If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News4 mins ago
Why Not 3 Thirds?
10 Answers
https:/
It's a step in the right direction but why have a sentencing system if they never serve it?
It's a step in the right direction but why have a sentencing system if they never serve it?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There should be a realistic minimum for a crime. If that crime currently has a wide range of severity then the crime should be split, each with minimum sentence the Judge can give. IMHO the difference between min and max should be no more than 10%.
There should be no time off for good behaviour, rather time added.
There should be no time off for good behaviour, rather time added.
-- answer removed --
The question of "good behaviour" is tricky.
Prior to this half-sentence nonsense (about 1995, I think) prisoners were eligible for release when they had served two thirds of their sentence "subject to good behaviour". The judgement of good behaviour was with the prison governor who could order "loss of remission" for bad behaviour. This was ruled unlawful as it was (perversely in my view) ruled that the loss of remission was an additional sentence. The prison governor was (rightly in my view)not deemed to be a "properly convened tribunal" and could not order the (perversely termed) "additional sentence.
If "good behaviour" is to be a requirement for early release a system of tribunal will have to be devised to consider those cases where the standards for good behaviour were allegedly not met. And we all know what a pig's ear the government, aided and abetted by M'Learned Friends, will make of that.
Prior to this half-sentence nonsense (about 1995, I think) prisoners were eligible for release when they had served two thirds of their sentence "subject to good behaviour". The judgement of good behaviour was with the prison governor who could order "loss of remission" for bad behaviour. This was ruled unlawful as it was (perversely in my view) ruled that the loss of remission was an additional sentence. The prison governor was (rightly in my view)not deemed to be a "properly convened tribunal" and could not order the (perversely termed) "additional sentence.
If "good behaviour" is to be a requirement for early release a system of tribunal will have to be devised to consider those cases where the standards for good behaviour were allegedly not met. And we all know what a pig's ear the government, aided and abetted by M'Learned Friends, will make of that.
the removed post was highlighting this case:
https:/
No idea why it was removed.
https:/
No idea why it was removed.
1 to 10 of 10
