We've gone mad.... Discrepancy of sentances
Discussion
Last week a biker gets 9 months for speeding at a very illegal 166mph on a deserted road in the middle of nowhere(even the judge commented on this) however is to be held at her majesties pleaseure for 9months, ruining his job, life etc.
On the other hand we have a drugged up uninsured dangerous driver not concentrating on the road with other drivers around who commits, speeding, uninsured, possesion of Class A drug, failing to stop and possibly stolen car...
And gets basically nothing.
Linky http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/art...
Has the justice system got this politicised and poor that we have these inconsistencies...I give up I really do.
On the other hand we have a drugged up uninsured dangerous driver not concentrating on the road with other drivers around who commits, speeding, uninsured, possesion of Class A drug, failing to stop and possibly stolen car...
And gets basically nothing.
Linky http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/art...
Has the justice system got this politicised and poor that we have these inconsistencies...I give up I really do.
Richie200 said:
What is strange is that, what you deem 'very illegal', only 3hours drive from the UK (Vaterland)) I drive over 160mph every week and no one bats an eyelid and this poor sod gets locked away for 9 months. So much for European intergration of law.
Be very careful what you wish for...............give the EU a year or two and the days of anything but a 70mph max speed anywhere in the EU will be well and truly overQuinny said:
Maybe he came from a broken home
It boils my blood when people say things like this as though it justifies what they did.. 1) I had a troubled childhood
2) I came from a broken home
3) I was abused as a child
4) I had drug problems in the past
5) I lived next door to an MP
6) Lifes tough as a premiership footballer
I mean, quite frankly, if these people do the crime then the sentence should ignore anything in the past as there are simply no excuses. The outcome on the victim is the same, so the punishment on the perpetrator should be the same.
Or am I being too harsh on these poor chavs that try to emulate their chav parents?
Edited by bakerjuk on Saturday 31st October 23:18
Richie200 said:
What is strange is that, what you deem 'very illegal', only 3hours drive from the UK (Vaterland)) I drive over 160mph every week and no one bats an eyelid and this poor sod gets locked away for 9 months. So much for European intergration of law.
On single carriage way A roads? Really?Or you thinking of Autobahn?
AndrewW-G said:
Richie200 said:
What is strange is that, what you deem 'very illegal', only 3hours drive from the UK (Vaterland)) I drive over 160mph every week and no one bats an eyelid and this poor sod gets locked away for 9 months. So much for European intergration of law.
Be very careful what you wish for...............give the EU a year or two and the days of anything but a 70mph max speed anywhere in the EU will be well and truly overI suspect the EU won't rest until we're down to 50 or 60...
bakerjuk said:
The outcome on the victim is the same, so the punishment on the perpetrator should be the same.
You are quite right. However, irritatingly, the law sees it differently. They can be mitigating circumstances in the eyes of the law, along with turning their life around etc etc. Mr_annie_vxr said:
Richie200 said:
What is strange is that, what you deem 'very illegal', only 3hours drive from the UK (Vaterland)) I drive over 160mph every week and no one bats an eyelid and this poor sod gets locked away for 9 months. So much for European intergration of law.
On single carriage way A roads? Really?Or you thinking of Autobahn?
Look no further for why this Country is in the sewer. With pedants like this it's blindingly obvious.
DSM2 said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Richie200 said:
What is strange is that, what you deem 'very illegal', only 3hours drive from the UK (Vaterland)) I drive over 160mph every week and no one bats an eyelid and this poor sod gets locked away for 9 months. So much for European intergration of law.
On single carriage way A roads? Really?Or you thinking of Autobahn?
Look no further for why this Country is in the sewer. With pedants like this it's blindingly obvious.
People do get locked away for dangerous driving in germany and in france and all over Europe.
People have sometimes every right to be annoyed but as usual for PH people are showing huge levels of indignation and anger when they know very little facts about the case in question. No idea of offending history or taking into account that they are often comparing a scottish case with an English case where they have different prison options.
By all means make comparisons but compare like for like. In Germany on the posted limit sections of roads they hammer you for excess speed and on the un-restricted roads if you are driving dangerously you also get hammered.
Still by all means ignore all that and just make a very pointless comment like you just did as it adds so much to discussions on the subject of dangerous driving which by the way has no magic number but is entirely depending on all the surrounding circumstances.
rhinochopig said:
What I don't understand is why the defending lawyers are not using these sorts of outcomes as precedents to argue for more lenient punishments. Is there a legal reason why they don't?
Or a factual reason why they don't or have gone guilty at court. It is very hard to compare punishments as circumstances matter in all these things. Mr_annie_vxr said:
rhinochopig said:
What I don't understand is why the defending lawyers are not using these sorts of outcomes as precedents to argue for more lenient punishments. Is there a legal reason why they don't?
Or a factual reason why they don't or have gone guilty at court. It is very hard to compare punishments as circumstances matter in all these things. Christ, some actually commits GBH to someone and gets a suspended sentence these days. I just don't see how risk can ever take precedence over consequence - just doesn't seem right.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224454/Wo...
At last !!!!
The judge added: 'All of this is of your own making. You could have called a halt to it at any time. I am told you have psychological and other difficulties, but they cannot excuse what you did.'
Why was this logic not applied to the above. Or is it because the police are trying to get the chavs and pikeys to trust them for a bizarre political reason?
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Richie200 said:
What is strange is that, what you deem 'very illegal', only 3hours drive from the UK (Vaterland)) I drive over 160mph every week and no one bats an eyelid and this poor sod gets locked away for 9 months. So much for European intergration of law.
On single carriage way A roads? Really?Or you thinking of Autobahn?
Nut cases and sane people have different levels of moral responsibility for their behaviour, will be deterred by fear of punishments to different extents and will react to incarceration differently. At the very least, nut cases may respond to medical care and cease being mad. Therefore I can't see any reason why you'd expect the courts to hand down the same sentences to nut cases and sane people. They are different, so it makes sense to treat them differently. I imagine most of us would agree with that?
Now, if someone's drug addiction is sufficiently out of control that they have gone from leading a fairly normal life to turning to crime, living like a tramp and slowly killing themselves ... I think it isn't much of a stretch to see them as having gone nuts. Whether or not it was self-inflicted nuts really doesn't matter. It would be mad to think they should be treated like just any other criminal, because they've clearly got a unique set of problems, and if those aren't tackled, Joe Public is going to keep getting robbed and keep paying for them to be dealt with ineffectively. Again, I can't see why you'd expect them to be treated the same way as a sane criminal ... that's not to say they should be treated more leniently, it's just that I'd expect them to be treated differently.
Now, if someone's drug addiction is sufficiently out of control that they have gone from leading a fairly normal life to turning to crime, living like a tramp and slowly killing themselves ... I think it isn't much of a stretch to see them as having gone nuts. Whether or not it was self-inflicted nuts really doesn't matter. It would be mad to think they should be treated like just any other criminal, because they've clearly got a unique set of problems, and if those aren't tackled, Joe Public is going to keep getting robbed and keep paying for them to be dealt with ineffectively. Again, I can't see why you'd expect them to be treated the same way as a sane criminal ... that's not to say they should be treated more leniently, it's just that I'd expect them to be treated differently.
ATG said:
Nut cases and sane people have different levels of moral responsibility for their behaviour, will be deterred by fear of punishments to different extents and will react to incarceration differently. At the very least, nut cases may respond to medical care and cease being mad. Therefore I can't see any reason why you'd expect the courts to hand down the same sentences to nut cases and sane people. They are different, so it makes sense to treat them differently. I imagine most of us would agree with that?
Now, if someone's drug addiction is sufficiently out of control that they have gone from leading a fairly normal life to turning to crime, living like a tramp and slowly killing themselves ... I think it isn't much of a stretch to see them as having gone nuts. Whether or not it was self-inflicted nuts really doesn't matter. It would be mad to think they should be treated like just any other criminal, because they've clearly got a unique set of problems, and if those aren't tackled, Joe Public is going to keep getting robbed and keep paying for them to be dealt with ineffectively. Again, I can't see why you'd expect them to be treated the same way as a sane criminal ... that's not to say they should be treated more leniently, it's just that I'd expect them to be treated differently.
The problem is that these sentences are viewed as being more lenient. I agree that the point of all this is rehabilitation, but locking up a respectable citizen is effectively going to ruin their life. Giving a druggy free methodone 200 hours of community service and a council house is going to get them on their feet. Now, if someone's drug addiction is sufficiently out of control that they have gone from leading a fairly normal life to turning to crime, living like a tramp and slowly killing themselves ... I think it isn't much of a stretch to see them as having gone nuts. Whether or not it was self-inflicted nuts really doesn't matter. It would be mad to think they should be treated like just any other criminal, because they've clearly got a unique set of problems, and if those aren't tackled, Joe Public is going to keep getting robbed and keep paying for them to be dealt with ineffectively. Again, I can't see why you'd expect them to be treated the same way as a sane criminal ... that's not to say they should be treated more leniently, it's just that I'd expect them to be treated differently.
To me it seems like the system is designed for punishment for the likes of you and me and rehabilitation for everyone else.. Should it not be the same for all.. If Joe speed at 166 over the limit then how can he be rehabilitated? is it intensive retraining, lose his licence for a year? Encarseration for such a "risk" crime is craziness and totally unjust.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff