175 years in prison

[Cauliflowersqueeze]

For the gymnasts’ doctor in USA and an assurance from the judge he would not see daylight again.

Meanwhile Worboys out in 9 years from an “indeterminate” sentence.

Why is the UK system so tolerant?

Um, Brock Turner??

He was caught red-handed raping an unconscious woman, and got 6 months!

@dowager did you read her victim impact statement? It's haunting.

The american criminal system is terrible - forced slavery, private prisons, private parole, massively skewed sentencing based on race and affluence, they dont even pretend to try rehabilitation, life sentences for minor crimes because of 3 strike rule and on and on

I think theyre still number 1 for locked up people per population- its an obviously broken system that doesnt work

I think what a lot of people don't appreciate is that a large proportion of crimes have to be "proved" before the CPS will even consider them. This is especially difficult in sex crimes when the only witnesses are the two persons concerned, or the victims have been drugged or been drunk. The CPS will prosecute the crimes they can prove, it is a waste of time and resources to pursue something which it is almost difficult to prove.
This is frustrating for our police forces and, (whether you chose to believe it) the Judiciary.
Judges are on the whole very experienced and very astute people who are completely governed by sentencing guidelines, which are set up by parliament, not the judiciary. They cannot allow their own personal judgments of criminals to affect their final decision.
Every part of a written judgment has to be supported by the Judges reasons taken from the evidence presented to the court.
You cannot take what is reported (often out of context)in the media, is the whole story.

@HazelBite ...Judges are on the whole very experienced and very astute people who are completely governed by sentencing guidelines, which are set up by parliament, not the judiciary. They cannot allow their own personal judgments of criminals to affect their final decision. Every part of a written judgment has to be supported by the Judges reasons taken from the evidence presented to the court.

Hear hear. Some of the finest writing I have even seen is written judgements. The astuteness and lucidity of a case summated is often amazing, even if the outcome is not as wished (and you can see that in the writing more often than you think too - their hands are tied)

I suggest we try fixing the structural and societal problems before it/they becomes a crime/criminal, rather than bleating on about how judges are too lenient.

This:

The american criminal system is terrible - forced slavery, private prisons, private parole, massively skewed sentencing based on race and affluence, they dont even pretend to try rehabilitation, life sentences for minor crimes because of 3 strike rule and on and on

And this:

American jails are huuuuuuge

The American system has no place for rehabilitation. And they have the space to hold people. British prisons are already full! We have don't have room to house everyone for the rest of their lives, or even for the whole of their sentence. And for those on licence there is a need to avoid recall to prison if at all possible.

Good. I think our sentencing system is a bloody joke.

The term in the US is "mass incarceration"

This is an excellent video that explains it and its impact:

I thought the judge was unprofessional. "I've just signed your death warrant" - no she hadn't, and what an unprofessional thing to say. She's meant to implement the law, not be an avenging angel revelling in making bad people suffer.

"We don't keep people in prison as long because we don't have the space in prisons or the money to keep them." That's a crap excuse.

1 there are plenty of people in uk prisons for non-violent petty crimes - many of them women eg non payment of fines issued for things like tv licence offences, shoplifting, prostitution...

2 this govt in particular has no problem finding money to give tax breaks, bribe dup etc

"Well if they weren't so quick to throw the poor soul who can't pay their council tax or the poor mother whose 15 year old son won't go to school in prison. Maybe just maybe they'd have the room" exactly!

"It's not their fault it's the sentencing guidelines" oh please! Who do you think recommends the sentencing guidelines?! They don't appear out of thin air! There's a sentencing council made up of judges, and non judges with "legal expertise" appointed by more "senior" judges who are...rich white MEN! What a shock! Not!

"Judges are on the whole very experienced and very astute people" seriously?? We've had judges in this country make APPALLING comments on various cases, give juries dreadful instructions - what cases are YOU following?

"which are set up by parliament, not the judiciary" again - learn more about the sentencing council.

Regarding rehabilitation - I firmly believe certain types of criminals CANNOT be rehabilitated. Paedophiles, rapists (particularly those where a conviction is obtained because it's so damn hard to do that), murderers. Lock em up throw away the key! And yes I agree death sentence too good for them.

I agree however, that you can't say the "American" system is better because there isn't really an "American" system as it differs so widely from state to state.

You should never lock anyone up and throw away the key. It this really the kind of society you want to live in?

You should never lock anyone up and throw away the key. It this really the kind of society you want to live in?

Absolutely. I want to live in a society that acknowledges some people will always be a threat, in particular, sex offenders, men who kill their wives etc. These men don't suddenly learn drugging and raping and murdering women is wrong. So by acknowledging their inherent risk to others, we say we DO care about human rights. Letting a man out who will rape again says we don't care about women. That simple.

Do you have evidence that shows that every man who kills his wife kills again when he is released from prison? That every rapist rapes again when he is released from prison? Is it enough that some men do? Do you think that a man who is convicted of raping once when he is 20 should remain in prison, with no review of his case, until he dies at 90?

I didn't say they ALL do. I said they are a risk.

What we do know is that the majority of sexual assaults go unreported, so it is very likely that many men who have assaulted women will continue to assault women and get away with it.

Or they will pay prostitutes who can't say no to abuse them.

The whole point of Clare's law is that we know that these men are still a threat after release.

Judges can have significant individual impact on sentencing. I was a witness in a case 3 1/2 years ago. The defendant pleaded guilty to the most minor of the allegations but denied the rest and the judge accepted the guilty plea as guilty for everything charged and starting point for sentencing was 7 years in prison but she should be sentenced by the same judge as the co defendants.

Second judge said she could not overturn the first judges decision on full guilt but 'would not have taken that approach' - the girl got community service.

I was a witness for the defence and my evidence if heard would have proven her innocent of 99% of what she was charged with. But the first judge refused to hear it.
Second judge obviously read the written information and had enough doubt to play with definitions and removed any connection to drugs and this therefore reduced her place in the sentencing guidelines dramatically.

Personal interpretation by a judge.

I'd also wager that every man who kills his wife goes on to commit violence against his later female partners, even if the charmer doesn't kill them.

Men who murder their wives work up to it through domestic violence that one day goes "too far".

Show me a case where a man convicted of paedophilia, rape, murder has gone on to become a completely different person, total gentleman. I find it extremely hard to believe that could be the case. I'd also strongly suspect most of those convicted, although not caught before, it's not the first time they've committed that type of offence.

We should not be imprisoning people literally for their whole lives, just because we suspect based on the statistics that they may in the future commit domestic violence against other women / have sex with a prostitute / that they may have committed and got away with prior offences. That's not a proper justice system.

Each case should be considered on its own merits.

I don't think the legal system cares more about the perpetrators than the victims, I just think it can legislate more easily for a specific crime than it can for how to deal with the aftermath.
Of course, it's also true that we as a society could do an awful lot more for victims of crime, but the legal system is really about laws and how we apply them.

It might be more accurate to say that government concerns itself more with the legal system than the support system. Not necessarily my view, just more accurate a representation.

The reason for the difference is that in the UK the sentences run concurrently whereas in the US they run consecutively. Obviously it sounds ridiculous, I agree.

Sentences in the UK can run consecutively too.

I can remember when the death penalty was abolished in the UK, we were promised that life would mean life, what a lie that was.

The Law is complex because life is cyomplex.

We take a widely held tenet that 'thou shalt not kill' and say 'a life for a life' etc.
Then we discover then someone killed another in order to save themselves, or their loved ones (self defence).
Then we discover that someone was angry and pushed another, but they tripped and died (manslaughter)

Over time, we discover that to kill another is no longer so black and white.

Over thousands of years, we end up with a set of laws that evolved, often with seemingly obscure complexities and rationales, but they generally did come about from fairly logical considerations and precedents.

If I say person A killed person B because they were in a fit of rage at discovering their unfaithful partner - most of us would say it's bad, but can see how that situation could arise. We might accept that someone should serve 15 years (say).
If I say person A killed person B with single gunshot because they belonged to a drugs gang, then our sympathies with both the victim and perpetrator might lessen.
And if I say person A dismembered person B in the bath, we feel far more repulsed and might call for an indefinite sentence.
'
But is any of the above perpetrators worse than another, or any victim more worthy of 'justice'?

There are so many rules and factors, many of which we don't gleam from a newspaper headline or even a summary of a judgment.

Perhaps sometimes the law can be an ass, but I still like to believe we have a long and valued heritage in law, and that for the large part, British Law is pretty fair and equitable, even when it may seem otherwise.

Does it also mean that when he dies his body won’t be released for burial, as he is still subject to the DoC? Bit macabre.