ethnic minority criminals to get special treatment in courts

[Tauranga]

Two-tier justice’ as ethnic minority criminals to get special treatment in courts
Judges told to consider additional information on select group of offenders before passing sentence

Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said the guidance was “completely outrageous” and enshrined a “double standard,.. is set to have an anti-white and anti-Christian bias,” he said.
Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, wrote to the Sentencing Council urging it to reverse its changes to the guidance and registering her “displeasure”.

https://telegraph.co.uk/gift/40afc8c10d91acc1

Who is making these rules if not Labour or Conservatives? Both parties disagree with it, how is it happening?
Today's world is so confusing!

It's quite a day on MN today...lots of threads benefit bashing and now ethnic minorities...

New sentencing guidance means it will be "less likely" for ethnic minorities and faith minority communities to receive a custodial sentence.

Labour are literally EMBEDDING two-tier sentencing into our justice system.

Starmer is a traitor.

Who is bashing ethnic minorities?
@PattyDukeAstin

Yawn, a poor bait thread. Bet you didn't even read or look into the drivil you posted. Mumsnet needs to ban people spreading false info

Did you actually read the article you posted? You don’t think a judge should be aware if someone has been a victim of trafficking, before sentencing?

I am not sure what the above posters mean...
Neither party Labour or Conservative want this to happen.
Labour Justice Secretary is really angry, Shabana Mahmood, and has asked for this not to happen.

How is it happening and why?

I'm interested in your username, Tauranga. Winston Peters, is that you? It's the kind of incendiary rubbish click bait he's always good for, back in NZ.

Oh yes, that's me.
I think the reaction to this information is bonkers.
If you punch someone to death you get a different sentence depending on your wealth, your religion, or your gender identity.

Is this OK with you?
I thought the law was the law.
Our Justice Secretary agrees with me!

Ps I see you are good at calling names and using jargon to talk down to people rather than engage. You may be called Jacinda???

Of course they should be aware but why are they limiting it to a specific group of people? In the article it alludes to the fact that other people could still need a pre-sentencing report if they don’t fit into the specific categories. Why shouldn’t it be everyone, automatically? It certainly seems like certain people are automatically getting special treatment whilst others have to fight for it.

LOL, I wish. Yes, very Winnie like, the similarities are astounding!

Justice should be blind. You do the crime, you do the time. The victims of crime suffer the same regardless of what the circumstances of the perp are.

"Alongside ethnic background, the guidance says judges and magistrates should consider pre-sentence reports necessary if the offender was a woman, aged 18 to 25, at risk of their first jail sentence or a prison term of two years or less, pregnant or post-natal or the sole or primary carer for a dependent relative.
Other factors included an offender disclosing that they were transgender, had an addiction to drugs or alcohol, a chronic health condition or were victims of domestic abuse, modern slavery or grooming.

The Sentencing Council said that these factors are not an exhaustive list and a pre-sentence report can still be necessary if an individual does not fall into one of these cohorts."

From the article you linked. For struggle to read beyond a headline.

A pre sentencing report can be ordered for anyone but is mandatory for vulnerable groups. It doesn't mean that ethnic minorities will get off lighter for the same crime in the same circumstances but it means that the court has to consider background information for ethnic minorities probably to reduce the bias that so far has been resulting in hasher consequences for ethnic minorities.

And labour being against this means nothing except that they are as populist as the tories.

Personally, I think, this report should be used for everyone. The job of the justice system is to protect society. How can the court decide how best to deal with a criminal without understanding anything about the criminal?

Clearly, neither you, or @Tauranga have bothered to inform yourself about this issue. You are just knee jerk reacting to the Torygraph and the delightful Robert Jenrick 🙄

First of all, the Sentencing Council is an independent body and the Labour Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood (i.e. the Labour Government) has stated “As somebody from an ethnic minority background, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law for anyone. There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch or under this Labour Government.” She subsequently said that she will be writing to the Sentencing Council to “register my displeasure” and “recommend reversing this change to the guidance”.

Secondly, there is a case to be considered for some of these proposals. This potential ‘two tear system’ also said that the circumstances in which the offence was committed should be taken into account, defendants who are women (especially if pregnant), or young (18-25) should have that taken into account. So if a black boy is found guilty of carrying an offensive weapon whilst he has grown up and lives in a high crime area, plagued by gangs, the circumstances may be seen as mitigating when compared to a white boy from a low crime area, where there are no gangs, who is convicted of the same offence. If a women who has been living in abusive conditions, or has young children, or is pregnant a community sentence may be more appropriate for some offences that may otherwise be likely to receive a jail sentence. Is it not reasonable to consider if a community sentence could rehabilitate her given the well researched, conclusive evidence that for many women, prison causes tremendous damage.

Here's the actual guidelines, tagged to the appropriate section. Basically everyone gets a pre sentence report except ethnic British males (unless they have one of the second section).

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/overarching-guides/magistrates-court/item/%20imposition-of-community-and-custodial-sentences-overarching-guideline/#3.%20Pre-sentence%20reports%20(PSRs)

A pre-sentence report will normally be considered necessary if the offender belongs to one (or more) of the following cohorts:

• at risk of first custodial sentence and/or at risk of a custodial sentence of 2 years or less (after taking into account any reduction for guilty plea)
• a young adult (typically 18-25 years; see further information below at section 3)
• female (see further information below at section 3)
• from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community
• pregnant or post-natal
• sole or primary carer for dependent relatives

Or if the court considers that one or more of the following may apply to the offender:

• has disclosed they are transgender
• has or may have any addiction issues
• has or may have a serious chronic medical condition or physical disability, or mental ill health, learning disabilities (including developmental disorders and neurodiverse conditions) or brain injury/damage
• or; the court considers that the offender is, or there is a risk that they may have been, a victim of:
• domestic abuse, physical or sexual abuse, violent or threatening behaviour, coercive or controlling behaviour, economic, psychological, emotional or any other abuse
• modern slavery or trafficking, or
• coercion, grooming, intimidation or exploitation.

This is a non-exhaustive list and a PSR can still be necessary if the individual does not fall into one of these cohorts. A report may also be necessary for a variety of requirements (see section on Requirements (section 7) below.)

Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Didn't you know that judges usually order PSRs on offenders with probable vulnerability anyway? This seems to just be codifying it a bit more. Clearly most people here have never read a PSR in their lives and have no idea what they involve.

To me it just looks like they are considering equalities duties and the impacts of multiple disadvantage/factors leading to vulnerability.

What is going on mumnset today.

It's bonkers, isn't it? I can only assume the bot farms have found us again.

The guidance also quite clearly states that a PSR should be requested and considered in all cases unless considered unnecessary because courts already have enough information about the person.

It is this attitude that gets you no where.
Normal people are confused about the world at the moment and seeing changes where they don't want them.
The Justice Secretary doesn't want these changes.....why are they happening?

Why should your ethnicity or gender id change your sentence?
If I murder someone, can I look up a graph to see what my ' time' will be?

Ten year for murder.
Take away 3 years if 'ethnic ' de jour.
Take away 2 years if Trans.
Take away 2 years if you live in the centre of Glasgow.

I hear you tell me that I am a bait click bigoted twit, but there are loads of us and we are confused and worried, and we don't agree with this.

Surely the vulnerability of law-abiding people should take precedence over the "vulnerability" of offenders?

Having a PSR doesn't automatically change your sentence. This article is just saying that more things should be taken into account when writing the PSR, and that more offenders should have one. I don't actually know where they're going to find all the probation officers to write these reports, but that's tomorrow's story, I expect.

I actually thought the same... All that admin!