Man who took his trousers off in town centre is jailed for 20 weeks

[Revel]

Judges can't just do what they like. They have to follow sentencing guidelines. And the guidelines follow the law.

 

The trouble sometimes is that the law hasn't been constructed from scratch according to some kind of hierarchy of crime. And you can get judges who are too lenient or too strict, in which case there are remedies.

 

It's worth reading up on the sentencing guidelines, as it can sometimes help you work out why someone got the sentence they got. In fact, i would say that everyone should be taught about these, so we can be informed citizens and make up own mind properly.

 

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentencing/about-guidelines/

 

The trouble is, we don't always get the full story.

 

Yes, they can do what they like. The guidelines are very loose. There are only a handful of charges that come with a minimum sentence.

GBH, for example, comes with a maximum of 5 years but absolutely no minimum. Essentially that means a judge can give a defendant community service for "accidentally" putting someone in a coma.

 

Then we have "life sentences"... don't get me started on those.

 

"I hereby sentence you to life improsonment, with a minimum of 15 years." LOL.

 

I did law at A Level and I remember learning about judges. Magistrates are heavily criticised in particular, and rightly so. The majority are middle-aged, middle-class, white men who live in upmarket areas and have no idea how it feels to live in areas with high crime. So out of touch.

[Snowglobe]

maybe we should make criminals into magistrates then as they are obviously in touch with the less well off areas

[Revel]

maybe we should make criminals into magistrates then as they are obviously in touch with the less well off areas

 

Maybe judges should be solicitors, barristers, police officers, etc who've had experience in the real world.

 

Or perhaps they shouldn't be lay? That'd be a good start.

It's like me practicing medicine, with a qualified doctor giving me tips.

[Dr Afzal]

The guy of the OP can (be sentenced to-) help. Or clean graffitis. Or pick up chewing gums from pavements.

 

Or spend a day in stocks on a public square. In the niff, since he likes it

 

It would provide somewhere to park a bike but what would you chain it to.

[Dannyno]

Yes, they can do what they like. The guidelines are very loose. There are only a handful of charges that come with a minimum sentence.

GBH, for example, comes with a maximum of 5 years but absolutely no minimum. Essentially that means a judge can give a defendant community service for "accidentally" putting someone in a coma.

 

I gave the link, so people can read the guidelines. I'd say we do want judges to have some discretion, but still they have to follow the guidelines and the law. If the law doesn't provide for minimum sentences, that's not the fault of judges.

 

But you're wrong on the specific example you give. The maximum for GBH is not 5 years at all.

 

As the guidance on the various forms of grievous bodily harm say, the maximum sentence for "Causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm/Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm" is

"Life imprisonment", with a range in the guidance of 3-16 years.

 

The maximum for "Inflicting grievous bodily harm/Unlawful wounding" (s.20 of the Offences against the person act, 1861, is five years. The range is community order to four years.

 

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Assault_definitive_guideline_-_Crown_Court.pdf

 

I imagine that a lot of people think that there should be more severe punishments, although this tends to be a reactive opinion based on individual cases, rather than on what the whole of the law looks like. My point is that if that's what you think, then the law and the sentencing guidelines need to change and you need to familiarise yourself with what the law and guidelines currently say, and what the range of punishments currently is.

 

Research suggests that most people consistently underestimate the severity of punishments for many crimes.

 

When judges give out community orders for the lesser GBH offence they do (usually) not because they are making the law up, but because they are following the sentencing guidelines.

[Cyclone]

Maybe judges should be solicitors, barristers, police officers, etc who've had experience in the real world.

 

Or perhaps they shouldn't be lay? That'd be a good start.

It's like me practicing medicine, with a qualified doctor giving me tips.

 

Why shouldn't they be lay people. You could apply to be one now. You get given guidance on the legal aspects and then you make a decision (after all the appropriate training and shadowing first of course).

[Dannyno]

It's worth noting in the particular case at the beginning of this thread, that "outraging public decency" is a common law crime - i.e. there's no particular legislation that sets out the punishments. There is no maximum limit on punishment.

 

There's an interesting CPS comment on OPD here:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/nudity_in_public/#07a

[redfox]

Maybe judges should be solicitors, barristers, police officers, etc who've had experience in the real world.

 

Or perhaps they shouldn't be lay? That'd be a good start.

It's like me practicing medicine, with a qualified doctor giving me tips.

 

 

The real world ? What, like being involved in the criminal justice system for 10 years - defending and prosecuting all manner of cases and dealing with thousands of defendants, witnesses, family members etc etc - You mean that sort of experience ?

 

We allow police officers and judges and barristers to sit in judgement by being on juries - what more do you want ?

[L00b]

Maybe judges should be solicitors, barristers, police officers, etc who've had experience in the real world.

Idk about police officers (wouldn't be surprised if that was also the case), but many Judges are ex-solicitors/barristers (or current solicitors/barristers in training to become Judges) indeed.

[Revel]

...

 

But you're wrong on the specific example you give. The maximum for GBH is not 5 years at all.

 

As the guidance on the various forms of grievous bodily harm say, the maximum sentence for "Causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm/Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm" is

"Life imprisonment", with a range in the guidance of 3-16 years.

 

The maximum for "Inflicting grievous bodily harm/Unlawful wounding" (s.20 of the Offences against the person act, 1861, is five years. The range is community order to four years.

 

...

 

When judges give out community orders for the lesser GBH offence they do (usually) not because they are making the law up, but because they are following the sentencing guidelines.

 

So I was right... The maximum sentence for GBH is 5 years.

GBH and GBH with intent are two completely different charges, like murder and manslaughter.

 

As for your last point, I recognise that judges are following the law, and that shows that the law itself is too soft as well. Sentencing guidelines are often far too subjective and open to interpretation. Even when the freedom for top sentences is there, judges often choose not to use it because of their personal interpretation of aggravating and mitigating factors.

 

Think of this...

 

You're at the bar in a pub. You turn around to take your drink back to your table, and accidentally spill it on the really drunk man behind you. He gets very angry and takes it personally, so he smashes you in the face with his bottle. Your injuries aren't life-threatening, but they do leave you scarred for life.

 

There are some mitigating factors: he's had what the judge thinks is a "hard life", he has a clean record, and there was clearly no pre-meditation.

 

In court, he's found guilty and is given a 12 month suspended sentence and is ordered to pay £1,000 compensation. Meanwhile, you're reminded of the attack every time you look in the mirror for the rest of your life. You're self-confidence plummets, you lose your job and become depressed.

 

How would you feel about that sentence?

 

Idk about police officers (wouldn't be surprised if that was also the case), but many Judges are ex-solicitors/barristers (or current solicitors/barristers in training to become Judges) indeed.

 

Police officers are not allowed to become magistrates.