Another classic case of double standards
Discussion
Graveworm said:
The bikers admitted they put people in danger.
I think she deserved jail, the court thinks she deserved jail which is why they decided the custody threshold was met and sentenced her to 20 months (Far more than any of the bikers).
The Judge thought her 2 very young children didn't deserve to go into care because their mother was stupid. Almost certainly, the people whose job it is to decide on what the benefits and impact of a punishment would be, wrote as much in their reports.
It's not much of a deterrent then really. She already has a record of drink driving, now she's effectively attempted to kill children with a car.I think she deserved jail, the court thinks she deserved jail which is why they decided the custody threshold was met and sentenced her to 20 months (Far more than any of the bikers).
The Judge thought her 2 very young children didn't deserve to go into care because their mother was stupid. Almost certainly, the people whose job it is to decide on what the benefits and impact of a punishment would be, wrote as much in their reports.
What actual punishment has she ended up with? 35 days rehab, a curfew and a 2 year ban. It doesn't seem like enough for a pre-meditated attack that luckily "only" ended up in one with serious injuries and not the deaths of 4 children.
The police are always tweeting about how its "just sheer luck" that someone speeding didn't kill people, yet when it's actually lucky someone didn't kill someone as they deliberately hit them with a car it doesn't seem to count for as much.
Breadvan72 said:
The OP is the paradigm example of the modern net citizen: Ill-informed, opinionated, deaf to reason and evidence, emphatically and confidently wrong, angry when challenged. Now look at the UK and wonder (or, rather, don't) about the mess that we are in!
Experts, eh? Knowledge, eh? So old hat.
You’re a typical snob born of the legal profession, clinically proven to produce nothing of real value.Experts, eh? Knowledge, eh? So old hat.
Graveworm said:
The bikers admitted they put people in danger.
I think she deserved jail, the court thinks she deserved jail which is why they decided the custody threshold was met and sentenced her to 20 months (Far more than any of the bikers).
The Judge thought her 2 very young children didn't deserve to go into care because their mother was stupid. Almost certainly, the people whose job it is to decide on what the benefits and impact of a punishment would be, wrote as much in their reports.
Then they were as thick as you are. Clearly. I think she deserved jail, the court thinks she deserved jail which is why they decided the custody threshold was met and sentenced her to 20 months (Far more than any of the bikers).
The Judge thought her 2 very young children didn't deserve to go into care because their mother was stupid. Almost certainly, the people whose job it is to decide on what the benefits and impact of a punishment would be, wrote as much in their reports.
You heard it here, just be sure to say ‘what about the kids’. I’m sure our resident legal geniuses will agree.
yonex said:
La Liga said:
The DM's target audience.
Click > thick > share
Lol, and another one. No interest in motoring, whatsoever....Click > thick > share
You’re probably more likely to buy the Mail than anyone I know.
Oh wait, that's you.
yonex said:
You’re a typical snob born of the legal profession, clinically proven to produce nothing of real value.
How is it clinically proven? Did you choose that word to try and sound clever? Seems odd how you've been asked to support the 'double standards' aspect (the title of your topic), yet just ignore it. I even spoon-fed you a place to start.
I wonder when you'll stop digging. Probably not for a while.
You have no idea of my opinion about the crime or sentencing as I've not expressed it.
People who possess basic critical thinking skills would have recognised that my view on the matter is an 'unknown' and wouldn't have written silly things about 'brainwashing' because it'd be based on assumptions.
I've merely asked you to support the 'double standards' aspect. That doesn't seem such an unreasonable request given it's what your topic is about.
That you haven't infers you're unable to.
Same trick of avoiding the question.
Best hire a JCB.
People who possess basic critical thinking skills would have recognised that my view on the matter is an 'unknown' and wouldn't have written silly things about 'brainwashing' because it'd be based on assumptions.
I've merely asked you to support the 'double standards' aspect. That doesn't seem such an unreasonable request given it's what your topic is about.
That you haven't infers you're unable to.
Same trick of avoiding the question.
Best hire a JCB.
Edited by chris.mod on Saturday 18th January 20:39
La Liga said:
hat's true, because I'm someone who starts topics and uses a brief media article to make a point. Then when challenged, I find myself not clever enough to support my point and realise I don't actually know what I am talking about. What I do to try and mask this is to ignore questions I can't answer all together.
Oh wait, that's you.
I wonder when you'll stop digging. Probably not for a while.
Brainwashed to think what?Oh wait, that's you.
I wonder when you'll stop digging. Probably not for a while.
Brainwashed how?
hiuman opinion of a crime?
What's that?
And what crime are you talking about?
The actually legislated crimes that people are dealt with & sentenced for in accordance with the guidelines?
Or your made up versions of them?
Edited by chris.mod on Saturday 18th January 20:41
Graveworm said:
The bikers got between half and a fifth of the sentence she got.
No.Her sententence was 'suspended'(only imposed if she does wrong within the stated period).
So she never received it and never will unless she choses to receive it herself. It is now her choice whether she receives it or not. No one elses.
That's what the Judge did when he gave her a suspended sentence, he gave her the choice as to whether she wanted to do it or not.
The bikers did not get the choice.
JimSuperSix said:
Problem is, if it appears that way to general public then it effectively is, no matter the logic behind it. Which is why the justice system gets such a bad rap. Time and again we see women let off for crimes that would and do land men in jail, or appearing at similar times to male-committed much less serious crimes such as speeding that land them in prison.
If you read the comments section of those articles, which are usually just a massive argument with both sides shouting at each other, in this case they almost universally think that she should be in jail, as do quite a lot of people here.
For example :
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7892063/M...
Now I know the comments section is usually just a giant clusterf
k but it does give an insight into the proportion of people on each side, and in this case I didn't see a single comment saying the sentence was fair, most people are questioning why she is not in jail. When everyone thinks the sentence is wrong and that justice is a joke, I think you have a fairly major problem with the system, or at the very least with the public perception of it, and it's us that it should be serving.
If you read the comments section of those articles, which are usually just a massive argument with both sides shouting at each other, in this case they almost universally think that she should be in jail, as do quite a lot of people here.
For example :
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7892063/M...
Now I know the comments section is usually just a giant clusterf
k but it does give an insight into the proportion of people on each side, and in this case I didn't see a single comment saying the sentence was fair, most people are questioning why she is not in jail. When everyone thinks the sentence is wrong and that justice is a joke, I think you have a fairly major problem with the system, or at the very least with the public perception of it, and it's us that it should be serving.Edited by JimSuperSix on Saturday 18th January 10:51
Greendubber said:
I absolutley get the fact that people think she should be jailed, the thing is there are thousands of people who go through the same process and avoid jail when others think they shouldn't. It isn't a case of double standards as has been explained, 'it's just another case' but due to it being a woman the OP seems to think its double standards.
So do you believe that had this been a male the sentence would have been the same?This should be good. Watch for the maneuvering on this one.
Chances are he will go down the route 'it's not for him to say'
kestral said:
Greendubber said:
I absolutley get the fact that people think she should be jailed, the thing is there are thousands of people who go through the same process and avoid jail when others think they shouldn't. It isn't a case of double standards as has been explained, 'it's just another case' but due to it being a woman the OP seems to think its double standards.
So do you believe that had this been a male the sentence would have been the same?This should be good. Watch for the maneuvering on this one.
Chances are he will go down the route 'it's not for him to say'
Loads of people get suspended sentences (blokes included for those that cant understand) for far more serious offences than this as it goes. Shes no different to the many people up and down the country that find themselves in the same boat but some people here are lapping it up because the Daily Mail have told them too.
Take the hook out of your mouths, this is a non event that takes place daily.
kestral said:
No.
Her sententence was 'suspended'(only imposed if she does wrong within the stated period).
So she never received it and never will unless she choses to receive it herself. It is now her choice whether she receives it or not. No one elses.
That's what the Judge did when he gave her a suspended sentence, he gave her the choice as to whether she wanted to do it or not.
The bikers did not get the choice.
One of the bikers did! The other bikers would also have, if their sentence would have caused disproportionate harm to others. Just as nearly everyone does if they are sentenced to less than 24 months. The length of the sentence is the measure of the severity the court views, whether or not it is suspended makes no difference. Her sententence was 'suspended'(only imposed if she does wrong within the stated period).
So she never received it and never will unless she choses to receive it herself. It is now her choice whether she receives it or not. No one elses.
That's what the Judge did when he gave her a suspended sentence, he gave her the choice as to whether she wanted to do it or not.
The bikers did not get the choice.
You are either unable or unwilling to understand actually why sentences are suspended. (It has nothing to do with it being a less severe penalty).
There are also other requirements above the suspended sentence, failure to comply also triggers the suspended sentence.
Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 18th January 22:18
They will never take the hook out of their mouths - it's embedded. It must be weird to go through life being fed on a diet of synthetic outrage, always convinced that there's some sort of establishment conspiracy to favour [insert group that you hate the most - for PH that is usually women]. Meanwhile, you don't notice all the genuinely terrible things being done by the same sort of people as those who are feeding you the diet. You really can fool quite a lot of the people all of the time.
kestral said:
So do you believe that had this been a male the sentence would have been the same?
This should be good. Watch for the maneuvering on this one.
Chances are he will go down the route 'it's not for him to say'
Male single parent of 2 under school age with an unsuitable abusive mother, so they would end up in care, almost certainly. But statistically this will more often be a female. However director of a supercar business who employs others, who rely on him for their wages, also yes. In this case statistically, probably more likely to be male. This should be good. Watch for the maneuvering on this one.
Chances are he will go down the route 'it's not for him to say'
Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 18th January 22:32
kestral said:
Graveworm said:
The bikers got between half and a fifth of the sentence she got.
No.Her sententence was 'suspended'(only imposed if she does wrong within the stated period).
So she never received it and never will unless she choses to receive it herself. It is now her choice whether she receives it or not. No one elses.
That's what the Judge did when he gave her a suspended sentence, he gave her the choice as to whether she wanted to do it or not.
The bikers did not get the choice.
kestral said:
Greendubber said:
I absolutley get the fact that people think she should be jailed, the thing is there are thousands of people who go through the same process and avoid jail when others think they shouldn't. It isn't a case of double standards as has been explained, 'it's just another case' but due to it being a woman the OP seems to think its double standards.
So do you believe that had this been a male the sentence would have been the same?This should be good. Watch for the maneuvering on this one.
Seems a logical place to look...
Breadvan72 said:
They will never take the hook out of their mouths - it's embedded. It must be weird to go through life being fed on a diet of synthetic outrage, always convinced that there's some sort of establishment conspiracy to favour [insert group that you hate the most - for PH that is usually women]. Meanwhile, you don't notice all the genuinely terrible things being done by the same sort of people as those who are feeding you the diet. You really can fool quite a lot of the people all of the time.
That is true! Maybe it's just as well we don't have an establishment conspiracy favouring Old Etonians, or worse still self opinionated "legal experts" - where might that lead us?
It‘s not hard to see why people are upset about what they see as inconsistent/illogical sentencing.
A) I expect most people see actual jail time as punishment for a crime. Nothing else is comparable.
B) Driving dangerously without the intention of hurting someone (and not hurting someone) seems to me, personally, to be a far less serious crime than intentionally driving into people.
If you have think along those lines, then A + B should mean the woman in question would be jailed for longer than the bikers. The thing is, the courts probably brought C into the equation.
C) Person is mentally unwell and has two young kids to take care of.
Then the court decided A + B + C equals no jail time.
Maybe people would prefer that C is not taken into account. They just see what they think is daft sentencing.
A) I expect most people see actual jail time as punishment for a crime. Nothing else is comparable.
B) Driving dangerously without the intention of hurting someone (and not hurting someone) seems to me, personally, to be a far less serious crime than intentionally driving into people.
If you have think along those lines, then A + B should mean the woman in question would be jailed for longer than the bikers. The thing is, the courts probably brought C into the equation.
C) Person is mentally unwell and has two young kids to take care of.
Then the court decided A + B + C equals no jail time.
Maybe people would prefer that C is not taken into account. They just see what they think is daft sentencing.
Good post Kawasicki
On the subject of suspended sentences, I've always struggled to understand how they compare to time in jail. For example for a hypothetical crime of x severity, would a 2 year suspended sentence be equal to ? months in jail?
So if someone committed a crime which was judged to be worth 6 months of jail time but they were deemed unsuitable for jail time what would the deferred sentence time be? 3 years?
Dunc.
On the subject of suspended sentences, I've always struggled to understand how they compare to time in jail. For example for a hypothetical crime of x severity, would a 2 year suspended sentence be equal to ? months in jail?
So if someone committed a crime which was judged to be worth 6 months of jail time but they were deemed unsuitable for jail time what would the deferred sentence time be? 3 years?
Dunc.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff