Confidence in the courts?
Discussion
Zod said:
StottyZr said:
Is it just me who doesn't have any confidence whatsoever in the courts or is this quite a common thing nowadays?
So what experience do you have of the courts that has caused this this lack of confidence?(experience does not mean reading the Daily Mail)
StottyZr said:
Got a fair few long stories of personal experiances. Not things I've read in the mail.
Carry on then, do tell. PH has enough members who will chip in and tell you what is good or bad.The system does work in the majority of instances, it is just that many do not understand how it works and why a decision is reached.
The minority of cases that people bleat about reaching the wrong conclusion usually have mitigating factors that the court has to take into account.
Knowledge of the law in this country is frankly shocking. I've been studying for approaching 2 years (P/T & now F/T) and I run across new areas daily.
So you should be knowledgeable on the subject then!
A very trivial experiance to start.
One friend, 18month ban, 150 hours community service and a fine (can't remember amount) for sliding around the White Rose Center car park on McDonalds trays for roughly 2mins after closing time. Caught on CCTV, no harm done, didn't exceed 10mph. It was in a public car park, but with no public around.
Other friends cousin, no licence. Bought a old car for cash, drove it with no tax, licence (oddly did have MOT) and crashed into somebody else. He was obviously un-insured and fled the scene. He was caught, and taken to court. Had 6 charges against him, found guilty of them all (including leaving the scene of a crime) and he got 100 hours community service, and a £400 fine.
I understand the logic of, first friend was charged with dangerous driving (I though misuse of motor vehicle) and second had smaller offences. But, I don't think anybody can disagree with any kind of logic that the charges should clearly be flipped? Courts, kinda don't make sence.
A very trivial experiance to start.
One friend, 18month ban, 150 hours community service and a fine (can't remember amount) for sliding around the White Rose Center car park on McDonalds trays for roughly 2mins after closing time. Caught on CCTV, no harm done, didn't exceed 10mph. It was in a public car park, but with no public around.
Other friends cousin, no licence. Bought a old car for cash, drove it with no tax, licence (oddly did have MOT) and crashed into somebody else. He was obviously un-insured and fled the scene. He was caught, and taken to court. Had 6 charges against him, found guilty of them all (including leaving the scene of a crime) and he got 100 hours community service, and a £400 fine.
I understand the logic of, first friend was charged with dangerous driving (I though misuse of motor vehicle) and second had smaller offences. But, I don't think anybody can disagree with any kind of logic that the charges should clearly be flipped? Courts, kinda don't make sence.
First instance, no victims. Just a 18 year old being a idiot (Really nice guy, stupid mistake) incidentally worked in a bank and was sacked as DD is a criminal offence. Judge was aware of this and the consequences. (Car was fully legal in everyway)
Second instance, a complete tool who clearly had no rights to be on the road or anywhere near it nevermind crashing into somebody. Victim was women who he hit. Probably quite traumatised and lost her NCB whilst paying excess (unless this was refunded idk)
I can't see how anybody could say that BOTH of these sentances are fair. The second example should definatly have been punished a lot lot more IMO.
Second instance, a complete tool who clearly had no rights to be on the road or anywhere near it nevermind crashing into somebody. Victim was women who he hit. Probably quite traumatised and lost her NCB whilst paying excess (unless this was refunded idk)
I can't see how anybody could say that BOTH of these sentances are fair. The second example should definatly have been punished a lot lot more IMO.
StottyZr said:
First instance, no victims. Just a 18 year old being a idiot (Really nice guy, stupid mistake) incidentally worked in a bank and was sacked as DD is a criminal offence. Judge was aware of this and the consequences. (Car was fully legal in everyway)
.
Does DD mean drink driving? This was not mentioned in your earlier post..
StottyZr said:
First instance, no victims. Just a 18 year old being a idiot (Really nice guy, stupid mistake) incidentally worked in a bank and was sacked as DD is a criminal offence. Judge was aware of this and the consequences. (Car was fully legal in everyway)
Second instance, a complete tool who clearly had no rights to be on the road or anywhere near it nevermind crashing into somebody. Victim was women who he hit. Probably quite traumatised and lost her NCB whilst paying excess (unless this was refunded idk)
I can't see how anybody could say that BOTH of these sentances are fair. The second example should definatly have been punished a lot lot more IMO.
Despite some of the posts cropping up, I agree with you, however the point that is being made by some of the posters is that it isn't the court that decides on the sentance. Second instance, a complete tool who clearly had no rights to be on the road or anywhere near it nevermind crashing into somebody. Victim was women who he hit. Probably quite traumatised and lost her NCB whilst paying excess (unless this was refunded idk)
I can't see how anybody could say that BOTH of these sentances are fair. The second example should definatly have been punished a lot lot more IMO.
[I think] the court has guidelines which they can't exceed for any given crime. The problems as I see it are political. Our politicians (driven by media hysteria and hype) spend all day banging on about rehabilitation rather than punishment. I'm sorry, but IMO a
is always a and will always be a . Just lock 'em up and be done with it. We need more prisons which is one problem. Granted sometimes good people make a mistake and the courts should be able to figure out whoe they are. The total tools will always stand out and should be banged up.BigBen said:
StottyZr said:
First instance, no victims. Just a 18 year old being a idiot (Really nice guy, stupid mistake) incidentally worked in a bank and was sacked as DD is a criminal offence. Judge was aware of this and the consequences. (Car was fully legal in everyway)
.
Does DD mean drink driving? This was not mentioned in your earlier post..
AshVX220 said:
BigBen said:
StottyZr said:
First instance, no victims. Just a 18 year old being a idiot (Really nice guy, stupid mistake) incidentally worked in a bank and was sacked as DD is a criminal offence. Judge was aware of this and the consequences. (Car was fully legal in everyway)
.
Does DD mean drink driving? This was not mentioned in your earlier post..
AshVX220 said:
Despite some of the posts cropping up, I agree with you, however the point that is being made by some of the posters is that it isn't the court that decides on the sentance.
[I think] the court has guidelines which they can't exceed for any given crime. The problems as I see it are political. Our politicians (driven by media hysteria and hype) spend all day banging on about rehabilitation rather than punishment. I'm sorry, but IMO a is always a and will always be a . Just lock 'em up and be done with it. We need more prisons which is one problem. Granted sometimes good people make a mistake and the courts should be able to figure out whoe they are. The total tools will always stand out and should be banged up.
Done much research on what a per-head cost is for a 1000+ con Cat C/D prison?[I think] the court has guidelines which they can't exceed for any given crime. The problems as I see it are political. Our politicians (driven by media hysteria and hype) spend all day banging on about rehabilitation rather than punishment. I'm sorry, but IMO a
is always a and will always be a . Just lock 'em up and be done with it. We need more prisons which is one problem. Granted sometimes good people make a mistake and the courts should be able to figure out whoe they are. The total tools will always stand out and should be banged up.Chances are you'd piss and moan about your tax going up if your idea was taken up.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff