Crime Cases Still Using Cassettes
Technology25 mins ago
jack tweed sentance
he has been given 12 weeks for the assault offence,, will serve half, right or wrong do you think?
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gina32. 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.
[Two Part answer]
I�m not sure whether you are asking whether the twelve week sentence is right, or whether the fact that he will serve only half of it is right, so I�ll answer both.
This latest offence for which Tweed was sentenced was �Common Assault�. This carries a maximum sentence of six months custody. Magistrates� sentencing guidelines suggest that custody should be considered when two or more aggravating features are present. As I understand it, the victim was a taxi driver and the assault occurred late at night, was sustained and prolonged.
Mr Tweed also has a record of violence. He was given an eighteen month sentence in September �08 for a pre-meditated attack with a golf club on a sixteen year old. Taking all this into account, and the fact that, as on the previous occasion, he pleaded not guilty (putting his victim through the trauma of having to give evidence against him) I think he got off quite lightly.
I�m not sure whether you are asking whether the twelve week sentence is right, or whether the fact that he will serve only half of it is right, so I�ll answer both.
This latest offence for which Tweed was sentenced was �Common Assault�. This carries a maximum sentence of six months custody. Magistrates� sentencing guidelines suggest that custody should be considered when two or more aggravating features are present. As I understand it, the victim was a taxi driver and the assault occurred late at night, was sustained and prolonged.
Mr Tweed also has a record of violence. He was given an eighteen month sentence in September �08 for a pre-meditated attack with a golf club on a sixteen year old. Taking all this into account, and the fact that, as on the previous occasion, he pleaded not guilty (putting his victim through the trauma of having to give evidence against him) I think he got off quite lightly.
[Part Two]
The question of serving only half (or probably less) of his sentence is a wider issue. Tweed was, by the time of his wife�s death last month, released from custody, so could only have served at most a third of his eighteen month sentence before being released under curfew (which was subsequently relaxed). All prisoners sentenced to a fixed-term can expect to serve a maximum of one half of their sentence inside, and with release under curfew, many spend much less than that inside. I cannot establish quite how this came about.
Some years ago you were eligible for �early release� after two thirds had been served, provided you had a record of good behaviour, as judged by the prison governor. This was ruled unacceptable under Human Rights legislation. Under its twisted logic, denial of early release was interpreted as additional imprisonment and only a court could impose that. However, the same rules do not seem to apply to early release (you would think, in the interests of fairness, only a court could order that too). However civil servants are now taking the decisions to release prisoners long before even half of their sentence has been completed.
This seriously undermines what little confidence the public has in the Criminal Justice System and it should be addressed as recommended by Lord Coulsfield as long ago as 2004
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1476723 /Prison-sentences-should-be-served-in-full-say s-judge.html
So, the short answer is, in my opinion, wrong on both counts.
The question of serving only half (or probably less) of his sentence is a wider issue. Tweed was, by the time of his wife�s death last month, released from custody, so could only have served at most a third of his eighteen month sentence before being released under curfew (which was subsequently relaxed). All prisoners sentenced to a fixed-term can expect to serve a maximum of one half of their sentence inside, and with release under curfew, many spend much less than that inside. I cannot establish quite how this came about.
Some years ago you were eligible for �early release� after two thirds had been served, provided you had a record of good behaviour, as judged by the prison governor. This was ruled unacceptable under Human Rights legislation. Under its twisted logic, denial of early release was interpreted as additional imprisonment and only a court could impose that. However, the same rules do not seem to apply to early release (you would think, in the interests of fairness, only a court could order that too). However civil servants are now taking the decisions to release prisoners long before even half of their sentence has been completed.
This seriously undermines what little confidence the public has in the Criminal Justice System and it should be addressed as recommended by Lord Coulsfield as long ago as 2004
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1476723 /Prison-sentences-should-be-served-in-full-say s-judge.html
So, the short answer is, in my opinion, wrong on both counts.
1 to 16 of 16
Latest Posts
ChatterBank60 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles106 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles106 mins ago
News169 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.