Home Politics and Debate
Exciting news! Join our watch club and get free access to NOW for 1 month

Plymouth girl's attacker 'sadistic and evil'

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
BBC wrote:
The leader of a girl gang who burned a teenager with a cigarette and stamped on her face has been described as "sadistic" by a judge.

Judge Francis Gilbert QC told 16-year-old Sabrina Barber he had never seen such a "sustained and savage assault".

Her victim, Naomi Morrison, 17, was attacked by 10 girls for 90 minutes on Plymouth Hoe in December 2009.

Barber, from Plymouth, admitted causing grievous bodily harm with intent and was detained for five years.

So at least in this instance, someone who was badly beaten by a gang has had the courage and been brave as hell to do something about it. As I no longer understand the intricacies surrounding sentencing etc I'm unable to comment much further about it, all I can say is that every time we see something like this everyone always feels that the person should have got longer, what are your thoughts on this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-12195669

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    So at least in this instance, someone who was badly beaten by a gang has had the courage and been brave as hell to do something about it. As I no longer understand the intricacies surrounding sentencing etc I'm unable to comment much further about it, all I can say is that every time we see something like this everyone always feels that the person should have got longer, what are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-12195669

    Given the ages of the attacker verse the brutality of the attack it seems about right.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Having looked at the sentencing guidelines briefly for the offence it would appear that a sentence of between 5 and 9 years would have been expected to reflect the offence (before taking into account discount for guilty plea). Therefore, 5 years looks about right.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They could have given an indeterminate sentence for public protection, though, and I think that would have been more appropriate given the severity of the attack.

    Certainly clients of mine at a similar age have been given indeterminate sentences for similarly brutal attacks.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What people do have to remember is that if someone did actually serve 5 years (as opposed to getting early release), that 5 years is an awful long time. Yes sentencing guidelines seem to back up this sentence yet I cant help but thinking for the sustained length and state of the victim after the attack, that this young lass should have got longer.

    Someone could play the stupid mistake that ruins her youth, but surely the pain plus physical/mental injuries of the victim has ruined the victims youth allready? Add to the fact the length of the attack shows that there is something wrong with the attacker, I'm sure most people getting carried away or not for 90 whole minutes would at some point think "hang on this isnt right".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Avizandum wrote: »
    Therefore, 5 years looks about right.

    Does it though, seriously?

    When you consider most assaults/fights last no more than 60 seconds, for someone to spend 90 minutes beating the shit out of someone is obscene, and when you realise those "people" (because really they're animals) will be at large amongst the rest of us in 2 1/2 years is even more obscene.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm surprised that she wasn't given an indeterminate sentence, even with the guilty verdict. However five years is about right, as the judge has to give 30% discount for a early guilty plea- she'd have probably got about eight years if she'd taken it to trial. Eight years would have been a better sentence, but then you have to give people an incentive to plead guilty, otherwise everyone would just take their chances at trial (as people up for murder do- 30% off life is still life).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    fucking hell. She deserves life
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    However five years is about right, as the judge has to give 30% discount for a early guilty plea.



    It's worrying how so many people think this is always acceptable. Fair enough, an early guilty plea for non-violent offences, but ffs, she plead guilty because she was bang to rights, not because of some higher moral code.

    People shouldn't be given reduced sentences simply because they made the prosecutor's job easier.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    It's worrying how so many people think this is always acceptable. Fair enough, an early guilty plea for non-violent offences, but ffs, she plead guilty because she was bang to rights, not because of some higher moral code.

    People shouldn't be given reduced sentences simply because they made the prosecutor's job easier.

    I always wondered about this, too. Why do we give lighter sentences for people who plea guilty? It's not like they have to actually regret doing it or say they're sorry, they just have to stand up and say, "Yep, I did it." There's something to be said for honesty, and for taking responsibility for your actions, that's true. But how often is it simply a case of trying to avoid a longer sentence?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I always wondered about this, too. Why do we give lighter sentences for people who plea guilty? It's not like they have to actually regret doing it or say they're sorry, they just have to stand up and say, "Yep, I did it." There's something to be said for honesty, and for taking responsibility for your actions, that's true. But how often is it simply a case of trying to avoid a longer sentence?

    Especially if they only plead guilty because the evidence against them is so good, as opposed to owning up to something.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aw, just a bit of happy slapping...


    jokes
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    It's worrying how so many people think this is always acceptable. Fair enough, an early guilty plea for non-violent offences, but ffs, she plead guilty because she was bang to rights, not because of some higher moral code.

    People shouldn't be given reduced sentences simply because they made the prosecutor's job easier.

    The reason why I agree with the discount has nothing to do with "making the prosecutor's job easier" or cost.

    If someone pleads not guilty, their victim has to spend hours in the witness box being cross examined about what happened to them. If someone pleads guilty then the victim doesn't have to relive their ordeal in court.

    Even if they ARE "bang to rights", a case still has to be proven in court, and that means cross examining the witnesses, i.e. the victim.

    In this case, the defendant has got a lighter sentence for not forcing her victim to spend two days in the witness box being aggressively questioned about what happened.

    Given that you're a copper, you should understand this. However coppers often seem to be the worst of all at remembering that their conviction has a victim behind it all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The reason why I agree with the discount has nothing to do with "making the prosecutor's job easier" or cost.

    If someone pleads not guilty, their victim has to spend hours in the witness box being cross examined about what happened to them. If someone pleads guilty then the victim doesn't have to relive their ordeal in court.

    Even if they ARE "bang to rights", a case still has to be proven in court, and that means cross examining the witnesses, i.e. the victim.

    In this case, the defendant has got a lighter sentence for not forcing her victim to spend two days in the witness box being aggressively questioned about what happened.

    Given that you're a copper, you should understand this. However coppers often seem to be the worst of all at remembering that their conviction has a victim behind it all.



    I still don't agree with it, and either I'm totally cynical in believing it's to make the court's life easier, or you're very naive if you think the court systems give a toss about victims at all ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whether it is the real reason or not is irrelevant, it stops victims being dragged through the courts. Certainly judges in my experience pay regard to that reason when justifying sentences, so they're paying lip service to it if nothing else.

    I also think that cost is a pretty good reason to encourage people to be honest. You only have to see the alternative with murder- it is a brave or a foolish person who pleads guilty to murder, because it makes no difference to your sentence and there's always an outside chance a demented jury will believe you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    When you consider most assaults/fights last no more than 60 seconds, for someone to spend 90 minutes beating the shit out of someone is obscene,

    For once I can agree with you, this sounds closer to a gangland torture trial than a bit of recreational violence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aye. First thing I noticed was the 90 minutes thing and was like "God damn." Each minute probably felt like an hour, in of itself as well.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aye. First thing I noticed was the 90 minutes thing and was like "God damn." Each minute probably felt like an hour, in of itself as well.

    I always wondered that when people get beaten so savagely, is there a point where they just give up in their heads? I would guess that the beating whilst horrific is not the worst part, being mentally broken in conjunction with the beatings would just be unthinkable.
Sign In or Register to comment.