Another classic case of double standards

[Ken Figenus]

I think that's the rub mate - its more about prison numbers not justice or punishment. Its more about room at the Inn...

This one got 27 months which probably meant a year inside. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/how-...

[kestral]

Graveworm said:

6 months custody is the same whether it is suspended or not. That's what seems to be being disregarded by those who need this to be unfair.

The flowchart is how serious is the offence and where does it sit on the sentencing guidelines.? Does it meet the custody threshold? Take into account aggravating and mitigating factors - what is the minimum jail term that must be passed. That's the sentence.

Then if it is under 2 years it should it be suspended? If suspended what additional conditions should be imposed.

Quote: 6 months custody is the same whether it is suspended or not:End Quote.



Driver of BMW in front of a judge he says you are sentenced to receive £2000 from me the money is only given to you after you have hit someone over the head. Only then will you get the money

Motorcyclists in front of the judge you are sentenced to receive £2000.

Who's got the £2000?

Suspended sentence count for nothing. Unless the critera is met.

[anonymous-user]

dunc_sx said:

Graveworm said:

6 months custody is the same whether it is suspended or not. That's what seems to be being disregarded by those who need this to be unfair.

That doesn't seem quite right though does it? If someone asked me whether I wanted to be put in jail for 6 months or stay at home with famliy/friends etc then (obviously) I'd take the latter. As would anyone else, that's why the two punishments are not like for like. In fact if I were offered 2 years suspended or 6 months in jail I'd pick the 2 years suspended in a blink of an eye.

Dunc.

Yeah to say they are the same, while perhaps technically true, isn't actually equal in terms of outcome or effect because one person ends up in jail, which I suspect as the poster above says is a far worse punishment than a longer period of suspended sentence during which their life effectively carries on as normal providing they don't re-offend.

2 years where you mustn't commit another crime is not in the same league as 6 months in prison, after all that's just a completely normal 2 years for most people.

[Graveworm]

kestral said:

Quote: 6 months custody is the same whether it is suspended or not:End Quote.



Driver of BMW in front of a judge he says you are sentenced to receive £2000 from me the money is only given to you after you have hit someone over the head. Only then will you get the money

Motorcyclists in front of the judge you are sentenced to receive £2000.

Who's got the £2000?

Suspended sentence count for nothing. Unless the critera is met.

Which is great, if that is your opinion. However it is the correct answer to the question that was asked.
A judge shouldn't think. I am either going to give 3 months immediate custody or 18 months suspended. The suspension is not for the benefit of the accused it's for the benefit of others or peculiar to their situation. Do you really think her going to prison for 20 months, losing her children and 2 children under 5, whose parents have just broken up following abuse, going into care, is not something that makes any difference, as to whether the sentence should be be suspended or not?

Taking your analogy, if the fine was 2000 and it was all all the money they had but they owed 2000 balance on their holiday and wouldn't be able to go, we would all think that's wrong if they were let off or given additional time to pay.

However would that be a double standard if they were given time to pay, if likewise, it was all the money they have but it was needed to pay for their mother's care home bill?