To feel sorry for (and think the punishment is too long) for the 18 year old who threw the fire extinguisher in the protests

[LaurieFairyonthetreeEatsCake]

2 years, 8 months in jail

here

That's a looooong time. Is the reasoning supposed to be that it's a deterrent?

There are people with asbo's who cause no end of trouble and don't get sentences like this.

YANBU

I guess that is the problem. People want to feel that there is a fair pattern to everything really.

I know very little about this and was amazed to hear that if you do something in a group it counts as somehow worse than if you do it as an isolated incident because the intent of the group is taken into account.

Are you still there Kungfu? Is that the case or have I misunderstood?

Wise, well-reasoned posts, kungfupanda.

Surely the person that murdered your cousin should have had a longer sentance not this guy a lighter one?

No, you haven't misunderstood. The nature of the group public order offences (affray, violent disorder, riot) is that you are acting as part of a group and that is more frightening and dangerous. The number of people involved is actually relevant to the offence which is charged.

There is case law in relation to sentencing for these offences - the conduct of the group is relevant, as well as the individual's role within the group. So an individual who throws a bottle at a police officer is likely to get a lighter sentence than if there were 10 other people also throwing bottles.

Maybe that explains why this was a heavy sentence then.

alicatte - I think you are spot-on with your comment about people wanting to see a pattern. The thing is that there is a pattern, but it is not necessarily obvious to someone who doesn't work in the system. The pattern is not just "x got this sentence so y should get this". It is "x did this and has xyz complicating factors so will get this and y did this with xyz complicating factors so will get this" The calculations are the pattern, not the outcome, but it is the outcome that gets reported.

And remember, it is not always reported correctly. I was at the crown court today and heard a reporter telling another one that someone was being sentenced for "violent misconduct". No such thing!

I also wish that people would understand that the criminal justice system is basically the people who run it, most of whom are trying their best most of the time. It's very complex. It isn't a machine. It isn't perfect. It is thankfully (mostly) free from corruption.

I only knew what I was told about my Brother in Law's stepbrother. I guess from what you are saying he must have been involved in affray then and the violent bit was added on by the horrified family. I think hitting a policeman with part of a metal chair is a bit serious though - if he did that, you are quite right to say that embroider occurs in any retelling.

But does sentencing get affected by the risk to society posed by an individual?

I am sorry to beard you so - its just you do seem to know what you are talking about and I have always wondered.

Actually dittany, to be fair I was quoting my mother

Oops. Just realised that I have been a bit stupid due to my habitual refusal to read the news before I go to court so that I don't get caught up in rubber-necking at high-profile cases.

It was Southwark crown court I was at today. The massive bank of reporters including the ones who got the offence wrong WERE there for the student.

[off to nosey at which judge sentenced him]

Yabu.

Stupid arse should have thought about what he was doing.

I hate this latest nonsense about 'oh but kids will be kids, you musn;t be so uptight' bullshit.

At 18 he knows the difference between right and wrong and has the authority to vote.

You can't have it both ways!

Either he is a child or he isn't.
Either he is a spoilt brat too used to getting his own way or he isn't.

More kids need to taught a lesson and if their parents fail to do it at a young age then it is down to the judicial system to do it at a later stage.

Not as effective but none the less necessary and well overdue.

YoIt's fine alicatte - it's rare that there is a thread where I actually know what I am talking about!

There is an issue about risk to society - it is something that is always addressed by the pre-sentence reports prepared by the probation service. They address risk of re-offending, risk of re-offending in the same way, risk to particular individuals, risk to the public etc. However, it is not one of the main strands of normal sentencing. However, there is a relatively new type of sentencing - it is an extended sentence for public protection. It is a bit too complicated to explain but the brief summary is that if someone is considered "dangerous" (official legal definition) they can get an extended sentence over and above what the usual calculation would merit. However, a lot of that issue is dealt with by the parole board post-sentencing.

Yo? Not sure where that came from!

Thank you KungFu.

[pootles back from nosying at court list]

It was the Recorder of Westminster who sentenced him, as part of the normal court list. No special treatment. No priority listing or anything. He is a fairly standard judge - not notoriously harsh, but not someone you think "oh goody, it's Rivlin sentencing today."

Incidentally, the reason it was dealt with quickly (someone was suspicious about this) is that it was a committal for sentence. ie he pleaded guilty in the magistrates' court - they felt their sentencing powers were insufficient so his case was committed to the crown court for sentence. Southwark tend to list committals for sentence relatively quickly.

Not sure really, it was a very very stupid thing to do. But, nobody was hurt. Whereas people who do hurt others are often let off with more lenient senrences. Sadly. For example, drunk drivers, as I am sure many others have mentioned. So it seems unfair to have quite such a long sentence given. Yes, someone could have been killed. But nobody was. Thankfully.
I think a custodial sentence is probably right, but I'm surprised at the severity.

yes totally, what a stupid ass.

lochnessmumster: "Drunk drivers should be treated more harshly". Prove it. I happen to agree with you, but I'd love to see you try to prove it -- if you can, it'll be a miracle, because there is nothing "out there" in the world apart from our gut feeling that says that a particular sentence is too light or too heavy. There is no "natural law" of sentencing. There are things we pay attention to: punishment, deterrent, mitigation etc. But these are all about how to vary from a baseline that is inevitably set by gut feel.

So all we're left with is assertion based on gut feel: you assert that his sentence feels fine, but that drunk drivers' sentences feel too light. I assert that his sentence feels too heavy, and that drunk drivers' sentences feel too light. My assertion is based on relative length of sentence for what he did vs what others have done. We both agree that it is important that drunk drivers should be punished more severely than he was.

Kungfupannda, I'm astonished that you as a lawyer would argue:
"the whole "others got less for worse" or "the police have done worse things" is a massive straw man argument. It always, always comes up in discussions of this type."

It comes up for a very good reason. Natural justice demands that tariffs are consistent across offences. That is why people make comparisons between the sentencing between different crimes. The issue is not whether this man is culpable but how he is treated relative to others who are also found guilty by the courts.

cain I think you'll find his Mother convinced him to hand himself in an also believes he should be punished.

So off with the judgey pants re his parenting.

I was shocked at his sentence & feel for his mother as she thought it was the right thing to do...you must remember he was not attempting to kill or injure someone he was just acting irresponsible which is what youngsters do & I know as my teen is nearly 18 & they are still children & you have to let them make there own way & hope & pray it is ok yet her & her group of freinds have all survived a few scraps over the past years & we live 30mins by train to london so its normal for her to meet friends in town but I had told her under no circumstances go into London at the moment because there would be a risk she may be caught up in it all & as I have enforsed being Top Dog in this family even though a single Mum & had a tough time enforsing that I get her attention & she listens to what I say which is what I have done to keep her safe from all the S... out there that these teens are faced with & until you have one you will then know what I mean I was lucky she did not go into London....but who is to say she may have done....

If this Country was run by more women it would not be in the misreable mess it is & with the knowledge that these kids were going to be arriving to protest the Police & the Government ( well the thieving idiots..)should have been handing out leaflets at the train stations etc & arranged a party in the park with free music & burgers to protest in they could have all chilled out & yet put there anger out in some form of protest its called parenting offering a divertion to the situation something us mums have been doing since we had them at our breasts...No they just gouded them & hurded them into corners like they have done to the entire population of this misreable unjust country.

So I am sorry to say they have used this poor lad as scape goat & his mum must now regret turning him in she should have dealt with him herself as the days have long gone where you can trust this country

I feel for his mother too but I think he has to stand up and take this like a man.

Do the time.

He deserves what he's got IMO.

Hopefully he'll get out and still be able to make a success of his life but with a conviction and jail time on his record who knows.

One thing I don't understand about the law and 'guilt'.

Let's say you own a vintage car. You discover the brakes need quite serious attention but that's pretty costly, but you know you'll get around to it.

You park it on a hill, and, of course, the hand brake gives way, it rolls down the hill, it ploughs pretty much harmlessly into a bush. End of.

Or the brake gives way, it careers down the same hill and kills a mum and her 2 toddlers.

Is that driver deserving of a bigger sentence for the second offence- or no 'sentence' as per the first instance?