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.

For once seems about the right length of scentence based on the crime committed.

I have no sympathy for him.

On a seperate note though I do agree that punishments are inconsistent and for far worse crimes the length of imprisonment can be ridiculously short.

Tough shit to the tosser!

Do the crime and serve the time - sadly too many crimes have too lenient sentences. Yes it is wrong that those that have killed by drink driving have got less time but for once someone in our judicial system has handed out a decent sentence.

Would like to see more of this type sentencing for ALL crimes.

Oh, and he wasn't exactly invited onto that rooftop, either.

I think it is the right sentence.

Surely the whole point about prison sentences is that they SHOULD be punitive. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

I am very sorry for any victim of crime that has been let down by the justice system in this country due to lenient sentencing.

The sentence is about right. Perhaps on the harsher side ofabout right, but still within the appropriate range. judges have considerably less discretion than you might imagine these days. The sentencing guidelines are pretty restrictive and judges have to explain any decision that takes them outsidethe guidelines and they always risk being appealled if they do so.

Re: sentencing on the basis of what could have happened. Of course we do. It is one of the things that is taken into consideration. Why would it not be considered? If someone does something that has the potential to cause enormous harm then that is part and parcel of the sentencing exercise. If it actually does cause harm then the sentence is likely to be upped again.

Re: comparison with other outcomes. You can't compare two sentences without knowing all the personal cirumstances, the sentencing guidelines for a particular offence etc etc. Just because you think someone got off lightly, it doesn't make that any better to think someone else should have had a lesser sentence, if that makes sense. Someone who only gets 6 months might do so because they are convicted of an offence that only carries 6 months.

Sentencing is a much more complex exercise than most people imagine. There are several steps:

1. The judge looks at the offence itself - in isolation, without considering the personal circumstances of the defendant. Are there any guidelines? Any aggravating or mitigating features? Was there a victim? Was that victim vulnerable? etc etc The judge decides what the appropriate sentence should be for the offence.

2. The judge looks at the defendant's personal circumstances. Character, age, any personal difficulties, any mitigation etc. The judge then adjusts the sentence to account for these factos.

3. The judge deducts any appropriate discount for a guilty plea.

So if someone is being sentenced for a robbery on an elderly lady in daylight hours where no injury was sustained and the loss was small, where the starting point is 16 months in custody, the judge might add 2 months for the fact that the victim was vulnerable, but find no other aggravating features. He would have a sentence of 18 months. If the defendant is very young and suffers from learning difficulties which meant that he was vulnerable to peer pressure from others involved the judge might knock 6 months off. Down to 12 months. The defendant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. The judge is obliged to deduct a third. Down again to 8 months.

You can see how easy it is for a sentence which looks unduly lenient to actually be completely spot-on after the correct processes are applied.

yabu HE Was bloody lucky he didn't kill someone.

I agree with those who are saying that you can't sentence a person based on the damage that their actions could have caused.

Not saying that what he did wasn't dangerous and stupid, but to say that he should ahve got longer because 'might' have killed someone is madness.

If a justice system was run based on bad things that potentially could have happened then it seems likely that most people would be in jail.

YABU He could have killed someone. It's pure luck that he didn't.

Yes he got a longer sentence than other criminals, but that doesn't mean his sentence is too long, it means that other criminals don't get long enough sentences.

We can never know what his intention was at the time he let go of the extinguisher but let's face it, he's an adult and the time it must have taken to collect the extinguisher, and knowing throw it off the top of a very high building, he could only have known it might cause serious injury or even death from his actions. A reasonable person would never dream of doing such a thing. Thank God the Judge in this case had the good sense to sentence his for this long. A message to all those would be hooligans who don't know how to make their point validly. Yes ecomonic times are tough but there's a right way and a wrong way to state your case and this was definitely wrong. I only hope Judges werE tougher generally then the country would be in less of a mess and people today would have more respect for others. Rant over!

tolalola Would you say that by throwing the fire extinguisher into a crowd of people from a great height he was;
a) hoping to hurt someone?
b) hoping to miss everyone?

Yes it could happen to any of our children, and that's why we need to get the message across that it shouldn't happen, they shouldn't do it. FGS he threw a heavy fire extinguisher into a crowd of people - BIG mistake.

There were an awful lot or ordinary people caught up in an extraordinary situation that day, and they DIDN't throw a heavy object into a crowd of people.

Regarding other lighter sentences for bigger crimes, well yes they need to be reviewed, but as others have said it doesnt mean this one was too long.

"To put it in perspective, DEATH by dangerous driving as a first time offence has a recommendation of 12 months to 2 years imprisonment.

Exactly. Taking someone's loved one away through a concious decision to drive recklessly, and them getting 12 months, it beggers belief, doesn't it?

I know we're all subjective about which crimes we deem to be more henious than others, but broadly speaking, WTF is going on with that."

Again, you need to really understand how sentencing works. 12 to 24 months is the starting point. The range is up to 14 years. You are only going to fall into the lowest category if the dangerousness was caused by, for example, a single bad decision, rather than a protracted episode of bad driving (racing etc). Someonecan be prosecuted for this offence for making a massive mistake that had horrific consequences. Of course they shouldn't receive the same sentence as someone who did something knowingly and with intent.

A lawyer by any chance kungfupannda??

Yes

kungfupannda, perhaps is the judges and the process who are out of touch, rather than your average Joe who gets driven over in the street due to someone's feckless dangerous driving and wonders why the sentance is so low?

Perhaps we have too many mitigating circumstances and background on "poor him, his dad walked out when he was young, so let's take off 6 months" type reasoning?

The law is a total ass. I've been a good person all my life, taught that to harm others and you will be punished. It just isn't true. And no amount of explanation as to how these out of touch judges or associated professionals explain the reasoning, it doesn't stop the victims from feeling hard done by.

Fuck legal reasoning. There is NO common sense reasoning in it as far as I can tell.

I was surprised he got that long but very pleased.

Me too!

I think his sentence was just right.

What a horrifying act of stupidity, he knew that by throwing it off the side of the building he was going to seriously hurt someone if it had of hit someone. As soon as he threw it he made a run for it off the roof, guilty conscience.

The other students standing either side were horrified and looked at him in disbelief.

What a wanker.

nancydrew said: "How about we sentence everyone on the basis of what "could have happened", instead of what actually happened. Doesn't really make sense does it?!"

But a conviction for dangerous/drunken driving is based on the same principle. You don't actually have to have hit anybody for it to be a potentially lethal thing to do.

"kungfupannda, perhaps is the judges and the process who are out of touch, rather than your average Joe who gets driven over in the street due to someone's feckless dangerous driving and wonders why the sentance is so low?"

There are sentencing guidelines in place that have evolved over a very long period of time. The death by dangerous driving guidelines were upped recently. Again, there is a range of up to 14 years for this particular offence. The guidelines take into account all sorts of factors, not just the personal circumstances of the defendant. The reduction for a guilty plea is a big one - it is to encourage people to plead guilty early and not waste court time and drag witnesses to court to relive upsetting experiences. The issue or adjusting for personal circumstances is also important as you have to be able to distinguish between, to use the driving offence example:

1. Single mother of two young children who volunteers in her local homeless shelter and drives home late one night, very tired and does not realise that she has drifted off to sleep and is involved in a head-on collision in which someone is killed.
2. Young man with degree and good job who buys a new car and decides to show off to his girlfriend by driving it at 120 mph on the motorway before crashing into the back of stationary traffic and killing someone. he has a previous conviction for drink-driving.
3. Man in his 30s with a string of convictions including a two drink driving convictions, car theft, and a previous danerous driving conviction for which he is currently banned. He steals a car and gets into a chase with the police during which he mounts the pavement to try to get away and runs over and kills a small child playing outside her house. He is on bail for a robbery at the time. He shows no remorse.

There has to be a lower end of the sentencing spectrum - you can't treat defendant one the same as defendant three.

"Would you be saying the same if his weapon had killed someone."

but he didn't.

presumably he can and will appeal. hope so.

I wonder, will the person who battered Alfie Meadows get a longer term?