Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yeah right … a likely story. They ALL claim that it was nothing to do with them and they were just innocently carrying this case / bag / box / gift for a “friend” who they mysteriously met a few days previously.
Well his alleged suffering from ‘delusions’ will soon be over – with a bullet in the back of the head…… and hopefully, in accordance with their tradition, the Chinese authorities will send a bill for the bullet to his relatives.
A bullet in the back of the head would put paid to drug dealers over here as well – pity the bleeding heart liberals won’t allow it.
Now …. going back to the main theme of this post in hopefully a constructive way:
There are two approaches that one can take to this issue (that of criminals ‘getting away’ with inappropriately light sentences).
Punishments, although handed down by the Courts after due process, are in fact enshrined in law. Every Act of Parliament that creates a criminal offence, contains within it a section dealing with the maximum punishment (or list of possible punishments) to be awarded to those convicted of an offence covered by that Act.
You can try to change these laws – that is to say persuade Parliament to pass an amendment to a particular law or set of laws – but this in my view is going to be incredibly difficult to do. Two reasons: a) Parliamentarians are notoriously reluctant to admit that they ‘got it wrong’ (i.e. prescribed a set of punishments that were too lenient); and b) there are an amazing number of laws that cover all sorts of criminal activity some of which go back to the 19th Century and which are still in force and used today.
The other area, which in my opinion would be far easier to ‘attack’ are the “sentencing guidelines”. These are a series of guidelines set out by the Lord Chancellor’s Department and which seek to give the Judiciary some sort of general ‘tarriff’ which they must use, and against which they must decide on whatever punishment they award the guilty ones.
These guidelines are not enshrined in law as such, but are more of an administrative nature and can be adjusted by politicians as they respond to the current public needs for retributive justice, without the need to pass any new laws through Parliament.
Politicians (of whatever flavour) could be persuaded to amend these guidelines and claim that they were responding to the voter’s wishes without losing ‘face’.
It’s not quite as simple as i suggest, but my instinct is that this would be a more fruitful course to pursue.
I make no apologies for my cynicism ….. however ….. often when a ‘celeb’ dies of a sudden and unexpected heart attack, especially when they are ‘young’ it is often a Media euphemism for drug abuse.
I wonder how long it will be before we hear reports of said ‘celeb’ indulging in ‘powdering her nose’ etc etc???
To answer tictax’s point – sexual intercourse with a female child under the age of 16 is (in the UK) a criminal offence (‘USI’ or Unlawful Sexual Intercourse). The punishment in law is less severe for males under the age of 25 but for the over 25’s it is punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment.
Yes, it is true that each case rests in its own merits and therefore the Courts have to have some discretion in the punishments they hand down.
I think that the major issue is the reluctance of the Police to arrest and the CPS to prosecute, offences of ‘USI’. Under 16’s seem to be allowed, or even in some cases engouraged, to have sex – leading to Europe’s highest rate of teenage pregnancies.
Currently, the entire chain from parent(s) through Police and the CPS to the Courts seem totally unable to set some sort of moral example (or even punitive example) leading to a reduction in teenage promiscuity.
OOOPS!!! that really was a Freudian slip wasn’t it?
MoVing on however, it appears from today’s news that the Auschwitz sign thieves weren’t neo-Nazis after all (now there’s a surprise) but were in fact common criminals – who have been arested – the German equivalent of pikey scrap metal dealers.
So all the hoo-ha (or ‘sturm unt drang’) around the alleged desecration of a sacred memorial to the murdered Jews etc was nothing more than a ‘sturm’ in a teacup as it were.
I was wondering last night, in the context of this thread, how much longer this constant re-visiting of the 1940-1945 atrocities will continue? We’ve managed 65-70 years so far, will it extend to 100 years? Or more? Eventually there will have to be some sort of closure to all this stuff – however terrible it was for those both directly and indirectly involved.
The Government is, I’m afraid, fully committed to doing all it can to immerse the issue of the punishment of criminals in as deep a layer of bullshit as it can manage ……. as evidenced by the above quoted Government response.
I totally share the above views. I firmly believe in retribution and not in redemption or reformation.
To the ‘tree huggers’ and ‘social reformers’ I say this. Don’t speak of reforming bad people, they have no inner desire to be reformed. Instead simply treat them like the criminals they are and lock them away from society until they are incapable through age or infirmity of offending.
If that sounds harsh, well it is – but then they made that life choice all by themselves. Always remember that a criminal locked up in prison cannot commit crimes in the free world where we all live.
“Innocent until proven Guilty (beyond all reasonable doubt)” is a fine concept and is one that protects ALL of us against being falsely accused or wrongly convicted.
However, it seems to me that this wonderful concept applies only to the (alleged) perpetrator of a crime. The victim has no protection under law – as the law only comes into effect AFTER a crime has been (allegedly) committed.
I certainly agree with the post on your other thread Cath, that the Human Rights Act ought to be repealed – and the sooner the better.
Before you attempt to decide on a punishment Cath, you have to really clearly define the crime to which that punishment should apply.
The term “Child abuser” for example probably means different things to different people. Whereas one person might accept ‘reasonable parental chastisement’ another would totally oppose it.
Some parent(s) feel that it is OK for their early teenage daughter to have full on sexual intercourse with this week’s ‘boyfriend’ (and actively encourage it by allowing it to happen in their homes), whilst other parents utterly refuse to condone sex before marriage.
If this idea of yours – which incidentally I wholeheartedly support – is to have any real effect, then there needs to be a level of clarity over what exactly is being proposed.
BTW: As you know, my default setting is cynicism and in this context, it is readily and frequently admitted by MPs of all parties, that if there were to be a referendum on ‘Capital Punishment’ there would be an overwhelming “YES” vote. However, even on a ‘free vote’ such a law would NEVER get through the House of Commons.
I keep on being drawn back to the inescapable fact, that in the majority of cases (NOT all cases) it is the parents – or their partners – who are primarily responsible for the awful things that children suffer, as we see almost weekly in the Media.
No amount of ‘vigilante justice’ etc seems to provide a way of actually preventing this. Reacting AFTER the event yes – but stopping parents (or relatives for that matter) from abusing their own kith & kin, no.
