A Matter of Priorities and Values?

[Mr T.]

I agree unreservedly that the judiciary should be, and thankfully is, independent: conversely, I rather think it is politicians (and I'm taking councel on this from a criminal barrister mate in the morning) who set the generic (not individual) terms for given crimes, i.e. the length of sentences - how often have we heard court reports of some judge turning to the accused in the dock and lamenting the fact that 'And the two years for child rape and GBH is all the law will permit me to give you, were it not the case, then I would happily hand down a more lengthy sentence - and who makes the law? The politicians; though it rather looks like the power of the Home Secretary arbitrarily to set terms might be removed and handed to a 'panel' of some legal descipt - and there are merits and downsides to this also.

For example, if ANY Home Sec had released Hindley after she'd done her recommended 30 year ticket, I have no doubt that she would have been killed/lynched/met a sticky end at the hands of a braying mob bent on revenge. So in keeping her in, he did the honourable thing and one which maintained both the public's and her safety. Even if 'they' had been able to guarentee her protection with body guards etc. the cost of providing same would have made the cost of keeping her locked up look triffling by comparison - so economics kicks in: tax payer, which bill would you rather pay? 24/7 body guards for the rest of her natural, or keep her in chokey?

I also agree that (as with the removal from the governement of the power to set interest rates and its being given over to the BoE) sentencing should not be a political football (ahem, 'Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime...') by any politcal party.

Neither am I advocating a return to capital punishment - but in certain cases, I do think 'life' should mean life. But we digress.

I have to disagree with the first half of the statement by Iestyn, when he wrote:

"Its impossible, without hypocrisy, to simultaneously argue that the law shouldn't value property more than life..."

OK, let's take two scenarios:

1. Known Ned crashes nicked car into house - no human injuries but extensive damage to the property - said Ned can expect a court appearance, maybe a fine and some community service, and if the judge is really hard on him, an all expenses-paid African safari at the tax-payer's expense so he can 'find himself'.

2. Known Ned crashes nicked car into old dear walking home from doing her weekly shop and either badly injures or kills her.
This might get said Ned an 18 month suspended sentence with a 'bound over to keep the peace', community service and an order to take his driving test again - in the fond but forlorn hope that he'd passed it in the first place.

Even taking serious injury over death as the outcome of the latter scenario - which of the two scenarios above is the more heinous and more want of what this blessed government bleat on about as being 'Natural Justice'? Any sane person would have to cite the latter as a person was injured or killed. Property can be rebuilt, scars removed, reinvented: humans can not.

Even in a time of war, people are more highly prized than buildings and property! Take Dresden for instance: levelled by the RAF in WW2, and yet the higher (rightly so) concern was for the hundreds of thousands killed in the operation.

And as for the other half of Iestyn's quote:

"Its impossible, without hypocrisy, to simultaneously argue that the law shouldn't value property more than life and that it should allow you to defend property in a way that might lead to loss of life"

Semantics, possibly; spurious, certainly. The current law (and every one of its modern-day predecessors in statute) doesn't, and never has, argued for/suggested/made allowance for/condoned/tried to make a case for the taking of a life in the defence of one's property - though it may have tried to mitigate the circumstances of same.

And he also doesn't address my central tenet of 'life being the most valuable property we possess': this should be, but isn't, valued above all in all criminal cases. Ditto in cases of life's near removal or diminution (as with the poor sod from Blackpool described above).

I think we can agree on one thing: whomever is setting these rediculous tarrifs for such heinous crimes where lives are wontonly taken or ruined, they need to rank more highly than that handed down to some dizzie broad who rips off her bosses for a few million quid.

[Iestyn]

<font color='#000080'>What? The statement only works as a whole and says nothing more than that the two views are logically incompatible, what is the point of taking one half out of context.

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Iestyn @ April 23 2004,01:54)]What? The statement only works as a whole and says nothing more than that the two views are logically incompatible, what is the point of taking one half out of context.

Apologies for misappropriating your sentence there Iestyn: I used half of it to illustrate a point.

And given the tenet of my piece above, are you still labouring under the misconception that the law is 'logical'?

What concerns me is where a case should be pretty cut-n-dried (as with the Ned in the car in the Blackpool case) and invariably is - and then the sentence handed down is woefully inadequte, lacking in substance (i.e. carries zero deterrent value), wholly inappropriate and unjust; though God forbid we go down the US route where the judge can turn round to the relatives of a now deceased burglar (shot and killed by the property owner in the furtherance of his nefarious night's work) and say: &quot;well hey, he shouldn't have been in the house in the first place, should he? He got what was coming to him...&quot;, although whilst not agreeing with the man being killed, I kinda agree with the sentiment.

[Janos]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Bren Tierney @ April 23 2004,01:26)]1. and if the judge is really hard on him, an all expenses-paid African safari at the tax-payer's expense so he can 'find himself'.

2. Known Ned crashes nicked car into old dear walking home from doing her weekly shop and either badly injures or kills her.
This might get said Ned an 18 month suspended sentence with a 'bound over to keep the peace', community service and an order to take his driving test again - in the fond but forlorn hope that he'd passed it in the first place.

Hi Bren,

As someone who works for the prison service, I can assure you that (1) isn't true, and I'd be surprised if the average sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is an 18 month suspended sentence.

The UK has far more severe sentences than the vast majority of European countries, and yet the public perceive our sentences are relatively soft. IIRC there was a study whereby they showed scenarios to both the public and judges, and the public gave far more lenient sentences than the judges...

Laters,
&nbsp; &nbsp;Janos

[Iestyn]

<font color='#000080'>There's a tendency for the press to pick up on soft sentences and highlight them, without spending much time highlighting whatever mitigating circumstances led to them.

[Mr T.]

Janos mate - the fact that I was deploying satire in the part you used of my piece ('African safari') didn't cross your mind?!

Iestyn: I agree about the wider use in the general press (esp tabloid) about the use of 'grandstanding' and sensationalism; the cases I referred to, however, were not general in any sense and specific to the points raised; they were also used by way of illustration. How else are we to illustrate unless we provide examples of or original cases?

[Simon TW]

<font color='#000080'>I could rattle on to ages here, but I won't. It's difficult to comment on specific cases without all of the facts. the media do tend to edit these to make a story.

What pi**ed me of a couple of years ago is a Jr Doc who pricked her finger on a sringe and through fear of a repeat of this couldn't work in medicene. Award £650,000.

A 25 year old man who at birth, through medical neglegence is confined to a wheelchair, gets the same award and it takes his family 9 years to get it.

Where's the logic

[Janos]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Bren Tierney @ April 24 2004,04:04)]Janos mate - the fact that I was deploying satire in the part you used of my piece ('African safari') didn't cross your mind?!

Sorry Bren. It didn't come across as satire, but then being a Friday night my critical faculties were dulled somewhat.

But it's scary how many untrue stories you hear about prison. There is a lot of crap and hyperbole talked by many people, (especially the Daily Mail &nbsp; ) &nbsp;and even your satirical stories influence people to think that it is more soft than it is. &nbsp;I think it would be a great idea if everyone (especially 14 year olds) got the chance to visit it a prison (voluntarily). It would clear up a lot of the stories that get round.

Laters,
&nbsp; &nbsp;Janos

[Gavin Yates]

<font color='#000F22'>Janos is right.

In the UK we have the highest prison population in Europe and only the US and a couple of odd countries elsewhere have one higher.

The current rate of reoffending is around 60% for those who serve short sentences (less than three years)

Of those gaoled in Scotland in 1999 - 65% were back inside before the end of 2001.

When you hear of &quot;an unduly lenient sentence&quot; it is often due to some mitigation that often the public is not aware of.

What the public wants is to see &quot;serious time for serious crime&quot; and effective community-based sentences that deter reoffending.

That is both better for public confidence and better value for money.

[Simon TW]

<font color='#000080'>Is it not possible that we only have a large prison population cos we don't have the death sentence.