This make sme dizzy and sick, why so short a jail term? It's upsetting stuff

[treedelivery]

this page

I wondered if legal types could shed light on this.

This is an act of utter barbaric torture and the pack of animals who filmed this seem to have had no real punishment, and the 3 who did seem [to me] to have been given woefully short terms.

I can't honestly say that if that girl were a friend/relative/child of mine I wouldn't undertake some sort of revenge for this attack. I feel justice has not been done.

Am I being reactionary, or do others feel sick to their core. This should be put over billboards to remind this smug society just how low people can stoop and how we all have a responsibilty to fight back.

Attorney General is considering whether the sentences are unduly lenient.

uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090120/tuk-gang-rape-sentences-to-be-reviewed-6323e80.html

Hopefull y these laughably short sentences will be lengthened... Just appalled.

link

Can't believe that she had to give evidence with them smirking. Knowing that makes me find this story even more upsetting. Poor poor girl. What is wrong with the world

V. relieved to hear that the AG is considering this.

I'm heartened to hear the AG is looking at this.

I'm for stoning but then I'm hormonal.

Thanks for this update Bellabelly as had been hiding from this news item on the tv and internet and so wouldn't have found that out.

As she had the mental age of a child why did she even have to give evidence in front of those bastards at all? Why wasn't she behind a screen or giving evidence via video-link? The whole thing is just appalling

lady - this wasn't allowed as the criterion is actual age, not an estimated 'mental' age, which can reasonably be challenged.

Without wishing to gain-say a British judge , I am pretty sure the bsais of the Att Gen's considerations will be the under-valuing of the factors I listed near the top of this thread. And also, the 'added value' that these things didn't carry a cummulative effect i.e. individually they are significant. Collectively in one circumstance, the effect on sentencing should be greater than the individual parts.

Judges tend to have a patter on sentencing habits - no doubt this judge, whoever he is, has been appealed against before in such issues.

and they may well have a 'patter', but also a pattern.

I couldn't be a judge. I'd want to put another 10 years on for smirking, another 10 for looking at her, another 10....

The method of sentencing must be just so ingrained in them they can do it. Judge and sentence that is.

Pan - so in my simple head, do you mean the judge may not have added the 'shades' of the crime together and added them up, but taken the 'whole' crime and sentenced on that? I can see that is 2 ways of arriving at a judgement.

the first, tree. That he can reasonably say, "all of these abhorrent factors have a value, and would be seen as aggravating factors in any case. But to have them all present in one case means they carry a greater sense of disgust." In sentencing terms, the term is the degree of "moral turpitude" i.e. the vileness of act(s).

May remember the the phrase moral turpitude as it seems a royal standard insult to me!

Well, the factors added up seem in my humble if slightly hardline opinion to surely amount to more than the sentence.

Thank you for the insight into this business, it's just a complete unkown to me.

Legal types must surely suffer mental consequences of exposure to this sort of case?

Umm..some do, some don't, tree. Depends on a few things. I have been doing this sort of thing for almost 20 years, and apart from the odd twitch, I feel particularly healthy...you learn you're own signs of over-exposure, and act on them.

It's only been since 1985/6 could the AG appeal against such sentences, and a jolly good thing too.

Professionalism I guess. You have my respect.

odd twitch entirely normal...