advertisement


If the government really wanted to reduce public spending...

Steven Toy

Steven Toy

Accuphase newbie
It could start by not sending people to jail for crimes like this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...er-use-of-internet-during-trials-8737004.html

A jail sentence in this instance is just a punishment pour encourager les autres - authoritarian idiocy. Unpaid work would be more approriate.

Non-persistent, non-violent crime or crimes where there is no on-going risk to public safety should not carry custodial sentences.

The prison population could be halved if this were the case. How much would that save the UK taxpayer?
 
I agree this case doesn't warrant a custodial sentence. A 500 quid fine would also send a message to potential jurors, with custody only in the case of non payment of the fine.
 
Without a jury system then we do have a huge problem. What else was the court to do? It attacks the whole idea of tried by peers if the peers are stupid individuals.
 
If the government really wanted to reduce public spending...

Then kill off Trident.
 
mudlark said:
Without a jury system then we do have a huge problem. What else was the court to do? It attacks the whole idea of tried by peers if the peers are stupid individuals.
Click to expand...

What they did was wrong although the second case was less serious imho than the first. It is not so wrong to research a case on the 'net out of curiosity provided you disregard everything that comes to your attention from outside the courtroom on determining whether the accused is guilty or not of the offence in question.

The first case was definitely worse and was tantamount to perverting the course of justice.

First case: 400 hours' unpaid work.

Second case: 100.
 
Steven Toy said:
It could start by not sending people to jail for crimes like this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...er-use-of-internet-during-trials-8737004.html

A jail sentence in this instance is just a punishment pour encourager les autres - authoritarian idiocy. Unpaid work would be more approriate.

Non-persistent, non-violent crime or crimes where there is no on-going risk to public safety should not carry custodial sentences.

The prison population could be halved if this were the case. How much would that save the UK taxpayer?
Click to expand...

Can't agree. Jury trial is the cornerstone of our criminal law. If that is perverted then justice fails.

Consider: you have the misfortune to be arraigned for death by dangerous driving and a jury member happens across this forum and decides you should be banged up for your views on hi-fi? He/she then tells the world.

Understandable, granted...
 
Cav said:
Can't agree. Jury trial is the cornerstone of our criminal law. If that is perverted then justice fails.

Consider: you have the misfortune to be arraigned for death by dangerous driving and a jury member happens across this forum and decides you should be banged up for your views on hi-fi? He/she then tells the world.

Understandable, granted...
Click to expand...

A typical Cav inflammatory keyboard warrior-type post, cowardly and beneath contempt.
 
Grow up for crissakes.

Are you really saying that the perversion of trial by jury is no big deal?
 
They had been warned not to use the Internet and social networking sites in relation to the case. So what they did is clearly contempt of court.

The sentencing guidelines state "An immediate custodial sentence is the only appropriate sentence to impose upon a person who interferes with the administration of justice, unless the circumstances are wholly exceptional".

So until the guidelines are changed thats what will happen. Its a serious matter to disobey a judge.

Cheers,

DV
 
I'm afraid I can not agree OP. Theses are clear cases of Contempt of Court.

I certainly wouldn't want such Muppetry amongst the Jury if I were being tried for something.
 
Debs said:
I'm afraid I can not agree OP. Theses are clear cases of Contempt of Court.

I certainly wouldn't want such Muppetry amongst the Jury if I were being tried for something.
Click to expand...

I agree that it is serious but it still does not warrant a custodial sentence. My criteria for imposing custodial sentences was quite specific.

Jurors of their particular mentality should be filtered out of the system, i.e. not be jurors in the first place.
 
Steven Toy said:
I agree that it is serious but it still does not warrant a custodial sentence. My criteria for imposing custodial sentences was quite specific.

Jurors of their particular mentality should be filtered out of the system, i.e. not be jurors in the first place.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could tell us who is fit to be a juror and who is not and why?
 
What these people did clearly deserves the going to jail card. I'm surprised at the leniency given it is clear Contempt of Court and that they may get out after just 1 month.
 
I think the concept of imprisoning only those who pose a danger to society and/or are repeat offenders has been lost on some people.
 
Cav said:
Perhaps you could tell us who is fit to be a juror and who is not and why?
Click to expand...

People who are able to view situations dispassionately and without being prejudiced. Prejudice is a wholly different proposition to not having any prior or background knowledge of a particular case.
 
Steven Toy said:
I think the concept of imprisoning only those who pose a danger to society and/or are repeat offenders has been lost on some people.
Click to expand...

My point is that they are exactly a danger to society for without the general person on the street taking courts seriously we really are up the street without a paddle.

It's not a minor issue to ignore the authority of the courts.
 
Steven Toy said:
I agree that it is serious but it still does not warrant a custodial sentence. My criteria for imposing custodial sentences was quite specific.
Click to expand...

I suppose it really depends upon the sentencing guidelines.

Personally I think they are about right - Contempt such as this is extremely serious.

However, having said that, were a Custodial Sentence not to be applied, I would want to see a hefty fine of several thousand pounds coupled with a large amount of Community Service - minimum 500 hrs.

Of course the problem with this would be sentencing someone for whom, say, several thousand pounds is peanuts. I would guess that is why Contempt warrants a Custodial Sentence.
 
Debs said:
I suppose it really depends upon the sentencing guidelines.

Personally I think they are about right - Contempt such as this is extremely serious.

However, having said that, were a Custodial Sentence not to be applied, I would want to see a hefty fine of several thousand pounds coupled with a large amount of Community Service - minimum 500 hrs.

Of course the problem with this would be sentencing someone for whom, say, several thousand pounds is peanuts. I would guess that is why Contempt warrants a Custodial Sentence.
Click to expand...

Community service aka unpaid work is also a great leveller and like fines benefits the taxpayer whereas prison costs the taxpayer.

Punishment should be about repaying a debt to society not costing the taxpayer unless it is directly in the public interest that you be "banged up."

500 hours' community service + big fine would be appropriate in the first of the two cases.

I'm less sure about the second case as it could be argued that the juror was not necessarily prejudiced by having access to background info on the case. It was more about punishing him for not bowing to authority.

To add: I can't blame the judge as he was following guidelines and erred on the side of leniency although less so wrt the second case.

I picked up a very senior Crown Court judge whose job includes training other CC judges a few months back and my conversation with him was very inspiring. Judges are trained to take a dispassionate/intellectual view of cases and I believe that jurors should be directed to do likewise. It was clear that in the first of these comtempt cases mentioned in the article that the juror was clearly unfit for such purpose.
 
The law in this case seems out of date as regards suitable punishment. I agree with Steven, society needs not support the cost of their activities through incarceration. Community service and/or a fine are far more suitable and more visible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top