You appear to be confusing the idea of a 'fair' judgement with 'a judgement I agree with'...
Last edited:
Justice done?
- Thread starter Tombstone
- Start date
You appear to be confusing the idea of a 'fair' judgement with 'a judgement I agree with'...
Caporegime
no, i dont think so.
a 2 year punishment for killing somebody for this kind of conduct is not a fair punishment whatsoever.
if i was to do a straw poll around the office as to whether the perpetrators should get more or less than 2 years i think i know which the answer would be...i dont even think this sentance is morally acceptable, much like the Bulger lad whos come out, got caught with drugs and now child porn yet he also only got sentenced to 2 years.
common sense dictates that this is far too lenient and that this person will be trouble when he escapes justice again.
a 2 year punishment for killing somebody for this kind of conduct is not a fair punishment whatsoever.
if i was to do a straw poll around the office as to whether the perpetrators should get more or less than 2 years i think i know which the answer would be...i dont even think this sentance is morally acceptable, much like the Bulger lad whos come out, got caught with drugs and now child porn yet he also only got sentenced to 2 years.
common sense dictates that this is far too lenient and that this person will be trouble when he escapes justice again.
Impressive, two logical fallacies in as many paragraphs...
Caporegime
you can pretend that this punishment fits, but in your heart you must know that it is NOT right. and to your question, why do we need another law, it is to protect the public from those without a heart.
sure thats an emotive statement, but it doesnt change the matter of the facts.
Poll however many people you can find and tell me whether they think this punishment is 'just'
but what is 'just' or 'fair' is subjective anyhow, it cannot be measured on an imperical scale. so whilst you write about fallacy, how do you prove to me that this is a just sentence?
oh and btw do you deny that judges are told to guide their sentences based upon the capacity of our jails?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2806831.ece
only some?
any more for any more dolph?
sure thats an emotive statement, but it doesnt change the matter of the facts.
Poll however many people you can find and tell me whether they think this punishment is 'just'
but what is 'just' or 'fair' is subjective anyhow, it cannot be measured on an imperical scale. so whilst you write about fallacy, how do you prove to me that this is a just sentence?
oh and btw do you deny that judges are told to guide their sentences based upon the capacity of our jails?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2806831.ece
only some?
any more for any more dolph?
Last edited:
How can you post the above with a straight face? It isn't a matter of facts, you've stated it, it's a matter of emotion.
The fact is that the criminals were doing something they shouldn't have been, something anti-social and violent, but highly unlikely to lead to death in the vast majority of events.
Those are the facts, there was no intent to kill, there was not even an intent to cause real injury (pushing people over doesn't tend to cause any injury in most cases. Doesn't make it right, but it isn't this huge massive crime...). That is the reason why I agree with the sentence given. Remember, the activity they were undertaking is highly unlikely to result in a custodial sentence normally.
Irrelevant, an appeal to the majority is not how criminal justice should work. It's not how anything involving civil liberties or rights should work.
I can't prove it is, you can't prove it isn't. That is why we employ specific people to make these decisions in line with nationally agreed guidance and previous sentences for similar events.
It's ludicrous, but could easily be solved by not sending people to jail who don't need to really be segregated from the public, and by repealing stupid and pointless laws such as drug possession laws.
Caporegime
it is indeed ludicrous but it happens. i feel it happens far too much. id be happy to pay an extra penny in the pound to know we are building more jails for worthy inmates.
but when you have advice to reduce sentences to avoid overcrowding and then you see someone receiving 2 years sentence for killing somebody, you put 2 and 2 together and see that justice may have been trumped by a budget.
really it should though. surely the people have the right to decide universally what is just and what is not a just sentence for a crime then they should be able to influence the rules.
IF the crime is so open to budgetary abuse by saying that you can recieve a 0 sentence to a life sentence then it is clearly too ill defined and may not be fit for purpose given this kind of case, therefore a new law would have to be created with punishments to suite to get around this lenient abuse of the law.
but when you have advice to reduce sentences to avoid overcrowding and then you see someone receiving 2 years sentence for killing somebody, you put 2 and 2 together and see that justice may have been trumped by a budget.
really it should though. surely the people have the right to decide universally what is just and what is not a just sentence for a crime then they should be able to influence the rules.
IF the crime is so open to budgetary abuse by saying that you can recieve a 0 sentence to a life sentence then it is clearly too ill defined and may not be fit for purpose given this kind of case, therefore a new law would have to be created with punishments to suite to get around this lenient abuse of the law.
I'd much rather we stopped imprisoning people for no real reason, especially given the low effectiveness of imprisonment at preventing future crime.
And you also quite frequently make 5.
No, they really shouldn't. Many of the great injustices throughout history have been the result of laws passed because the people thought it was a good idea.
What actual evidence, as opposed to conjecture, do you have that this sentence is out of line with other sentences for similar crimes committed over the years, to suggest that this may be a budget problem?
People have got less for manslaughter where there has been intent to kill but diminished responsibility, such as Tony Martin...
Soldato
"Elcock, 16, was jailed for four and a half years and Lyzai, 15, for three and a half year"
Bring back Hanging imho...
Bring back Hanging imho...
Caporegime
thats a different debase altogether,
you can investigate the link between the budget for prisons and the length of prison terms handed out if you wish, report back if you find anything that does not coroborate what i have already provided you in the links above.
well given that we dont have computers to do this for us, and if we did it would be using human progarmmed algoriythms anyway.
so if a PERSON doesnt decide what the sentences should be who, or what exactly does? laws, sentences need updating because society and its values change as the society evolve. whether its a group of people or a single person making the decision - it is still a human variable. like a jury..they dont use 1 man jury, they aggregate over a number of them - this should also be the case on sentences. now the government can actually hear directly from the people via things like online participation, surveys etc why not do the same to review criminal sentencing?
like you can now rate your doctor, why can you not rate a law, or a sentence and directly influence its change?
none specifically. just an inherant cultural shift of the judges towards giving lower sentences for increasingly heavy crimes. with the overriding factor being explicitly stated by those at the top as direction given to reduce prison sentences due to budgetary pressure. as the country is currently broke, i am forseeing that a similar situation may have occured.
We could start with the continued rise in the prison population and the percentage of offenders given a custodial sentence?
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/sentencing-stats-2008.pdf
Figure 2.3. This is the most recent report, published in Jan 2010. 2009 figures aren't yet available.
You don't need to do that, you just need to get a setup that isn't adversely impacted by public opinion... Say a system of clear laws, sentencing guidelines, and someone who will apply them impartially?
We imprison more people than we ever have, and crime continues to get worse. Does this not say something?
Because it automatically assumes that the option with the highest popularity is the correct one, which is a fallacy.
Are you sure? Average sentencing has dropped a little (fig 2.1 from the report quoted, or at least, the data table), but it has only regressed back to what it used to be after an uncharacteristic peak.
Incidentally, average time for manslaughter is about 5 years, and has been pretty consistent for the last 10 years or so, if there has been any movement, it's upwards, not downwards.
Caporegime
of course with an increasing population you are going to have more people in jail, there will be a direct correlation which is not linked to sentencing.
but i dont think your source backs you up, infact i think it contradicts your point entirely, thanks for providing it: i take it you understand the difference between a custodial sentence and a suspended sentence?
ther are no where near the same, one is an utter let off.
lets see:
this chart shows me a consistent drop in custodial sentences until 2007 and then a slight rise but still well off where it was in the booming late ninties/2000's?
you can see how the judges are passing out hugely grossly underwhelming sentences by their decision to have a boom of suspended sentences. how you can count that as a total custody increase i am not sure.
in this next exerpt you can see how the magistrates have clearly been pressurised into reducing the number of immediate custodial sentences;
you see how all the 'percentage' changes are down? that means less people going to prison in 2008 over 2007 from the magistrates.
but who sets the sentence guideline impartially? do you think that ANY human being is actually completely 100% objective and not subjective? personally i dont think that you can be. peoples values, upbringing etc will largely influence someones decision at any one moment in time as to what is a just or fair sentence for crime X Y or Z. at elast if the majority agree to it then there was a majority consent, rather than the personal expression of an individual which you seem to be advocating.
it says we need more prisons. CUrrent rehabilitation methods do not suceed, but then we do not know any others that DO work. in that case you must do what is right for the majority to protect them, rather than protect the offender.
in your insular; 'there must be someone who knows better than the people' viewpoint maybe. but as i said, the person who sets them is bound by their own morals and personal beliefs. who gets to choose who this rule/sentence setter is? the majority, or the elite who will advocate rules, policies or people who are like them, think like them and are indeed one of them.
and ultimately who is that person accountable to?
i think you have to forget the notion of prison as a chance to create better people. the reason for a prison is because someone has done something which has been deemed unsocial, and infact that unsociable that they need to be punished and locked away from society in the hope that the experience of being without the luxury and frivalities of society that they want to become a 'better' civillian to avoid going back. this is obviously not the case.
but i dont think your source backs you up, infact i think it contradicts your point entirely, thanks for providing it: i take it you understand the difference between a custodial sentence and a suspended sentence?
ther are no where near the same, one is an utter let off.
lets see:
this chart shows me a consistent drop in custodial sentences until 2007 and then a slight rise but still well off where it was in the booming late ninties/2000's?
you can see how the judges are passing out hugely grossly underwhelming sentences by their decision to have a boom of suspended sentences. how you can count that as a total custody increase i am not sure.
in this next exerpt you can see how the magistrates have clearly been pressurised into reducing the number of immediate custodial sentences;
you see how all the 'percentage' changes are down? that means less people going to prison in 2008 over 2007 from the magistrates.
but who sets the sentence guideline impartially? do you think that ANY human being is actually completely 100% objective and not subjective? personally i dont think that you can be. peoples values, upbringing etc will largely influence someones decision at any one moment in time as to what is a just or fair sentence for crime X Y or Z. at elast if the majority agree to it then there was a majority consent, rather than the personal expression of an individual which you seem to be advocating.
it says we need more prisons. CUrrent rehabilitation methods do not suceed, but then we do not know any others that DO work. in that case you must do what is right for the majority to protect them, rather than protect the offender.
in your insular; 'there must be someone who knows better than the people' viewpoint maybe. but as i said, the person who sets them is bound by their own morals and personal beliefs. who gets to choose who this rule/sentence setter is? the majority, or the elite who will advocate rules, policies or people who are like them, think like them and are indeed one of them.
and ultimately who is that person accountable to?
i think you have to forget the notion of prison as a chance to create better people. the reason for a prison is because someone has done something which has been deemed unsocial, and infact that unsociable that they need to be punished and locked away from society in the hope that the experience of being without the luxury and frivalities of society that they want to become a 'better' civillian to avoid going back. this is obviously not the case.
but according to your graph more people over all have gone immediately to jail
Really "well off"? over the whole time it never changes by even 2%, the 2008 one looks not even 1% less than the highest on that graph.
Man of Honour
And I'll tell you what the better way is:
They have their own cell where they are let out for 30 minutes a day and have no contact with any other prisoner.
They don't have a TV, CD Player or Playstation.
Basically they are made to completely hate where they are so they never want to go back.
Soldato
Uh oh, they brought the graphs out.
Caporegime
yeah funny thread just got super serious.
of course with an increasing population you are going to have more people in jail, there will be a direct correlation which is not linked to sentencing.
but i dont think your source backs you up, infact i think it contradicts your point entirely, thanks for providing it: i take it you understand the difference between a custodial sentence and a suspended sentence?
ther are no where near the same, one is an utter let off.
lets see:
this chart shows me a consistent drop in custodial sentences until 2007 and then a slight rise but still well off where it was in the booming late ninties/2000's?
Actually, the chart shows regression to the mean, but hey, don't let that get in the way
you can see how the judges are passing out hugely grossly underwhelming sentences by their decision to have a boom of suspended sentences. how you can count that as a total custody increase i am not sure.
in this next exerpt you can see how the magistrates have clearly been pressurised into reducing the number of immediate custodial sentences;
you see how all the 'percentage' changes are down? that means less people going to prison in 2008 over 2007 from the magistrates.
Magistrates have used immediate custody less, but the numbers at crown court have risen significantly, tying in with the idea that serious crimes are tried at crown, not at magistrate level. However, the big important number, the 'all persons' statistic, is a percentage change of 4.5%, and at crown court 11.5% rises, of course, these are not adjusted, so this could be due to a change in the number of criminals, which is why the bottom statistic matter, the percentage point change, which is not negative in any example. Indeed, it shows the percentage of people given custodial sentences has risen since 2007...
As for the rest, it really shows why the public shouldn't have a say in sentencing, because it shows a clear case of psychologists fallacy, which has been disproven time and time again in criminal justice.
Caporegime
than the year prior but not more than 01,02 like i said,
yes in some areas this is true but if you continue to read, the report also states that more people indicted on these crown court prosecutions are sentanced to the MINIMUM sentace and not above it (for a number of serious offenses)
re gun crime:
re domestic burlgary:
and as to why the total number of criminals in jail may have risen in the same time frame despite judges trying to hand out the bare minimum sentence:
" Of all sentences given for indictable offences, the proportion
given to offenders with 15 or more previous convictions or cautions has risen
steadily from 17 per cent in 2000 to 28 per cent in 2008. If pre-court disposals
are excluded from the count the proportion shows an increase from 16 per
cent in 2000 to 25 per cent in 2008."
and the reason there may be a rise in custodial sentences, its driven from 3rd time bulgarys:
what ho, how do you reduce a minimum 3 year sentence?
just plead guilty..
So whats the pattern? more people in jail because of the FORCED mandate to ensure judges actualyl do send people to jail for things like 3 time domestic bulgary. and imposed minimum sentences for this, and other offences. so the judges stick to the absolute minimum where they can do, (because of budgetary pressure or whatever else) and even discount these minimum sentences for guilty pleas (instead of increasing the setence for a NON guilty plea)...so that probably explains the increase in crown court increase in convictions and sent to jail..
what you say in no way correlates to what i said about this.
In a civilized society, people should not go around beating someone to the point of death. That is not civilized. The people responsible then should be kept out of civilized society - they're not civilized. I'd also argue that their human rights be suspended as they have forfeited such rights. Essentially all is going to happen here is that they go into prison, have a relatively easy time and learn from other inmates 'better' ways to kill or rob people, and then go out and do things like this again. So there's three things that fail here: 1. The area/family they must have been raised in to have the attitude they do 2. The short sentence and 3. The so called "punishment" which is probably going to make them worse people. I firmly believe that these people should rot in prison, as they have taken someone else's life and there is always the chance they could do it again. I don't see any reason to give them compassion when they didn't show any to someone they didn't have a problem with killing.
We should be keeping murderers off of the streets and making sure that we do not create any more by encouraging good parenting and giving opportunity - tackling the source of the problem.
edit: Nickg this is not a response to your post, just my views on the matter. Don't want any confusion.
We should be keeping murderers off of the streets and making sure that we do not create any more by encouraging good parenting and giving opportunity - tackling the source of the problem.
edit: Nickg this is not a response to your post, just my views on the matter. Don't want any confusion.
Man of Honour
It is a fair bet that they will not get the easy time you suggest.
Even in a YOI, there are some that will not look favourably on an unprovoked attack on an elderly man in front of his grandchild.
"Risked killing other people"
There was no "risk"
They assaulted an innocent man and he died because of a deliberate act