Word to the wise

On 2006-07-14, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:

> So why those rules? Who (with a straight face) said, in the dim and distant
> past, "A truly serious crime like child rape or murder deserves a life
> sentence, so let's make that - whaddya say - around the fifteen year mark,
> give or take?" Why call it "life" in the first place if it isn't?

Yeah, the name is a bit silly. However, despite the fashion to
ridicule the legal professions as being "out of touch", I'm more
inclined to trust them to have come up with the way things are for
more or less good reasons, given that they actually deal with the
beginning, middle and end of the criminal process rather than us
armchair ponderers. Making the best of a bad deal is best done by
those at the coal face, and that includes the police, the lawyers, the
medical and psychological professions, the judges and the prison
warders.

It's the political fiddling that buggers things around, you get
vote-winning laws being introduced, e.g. the NERC bill backdated to
this year rather than many years in the future as was originally
proposed.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Ian Rawlings wrote:

|| On 2006-07-14, Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
||
||| Go on, don't shirk the issue - put the blame squarely where it lies.
||| It's Bliar and his cronies - again.
||
|| I don't think it is entirely, as British law is patched here and
|| there by just about every government that's ever existed in this
|| country, there's no apparent focus, and changes seem to be made to
|| reduce workload and cost rather than injustice.
||
|| The problem of course is that if you try to introduce protection to
|| keep innocent people out of prison, you have to risk letting the
|| guilty go free from time to time. Personally I think it's better to
|| avoid imprisoning the innocent at the risk of letting the guilty go
|| free, but Blair has recently said that he thinks that the emphasis
|| should be placed on imprisoning the guilty, even if it means locking
|| up the innocent by mistake. They're locking up so many innocent
|| people by mistake these days that they've even decided to save costs
|| by capping the compensation payments that you can get if you are
|| thrown in the slammer by mistake, the compensation payments were
|| costing them too much. Rather than try to stop locking up innocent
|| people, instead they just limit the compensation payments paid to
|| those who lose their careers, houses, families etc.
||
|| --
|| Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Don't do this to me! I've just come back from holiday and, like everyone
else I know, I'm busy planning how I could possibly leave my job and make a
living somewhere where the sun shines and the natives are friendly. Posts
like this make it that much worse.

--
Rich
==============================

I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.

Ian Rawlings wrote:

|| On 2006-07-14, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:
||
||| So why those rules? Who (with a straight face) said, in the dim
||| and distant past, "A truly serious crime like child rape or murder
||| deserves a life sentence, so let's make that - whaddya say - around
||| the fifteen year mark, give or take?" Why call it "life" in the
||| first place if it isn't?
||
|| Yeah, the name is a bit silly. <snip>
||
|| It's the political fiddling that buggers things around...

I quite agree with that. But I'm guessing that there was a time when a life
sentence meant "imprisoned until you die", presumably as a humane
alternative to execution. At some point, somebody must have said "Life
needn't mean the whole of his life - let's say that in this case it means at
least 30 years", or something, and so it goes until life can mean (I'm sure
I have seen) as little as eight years for murder. That makes a mockery of
the idea that some crimes are so terrible that they deserve the ultimate
punishment. I was asking if someone with the necessary legal background
could explain how this has come to be. I'm not of the Daily Mail "life must
mean life" school, and I think flexibility in sentencing is a good thing,
and overall the judges do a good job. As I said above, serious question.

--
Rich
==============================

I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.

On 2006-07-14, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Don't do this to me! I've just come back from holiday and, like everyone
> else I know, I'm busy planning how I could possibly leave my job and make a
> living somewhere where the sun shines and the natives are friendly. Posts
> like this make it that much worse.

Well, find utopia where none of this **** happens and send us a
postcard. I won't be holding my breath ;-) Just because somewhere
looks nice on a holiday doesn't mean it's not a ****heap of the
highest order when you've lived there for a few years.

It's a case of not running away, but instead trying to sort it out.
We've got a bunch of tits in power right now, that we need to get shot
of.

Take this stuff about changing the balance between giving the benefit
of doubt to the accused. What happens if you change that and don't
give the benefit of the doubt to the accused? Here's the worst case
scenarios for both;

Give the benefit of the doubt to the accused, and risk cases where the
guilty go free.

Don't give the benefit of the doubt to the accused, and risk cases
where the innocent are locked up, *and* the guilty go free, because
you've locked up the wrong people!

It seems Blair wants to choose the latter, because on the face of it,
it sounds tougher on the criminal.... ****wit.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

In message <[email protected]>
"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> William Tasso wrote:
>
> || On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:05:11 +0100, Ian Rawlings
> || <[email protected]> wrote:
> ||
> ||| ...
> ||| Funny how knicking relatively small amounts of loot from
> ||| banks and the taxman gets you worse sentences than rape or murder
> ||| eh.
> ||
> || yeah - well 'funny' in a way that causes no laughter here or
> || anyplace else I know.
>
> Can't find the source, but there was a case this week of a taxi driver who
> killed a pedestrian in a hit and run. Five (that's FIVE) months in prison.
>
> Craig Sweeney, who abducted and sexually assaulted a three-year-old girl in
> Cardiff (there's a lot more to this, but keep it simple) - eligible for
> parole after five years, by the time they had done all the necessary
> calculations*.
>
> Twenty years for stealing someone's money.
>
> We are living in a mad house.
>
> * Given "Life". Judge decides life means 18 years. One-third deduction for
> a guilty plea (even though caught in the act) gives 12 years. Half the
> sentence before eligible for parole, 6 years. Time spent on remand leaves
> just over five years. The last one I can understand and seems fair. The
> rest - can anyone explain those with a straight face? Serious question.
>

I reckon there's a lot of (ancient) history in sentencing that's
proabably over-due for review. I would hazard a guess that theft
gets such relatively large sentences goes back to many moons ago
when stealing someones plough, or cow, or whatever was effectively
a death sentence to those who no longer had the means to support
themselves, particularly through the winter, through their loss.

That's not saying sentences for theft should be reduced, just that
(for want of a better term) "modern" crimes need to be taken more
seriously with a bit more focus on the victim and potential future
victims.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

Ian Rawlings wrote:

|| On 2006-07-14, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:
||
||| Don't do this to me! I've just come back from holiday and, like
||| everyone else I know, I'm busy planning how I could possibly leave
||| my job and make a living somewhere where the sun shines and the
||| natives are friendly. Posts like this make it that much worse.
||
|| Well, find utopia where none of this **** happens and send us a
|| postcard. I won't be holding my breath ;-) Just because somewhere
|| looks nice on a holiday doesn't mean it's not a ****heap of the
|| highest order when you've lived there for a few years.

Fair point. I still like the sun, though.

|| It seems Blair wants to choose the latter, because on the face of it,
|| it sounds tougher on the criminal.... ****wit.

Well, we agree on that!

--
Rich
==============================

I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.

On 2006-07-15, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Fair point. I still like the sun, though.

Having be bought up on the west coast of Scotland, I don't handle it
too well, you're welcome to it ;-)

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:18:52 +0100, beamendsltd
<[email protected]> wrote:

> ...
> I reckon there's a lot of (ancient) history in sentencing that's
> proabably over-due for review. I would hazard a guess that theft
> gets such relatively large sentences goes back to many moons ago
> when stealing someones plough, or cow, or whatever was effectively
> a death sentence to those who no longer had the means to support
> themselves, particularly through the winter, through their loss.

hrumph - time was (maybe rose tinted urban myth) when Decent Ordinary
Criminals wouldn't take a mans means of support. Just not the done thing.

> That's not saying sentences for theft should be reduced, just that
> (for want of a better term) "modern" crimes need to be taken more
> seriously with a bit more focus on the victim and potential future
> victims.

There's a very strong argument for relating sentences to harm caused
rather than actual offence. Would make the law book a lot thinner too.

--
William Tasso

Land Rover - 110 V8
Discovery - V8

In message <[email protected]>
"William Tasso" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:18:52 +0100, beamendsltd
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > I reckon there's a lot of (ancient) history in sentencing that's
> > proabably over-due for review. I would hazard a guess that theft
> > gets such relatively large sentences goes back to many moons ago
> > when stealing someones plough, or cow, or whatever was effectively
> > a death sentence to those who no longer had the means to support
> > themselves, particularly through the winter, through their loss.
>
> hrumph - time was (maybe rose tinted urban myth) when Decent Ordinary
> Criminals wouldn't take a mans means of support. Just not the done thing.
>
> > That's not saying sentences for theft should be reduced, just that
> > (for want of a better term) "modern" crimes need to be taken more
> > seriously with a bit more focus on the victim and potential future
> > victims.
>
> There's a very strong argument for relating sentences to harm caused
> rather than actual offence. Would make the law book a lot thinner too.
>

Solicitors/lawyers not trying to get people off they know to be
guilty (rather that try to mitigate the crime, which is fair enough)
would do that too! We should get back to operating in the sprit of
that law, rather than the letter. i.e. getting off because the copper
hadn't wiped his nose type of thing.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

Its all cost benefit analysis and accounts, jails are expencive to build and
prisoners costly to maintain. The USA seems to have an almost infinite
capacity for incarcerating its citizens with outlandishly long sentences and
the three strikes and your out rules which could have you jailed for a real
life (not like ours) sentence for some truly trivial offence if you had a
record already.

Now the thing is I believe the US system to be corrupt, partial and petty
and not caring if the innocent get caught up among the guilty if they happen
to be poor and black or mentally "not the full wotsit" to use a terminally
un PC phrase here not being all there myself

Perhaps however we could export some of our more deserving prisoners over
there, after all these Nat West geezers if they are caught up in the system
could get longer sentences than murderers do over here and thats not
justice.

Whichever way we look at it, there are some folk who are a danger and
somebody has to make sure they are never very far from the laws clutches if
not actually inside.

Thing is for every berk like this one who is not that hard to spot, there
are probably many others under the radar.


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes

"beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1658b4464e%[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>
> "Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> I reckon there's a lot of (ancient) history in sentencing that's
> proabably over-due for review. I would hazard a guess that theft
> gets such relatively large sentences goes back to many moons ago
> when stealing someones plough, or cow, or whatever was effectively
> a death sentence to those who no longer had the means to support
> themselves, particularly through the winter, through their loss.
>
> That's not saying sentences for theft should be reduced, just that
> (for want of a better term) "modern" crimes need to be taken more
> seriously with a bit more focus on the victim and potential future
> victims.
>
> Richard
> --
> www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
> RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
> Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

Ian Rawlings wrote:

|| On 2006-07-15, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:
||
||| Fair point. I still like the sun, though.
||
|| Having be bought up on the west coast of Scotland, I don't handle it
|| too well, you're welcome to it ;-)
||
|| --
|| Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Funny that - one of the hottest holidays I have ever had was around Fort
William and Oban.

--
Rich
==============================

I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.

On 2006-07-15, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Funny that - one of the hottest holidays I have ever had was around Fort
> William and Oban.

Oban was my "local" town, it must have stank of fish, it did in the
winter, let alone summer!

It was hot on occasion, but not as much as down here, and down here's
hardly hot all year round. I'd go bonkers if it was always hot.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Ian Rawlings wrote:

|| On 2006-07-15, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:
||
||| Funny that - one of the hottest holidays I have ever had was around
||| Fort William and Oban.
||
|| Oban was my "local" town, it must have stank of fish, it did in the
|| winter, let alone summer!
||
|| It was hot on occasion, but not as much as down here, and down here's
|| hardly hot all year round. I'd go bonkers if it was always hot.

Must have been a freak summer, around 1968-ish. Two weeks, I had never been
so hot for so long, got badly sunburnt (this was before the advent of Factor
500) and bitten to death by them blasted midges.

Didn't notice any smell of fish - actually I really liked the area and made
a promise to return one day.

--
Rich
==============================

I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.

Richard Brookman wrote:
> Ian Rawlings wrote:
>
>>> On 2006-07-15, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Funny that - one of the hottest holidays I have ever had was
>>>> around Fort William and Oban.
>>>
>>> Oban was my "local" town, it must have stank of fish, it did in
>>> the winter, let alone summer!
>>>
>>> It was hot on occasion, but not as much as down here, and down
>>> here's hardly hot all year round. I'd go bonkers if it was
>>> always hot.
>
> Must have been a freak summer, around 1968-ish. Two weeks, I had
> never been so hot for so long, got badly sunburnt (this was before
> the advent of Factor 500) and bitten to death by them blasted
> midges.
> Didn't notice any smell of fish - actually I really liked the area
> and made a promise to return one day.

I had a similar experience in 1986, loved the place so much & i really liked Loch Long & surrounding
areas!

Good old place.

Nige

Richard Brookman wrote:

> Must have been a freak summer, around 1968-ish. Two weeks, I had never been
> so hot for so long, got badly sunburnt (this was before the advent of Factor
> 500) and bitten to death by them blasted midges.

It's a common misconception that the Scottish west coast weather is
poor - in percentage terms it may be but when it's good it's
unbeatable. Last year was the first of my summer holidays for seven
years that was 'dosappointing' weatherwise in the far NW.


> Didn't notice any smell of fish

Hardly surprising - the Government in conjunction with the EU have
killed off the fishing industry.

On 2006-07-16, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Must have been a freak summer, around 1968-ish. Two weeks, I had never been
> so hot for so long, got badly sunburnt (this was before the advent of Factor
> 500) and bitten to death by them blasted midges.

Aargh, the midges! My scalp's started to itch just thinking of them.
I'm actually scratching by head right now :-( Them getting in your
ears was the worst though.

As for 1968, was scotland invented back then? I was there 1973-1984,
on the shores of Loch Melfort on the west coast.

> Didn't notice any smell of fish - actually I really liked the area and made
> a promise to return one day.

It's one of those places that's easy to visit, not so nice to live in.
If you want to be poor somewhere, don't choose the scottish
countryside, it's an absolute bitch of a place to be skint in!

There's a lot of nice scenery out that way, an awful lot of it, mostly
mountains though, not a huge variation. Blighted by the forestry
commission's misguided canadian spruce plantations, if you walk
through the depths of one under the trees, there's few birds, no
grass, no flowers, not much light, just a carpet of tree droppings.
Thankfully they've stopped planting now but it'll take a long time to
recover.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

In message <[email protected]>
Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:

> Richard Brookman wrote:
>
> > Must have been a freak summer, around 1968-ish. Two weeks, I had never been
> > so hot for so long, got badly sunburnt (this was before the advent of Factor
> > 500) and bitten to death by them blasted midges.
>
> It's a common misconception that the Scottish west coast weather is
> poor - in percentage terms it may be but when it's good it's
> unbeatable. Last year was the first of my summer holidays for seven
> years that was 'dosappointing' weatherwise in the far NW.
>
>
> > Didn't notice any smell of fish
>
> Hardly surprising - the Government in conjunction with the EU have
> killed off the fishing industry.

I lived in Scotland for 5 years as a kid and loved it, 3 years
near Glasgow and 2 near Edingurgh. It's pity can't go back to
visit though (I smoke).

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

Larry wrote:
> Its all cost benefit analysis and accounts, jails are expencive to
> build and prisoners costly to maintain. The USA seems to have an
> almost infinite capacity for incarcerating its citizens with
> outlandishly long sentences and the three strikes and your out rules
> which could have you jailed for a real life (not like ours) sentence
> for some truly trivial offence if you had a record already.
>
> Now the thing is I believe the US system to be corrupt, partial and
> petty and not caring if the innocent get caught up among the guilty
> if they happen to be poor and black or mentally "not the full wotsit"
> to use a terminally un PC phrase here not being all there myself
>
> Perhaps however we could export some of our more deserving prisoners
> over there, after all these Nat West geezers if they are caught up in
> the system could get longer sentences than murderers do over here and
> thats not justice.

Been tried, the antipodians are a result, hardly a recommendation!

--
"He who says it cannot be done would be well advised not to interrupt
her doing it."

If the answer is offensive maybe the question was inappropriate

The fiend of my fiend is my enema!

GbH wrote:

> Been tried, the antipodians are a result, hardly a recommendation!

Thanks a bundle. You're off my xmas card list now.



--
EMB

In message <[email protected]>, Richard Brookman
<[email protected]> writes
>Ian Rawlings wrote:
>
>|| On 2006-07-14, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:
>||
>||| So why those rules? Who (with a straight face) said, in the dim
>||| and distant past, "A truly serious crime like child rape or murder
>||| deserves a life sentence, so let's make that - whaddya say - around
>||| the fifteen year mark, give or take?" Why call it "life" in the
>||| first place if it isn't?
>||
>|| Yeah, the name is a bit silly. <snip>
>||
>|| It's the political fiddling that buggers things around...
>
>I quite agree with that. But I'm guessing that there was a time when a life
>sentence meant "imprisoned until you die", presumably as a humane
>alternative to execution. At some point, somebody must have said "Life
>needn't mean the whole of his life - let's say that in this case it means at
>least 30 years", or something, and so it goes until life can mean (I'm sure
>I have seen) as little as eight years for murder. That makes a mockery of
>the idea that some crimes are so terrible that they deserve the ultimate
>punishment. I was asking if someone with the necessary legal background
>could explain how this has come to be. I'm not of the Daily Mail "life must
>mean life" school, and I think flexibility in sentencing is a good thing,
>and overall the judges do a good job. As I said above, serious question.
>
Most of the concerns are directed at the parole system rather than the
actual sentencing.
The penal system has to incorporate 3 things, punishment, deterrence and
rehabilitation.

If there is no reduction or relief for remorse or good behaviour then
there is no incentive but the reductions which are given have become
disproportionate.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting