How many of you think our legal system is a joke. The law seems to protect the guilty. Don't get me wrong, the majority of criminals do get caught but there are too many laws, too many loopholes and too many victims not getting justice. For example, a guy recently got a 12 month suspended sentence after being caught on cctv with 2 knives trying to stab several ppl. I saw it on one of the tv police shows. About a year ago a friends brother tried to stab me, he was found not guilty of breach of the peace even with his brother and me as witnesses. Last week the same guy threatened to cut an 8 1/2 month pregnant girls throat with a strimmer, 4 witnesses, he got a £60 fine. I think we need a complete overhaul of the system, everything from a guilty person walking free because of a clerical error (in cases like that a panel of judges could look at the evidence, decide if the case should continue by accepting that the clerical error was a mistake) to fixed penalties for offences so that tree hugging, sandle wearing judges don't give inconsistent sentences. 1 crime, 1 penalty for all, not the way it is now where 10 ppl committing the same crime in different parts of the country can get 10 different sentences. I believe we should get rid of background checks on guilty ppl too. I don't care how hard their childhood was, giving them a more lienient sentence because of a lousy childhood wont ease the suffering of the victim and after all that is why our courts exsist, to give justice to victims. Another thing that gets me is when a convicted criminal gets other crimes taken into account, 1 penalty for multiple crimes. This is just to help clear up unsolved crimes. If you committed 1 criminal act every 3 years and got caught, convicted and sentenced you would get detained for each crime, however if you only get caught on the last one after committing 50 offences you get done once and the penalty is far lower than the total would have been as sentences run concurently. Any thoughts?
Is it time for a complete overhaul of the law?
- Thread starter Aughoti
- Start date
Soldato
Paragraphs.. you needs them..
Caporegime
Sentencing guidelines for the win.
I read half of your wall of text before my eyes simply lost track of which line I was supposed to be on, but I think I got your point. Personally I do agree that the system needs a shake-up, but it's not so black and white.
There are many issues to deal with if you're going to start a reform. Obviously one of the big ones right now is prisons being full to capacity and, I'm guessing, there are a lot more administrative problems that we aren't aware of.
There are many issues to deal with if you're going to start a reform. Obviously one of the big ones right now is prisons being full to capacity and, I'm guessing, there are a lot more administrative problems that we aren't aware of.
![[DOD]Asprilla](/styles/overclockers/avatars/8.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
You mean it protects the people you think are guilty? That's probably a good thing since we each have our own ideas about what should constitute breaking the law and what the punishment should be.
I'd give you ten years for 'dangerous paragraphing'. I didn't get very far through the work slab so I can't make any more points.
Soldato
Same here.
I do think you're quite right, however this would never happen under a LAbour government. They will not admit to there being a problem, much less find a solution to it. They just release a load of false statistics saying crime is on the decrease.
Edit - Also, I think your use of the phrases "tree hugging" and "sandal wearing" are used in the wrong context. I think the more appropriate terms here would be hand-wringing troughers.
Last edited:
Soldato
Sure, because no previous government has ever done done that before....
Honestly, it doesn't matter who is in charge you'll alway get the same arguments and the press will be on hand to ensure that the discussions are kept in proportion......
Don't know if anyone has been listening to the '1968' season on Radio 4? They have been running programmes and news from 1968 and guess what? It's all about the problems with teen gangs and the rise in knife crime.
It's the same problems it's just the focus on them is cyclical.
Man of Honour
How much do you understand of the UK legal system? Putting this as politely as possible, from reading your paragraph (and add a +1 to the "please break it up a bit more brigade") it doesn't seem that you do know all that much about it.
The idea of all crimes get the same punishment regardless of circumstances is not a good one and would go against almost our whole legal history in fact - you get judged on the instant crime and you are guilty or innocent of that (not proven is the third option if you use the Scottish system). When sentencing relevant circumstances are taken into account including whether the person has commited previous similar crimes, if there are further mitigating factors etc. To have only one punishment for any given crime allows no discretion and that is not good because it does not concede the possibility that there could be an excuse for the actions.
Sure the legal system sometimes gets it wrong but far more often it gets it right in terms of guilt and innocence. What I think you might be arguing though is that the sentencing is not strong enough and that is a rather different matter, you need stronger sentencing guidelines (and probably more prisons built to accomodate the increase in prisoners held) - I'm not committing myself either way on this as a whole, I'd have to look at many more cases and the punishments to determine if I thought the average as too lenient or too harsh.
The idea of all crimes get the same punishment regardless of circumstances is not a good one and would go against almost our whole legal history in fact - you get judged on the instant crime and you are guilty or innocent of that (not proven is the third option if you use the Scottish system). When sentencing relevant circumstances are taken into account including whether the person has commited previous similar crimes, if there are further mitigating factors etc. To have only one punishment for any given crime allows no discretion and that is not good because it does not concede the possibility that there could be an excuse for the actions.
Sure the legal system sometimes gets it wrong but far more often it gets it right in terms of guilt and innocence. What I think you might be arguing though is that the sentencing is not strong enough and that is a rather different matter, you need stronger sentencing guidelines (and probably more prisons built to accomodate the increase in prisoners held) - I'm not committing myself either way on this as a whole, I'd have to look at many more cases and the punishments to determine if I thought the average as too lenient or too harsh.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Theres another thing you simply can't ignore when it comes to the legal system.
These days, I honestly don't know the answer to this but, is there any money in being a crown prosecutor? I mean, think about it, in any industry if you're good, you go where the money is. Defense has always been where the money is and the few good prosecutors that stay in the job trying to help put bad guys away are overworked, underfunded and simply can't possibly be doing the best job they could in different circumstances.
I mean, you need evidence, you need witness's to turn up, you need statements to not change, you need to do research but the biggest thing is, you have to prosecute a crime you can win on. If someone murders someone and you are 90% sure its a 1st degree premeditated murder, but the evidence only supports manslaughter you will lose a trial where you charge 1st degree murder, but can win a trial where you charge for manslaughter. SO remember, lots of the time in a flawed system people get lesser charges because they are provable and often people get away with worse crimes because we just can't prove it.
Also, I mean, at the end of the day you have to persuade a jury and these days I think with intimidation, massive families and friends of chavs sitting in a courtroom able to see the jurors the chance of someone going not guilty in the fear of being found after is a reality.
But the key problem I feel here is too many cases for too few people working on the prosecuting side, too many good lawyers going for defence, or corporate or simply where the money is. If we had more people being paid better to do the job people will be less overworked, have more time to dedicate to the cases that really need the time spent and would get better sentences against the worst criminals.
But we also need jail space available. America isn't blind, it doesn't dismiss rising crime and refuse to build jail space. Yes they imprison more of their population than most/all other countries in the world(though you wonder how many are "lost" in the system in places like China where no one can even prove they are in there). But it works, another large problem is building more prison space here is admiting crime is rising and our society is getting worse. This is something that both the government wouldn't ever want to admit, and really no one wants to believe their country is failing so ignoring the problem rather than embracing it is the easier, but wrong course of action.
But as with everything else, the massive waste of money by our government is one of the reasons the best lawyers can't get more money, that we can't hire more lawyers to spread the work load and won't build more prison space for the increasing criminal population of the country.
These days, I honestly don't know the answer to this but, is there any money in being a crown prosecutor? I mean, think about it, in any industry if you're good, you go where the money is. Defense has always been where the money is and the few good prosecutors that stay in the job trying to help put bad guys away are overworked, underfunded and simply can't possibly be doing the best job they could in different circumstances.
I mean, you need evidence, you need witness's to turn up, you need statements to not change, you need to do research but the biggest thing is, you have to prosecute a crime you can win on. If someone murders someone and you are 90% sure its a 1st degree premeditated murder, but the evidence only supports manslaughter you will lose a trial where you charge 1st degree murder, but can win a trial where you charge for manslaughter. SO remember, lots of the time in a flawed system people get lesser charges because they are provable and often people get away with worse crimes because we just can't prove it.
Also, I mean, at the end of the day you have to persuade a jury and these days I think with intimidation, massive families and friends of chavs sitting in a courtroom able to see the jurors the chance of someone going not guilty in the fear of being found after is a reality.
But the key problem I feel here is too many cases for too few people working on the prosecuting side, too many good lawyers going for defence, or corporate or simply where the money is. If we had more people being paid better to do the job people will be less overworked, have more time to dedicate to the cases that really need the time spent and would get better sentences against the worst criminals.
But we also need jail space available. America isn't blind, it doesn't dismiss rising crime and refuse to build jail space. Yes they imprison more of their population than most/all other countries in the world(though you wonder how many are "lost" in the system in places like China where no one can even prove they are in there). But it works, another large problem is building more prison space here is admiting crime is rising and our society is getting worse. This is something that both the government wouldn't ever want to admit, and really no one wants to believe their country is failing so ignoring the problem rather than embracing it is the easier, but wrong course of action.
But as with everything else, the massive waste of money by our government is one of the reasons the best lawyers can't get more money, that we can't hire more lawyers to spread the work load and won't build more prison space for the increasing criminal population of the country.
Yeah, true I need more paragraphs. As to all crimes getting the same punishent, I didnt mean 1 punishment for all crimes. I meant a fixed penalty for each offence, sorry if I wasnt clear. Look at traffic law, a bald tyre gets the same fine no matter where you are and which officer gives the ticket and if you have 3 bald tyres, they dont fine you for 1 and take 2 into consideration.
Yes I would like to see stronger sentencing but I would also like to see the law simplified, assault for example, you have many types. ABH, GBH and common assault. If your a victim I would think that you wouldnt care what name was given, just as long as they were punished fairly.
My knowlege on the subject comes from personal experiance, 7 times in 5 years I have been the victim of a crime. Even so, I don't think we are in the grip of a crimewave. I do think we need stronger penalties and tougher prisons. Public persception is skewed by a media that blows things out of proportion to sell a product.
I appreciate the feedback
Caporegime
I think you should pick up some law books - Prof Andrew Ashworth's is a good start and read upon some case laws to understand the law and the legal system a bit more.
I agree, until we pay for the best, investigators, prosecutors and all the other people who fill in the forms (a lot of cases are lost due to inaccurate paperwork) our conviction rate will stay where they are. Those doing the job just now are doing the best they can but we need better if people are to feel like crime is not a major problem in our country.
Man of Honour
That is a Road Traffic Offence (RTA) and they are somewhat different to 'ordinary' offences since a RTA is a strict statutory offence which in some cases shifts the ordinary burdens of proof e.g. you can't rely on a right not to incriminate yourself, you must supply relevant information even if it would be prejudicial to you.
As to having one fixed penalty for each offence, that allows no discretion and no mitigating factors. Since we'll get there eventually why not use the instant and emotive - a battered wife stabs and kills her husband, he hadn't hit her on that occasion but she had a reasonable fear that he might do so again - should she get exactly the same punishment as a thug who stabs a random stranger on the street?
You might not care what name the crime is under but it makes quite a large difference to how easy it is to prove and what tariffs can be applied during sentencing. If I push you so you step backwards then that is assault, if I hit you with an iron bar and cause brain damage that could also be assault if we simplify it - are the two crimes comparable?
I also don't think we are in the grip of a crimewave, crimes exist and always have done, the reporting is now 'better' on them so we are perhaps more aware.
Soldato
The reason we have so ma different terms for variations of the same thing is to make it easier to prosecute.
Each crime has has a definition and in order to successfully prosecute someone for it, you've got to prove their actions meet the definition. If you create more crimes each with slightly different criteria you have more chance of a conviction.
The alternative, to acheive what you want, would be to have the same punishment for pushing someone in a heated discussion as for breaking several of thier bones with a good kicking on the floor.
Each crime has has a definition and in order to successfully prosecute someone for it, you've got to prove their actions meet the definition. If you create more crimes each with slightly different criteria you have more chance of a conviction.
The alternative, to acheive what you want, would be to have the same punishment for pushing someone in a heated discussion as for breaking several of thier bones with a good kicking on the floor.
I am giving an opinion, I never claimed it was an expert one. Why post a comment that doesnt add to the discussion. I am not extremely well informed about law but then most solicitors specialise due to the complexity of our system. An employment solicitor may know very little about probate law or how to handle a murder case, does this mean they should have no opinion about our laws?
The reason I started this discussion was to cover things like this, your right, putting someone in prison for 10 years for pushing someone is obviously too extreme, but is the difference between ABH and GBH enough to justify the different sentences for someone convicted of throwing 1 punch and breaking a persons jaw or kicking and punching someone 10 times and not breaking any bones. I would imagine to a victim the fear they live with would make the difference irrelevant.[DOD]Asprilla;12130754 said:
As to being specific in regards to a crime. the more specific the definition of the crime the more exacting the evidence needs to be. Is this maybe the reason it is getting so hard to get a conviction? Would it not be easier to have a charge of assault and then leave it up to the judge to determine whether or not the assault was serious.
I still believe that fixed penalties would be fairer. It would also make it easier for a judge and prevent 'hand-wringing troughers' from allowing those that would go to jail with another judge, from going free with a suspended sentence
I believe the comment was a friendly suggestion that might help you to put your thoughts and opinions in context.
For me one of the big issues of our criminal justice system is the purpose of a custodial sentence. In the past you were sent to jail to "serve your time" on the principle that after your incarceration you had served your time and the slate should be wiped clean. This to me is perfect for those who do not reoffend as they have learned the consequences of their actions.
For those who reoffend they have not learned their lesson and as such the length of jail term should not be calculated on a clean slate basis. (I do appreciate that some judges take past crimes into consideration)
What I would propose is that if someone reoffends their original sentence is added onto their new sentence. An example could be:
Person commits ABH - given 3 month custodial.
Person leaves jail after 3 months.
Person then commits TWOC , given a 6 month custodial.
Person leaves jail after 9 months.
If they then commited Drunk and disordely and given 1 week custodial sentence both preceding terms are then added onto the latest sentence. e.g. a jail sentence of 9 months and 1 week in total.
This would sharply curtail repeat offenders as although the sentence for a offence could remain the same - the punishment is increased to take into account all previous convictions. Based on the principle that they have not reformed.
Man of Honour
Sounds like you need Batman.