Should Rolf Harris Have Been Sentanced Under Present Day Jail Terms?

[barney15c]

Much has been said about Rolf Harris much reduced sentence because his jail term was applied to what the tariffs were when he commited the crimes for which he was found guilty.

However if that logic is applied then consider this scenario....

Should somebody who committed a murder in 1963 and is tried now should actually be hung, because the sentencing guidelines then were that there should be a hanging.

What are your opinions.

[factor-fiction]

No- because it has been decided we don not want to hang people

[DTCwordfan]

"The law is an ass" frequently but we have to live with it. Tough.

Anyway, there's the possibility of an appeal from the Prosecution, extra cases coming forward and Oz want the sicko too. Should be enough to see him emerge from prison in a cardboard moving box.

[kvalidir]

That particular scenario was addressed when we outlawed hanging and it was decided it was an exception to the historic sentencing rules.

[MantaRay]

Good point barney, just proves what an ass the law & punishment system is.

[New Judge]

I think the hanging issue has been covered. However there is another consideration which is worth a mention. When these offences were committed by Harris the arrangements then in place were that prisoners served a minimum of two-thirds of their sentence in custody and were only then released if they had been of good behaviour. This is now no longer the case and most prisoners are released at the half way point unconditionally. There is no reason why the old release arrangements should not prevail for somebody sentenced under earlier sentencing guidelines.

[New Judge]

I forgot to mention that the law is not quite such an ass in this matter (i.e. sentencing on old guidelines) as it may appear. It would be unfair if, say, somebody carried out an act that was not at the time illegal but which subsequently became illegal later and they found themselves prosecuted under the new law. The principle that the law cannot be applied retrospectively is sound and valid.

And so it should be with sentencing. It would be most unfair if somebody committed a crime for which they knew that the harshest sentence they could receive was (say) five years in prison but by the time they were apprehended and convicted the maximum sentence had been considerably increased.

[DrFilth]

> when he commited the crimes for which he was found guilty. <

New Judge in them days could the victim claim compo ?

[barney15c]

Judge - I like your first statement and is a perfectly valid one - 2/3 minimum served of sentence instead of 1/2 unconditionally. Interesting how they seem to like to pick and choose the various aspects in their favour.

[New Judge]

Don't know, Dr F. But compensation in this context is a civil matter and should not cloud the issue about sentencing for criminal offences.

[DrFilth]

thank you

[mikey4444]

No !

[ichkeria]

Following on from New Judge's comments, I think the principle as evident in the Harris sentencing, as he rightly implies, is not that of "you get the punishment that applied at the time" but that you get the less harsh sentence as it applied at the time. So the question of should a killer from 1963 be hanged if convicted today is a side issue.
Additionally, of course, capital punishment has been removed from the statute books (for murder at least).
More interestingly, what if the punishment for Harris's crimes as committed at the time had been a lesser one, also removed from the statute books, let's say being slapped in the face with a wet fish. How would sentencing now be applied? If at all? Presumably not at all.

[mushroom25]

ichkeria: //of course, capital punishment has been removed from the statute books (for murder at least). //

On 20 May 1998 the House of Commons voted to ratify the 6th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibiting capital punishment except "in time of war or imminent threat of war." On 10 October 2003, effective from 1 February 2004, the UK acceded to the 13th Protocol, which prohibits the death penalty under all circumstances.

[Peter Pedant]

Hi barney - there have been posts on this before. Hanging specifically if you look at the documents included clauses for Death Row and at the time, everyone knew that a ban would include the condemned men.

so it wasnt "an oopsie - we drafted it wrong" scenario

so yeah dont worry the scenario is in the civil servants mind.

Retro active legislation is OK in English Law - The Burmah Oil Act of 1964 springs instantly to mind. It backwards indemnified HMG for burning the Brumah Oilfields in 1941 which had been mistakenly thought to be covered by 'acts of war'

War Crimes Act 1994 was retroactive and had to forced thro in the teeth of opposition by the Parliament Act ( house of lrods by passed )

however.... the Human Rights Act thank god specifically says that a fella has to know clearly what the charge is he is facing and I think you can see that any modern say sentencing will fall foul of that.

[Peter Pedant]

yeah agree New Judge

however as a pupil sticking up his hand....the know-all at the front.....
sir, Sir, the only prosecution under the War Crimes Act was retroactive innit Sir ?

[Peter Pedant]

Yeah the distribution of Jimmy Savile's estate has been put on hold until the vultures have had a good go... sorry, the victims who had no thought of money have been adequately compensated.

Michael Jackson recollect paid $13m to a kid who had been most unfortunately abused once or twice before ( netting a few million each time )

and remember Bindi has her eyes on her Dad's eleven million.....

Civil compensation of course does not even peep out of these allegations......

[EDDIE51]

I still find it disturbing that some posters on here seem to think that the only reason some of Harris's victims came forward was to get financial compensation. Have you actually read the Judges comments about he actually did to those girls? It is far worse than ' groping' that is just a newspaper euphemism for what really happened.

[Peter Pedant]

Statistically half the allegations ( around 500 , 250 is half ) against Jimmy S have not been proceeded with.

yes you have to accept three girls made up allegations about Stefan Kizko, because they thought " it was funny at the time " as they later said [ also 'do you think I am proud about what I have done .... ? ' ]

and my comments about Bindi and Bindi's fren' are from accounts of oral testimony at the time of the trial .....

[andres]

Eddie51--What did he actually do to those girls? I've never seen any details .
PPedant-- I think the press blow things out of proportion at times.Personally I didn't think anything about Bindi saying inheriting her dad's £11 million ''would be like winning the lottery''.(if indeed she did say it)