Sentencing (criminal justice system)

[sxturbo]

The justice system makes no sense tbh, it is grossly inconsistent.

An example :

My brother in law (guys a complete tit tbh) when he was 18 slept with a 15 year old, her sister wasn't impressed and shopped him to the cops. Fair enough, he shouldn't have and he did know her age.

He pleaded guilty, got 4 years and no early release, sex offenders list for life. Again this is fine and deserved. Under age is under age.

Yet I have seen pedo's in the news with child porn pictures, videos etc (proper sicko's) get 2 years (after appeal)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...8/paedophile-jailed-outcry-suspended-sentence

 

[durhamplumber]

He pleaded guilty, got 4 years and no early release, sex offenders list for life. Again this is fine and deserved. Under age is under age.

Personally I think it is utter stupidity..If she was not coerced or forced in anyway 18 year old and 15 year old lass does not deserve the lads life utterly turned to shte.A good talking too and a bit of probation should have been the sentence.

 

[sxturbo]

Personally I think it is utter stupidity..If she was not coerced or forced in anyway 18 year old and 15 year old lass does not deserve the lads life utterly turned to shte.A good talking too and a bit of probation should have been the sentence.

In agreement but as I said rules are rules and if sentences were this harsh in general perhaps it would deter people

 

[durhamplumber]

.

 

[durhamplumber]

In agreement but the flip side is that at 18 your considered an adult, and at 15 your a child.

Agreed..the law is an ass...30 years ago the lad would never have ended up any where near a court...Yet the law was the same then.....so now...15and 364 days...Jail.....The next day perfectly legal.

 

[durhamplumber]

The justice system makes no sense tbh, it is grossly inconsistent.

An example :

My brother in law (guys a complete tit tbh) when he was 18 slept with a 15 year old, her sister wasn't impressed and shopped him to the cops. Fair enough, he shouldn't have and he did know her age.

He pleaded guilty, got 4 years and no early release, sex offenders list for life. Again this is fine and deserved. Under age is under age.

Yet I have seen pedo's in the news with child porn pictures, videos etc (proper sicko's) get 2 years (after appeal)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...8/paedophile-jailed-outcry-suspended-sentence

One of my relatives.1977.He was 21.she 14.....she had to have abortion....Bit frowned upon by the families but that was it...The relationship went on for years afterwards.

 

[sxturbo]

One of my relatives.1977.He was 21.she 14.....she had to have abortion....Bit frowned upon by the families but that was it...The relationship went on for years afterwards.

Different times, everyone is a victim these days.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

I suggest you read the secret barrister and his book / posts about how broken the courts and legal system is due to chronic underfunding.

That assumes, as with most loony-left theories, that the current system is the best possible system and that it just needs more money to make it work.

I'll never accept that throwing more money at anything in the public sector creates efficiency. The criminal courts are not working because of the way they do things, because of timewasting legal defences and because of the number of foreign criminals in the country. The police need to have more powers to deal directly with villains (the old "clip round the ear") so that many incidents do not get as far as court. Also, the "three strikes and you're out" rule ought to apply to judges and lawyers as well as to criminals. Any judge / lawyer who repeatedly under-sentences criminals, where those criminals then go on to commit further crimes, should lose their rights to practice. For instance, before Raoul Moat went on his final killing spree, he had been defended and let off for many crimes and should not have been at large.

BIG changes are needed to tackle the crime pandemic. The only time I would support any extra money being used would be for a temporary emergency crime budget in which special powers, i.e. suspension of normal legal procedures, use of preventive custody, use of the army etc., to allow a crackdown to take offenders off the streets. The police and other authorities in any given town in Britain usually know who the criminals are but they cannot currently do anything about it.

 

[JohnD]

Some people, especially on the loony right, cling to the false belief that severity of sentence is a good deterrent.

 

[JohnD]

My brother in law (guys a complete tit tbh) when he was 18 slept with a 15 year old, her sister wasn't impressed and shopped him to the cops. Fair enough, he shouldn't have and he did know her age.

He pleaded guilty, got 4 years and no early release, sex offenders list for life.

Do you know that to be true? Or is that the sanitised version you have been fed?

Were you told that it was consensual?

Were you told it was his first offence?

Was the victim "vulnerable?" Did he use violence, threats, grooming, drugs or alcohol?

 

[SirGalahad]

That assumes, as with most loony-left theories, that the current system is the best possible system and that it just needs more money to make it work.

I'll never accept that throwing more money at anything in the public sector creates efficiency. The criminal courts are not working because of the way they do things, because of timewasting legal defences and because of the number of foreign criminals in the country. The police need to have more powers to deal directly with villains (the old "clip round the ear") so that many incidents do not get as far as court. Also, the "three strikes and you're out" rule ought to apply to judges and lawyers as well as to criminals. Any judge / lawyer who repeatedly under-sentences criminals, where those criminals then go on to commit further crimes, should lose their rights to practice. For instance, before Raoul Moat went on his final killing spree, he had been defended and let off for many crimes and should not have been at large.

BIG changes are needed to tackle the crime pandemic. The only time I would support any extra money being used would be for a temporary emergency crime budget in which special powers, i.e. suspension of normal legal procedures, use of preventive custody, use of the army etc., to allow a crackdown to take offenders off the streets. The police and other authorities in any given town in Britain usually know who the criminals are but they cannot currently do anything about it.

You need to live in your own cult mate.

Might as well end the army and police - both are public sector.

 

[ReganAndCarter]

The Pretext for the Nato attack on Libya was based on lies, David Camoron admitted as much, like Blair he blamed the intelligence services for giving him what he described as "faulty intelligence", the only faulty intelligence i can see is on the part those who would believe that load of ******.

Same thing is going on today with Johnson and his bunch using 'faulty intelligence' to sell us some fear. Funny how people always swallow it at the time, believing that politicians are doing the right thing in everyone's interests. Then later we learn the truth. Difference today, it's not some far off dust bowl country in their sights. People never learn.

On the run up to the last election, I would sit with a pint in the corner of the snug in my local (remember those). All I would hear from the group around the bar was "Boris is going to do this", "Boris is going to do that". These were normally sane intelligent people, most middle aged or older who had good jobs or ran their own companies. Even with intelligence and decades of experience of life between them they still wanted to fall for the BS that politicians uttter - especially a known liar who was running for PM. People never learn.

 

[sxturbo]

Do you know that to be true? Or is that the sanitised version you have been fed?

Were you told that it was consensual? The four-year sentence does not match that.

Were you told it was his first offence? The four-year sentence does not match that.

Was the victim "vulnerable?" Did he use violence, drugs or alcohol?

No it was true, have been with my now wife 15 years now and was with her at the time of the debacle.

the victim was vulnerable, and supposedly watched by social services.

The brother in law has never taken drugs and doesn't drink (he doesn't do anything tbh not even work)

It was consensual as the girl stayed around the family home quite a lot, much to my wife's annoyance at the time, always walking round the house in just her underwear eating all the food, watching TV loudly till god knows what time of the morning.

There were no kiddie porn or anything found on computers etc, only evidence was the 2 of them sending saucy pics to each other.

He had known the girl for a number of years and I believe they stuck grooming into the sentence.

 

[sxturbo]

Some people, especially on the loony right, cling to the false belief that severity of sentence is a good deterrent.

Depends on the crime, however there is also no evidence soft sentencing helps either..

 

[JohnD]

the victim was vulnerable, and supposedly watched by social services.

saucy pics

Aha.