If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Failings of the British Justice System part 164876
JsT
Posts: 18,268 Skive's The Limit
Young yob has been in court today up North for the following offences. To prove the mockery of our justice system i'd like you to guess what sentence this bastion of society should have recieved and what he actually got. I'll reveal the sentence and the source later.
- Drunk and disorderly
- Fare evasion
- Abusive language
- Threatening behaviour
- Smashing a bottle over the head of female train crew
- Punching a train driver in the face
- Crimimal damage
0
Comments
ETA: as to what he actually got, fuck knows... probably what g angel guessed just below.
Bottling should result in jail time . But it's hard to tell on the others without context, eg how much damage, how hard was the driver bunced (teeth knocked out needs more jail time than a split lip).
I'd go for 18months to 2 years on the bottling, but reserve the right to be tougher or weaker when I know more.
ETA - the above is what I'd sentence him too. As a guess got 180 hours community service
I'd guess at 3-6 months in prison, with time off for good behaviour.
£100 costs
£100 compensation (£50 for the guard and £50 for the driver)
100 hours community service.
http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/local-news/Thug-punched-train-driver-and.3252700.jp
Why can't people work in peace and when stuff like this happens why cant the law protect them? What an absolute disgrace. :banghead:
why more than using your fists? or gouging their eyes out?
i never get the arguments for manditory sentences, okay i think the sentence is a bit out of order in stupidity, but manditory sentences for weapons are crap (soooo 5 years for a knife but 2 years for a screwdriver
Tends to be the magistrates rather than the judges, to be quite honest, and that's because magistrates are lay people.
There's been a couple of studies done (can't find the link but read about them in the Law Society Gazette about 18 months ago) whereby lay people are likely to be more lenient that judges because they take into account bad childhoods far more than judges do. They get the sympathy vote.
It's a ridiculous decision, though, and he should have been put in prison for the first four, let alone 5 and 6. I can't understand why he wasn't charged with ABH for the assault, must have been a plea bargain.
Disgusted.
Our working theory is that most (not all by any means) magistrates are from relatively priviledged backgrounds and hand out sentences that would frighten a middle class teenager (ie a younger version of themselves) but in reality do little to deter crime.
Theft
Breaking and Entering
Theft by finding
Driving without licence
Driving without valid insrance
Driving without valid tax and mot
Driving without protective head gear (was on a minimoto)
and his latest one
Assalt by beating, where he randomly beat up a taxi driver because he beeped his horn.
His punishment, £115 fine, 16 hours community service and a gym membership from YOT to channel his anger! I no he's my brother but even I found this disgusting!
And what about justice for the victim?
What about it? Sorry for thinking that other potential victims should come first, but it seems that some people would prefer for loads of other people to become victims of the same crime, than give up their chance of revenge (which is essentially what people usually mean by "justice"). I mean look at the "Toughest Sheriff in America." All of his supporters obviously put humiliating the criminal as a higher priority than cutting crime, because reoffending rates are off the scale, yet he keeps getting re-elected. Sorry for thinking that's a bit sick.
What's that got to do with it? I never said we shouldn't try rehabilitation - but I also think justice for the victim is just as important. You seem to think that justice for the victim is irrelevant.
What purpose does it serve?
Justice for the victim
Yeah. What purpose does justice for the victim serve? You get something stolen, your justice is when you get it back. Something get's vandalised, your justice is getting it fixed at the vandal's expense. All the rest is about making sure it doesn't happen again, or deterring others from doing it in the first place. For something like rape or murder, you can't get justice for that, so you resort to revenge instead. You can't take actions back, so you resort to doing something equally bad. Sorry, but I don't think this is the way an independent, rational court should work. I think rapists and murderers should get lengthy (and productive) prison sentences, but seemingly not for the reason you do.
If you commit a crime against someone you should be punished. The pathetic sentences in this case are not even a deterrent, let alone a punishment.
I'm all for helping people whilst they are serving their punishment, but the punishment should come first. Otherwise what is the point of having any laws? "Oh, I'm sorry, I promise I'll be really good" and you can let people get away with murder, literally.
I don't think punishment means destroying the criminal, either.
But to say that punishment has no place in the criminal justice system is ridiculous.
Why is it? You haven't demonstrated any tangible benefits of it.
I think it is. If you've been burgled then seeing the fucker responsible get sent down is closure. That's a tangible benefit.
Sending a rapist out with a promise to be a good boy next time certainly isn't.