|
|
Post by stuammo on Mar 12, 2024 23:14:47 GMT
www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/banned-motorist-caught-drink-driving-9151668Just reading our local rag and seen this story. Bloke is on a suspended sentence and commits further offences, and despite being done for drink driving pleads his case that he’s given up the booze? Judges buys it all, and gives the bloke another suspended sentence? How is this right? A suspended suspended sentence?? Just thought I’d start a thread where we could highlight the disgraceful decisions our judges are making, in the name of protecting the public. Anyone got any?
|
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 12, 2024 23:17:54 GMT
Certainly raises a number of questions. Initially I thought it was just the single sentence but then I read the second paragraph. Think you're being a bit harsh on yourself though, they're well composed and certainly not pathetic.
|
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Mar 12, 2024 23:20:10 GMT
www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/banned-motorist-caught-drink-driving-9151668Just reading out local rag and seen this story. Bloke is on a suspended sentence and commits further offences and despite being done for drink driving pleads his case that he’s given up the booze? Judges buys it all and gives the bloke another suspended sentence? How is this right? A suspended suspended sentence?? Just thought I’d start a thread where we could highlight the disgraceful decisions our judges are making in the name of protecting the public. Anyone got any? It’s incredibly frustrating but this is not the judges fault this is the fault of the government. No investment in building prisons so not enough space to home the criminals so guidence given to mags and judges to not dish out custodial sentences. It’s also on the govt that they’re releasing prisoners early before they’ve even served half their sentence. It’s a disgrace. |
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Mar 12, 2024 23:52:59 GMT
Until judges, magistrates, parole boards, psychiatrists and probation officers become personally responsible for the subsequent harm a person causes based upon their weak sentencing or bleeding heart belief someone is not a risk, nothing will change. In the meantime average Joe Public gets the brunt of it by becoming victims of offenders who should be locked up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 12, 2024 23:53:58 GMT
Blimey and there was me opening this thread thinking it was going to be about Biden's communication skills! 🤦♂️
|
|
|
|
Post by pretzel on Mar 13, 2024 21:23:21 GMT
Blimey and there was me opening this thread thinking it was going to be about Biden's communication skills! 🤦♂️ I was expecting it to be about Benji |
|
|
|
Post by stokeson on Mar 13, 2024 22:14:49 GMT
I Give you Katie Price AKA Jordan... No licence no insurance walks free again .
|
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Mar 13, 2024 23:59:14 GMT
That guy who ran the little girl over a couple of years back while drunk, high, no insurance, no licence, previous drink driving convictions getting a short stay at her majesty’s pleasure was a joke
|
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 14, 2024 0:08:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by deeside2 on Mar 14, 2024 6:37:52 GMT
You see pathetic sentences handed out all the time. I've watched some Traffic Cops and Police Interceptors progs. I saw one recently where the driver was caught after a high speed chase (doing 70/80 mph in a 30 zone in busy traffic) where he collided with two other cars, and was found to be three times over the drink drive limit, no licence, no insurance, and enough drugs in the car for intent to supply. He got a 12 month driving ban (as though that's going to stop him from driving), 40 hours of community work, £100 fine and no action was taken over the drink or drugs. It was later revealed he'd been stopped for almost the same offences two weeks after this court incident and was sentenced to 8 months in prison and got a 24 month driving ban.
There are an endless stream of speeding/failing to stop, and exceeding drink and/or drugs (cannabis and/or cocaine) limits, usually with no licence and no insurance, where the driver just about gets a slap on the wrist. It's pathetic, and eye-opening when you see what some scumbags are doing, and what they're prepared to do to avoid getting caught.
|
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 14, 2024 6:54:06 GMT
Until judges, magistrates, parole boards, psychiatrists and probation officers become personally responsible for the subsequent harm a person causes based upon their weak sentencing or bleeding heart belief someone is not a risk, nothing will change. In the meantime average Joe Public gets the brunt of it by becoming victims of offenders who should be locked up. Then we would have no judges, magistrates, people working for parole boards, psychiatrists or probation officers, and so no criminal justice system at all. This would be a terrible idea to make them personally responsible. The tories are releasing people from prison early because they have underfunded the system. If you want a better criminal justice system, it must be paid for. If you want a better criminal justice system, vote for the former head of the CPS at the next election rather than the party who cut budgets so far that the system broke. |
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Mar 14, 2024 7:02:10 GMT
You see pathetic sentences handed out all the time. I've watched some Traffic Cops and Police Interceptors progs. I saw one recently where the driver was caught after a high speed chase (doing 70/80 mph in a 30 zone in busy traffic) where he collided with two other cars, and was found to be three times over the drink drive limit, no licence, no insurance, and enough drugs in the car for intent to supply. He got a 12 month driving ban (as though that's going to stop him from driving), 40 hours of community work, £100 fine and no action was taken over the drink or drugs. It was later revealed he'd been stopped for almost the same offences two weeks after this court incident and was sentenced to 8 months in prison and got a 24 month driving ban. There are an endless stream of speeding/failing to stop, and exceeding drink and/or drugs (cannabis and/or cocaine) limits, usually with no licence and no insurance, where the driver just about gets a slap on the wrist. It's pathetic, and eye-opening when you see what some scumbags are doing, and what they're prepared to do to avoid getting caught. It’s a joke and incredibly frustrating for those that work incredibly hard to put them in front of the court. Very demotivating I’d imagine. |
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Mar 14, 2024 7:15:56 GMT
11 broken backs and hundreds of injuries later...... a doctors delegation visited the premises to find out what's going on...... "The sentence will be less than many people hoped for and many people think you deserve." Shuttleworth was fined £6,500 and Melling £6,300, with each ordered to complete 250 hours of unpaid community service. www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/trampoline-park-directors-fined-after-32225388 |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Mar 14, 2024 7:32:20 GMT
Add to this the question of releasing serious offenders on bail after being found guilty pending their sentencing hearing……. Oh look they’ve disappeared.  |
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Mar 14, 2024 8:16:42 GMT
Until judges, magistrates, parole boards, psychiatrists and probation officers become personally responsible for the subsequent harm a person causes based upon their weak sentencing or bleeding heart belief someone is not a risk, nothing will change. In the meantime average Joe Public gets the brunt of it by becoming victims of offenders who should be locked up. Then we would have no judges, magistrates, people working for parole boards, psychiatrists or probation officers, and so no criminal justice system at all. This would be a terrible idea to make them personally responsible. The tories are releasing people from prison early because they have underfunded the system. If you want a better criminal justice system, it must be paid for. If you want a better criminal justice system, vote for the former head of the CPS at the next election rather than the party who cut budgets so far that the system broke. They are unaccountable for their decisions and are detached from the impact their decisions have on victims. First and foremost they think offenders rights over victims. If they knew they were accountable, or one of their own family would fall victim of their daft decisions, they would think differently. I don't believe anyone should be released early and agree the Tories have that, amongst many things, very wrong, but more money also means more indulgence for offender pacification. As for Starmer....him and his sought are exactly the problem as to why offender management and the criminal justice system is so biased towards offenders and against victims. The system should protect victims but now it just creates a target rich environment where someone has to then pick up the pieces of another broken life in the worse cases whilst those who did not do their jobs properly by sorting the offender after numerous episodes shrug their shoulders and hide blaming the system when they are the system. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 14, 2024 8:40:09 GMT
Then we would have no judges, magistrates, people working for parole boards, psychiatrists or probation officers, and so no criminal justice system at all. This would be a terrible idea to make them personally responsible. The tories are releasing people from prison early because they have underfunded the system. If you want a better criminal justice system, it must be paid for. If you want a better criminal justice system, vote for the former head of the CPS at the next election rather than the party who cut budgets so far that the system broke. They are unaccountable for their decisions and are detached from the impact their decisions have on victims. First and foremost they think offenders rights over victims. If they knew they were accountable, or one of their own family would fall victim of their daft decisions, they would think differently. I don't believe anyone should be released early and agree the Tories have that, amongst many things, very wrong, but more money also means more indulgence for offender pacification. As for Starmer....him and his sought are exactly the problem as to why offender management and the criminal justice system is so biased towards offenders and against victims. The system should protect victims but now it just creates a target rich environment where someone has to then pick up the pieces of another broken life in the worse cases whilst those who did not do their jobs properly by sorting the offender after numerous episodes shrug their shoulders and hide blaming the system when they are the system. If you make the people above personally liable for their decisions then nobody will ever do those jobs again. Why not make ministers liable for their decisions? It is the political pressure from government that is being applied to Judges and magistrates to ensure people avoid prison as much as possible as there are no spaces due to their choices to underfund the system. Funding the system properly means faster justice and more space to lock up dangerous individuals for the full length of their sentence. It doesn’t mean indulging offender pacification. Criminal barristers were paid less than the train fare for hearings on legal aid. No wonder there is a shortage of barristers willing to do the work and terrible backlogs. Victims cannot be protected as the crime has already been committed. The protection should have come sooner. It is really fundamentally depends on what you want your criminal justice system to do. Punish or rehabilitate so they don’t offend again. Violent criminals need to be locked up to protect the public. Non-violent criminals should avoid prison where possible because all the data and research shows it doesn’t help them stop offending. The majority of crime is linked to addiction (drug and/or alcohol) and deprivation, heightened by austerity, cut public services and the cost of living crisis (in other words, the tory governments over the past 14 years). The cost to the tax payer of crime is vastly reduced if we can address the offending behaviours or social conditions that lead to offending behaviour for the more minor crimes. Then the sentences for violent crimes can be longer to better protect the public from harm. It is about being tough on certain types of offender in my opinion, and changing societal conditions to reduce the chances of people committing crime. It is very heavily linked to the 5th of UK adults not trying to word thread. |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Mar 14, 2024 8:50:22 GMT
'The majority of crime is linked to addiction (drug and/or alcohol) and deprivation, heightened by austerity, cut public services and the cost of living crisis (in other words, the tory governments over the past 14 years).'
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 14, 2024 8:55:13 GMT
In principle I agree with the precedent system for sentencing and guidelines
EXCEPT
It has gone wrong somewhere
( there's a contradiction for you)
Inevitably the following of precedents and the overly consideration of this new God " Human rights" will lead to reduced sentences...couple this with the costs incurred in operating the " Criminal Justice system " , the underfunding of prisons AND other( pre offending and post offenfing) preventative measures....unfortunately things are only going to get worse .....not only has the concept of punishment been demoted, deterence is disappearing, rehabilitation often a forlorn goal for some. What money that is put in the system is probably going in the wrong place ...and as harsh as it may seem to some is not going where the majority of law abiding people want it to ho , who perceive that we have gone too soft. Of course such views may be seen as " dog whistling" if expressed politically...." You are just the flog them and hang them brigade"....not really, just want law and order.
|
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Mar 14, 2024 9:28:23 GMT
Then we would have no judges, magistrates, people working for parole boards, psychiatrists or probation officers, and so no criminal justice system at all. This would be a terrible idea to make them personally responsible. The tories are releasing people from prison early because they have underfunded the system. If you want a better criminal justice system, it must be paid for. If you want a better criminal justice system, vote for the former head of the CPS at the next election rather than the party who cut budgets so far that the system broke. They are unaccountable for their decisions and are detached from the impact their decisions have on victims. First and foremost they think offenders rights over victims. If they knew they were accountable, or one of their own family would fall victim of their daft decisions, they would think differently. I don't believe anyone should be released early and agree the Tories have that, amongst many things, very wrong, but more money also means more indulgence for offender pacification. As for Starmer....him and his sought are exactly the problem as to why offender management and the criminal justice system is so biased towards offenders and against victims. The system should protect victims but now it just creates a target rich environment where someone has to then pick up the pieces of another broken life in the worse cases whilst those who did not do their jobs properly by sorting the offender after numerous episodes shrug their shoulders and hide blaming the system when they are the system. “detached” reaches much further than just courts it also applies to political opinion too and the media. |
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Mar 14, 2024 11:27:18 GMT
In principle I agree with the precedent system for sentencing and guidelines EXCEPT It has gone wrong somewhere ( there's a contradiction for you) Inevitably the following of precedents and the overly consideration of this new God " Human rights" will lead to reduced sentences...couple this with the costs incurred in operating the " Criminal Justice system " , the underfunding of prisons AND other( pre offending and post offenfing) preventative measures....unfortunately things are only going to get worse .....not only has the concept of punishment been demoted, deterence is disappearing, rehabilitation often a forlorn goal for some. What money that is put in the system is probably going in the wrong place ...and as harsh as it may seem to some is not going where the majority of law abiding people want it to ho , who perceive that we have gone too soft. Of course such views may be seen as " dog whistling" if expressed politically...." You are just the flog them and hang them brigade"....not really, just want law and order. Is deterrent really that big of a factor when committing a crime? I don’t think that the majority of crimes are committed simply because someone thinks that the punishment isn’t that bad. People still stole things in Sudan when the punishment was to lose a hand (a punishment that’s now returned). Crime rates are still high in Russia, despite the state of their prisons. There are some crimes that I don’t believe in rehab for (either I don’t think it will work for them or that the nature of the crime is so severe that I don’t think that they deserve it): sex offences/murder. Just lock them up and feed them gruel until they die. However, study after study has shown that treating prisoners like humans and providing them the opportunity to rehab (counseling/education/paying them for menial labour so they aren’t broke as soon as they leave) leads to less recidivism). Isn’t that the actual overall goal? Repeat offenders commit the majority of crimes. Surely, getting them to stop doing this would be a good idea? Actual rehab requires a large upfront cost but if the goal is to actually reduce crime, then it’s a valid effort. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 14, 2024 11:57:21 GMT
In principle I agree with the precedent system for sentencing and guidelines EXCEPT It has gone wrong somewhere ( there's a contradiction for you) Inevitably the following of precedents and the overly consideration of this new God " Human rights" will lead to reduced sentences...couple this with the costs incurred in operating the " Criminal Justice system " , the underfunding of prisons AND other( pre offending and post offenfing) preventative measures....unfortunately things are only going to get worse .....not only has the concept of punishment been demoted, deterence is disappearing, rehabilitation often a forlorn goal for some. What money that is put in the system is probably going in the wrong place ...and as harsh as it may seem to some is not going where the majority of law abiding people want it to ho , who perceive that we have gone too soft. Of course such views may be seen as " dog whistling" if expressed politically...." You are just the flog them and hang them brigade"....not really, just want law and order. Is deterrent really that big of a factor when committing a crime? I don’t think that the majority of crimes are committed simply because someone thinks that the punishment isn’t that bad. People still stole things in Sudan when the punishment was to lose a hand (a punishment that’s now returned). Crime rates are still high in Russia, despite the state of their prisons. There are some crimes that I don’t believe in rehab for (either I don’t think it will work for them or that the nature of the crime is so severe that I don’t think that they deserve it): sex offences/murder. Just lock them up and feed them gruel until they die. However, study after study has shown that treating prisoners like humans and providing them the opportunity to rehab (counseling/education/paying them for menial labour so they aren’t broke as soon as they leave) leads to less recidivism). Isn’t that the actual overall goal? Repeat offenders commit the majority of crimes. Surely, getting them to stop doing this would be a good idea? Actual rehab requires a large upfront cost but if the goal is to actually reduce crime, then it’s a valid effort. No idea. I would have thought for some crimes , in some cases the thought of getting caught is a big deterrent |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Mar 14, 2024 12:50:56 GMT
Not normally a fan of duplicate posts on different threads but I believe this is particularly relevant to this discussion - Myth #16. “If we lock up dealers we can reduce the drug-related violence.” The opposite is true, disrupting supply and removing dealers creates more violence by fuelling market uncertainty, presenting new business opportunities and creating ‘business’ conflict. Believing in this myth is a good part of the reason our prisons are full to bursting and possibly to a lesser extent believing the other 74 🤦 There is another way... julianbuchanan.wordpress.com/ |
|
