Rightly or wrongly they might take his age into account for shorter sentence?
Sentencing
- Thread starter joe-90
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
Everything I've said is in the public domain. They'd have to sue all the newspapers first. Get over it. 
My comments are in regard to the lenient sentencing of one individual compared to another. If you think that's defamatory, you really need to make a clearer study of english law.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...million-home-handed-wife-protect-fortune.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...used-of-dodging-payout-for-abuse-victims.html
www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/04/stuart-hall-home
My comments are in regard to the lenient sentencing of one individual compared to another. If you think that's defamatory, you really need to make a clearer study of english law.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...million-home-handed-wife-protect-fortune.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...used-of-dodging-payout-for-abuse-victims.html
www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/04/stuart-hall-home
"You get thirty years for robbing a train. You get ten for murder now that's insane." (Labi Siffre)
There's nothing new about inconsistent sentencing. It's a feature of our legal system that judges have a lot of freedom over sentencing. For what it's worth, the shortest sentence for murder that I can remember was handed down to a pair of teenage thugs who tortured their grandmother to death for her pension money. They got six months each.
If you don't like it, get yourself elected to Parliament and put in a private member's bill.
There's nothing new about inconsistent sentencing. It's a feature of our legal system that judges have a lot of freedom over sentencing. For what it's worth, the shortest sentence for murder that I can remember was handed down to a pair of teenage thugs who tortured their grandmother to death for her pension money. They got six months each.
If you don't like it, get yourself elected to Parliament and put in a private member's bill.
N
Newboy
OK - let's try again!
First my view of Hall and Souter - both the scum of the earth who have committed appalling offences against children and should be castrated and jailed for life.
Joe's view of Souter's offences is "fumbling a few boys" - the official view is "one of the worst cases of prolonged child abuse" they had investigated - indecent assault, indecency with a child, serious sexual offences and seven counts of possessing indecent images of children.
Hall was found guilty of 14 indecent assaults. He has subsequently been charged with far more serious offences and is due to face trial early in November. In the event that he is found guilty then I suspect that he will receive and additional and very lengthy sentence (hopefully in a prison where child abusers face a very different kind of justice!).
Your comments about the different sentences are flawed - the two individuals were found guilty of very different offences.
A few basics of English Law
Innocent until proven guilty
Suspected - information suggesting that an offence may have been committed.
Arrested - formally cautioned and investigated regarding a suspected offence.
Charged - In the view of the prosecutor, there is sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant committed the offence.
Convicted - Following presentation of the evidence, your peers find that you committed the offence.
Sadly Joe, you don't seem to be able to grasp the difference between the various stages.
You are not repeating what is in the public domain - you are assuming that anybody arrested is guilty of the charge.
The danger with your viewpoint is that you assume guilt without access to the facts - try looking up a few cases of people jumping to conclusions and the consequences of their actions.
First my view of Hall and Souter - both the scum of the earth who have committed appalling offences against children and should be castrated and jailed for life.
Joe's view of Souter's offences is "fumbling a few boys" - the official view is "one of the worst cases of prolonged child abuse" they had investigated - indecent assault, indecency with a child, serious sexual offences and seven counts of possessing indecent images of children.
Hall was found guilty of 14 indecent assaults. He has subsequently been charged with far more serious offences and is due to face trial early in November. In the event that he is found guilty then I suspect that he will receive and additional and very lengthy sentence (hopefully in a prison where child abusers face a very different kind of justice!).
Your comments about the different sentences are flawed - the two individuals were found guilty of very different offences.
A few basics of English Law
Innocent until proven guilty
Suspected - information suggesting that an offence may have been committed.
Arrested - formally cautioned and investigated regarding a suspected offence.
Charged - In the view of the prosecutor, there is sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant committed the offence.
Convicted - Following presentation of the evidence, your peers find that you committed the offence.
Sadly Joe, you don't seem to be able to grasp the difference between the various stages.
You are not repeating what is in the public domain - you are assuming that anybody arrested is guilty of the charge.
The danger with your viewpoint is that you assume guilt without access to the facts - try looking up a few cases of people jumping to conclusions and the consequences of their actions.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 43,851
- Reaction score
- 2,867
- Country
The real irony is joe, that you are claiming I will get sued for saying what I said about Philpott yet you think you're in no danger of being sued because what you quoted was "in the public domain".
Where do you think I got the story about the ALLEGED (there's that magic word again, joe) rapes from, joe??
Where do you think I got the story about the ALLEGED (there's that magic word again, joe) rapes from, joe??
OBJECTION ! M'lud.
That's not strictly true.
Persons suspected, arrested and charged with a serious offence, CAN be imprisoned without a trial and subsequent verdict.
Remand.
Aye, and if they spend a year in remand, this is knocked off the bloody "lenient" sentencing imposed by the courts. Sentenced to 7yrs? Get a year off for the year spent on remand, then get out of prison when you've served half the sentence. Is it not about time courts when sentencing some of these scumbags said "I sentence you to 7 years,,,, and 7 years means just that ? "
Why not double the sentence in the first place if they're getting out halfway though ?
Jock, I'm a hang 'em high kind of bloke.
I was merely pointing out the term 'Innocent until proven guilty' is not strictly a definitive one.
Hang 'em all for all I care.
LMB, I'm of a similar view. I just can't understand the sentencing guidelines, used by the judiciary. It seems to me that the lawmakers, are getting soft on the scum, perpetrating crime in this country. Not only do they hand out punitive sentences, but even give out "suspended sentences" ?? Why give someone 18 months in prison, then immediately suspend it for a year ? Surely an 18 month suspended sentence deserves an 18 month suspension as a minimum?
(Only suspended sentence I'd give the beggars would be a long drop from a short rope)
(Only suspended sentence I'd give the beggars would be a long drop from a short rope)
It's true. Sentencing is a bit of a lottery in this country. So often we hear of relatively serious crimes leading to very lenient sentences.
Criminals laugh at the courts these days. I know; I've heard them bragging about it in the pub.
I reckon the police must be pretty fed up with going to great lengths to capture offenders and then collect enough evidence to stand a chance of conviction only to see the criminal, even when found guilty, leave the court with a big smile on his face.
I suppose that one reason for this ridiculous state of affairs has to be the lack of sufficient prison cells.
There is a very simple answer that I have mentioned before, so I won't bore everyone again!
Criminals laugh at the courts these days. I know; I've heard them bragging about it in the pub.
I reckon the police must be pretty fed up with going to great lengths to capture offenders and then collect enough evidence to stand a chance of conviction only to see the criminal, even when found guilty, leave the court with a big smile on his face.
I suppose that one reason for this ridiculous state of affairs has to be the lack of sufficient prison cells.
There is a very simple answer that I have mentioned before, so I won't bore everyone again!
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
What alleged rapes are those? The ones filling left and right wing newspapers?
Oh THOSE rapes. Yes. Those ones.
N
Newboy
Well there's nothing like a well reasoned and measured argument!
But you can always resort to the five year old child approach if that fails!
But you can always resort to the five year old child approach if that fails!
Sponsored Links
