To think cancer shouldn't get a violent man out of jail

[adventurealice]

I saw a story about a man who threatened two women (one an ex) with a knife and said they "should be cut up like dogs" The judge said "Normally for an offence like this you would go straight to prison. However you have a serious life threatening illness" and gave him a suspended sentence!

AIBU to be scared that violent people with grave illnesses are getting let off and walking our streets? If he had done a victimless crime like fraudulent insurance claim or drugs then maybe fair enough.

Story was at thelincolnite.co.uk/2020/10/cancer-man-spared-jail-after-knife-threats/

He would be expensive to deal with in prison.

Depressing isn't it?

Apparently it's terminal AND she has written a letter she is forgiving him. They have to consider whether putting him in prison is viable. It's not a hospice it's to rehabilitate, incapacitate, deter and retribution comes in too. There is literally no point of outting a dying man in there.

Putting, not outing

And insurance fraud isn't victimless. We all pay for it

I think it's right and his victim obviously supports it. I think her feelings on it is the most important consideration. Followed by the fact that he is a dying man.

I'm not keen at all on repetitive justice for a number of reasons.

While rehabilitation is one aim of prison. There are others. To show justice being done. Punishment.

We have seen serious serial historical child sex offenders (child rapists) look for leniency based on age, medical condition. The idea seemed to be then, that if you could get away with it for long enough then Bob's your uncle.

It's a no from me.

Society/ the authorities pay way too much heed to violent and sexual crimes against (mainly) women and children.

'. I think her feelings on it is the most important consideration.'

A lot of people feel very confused after rape. Because it's usually done by someone they trust.

It's been mooted for reparative justice and is in use to some extent i suppose, around the world.

I feel really uncomfortable with the courts viewing the severity of a crime as less because the victim or the victims family 'forgive' etc.

As an extreme example. Is the rape and murder of a child less bad of the parents have beliefs that mean they forgive?

Nope from me.

Also. He did this just now, while dying.

What's to stop him taking his chance to do it properly?

*I feel really uncomfortable with the courts viewing the severity of a crime as less because the victim or the victims family 'forgive' etc.

As an extreme example. Is the rape and murder of a child less bad of the parents have beliefs that mean they forgive?

Nope from me.*

That's why it's considered differently in different cases.

But why should it be considered differently at all?

Either laws are clear cut or they aren't.

'He withdrew the knife from the sheath. It is described as being 40cm long with a blade of 25cm.”

Vigura threatened to kill both women and told them “you should be cut up like dogs”.

Mr Howes said: “His former partner hid beneath the table for protection. She was scared for her life.'

But she says ah well shit happens no fuss and that's the main thing to take into consideration?

The scope for massive issues with this approach is obvious.

Still a hard no from me. This should not be used in mitigation full stop. Especially with sexual and violent crimes.

I wonder if the 'advanced effects of cancer' means brain metastasis?

And I note this sentence: "Daniel Lowne, in mitigation, said the victim, who is a trained nurse, has since resumed contact with Vigura and is prepared to help to care for him"

I suspect there is quite a lot unreported here

So if he's lost his marbles and is going around threatening women with massive knives in their own homes then keeping an eye on him even if not I'm prison seems indicated.

Sorry to be so blunt.

But why should it be considered differently at all?

Because each case is unique, that's why judges have some amount of movement there. You simply cannot treat all the cases in exactly the same manner because no two cases are exactly the same.

I suspect there is quite a lot unreported here

Exactly.

Specifically the difference being discussed is how the victim feels about the crime.

Not anything else.

YABU to suggest insurance fraud and drugs crimes are victimless. Seriously, drugs crimes do not have any victims? What planet do you live on?

Yes unreasonable there.

It's not the meat of the post though I don't think.

@BlackberrySky

YABU to suggest insurance fraud and drugs crimes are victimless. Seriously, drugs crimes do not have any victims? What planet do you live on?

Well there was a thread this week with hundreds of replies about how cool taking E is and I don't think they all considered themselves criminals despite it being illegal to possess ecstasy nor considered themselves victims of the dealers they inevitably acquired it from.