Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
First Ever Sentencing On Camera.....
16 Answers
https:/
I found it very informative, the detail that the judge went into really helped to understand the final sentence. Horrific murder it was but the sad sad existence that the guy had had in his short life went a long way to explaining it. On here we often have knee jerk reactions to these sorts of things and then pronounce our own "sentences" based on very few of the facts. Yes I do include myself in that. So overall I think it's a very useful positive step to have the sentencing on camera.
I found it very informative, the detail that the judge went into really helped to understand the final sentence. Horrific murder it was but the sad sad existence that the guy had had in his short life went a long way to explaining it. On here we often have knee jerk reactions to these sorts of things and then pronounce our own "sentences" based on very few of the facts. Yes I do include myself in that. So overall I think it's a very useful positive step to have the sentencing on camera.
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
I do hope it helps. On high profile cases, I have often read (and posted) sentencing remarks. They give real insight - particularly when one has not followed the trial. //On here we often have knee jerk reactions to these sorts of things and then pronounce our own "sentences" based on very few of the facts. Yes I do include myself in that. So overall I think it's a...
15:55 Thu 28th Jul 2022
//On here we often have knee jerk reactions to these sorts of things and then pronounce our own "sentences" based on very few of the facts.//
Which I've been saying every time we get "Why wasn't this savage hanged/jailed for life" type questions.
Sentencing is a complex exercise, especially when there is a wide range of options open and the offence involves many aggravating and mitigating factors. In the paper or on the telly we get a brief outline and that's all. Making sentencing a little more understandable (for those who are interested) can only help enhance the judiciary's integrity. Judges and Magistrates always announce the logic behind their sentences but they are not usually widely reported in detail, hence the lack of understanding.
Which I've been saying every time we get "Why wasn't this savage hanged/jailed for life" type questions.
Sentencing is a complex exercise, especially when there is a wide range of options open and the offence involves many aggravating and mitigating factors. In the paper or on the telly we get a brief outline and that's all. Making sentencing a little more understandable (for those who are interested) can only help enhance the judiciary's integrity. Judges and Magistrates always announce the logic behind their sentences but they are not usually widely reported in detail, hence the lack of understanding.
It seems to me that many people who make hysterical comments on websites like the Daily Mail only read the headlines and become outraged.
Maybe they will be more engaged with a televised account rather than the printed word. Of course news outlets deliberately choose the angle they want to spin to get the biggest reaction.
Maybe they will be more engaged with a televised account rather than the printed word. Of course news outlets deliberately choose the angle they want to spin to get the biggest reaction.
I do hope it helps. On high profile cases, I have often read (and posted) sentencing remarks. They give real insight - particularly when one has not followed the trial.
//On here we often have knee jerk reactions to these sorts of things and then pronounce our own "sentences" based on very few of the facts. Yes I do include myself in that. So overall I think it's a very useful positive step to have the sentencing on camera.// I completely agree and think this is a really well thought out reaction to this.
If televising such things helps reassure the right wing sofa-military regiment of the Daily Wail that sentencing is a serious and long considered process, it might help stop the pitchforks brigade and give confidence in justice.
//On here we often have knee jerk reactions to these sorts of things and then pronounce our own "sentences" based on very few of the facts. Yes I do include myself in that. So overall I think it's a very useful positive step to have the sentencing on camera.// I completely agree and think this is a really well thought out reaction to this.
If televising such things helps reassure the right wing sofa-military regiment of the Daily Wail that sentencing is a serious and long considered process, it might help stop the pitchforks brigade and give confidence in justice.
The public, and media, are fully entitled to attend most courts in the UK. With that in mind I don't get why anyone thinks it is, in any way, controversial for the case (only the sentencing) to be televised. If it's public it's public. Hopkirk asks if we should bring back public executions. Didn't see anyone executed. The courts are acting in our name. Only by seeing them in action can we gain some kind of understanding, and, if we are unhappy, we can, perhaps, do something about it. Same tired argument as televising the House of Commons. I haven't encountered anyone who now say it was a bad idea.
1 to 16 of 16
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.