless you win an appeal in the courts.
lcfc_jme Posted 4 September 2006 Posted 4 September 2006 Yup. I haven't heard any interviews with those who are close to this matter, but I can imagine there would be a number of very angry people tonight. Hammed was given a sentence...and our approach to how sentences are carried out are simply too lenient. I don't see why parole should exist; if you were guilty enough to receive a period of incarceration then that is what should happen unless you win an appeal in the courts. I'm glad you agree with me, and I agree with you up until a certain point in that statement (the part I have highlighted). The laws are far too lenient as you said, and it is extremely easy to win an appeal in court, either having sentences greatly reduced or actually scrapped altogether. If you are saying sentences should be served out unless the appeal courts overturn them, shouldn't we make it a lot harder for criminals to win appeals? That way more sentences would run their course, and criminals would stop feeling the legal-system is friendly towards them. I think this would also act as a deterrent to criminals, and give a lot of faith back to the public in regard to the legal-system.
Daggers Posted 4 September 2006 Posted 4 September 2006 shouldn't we make it a lot harder for criminals to win appeals? I'm not sure where you're going with this; are you after some kind of Shawshank Redemption where everyone sentence has to serve out the full sentence regardless of their actual guilt? An appeal is won by someone who was innocent/should not have been found guilty due to a miscarriage of justice through evidence tampering, lab mistakes, perjury etc etc.
lcfc_jme Posted 4 September 2006 Posted 4 September 2006 I'm not sure where you're going with this; are you after some kind of Shawshank Redemption where everyone sentence has to serve out the full sentence regardless of their actual guilt? An appeal is won by someone who was innocent/should not have been found guilty due to a miscarriage of justice through evidence tampering, lab mistakes, perjury etc etc. Not after anything like that and this is heading where I didn't want it to - another legal debate between somebody about to study law at college, and somebody a lot older with a lot more life-experience. From what I can gather, an appeal is also won by somebody if, when the appeal is heard, a jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict (say 50-50) despite the evidence not having been tampered with at all, even when the original jury were in unanimous agreement.
Daggers Posted 5 September 2006 Posted 5 September 2006 Not after anything like that and this is heading where I didn't want it to - another legal debate between somebody about to study law at college, and somebody a lot older with a lot more life-experience. From what I can gather, an appeal is also won by somebody if, when the appeal is heard, a jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict (say 50-50) despite the evidence not having been tampered with at all, even when the original jury were in unanimous agreement. To my knowledge, if a jury fails to find the case proven 10-2 then Joe Public walks away as innocent as a baby lamb being led by Bo Peep...if the jury were unanimous then Joe Public would've been found guilty. If the jury can not agree then it can be put up as a retrial - but this is not an appeal. And as for the somebody a lot older bit ~ you cheeky little whippersnapper, I still have all my bloody teeth
golden gordon Posted 5 September 2006 Posted 5 September 2006 To my knowledge, if a jury fails to find the case proven 10-2 then Joe Public walks away as innocent as a baby lamb being led by Bo Peep...if the jury were unanimous then Joe Public would've been found guilty. If the jury can not agree then it can be put up as a retrial - but this is not an appeal. And as for the somebody a lot older bit ~ you cheeky little whippersnapper, I still have all my bloody teeth see a dentist asap , it could be pyorreah
Daggers Posted 5 September 2006 Posted 5 September 2006 it could be pyorreah ...but I've never sat on a dirty public toilet seat
golden gordon Posted 5 September 2006 Posted 5 September 2006 ...but I've never sat on a dirty public toilet seat you must have been chewing one then
Daggers Posted 5 September 2006 Posted 5 September 2006 you must have been chewing one then My name isn't George Michael
davieG Posted 5 September 2006 Posted 5 September 2006 I'm not sure where you're going with this; are you after some kind of Shawshank Redemption where everyone sentence has to serve out the full sentence regardless of their actual guilt? An appeal is won by someone who was innocent/should not have been found guilty due to a miscarriage of justice through evidence tampering, lab mistakes, perjury etc etc. Or some spurious technicality, like they forgot to offer the accused a cup of tea.
Daggers Posted 5 September 2006 Posted 5 September 2006 Or some spurious technicality, like they forgot to offer the accused a cup of tea. The police know the rules, and if we can't rely on them to follow the rules then we may as well have anarchy. If they mess up then you can not hold store by anything else they are presenting to the court. The CPS on the other hand... ...I have NEVER met such a bunch of incompetent ****nuts. Apologies to anyone on the list that works for the Crown Prosecution Service. In my experience it is they that hold the blame for guilty people being allowed to walk free - twice I have been assaulted and both times the bad'un walked from court because the case was thrown out due to an administrative cockup, and the same thing happened to my Dad after he'd been the victim of an armed robbery.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.