tzijlstra Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 The clue that this is a flaunting of our current justice system is in the name of the bill that needs to be altered to make it happen: Criminal Justice and Courts Bill The issue is: It takes the ability of the judge to sentence appropriately away, effectively saying: If the police catch you carrying a knife twice you are going to have to go to prison for six months, sorry. That is why the police becomes the judge with this rule and it is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 The clue that this is a flaunting of our current justice system is in the name of the bill that needs to be altered to make it happen: Criminal Justice and Courts Bill The issue is: It takes the ability of the judge to sentence appropriately away, effectively saying: If the police catch you carrying a knife twice you are going to have to go to prison for six months, sorry. That is why the police becomes the judge with this rule and it is wrong. Only if you are convicted in a court, I'm not getting why this is upsetting you, the police arrest lots of people, the CPS decide if they should go to court and the court decide their guilt, and government legislation usually given the court sentencing guidelines. None of that is changing other than the sentence if found guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 One more time, the law already says that if you are caught carrying a knife of a certain length, you are committing a knife-crime. It is practically an automatic conviction at the moment as it is. Then you take that automatic conviction and attach a six month jail term to it for strike two without giving a judge the chance to alter that sentence as appropriate (except for making it longer). I am all for tougher sentencing on knife-crimes, but I don't think it should be forced through the political system. There has to be a separation between politicians and justice and this law they are amending is one of those that safeguards that separation. It is the beginning of further interference in our excellent justice system by politicians and that is why I am against it. Clear enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 The law as far as "sentence" is concerned already directs that in certain cases mandatory minimum terms will apply. - the 'third strike burglar' faces on conviction a minimum 3 year sentence. Those found guilty of possessing a firearm of a particular description (s.5(1)(a)(b)(a) Firearms Act 1968) face a minimum 5 year term. There are also mandatory minimum terms for those convicted for a second time of drug trafficking offences - 7 years. Knife crime is a grave concern to many and it is no surprise that the "get tough" brigade start to roll out these sorts of comments. What they do not tell you is whether or not there is strong evidence that those convicted of possessing knives (as an offensive weapon or as a bladed article) do not go to prison when found guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 One more time, the law already says that if you are caught carrying a knife of a certain length, you are committing a knife-crime. It is practically an automatic conviction at the moment as it is. Then you take that automatic conviction and attach a six month jail term to it for strike two without giving a judge the chance to alter that sentence as appropriate (except for making it longer). I am all for tougher sentencing on knife-crimes, but I don't think it should be forced through the political system. There has to be a separation between politicians and justice and this law they are amending is one of those that safeguards that separation. It is the beginning of further interference in our excellent justice system by politicians and that is why I am against it. Clear enough? Yes I am very clear on what your opinion is, I just disagree with it, in my opinion you are wrong, Is that clear enough for you. Courts need consistency when dishing out punishment and this achieves it to some degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.