-
Posts
-
@tictax wrote:
a 17 year old has sex with a 14 year old , hes put on the register and jailed , are u saying he shud get life then ? each individual case is different , where do u draw the line , and then there are other attrocities such has terrorism to concider too
In this instance we are talking about the sentencing of people who rape and kill small children tictax. Each case has to be taken individually, but generally speaking the sentences handed out for absolutely vile acts against tiny tots are far too lenient. We want life to mean life. When Myra Hindley was sentenced she was given life. She died in prison. Ian Brady was given life, and he is still in prison. Because of the rules on sentencing when they were sentenced, life meant life. If they had been sentenced now, Ian Brady would currently be living on a council estate somewhere near you!
To answer tictax’s point – sexual intercourse with a female child under the age of 16 is (in the UK) a criminal offence (‘USI’ or Unlawful Sexual Intercourse). The punishment in law is less severe for males under the age of 25 but for the over 25’s it is punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment.
Yes, it is true that each case rests in its own merits and therefore the Courts have to have some discretion in the punishments they hand down.
I think that the major issue is the reluctance of the Police to arrest and the CPS to prosecute, offences of ‘USI’. Under 16’s seem to be allowed, or even in some cases engouraged, to have sex – leading to Europe’s highest rate of teenage pregnancies.
Currently, the entire chain from parent(s) through Police and the CPS to the Courts seem totally unable to set some sort of moral example (or even punitive example) leading to a reduction in teenage promiscuity.
Now …. going back to the main theme of this post in hopefully a constructive way:
There are two approaches that one can take to this issue (that of criminals ‘getting away’ with inappropriately light sentences).
Punishments, although handed down by the Courts after due process, are in fact enshrined in law. Every Act of Parliament that creates a criminal offence, contains within it a section dealing with the maximum punishment (or list of possible punishments) to be awarded to those convicted of an offence covered by that Act.
You can try to change these laws – that is to say persuade Parliament to pass an amendment to a particular law or set of laws – but this in my view is going to be incredibly difficult to do. Two reasons: a) Parliamentarians are notoriously reluctant to admit that they ‘got it wrong’ (i.e. prescribed a set of punishments that were too lenient); and b) there are an amazing number of laws that cover all sorts of criminal activity some of which go back to the 19th Century and which are still in force and used today.
The other area, which in my opinion would be far easier to ‘attack’ are the “sentencing guidelines”. These are a series of guidelines set out by the Lord Chancellor’s Department and which seek to give the Judiciary some sort of general ‘tarriff’ which they must use, and against which they must decide on whatever punishment they award the guilty ones.
These guidelines are not enshrined in law as such, but are more of an administrative nature and can be adjusted by politicians as they respond to the current public needs for retributive justice, without the need to pass any new laws through Parliament.
Politicians (of whatever flavour) could be persuaded to amend these guidelines and claim that they were responding to the voter’s wishes without losing ‘face’.
It’s not quite as simple as i suggest, but my instinct is that this would be a more fruitful course to pursue.
I agree PB… it is the sentencing guidelines we need to attack.
Thank you for your input PB , yes, sentencing guidelines does seem a sensible start x
Set punishments for any crime and stick to them, carry a knife 10 yr no time off, murder is life which means life etc
@pete wrote:
Set punishments for any crime and stick to them, carry a knife 10 yr no time off, murder is life which means life etc
statute law , where a presidence has been set and has to be followed
im sure huge organisations are already tryin to get “life should mean life ” not saying we shudnt do our bit as every little helps but dnt u think sara pain and others like her have tried already
jail apparently isnt to punish them , its to rehablitate and to protect the public and when some shrink says no longer a danger they come out , fkin human right do gooders
i really hope things change , but dnt hold ur breath.@tictax wrote:
im sure huge organisations are already tryin to get “life should mean life ” not saying we shudnt do our bit as every little helps but dnt u think sara pain and others like her have tried already
jail apparently isnt to punish them , its to rehablitate and to protect the public and when some shrink says no longer a danger they come out , fkin human right do gooders
i really hope things change , but dnt hold ur breath.The more of us who try and change things, the more luck we`ll have… Sara Payne has made some progress with Sarahs law, so change can be made…
I honestly beleive if life meant life, and harsher sentences were involved and prison was prison not a bleeding holiday camp…sorry I digress, but even if life meant life, for them it`s a life of luxury, so I think the whole justice system is upside down. Having said that Rome wasn`t bulit in a day so maybe we shoud all add our voices. We have to start somewhere tictax, and if enough of us do something, maybe we can change things.
bump
what is happening with this cath?
hmmmm improbability drive engaged…… 1,789,465,4321 and falling
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!