4 yrs for cutting down tree, no jail time for rape

[Barnbrack]

Why are 2 men being given custodial sentences for cutting down a tree when men convicted of rape regularly get suspended sentences.

Is an important tree more important than a random woman! Justice system seems to think so.

It wasn't "mindless vandalism" because they specifically targeted this particular tree.

It’s more apposite than the original comparison.

Well the fact that
(a) there are clear sentencing guidelines
(b) that unless governed by common law there is a statute as well setting out the offences
(c) that we need to have legal processes in place to prevent people doing these kind of things because morality only goes so fae
(d) that yes the worse crimes involve violence but so many don’t and we need punishment for them
(e) separate to all of that the judge is a pretty damn good one
(f) victim impact isn’t just physical violence

Also @2024onwardsandup have you looked into the financial implications

oh and

(f) it is quite easy nowadays to find the legislation and the judgments online to see exactly why something happened

the sentencing judgment is linked it pretty much explains it alk

Gloriia seems to think so

If you don’t know 'where they get these judges from’ perhaps you shouldn't be commenting.

You don’t seem to know a lot about how our Judicial system works

There are different sentences for different crimes because they aren’t comparable.

It's a chat forum, we can all comment as long as we do so within TGs.

We have seen many questionable sentences of late and 4yrs for cutting down a tree no matter how lovely and allegedly iconic it was is one of them.

The only "questionable" thing about this sentence is that it was too short. Far too short in fact.

I quite agree that we can all comment but you have to realise if you comment without at least a basic understanding of the topic then people won’t give your comment credibility.

Well stop quoting me then as I 'don't have an understanding of the topic' <which is 2 blokes got 4 years for vandalism>.

If only they were as harsh with other sentencing is the point. Serious crimes, not vandalism.

Other than literally being the same crime under the same Act, you mean?

But yes, I agree the crime here is a little worse than the example I gave, given it included damage to a world heritage site and not some random house.

There’s nothing ‘alleged’ about it

OK, last time quoting you.
They weren't given a sentence for vandalism.
Who are 'they' who aren't harsh ?
Define serious crime.
👋🏻

So vandals do ~£60,000 of damage to yoir house, for a laugh.

Is it definitely not serious?

The point is, these idiots should have got longer in prison, and so should rapists.

I think they should have had more for cutting the tree down, but I am glad they were sentenced.

I also wish the sentencing for rape was harsher. I don’t think that the tree penalty should be less because we are shit at penalising rape.

Adding, now I’ve read some of the weirdly ‘it’s just a tree’ comments:

Things like the tree, like famous works of art, like the wonders of the world, are considered things of breathtaking beauty. They are protected, they are loved for one basic reason: they remind us what it is to be human, to be in awe, to hold things dear. Beauty is so important to humanity as a whole, so to destroy something beautiful in this way is to deliberately attack humanity as a whole.

I find it astounding some comments here reveal how far removed from this vital part of what makes life worth living some posters are. I feel sorry for them.

They won’t serve 4 years, they’ll be out in less than 2 yeara.

Bit you clearly don’t as you haven’t addressed any of the points asked regarding the financial aspect or impact on people.

so if someone caused £60,000 plus damage to your property or stole £60,000 (which yes is a different crime but still comparable) you would be fine with them getting a suspended sentence because it was just vandalism

and that is also failing to miss the other point - laws exist and sentences exist to stop people doing stuff - plenty don’t break the law because of the legal implications of doing so - sentences for criminal damage etc serve a vital purpose

so I ask again have you read any of the transcripts or about the judge?

We just need to build more prisons. That's what I'm angry about. Society at large is declining worse than ever but we are not building more prisons to house criminals.

I realise it's not as simple a erecting a building and saying ta daaaaa , it's hard to recruit staff to man them and no one wants one in their town but this is the problem. The ones we do have are all full.

These vandals and rapists should be in prison. It shouldn't have to be either or in a civilised society.

We jail more than most other European countries per capita.

I'd rather our money was spent on fixing real problems like Dentistry & roads than building prisons, which don't even deter criminals.

This country & its judiciary has always valued property above people.

Until quite relatively recently, there was a whole wood up there, trees cut down with zero consequence.

We cannot complain that the Govt is releasing criminals early but then jail people for many years for non violent offences.

'These vandals and rapists should be in prison. It shouldn't have to be either or in a civilised society.'

Vandals should not be in prison. What an utter waste of resources.

Again what have you read about this crime?

'so if someone caused £60,000 plus damage to your property or stole £60,000'

I would expect a suspended sentence, or community hours, or a fine.

You seem to be missing my point. I'm not saying they shouldn't have been punished just not to this extreme.