Shopping & Style1 min ago
Another Seemingly Weird Decision By The Courts
Answers
Good lord, is there no deterrent in this country any more against crime and thuggery. Rather than saying a custodial sentence should be a last resort, it should be the first and only resort. Otherwise the violent gutter rats of society have nothing to lose. Our judicial system is warped!
12:30 Thu 20th Jun 2019
//Surely at least these savages should have been charged with carrying out a racist attack or even an Islamophobic attack//
No, they ought not. This racist/phobic stuff has no place in a justice system. These black girls were thugs who may, or may have not, been direct or proximate causes of this girl's death. And that should should have been the critical point of law and the subsequent sentence.
No, they ought not. This racist/phobic stuff has no place in a justice system. These black girls were thugs who may, or may have not, been direct or proximate causes of this girl's death. And that should should have been the critical point of law and the subsequent sentence.
//Nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to these judges sitting in their ivory towers.A disgusting outcome.//
You need to realise, Danny, that the blame for what you consider an inadequate sentence lies squarely with the Sentencing Guidelines issued by the (allegedly) independent Sentencing Council. These four were sentenced in the Youth Court. I won’t go into great detail but the sentencing guidelines for the Youth Court make it virtually impossible for young people to be committed to custody unless they have committed either a single “grave” offence (of which Affray is not one) or a large number of less serious offences. If you read the report you will see the District Judge's continued references to custody being an absolute last resort for young people and this is the overriding theme for the sentencing of young people. The default is a referral order and that is what was imposed.
So it is nothing to do with judges “sitting in ivory towers”. All sentencers (judges, District Judges and magistrates) are bound by law to adhere to the sentencing guidelines. If they fail to do so without justification an appeal against sentence will almost certainly succeed.
For what it’s worth I believe the Youth Justice system in the UK is hopelessly flawed in principle. It places far too much emphasis on the welfare of the criminal and far too little on that of the victims. It does nobody any good – least of all the victims – but I also in the long term does the defendants no good as it leads them to believe from an early age that consequences of their actions are too trivial to worry about. But the fault for that does not lie with the judiciary.
If you fancy a bit of light reading, here’s the Sentencing Council’s general principles on sentencing children and young people:
https:/
To save you pawing through it (it’s not really light reading but contains some interesting principles) here’s the first paragraph:
1.1 When sentencing children or young people (those aged under 18 at the date of the finding of guilt) a court must have regard to:
• the principal aim of the youth justice system (to prevent offending by children and young people); and
• the welfare of the child or young person.
No mention of victims or the wider public, you notice, other than the wooly aim “to prevent offending”.
You need to realise, Danny, that the blame for what you consider an inadequate sentence lies squarely with the Sentencing Guidelines issued by the (allegedly) independent Sentencing Council. These four were sentenced in the Youth Court. I won’t go into great detail but the sentencing guidelines for the Youth Court make it virtually impossible for young people to be committed to custody unless they have committed either a single “grave” offence (of which Affray is not one) or a large number of less serious offences. If you read the report you will see the District Judge's continued references to custody being an absolute last resort for young people and this is the overriding theme for the sentencing of young people. The default is a referral order and that is what was imposed.
So it is nothing to do with judges “sitting in ivory towers”. All sentencers (judges, District Judges and magistrates) are bound by law to adhere to the sentencing guidelines. If they fail to do so without justification an appeal against sentence will almost certainly succeed.
For what it’s worth I believe the Youth Justice system in the UK is hopelessly flawed in principle. It places far too much emphasis on the welfare of the criminal and far too little on that of the victims. It does nobody any good – least of all the victims – but I also in the long term does the defendants no good as it leads them to believe from an early age that consequences of their actions are too trivial to worry about. But the fault for that does not lie with the judiciary.
If you fancy a bit of light reading, here’s the Sentencing Council’s general principles on sentencing children and young people:
https:/
To save you pawing through it (it’s not really light reading but contains some interesting principles) here’s the first paragraph:
1.1 When sentencing children or young people (those aged under 18 at the date of the finding of guilt) a court must have regard to:
• the principal aim of the youth justice system (to prevent offending by children and young people); and
• the welfare of the child or young person.
No mention of victims or the wider public, you notice, other than the wooly aim “to prevent offending”.
pixie....yes thanks....BUT
Vicious attack--------head hit wall------stroke------death.
Surely a piercing prosecuting Barrister could have established that train of events and apparently it was the Judge who argued against cause and effect.
If the girl had not been pushed......and her head hit the wall, one could make a case that she wouldn't have had a stroke.
Vicious attack--------head hit wall------stroke------death.
Surely a piercing prosecuting Barrister could have established that train of events and apparently it was the Judge who argued against cause and effect.
If the girl had not been pushed......and her head hit the wall, one could make a case that she wouldn't have had a stroke.
"‘The charge of murder or manslaughter, which it could easily have been, was not available to the prosecution."
Why?
It would have been interesting to view the post mortem results, but i suppose that they were made available to the prosecution.
It would be interesting to have heard the judge argue against a "cause and effect."
Nottingham....London.....Bristol
Where is our less violent society that we all looked forward to and was suggested following the abolition of corporal punishment?
Why?
It would have been interesting to view the post mortem results, but i suppose that they were made available to the prosecution.
It would be interesting to have heard the judge argue against a "cause and effect."
Nottingham....London.....Bristol
Where is our less violent society that we all looked forward to and was suggested following the abolition of corporal punishment?
TTT - // AH; "it was equally unable to prove a link between the attack the victim's subsequent death. " - she was shoved hard against a bus shelter and had a stroke and later died, I'd say that was a link. Or are you saying that the stroke following this was purely coincidental? //
I'm not saying anything about coincidence - it doesn't matter what I say, or what you or anyone else says.
What matters is what can be proved in law - and clearly in this case the prosecution will have offered evidence to prove that there was a link between the violence and the death of the victim, but they were not successful in proving their case to the required legal standard.
I'm not saying anything about coincidence - it doesn't matter what I say, or what you or anyone else says.
What matters is what can be proved in law - and clearly in this case the prosecution will have offered evidence to prove that there was a link between the violence and the death of the victim, but they were not successful in proving their case to the required legal standard.
AOG - // andy-hughes
/// the prosecution is unable to prove a link the attack and any motivation based on race or religion, ///
And neither can some Abers who are so quick to accuse others of such things, but that doesn't stop them from making the said accusations against them. //
I am not sure that your point has anything to do with the debate on this thread, but I am sure you are aware, Answerbank is not a court of law, and posters are not required to prove their points, or have them subjected to a legal standard in order to be admitted onto the site.
/// the prosecution is unable to prove a link the attack and any motivation based on race or religion, ///
And neither can some Abers who are so quick to accuse others of such things, but that doesn't stop them from making the said accusations against them. //
I am not sure that your point has anything to do with the debate on this thread, but I am sure you are aware, Answerbank is not a court of law, and posters are not required to prove their points, or have them subjected to a legal standard in order to be admitted onto the site.
Latest Posts
News6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
ChatterBank26 mins ago
ChatterBank28 mins ago
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.