Shunter Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 5 minutes ago, gaz 786 said: Disgusting the whole judicial system has gone to pot bring back caning in school and coppers clipping cheeky kids it worked in the old days There will be a flood of dogooders who will disagree with this but that's the modern numpty way. Criminals today are treated with kid gloves, to an extent that it's more important to find out "why" they decided to interfere with a child rather than what future damage that interference will have on the victim. Its sick, the lot of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 9 hours ago, gaz 786 said: Disgusting the whole judicial system has gone to pot bring back caning in school and coppers clipping cheeky kids it worked in the old days No it didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 21 hours ago, ANGELFIRE1 said: Well I'm certainly not "silent" about the punishment and what it would achieve. He abused a small child for a two year period, so he should have been jailed for 4 years, so he would then serve two years before been let out (we have odd laws where criminals can get out of jail after serving half of their sentence. Regarding what it would achieve, it would show that for any action there are consequences, it would say to the offender that his actions were such, a punishment had to be administered. Hopefully to stop him doing the crime again. Angel1 Well, you've answered. "Hopefully to stop him doing it again". Did you even read the assessment by the sheriff? There appears to be no chance of him doing it again, so given that, what now is the point of the "severe punishment" that you want? 12 hours ago, Shunter said: There will be a flood of dogooders who will disagree with this but that's the modern numpty way. Criminals today are treated with kid gloves, to an extent that it's more important to find out "why" they decided to interfere with a child rather than what future damage that interference will have on the victim. Its sick, the lot of it. It's what the evidence actually shows. But you know, right wingers have had enough of experts and prefer to just make things up instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 On 15/02/2019 at 08:11, Shunter said: Maybe to achieve the definition that this pervert can never do this to a child again? And to accept that because neither sets of parents really wanted to complain is also neither here nor there, because im a parent myself and if some educationally challenged boy touched my daughter inappropriately, I would want him hung by the nads. Thats not silent, is it? "Never do it again". So you're calling for an indefinite life sentence are you. Completely the opposite of the sheriff, way outside the guidelines and not in proportion to sentencing for other far more serious examples of similar crimes. On 15/02/2019 at 09:16, woodview said: Haha I'm not right wing. If you think defending a proven paedophile is left wing then you are sadly mistaken. I asked for an example of the type of circumstances that might justify the sherriffs decision, in order that the point could be understood or discussed. There has been no example given. So my assumption is that there is blind faith in the judiciary, again, not a very left wing stance. Calling for longer sentences and more harsh punishment is typically right wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shunter Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 58 minutes ago, Cyclone said: "Never do it again". So you're calling for an indefinite life sentence are you. Completely the opposite of the sheriff, way outside the guidelines and not in proportion to sentencing for other far more serious examples of similar crimes. Calling for longer sentences and more harsh punishment is typically right wing. Is everyone right wing this morning Cyclone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 Wouldn't have thought so, but the percentage on this forum seems to be gradually increasing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 (edited) ---------------------- Edited February 17, 2019 by woodmally delete post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, woodmally said: Right for all those who seem to defend our judicial system and do not think some of the judgements are absurd. Lets look at some examples. 1) Does everyone remember the violent attack in Mcdonalds by some random bloke with a machete. Yep well how could we allow this to happen people cry. Well simple he could have been stopped sooner. Here is the same guy. https://www.europebreakingnews.net/2018/03/sheffield-city-centre-axe-man-charged-with-affray/ 2) How about wanting to go safely about your business on a bus. And then the bus driver is violently attacked. You'd think the attacker would get a severe punishment. Dont be daft again its the UK. Of course the scroat walked free. https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/yob-walks-free-after-sheffield-bus-attack-1-7122436 3) Woman who has 42! seperate court attendances given suspended prison sentence because "she had a hard life". https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/woman-barred-from-sheffield-leisure-centres-for-stealing-from-lockers-1-7117902 So do people still think the laws are correctly applied? Yes. 1. Possession of something that may be used as a weapon is a wholly different crime and punishment to conducting a deliberate attack with a weapon. You cant lock people up on what they "might" do in the future. 2. That yob did not "walk away" he was given a 12 month sentence. It was suspended due to mitigating circumstances and involvement from a mental health nurse. That's the sort of thing that get considered by a court by people who know all the facts. 3. She had mitigating circumstances and appropriate punishment including suspended prison, supervision order and banning from locations was given by a suitably qualified Judge after hearing all the facts. Whether YOU like it or not. That is the law. Different crimes have different punishments. Charges and sentences are based on what a an offender HAS done not MAY do. A case is heard on each individual merit. Different cases have completley different mitigating circumstances. If there is a genuine legal reason that a Judge or Bench has made a mistake or misinterpreted then of course there are appeals processes for such things. After all, they are human beings and falible too. However, that is for the parties and the lawyers to take up - not ill informed and unqualified internet chatterboxes like us. Now, unless you have got several years of law school and experience in dealing with criminal law under your belt and have been sat in front of each and every single one of these hearings with knowledge of both sides of the arguments and sight of all relevant evidence what makes you think that the laws are incorrectly applied? As I have said before "I personal dont like it" does not automatically equal "its wrong". Edited February 17, 2019 by ECCOnoob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 35 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said: Yes. 1. Possession of something that may be used as a weapon is a wholly different crime and punishment to conducting a deliberate attack with a weapon. You cant lock people up on what they "might" do in the future. 2. That yob did not "walk away" he was given a 12 month sentence. It was suspended due to mitigating circumstances and involvement from a mental health nurse. That's the sort of thing that get considered by a court by people who know all the facts. 3. She had mitigating circumstances and appropriate punishment including suspended prison, supervision order and banning from locations was given by a suitably qualified Judge after hearing all the facts. Whether YOU like it or not. That is the law. Different crimes have different punishments. Charges and sentences are based on what a an offender HAS done not MAY do. A case is heard on each individual merit. Different cases have completley different mitigating circumstances. If there is a genuine legal reason that a Judge or Bench has made a mistake or misinterpreted then of course there are appeals processes for such things. After all, they are human beings and falible too. However, that is for the parties and the lawyers to take up - not ill informed and unqualified internet chatterboxes like us. Now, unless you have got several years of law school and experience in dealing with criminal law under your belt and have been sat in front of each and every single one of these hearings with knowledge of both sides of the arguments and sight of all relevant evidence what makes you think that the laws are incorrectly applied? As I have said before "I personal dont like it" does not automatically equal "its wrong". Ok I accept your argument for the first. But the other two. It seems that because they have mental problems they are allowed to get away with it. This woman had 42! let me repeat 42 appearances before the court and still the mental health nurse wrote a letter to get her let off. I'm sorry but clearly she continues to defy the law and yet gets away with it on mental health grounds. If the other 42 occasions where she is punished and still does it mean that she wont do it again. As for the yob that got a suspended sentence for knocking a bus driver into the middle of next week. Why should we allow him to walk free. Too often we think of the poor criminal here "oh they have mental illness" or "oh they have had a bad life" well frankly it should be tough. Lets think of one person in this situation and thats the victim. I dont really care about the criminals human rights because frankly they gave those up when they commited the office or the 42 offence in the case of the woman. I dont understand the law and believe me I wish I did understand the logic in allowing the last two to walk free because it is beyond my comprehension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, woodmally said: Ok I accept your argument for the first. But the other two. It seems that because they have mental problems they are allowed to get away with it. This woman had 42! let me repeat 42 appearances before the court and still the mental health nurse wrote a letter to get her let off. I'm sorry but clearly she continues to defy the law and yet gets away with it on mental health grounds. If the other 42 occasions where she is punished and still does it mean that she wont do it again. As for the yob that got a suspended sentence for knocking a bus driver into the middle of next week. Why should we allow him to walk free. Too often we think of the poor criminal here "oh they have mental illness" or "oh they have had a bad life" well frankly it should be tough. Lets think of one person in this situation and thats the victim. I dont really care about the criminals human rights because frankly they gave those up when they commited the office or the 42 offence in the case of the woman. I dont understand the law and believe me I wish I did understand the logic in allowing the last two to walk free because it is beyond my comprehension. It seems that you have an issue with people who have mental health problems, and their consequences, rather than the judiciary. Edited February 17, 2019 by SnailyBoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now