The English judicial system - can someone please explain...
11 August 2009, 09:45 AM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
The English judicial system - can someone please explain...
why 3 people who cause the death of a baby only get 12 years, 5 years and 3 years when someone like Ronnie Biggs who killed no one gets 30 years for robbing a train?
Baby P: Tracey Connelly And Steven Barker Identified As Mother And Lover Behind Death Of Baby Peter | UK News | Sky News
I also don't understand why the sentence for the rape of a 2 year old girl is not served before/after the sentence for the death of Baby P. By running concurrently the sentence of 10 years for the rape might as well not exist and does not provide justice for that poor girl. Why do multiple sentences run concurrently as opposed to back to back as it makes them pointless? Sentences should run back to back to make them mean anything.
I'm at a loss as to why the judicial system believes stealing money is worthy of a longer sentence than crimes resulting in the death of a baby or someone of any age for that matter. I don't think what Ronnie Biggs did was minor in any way but no one died and cash was stolen. That is not even on the same planet as someone who has killed a baby.
This isn't a rant about what should happen to Baby P's killers as much of this country want to see them suffer but a thread about how the law seems wrong on so many counts.
Baby P: Tracey Connelly And Steven Barker Identified As Mother And Lover Behind Death Of Baby Peter | UK News | Sky News
I also don't understand why the sentence for the rape of a 2 year old girl is not served before/after the sentence for the death of Baby P. By running concurrently the sentence of 10 years for the rape might as well not exist and does not provide justice for that poor girl. Why do multiple sentences run concurrently as opposed to back to back as it makes them pointless? Sentences should run back to back to make them mean anything.
I'm at a loss as to why the judicial system believes stealing money is worthy of a longer sentence than crimes resulting in the death of a baby or someone of any age for that matter. I don't think what Ronnie Biggs did was minor in any way but no one died and cash was stolen. That is not even on the same planet as someone who has killed a baby.
This isn't a rant about what should happen to Baby P's killers as much of this country want to see them suffer but a thread about how the law seems wrong on so many counts.
11 August 2009, 11:18 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: l'on n'y peut rien
Posts: 2,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many many instances of theft of property/money bringing longer sentences than causing death. It's the British way: we value life less than we value property
The one person who WILL get hammered under Lying Labour is the fully insured, fully road-taxed, fully MoT'd motorist, with a valid driving license, should HE put a foot wrong
The one person who WILL get hammered under Lying Labour is the fully insured, fully road-taxed, fully MoT'd motorist, with a valid driving license, should HE put a foot wrong
11 August 2009, 11:31 AM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1998
Posts: 11,905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a long complicated answer. The short one is that *everyone* can rob a train and there needs to be a shown deterrent from doing so, where-as most will not want to kill and torture a child.
So some property / money crimes that are high profile will attract large sentences and terrible awful crimes against humanity will not.
Steve
So some property / money crimes that are high profile will attract large sentences and terrible awful crimes against humanity will not.
Steve
11 August 2009, 11:53 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My opinion is that in older times the jails were not so heavily overcrowded so they could afford to give out longer sentences. Not to mention that the Biggs sentence was to make an example of him.....which is wrong imo.
What we should have are MPs not spending masses on expenses, and funding a proper justice system. Its too easy and time servered is too short. Career criminals are not deterred by the system we have.
What we should have are MPs not spending masses on expenses, and funding a proper justice system. Its too easy and time servered is too short. Career criminals are not deterred by the system we have.
11 August 2009, 11:54 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why 3 people who cause the death of a baby only get 12 years, 5 years and 3 years when someone like Ronnie Biggs who killed no one gets 30 years for robbing a train?
Baby P: Tracey Connelly And Steven Barker Identified As Mother And Lover Behind Death Of Baby Peter | UK News | Sky News
I also don't understand why the sentence for the rape of a 2 year old girl is not served before/after the sentence for the death of Baby P. By running concurrently the sentence of 10 years for the rape might as well not exist and does not provide justice for that poor girl. Why do multiple sentences run concurrently as opposed to back to back as it makes them pointless? Sentences should run back to back to make them mean anything.
I also don't understand why the sentence for the rape of a 2 year old girl is not served before/after the sentence for the death of Baby P. By running concurrently the sentence of 10 years for the rape might as well not exist and does not provide justice for that poor girl. Why do multiple sentences run concurrently as opposed to back to back as it makes them pointless? Sentences should run back to back to make them mean anything.
I'm at a loss as to why the judicial system believes stealing money is worthy of a longer sentence than crimes resulting in the death of a baby or someone of any age for that matter. I don't think what Ronnie Biggs did was minor in any way but no one died and cash was stolen. That is not even on the same planet as someone who has killed a baby.
This isn't a rant about what should happen to Baby P's killers as much of this country want to see them suffer but a thread about how the law seems wrong on so many counts.
Baby P: Tracey Connelly And Steven Barker Identified As Mother And Lover Behind Death Of Baby Peter | UK News | Sky News
I also don't understand why the sentence for the rape of a 2 year old girl is not served before/after the sentence for the death of Baby P. By running concurrently the sentence of 10 years for the rape might as well not exist and does not provide justice for that poor girl. Why do multiple sentences run concurrently as opposed to back to back as it makes them pointless? Sentences should run back to back to make them mean anything.
I also don't understand why the sentence for the rape of a 2 year old girl is not served before/after the sentence for the death of Baby P. By running concurrently the sentence of 10 years for the rape might as well not exist and does not provide justice for that poor girl. Why do multiple sentences run concurrently as opposed to back to back as it makes them pointless? Sentences should run back to back to make them mean anything.
I'm at a loss as to why the judicial system believes stealing money is worthy of a longer sentence than crimes resulting in the death of a baby or someone of any age for that matter. I don't think what Ronnie Biggs did was minor in any way but no one died and cash was stolen. That is not even on the same planet as someone who has killed a baby.
This isn't a rant about what should happen to Baby P's killers as much of this country want to see them suffer but a thread about how the law seems wrong on so many counts.
I feel just the same about all this. Those three are particularly bad characters and how anyone can treat a baby in the way that that poor child was is very difficult to understand. I personally feel that they should have been facing a murder sentence. What else can one say about the unbelievable number and type of injuries he had suffered. It can be no "accident" that he died!
For some inexplicable reason infanticide seems to be regarded in a lesser light than the killing of an adult. Its a feeling I have always had for a very long time seeing how people have been convicted and sentenced.
The other thing is, how on earth could the social services have not seen what was happening? They knew the poor character of the three people concerned and although little Peter was on watch, they could not for some reason twig that he was injured and was being cruelly treated. Even a trained doctor missed his injuries-including a broken back for God's sake! Fancy being fooled by chocolate on his face hiding his injuries! These are supposed to be trained people.
What has happened to these incompetents? Are they still in their jobs?
They should all have been sacked forthwith!
Les
11 August 2009, 12:07 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
There is a long complicated answer. The short one is that *everyone* can rob a train and there needs to be a shown deterrent from doing so, where-as most will not want to kill and torture a child.
So some property / money crimes that are high profile will attract large sentences and terrible awful crimes against humanity will not.
Steve
So some property / money crimes that are high profile will attract large sentences and terrible awful crimes against humanity will not.
Steve
and may well have some truth in it (although I doubt anyone would admit it)
but if you take expand on your theory -- I, as a white middle class professional man am quite unlikely to rob a train/bank – but much more likely to commit financial fraud (white collar crime)
Under the assumptions above this should attract the highest sentencing i.e. a lot of people would commit financial fraud than would rob a bank/train etc
But the tariffs for fraud – even large scale ones are pretty pathetic
probably a "class" thing -- as the US are pretty strict on financial white collar crime
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 11 August 2009 at 12:09 PM.
Trending Topics
11 August 2009, 12:23 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1998
Posts: 11,905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thats a very interesting "take" on the lob sided sentencing re theft and injury to minors etc
and may well have some truth in it (although I doubt anyone would admit it)
but if you take expand on your theory -- I, as a white middle class professional man am quite unlikely to rob a train/bank – but much more likely to commit financial fraud (white collar crime)
Under the assumptions above this should attract the highest sentencing i.e. a lot of people would commit financial fraud than would rob a bank/train etc
But the tariffs for fraud – even large scale ones are pretty pathetic
probably a "class" thing -- as the US are pretty strict on financial white collar crime
and may well have some truth in it (although I doubt anyone would admit it)
but if you take expand on your theory -- I, as a white middle class professional man am quite unlikely to rob a train/bank – but much more likely to commit financial fraud (white collar crime)
Under the assumptions above this should attract the highest sentencing i.e. a lot of people would commit financial fraud than would rob a bank/train etc
But the tariffs for fraud – even large scale ones are pretty pathetic
probably a "class" thing -- as the US are pretty strict on financial white collar crime
Probably all changed now and it was interesting to read / write about.
Steve
11 August 2009, 12:30 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
I did something on all this stuff years and years ago. It is more the middle-class (white I guess, but not an issue) person who is trying to supress the 'underclass' from commiting bank/train/mass robbery and undermining the working society.
Probably all changed now and it was interesting to read / write about.
Steve
Probably all changed now and it was interesting to read / write about.
Steve
11 August 2009, 01:18 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here, There, Everywhere
Posts: 10,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Law is an ***.
I know someone who has just been informed today that her Ex boyfriend who is currently on remand for Shoplifting x 2, assault x 2, breaking an injunction against her x 5, threatening to kill her, and threatening to kill her children. They're not his. has just been sentenced today for 10 months. He's served 5 months on remand, and if he's got a good behavior record, he could be out within the week.
This is the guy who threw a brick through her window that just missed he Daughter's face by inches. This is the Bloke who dumped 2 bin bags outside her front door and was just about to set fire to them when he was disturbed.
Yet he could be out to start it all again.
Guess the Courts will only take REAL action once he's killed her or her kids.
I know someone who has just been informed today that her Ex boyfriend who is currently on remand for Shoplifting x 2, assault x 2, breaking an injunction against her x 5, threatening to kill her, and threatening to kill her children. They're not his. has just been sentenced today for 10 months. He's served 5 months on remand, and if he's got a good behavior record, he could be out within the week.
This is the guy who threw a brick through her window that just missed he Daughter's face by inches. This is the Bloke who dumped 2 bin bags outside her front door and was just about to set fire to them when he was disturbed.
Yet he could be out to start it all again.
Guess the Courts will only take REAL action once he's killed her or her kids.
11 August 2009, 01:32 PM
#12
You should get life for torturing a child let alone murder!!!!
I think robbers sentences are far too long. The space in prisons should be there for scum who torture and murder people!!!
I think robbers sentences are far too long. The space in prisons should be there for scum who torture and murder people!!!
11 August 2009, 04:08 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its simply that sentencing has got less harsh in the ensuing years. A good example is the abolition of the death penalty. The "deal" at the time was no more death penalty, but replaced with life, and dying behind bars. Now life doesn't mean anything and the judge simply states minimum time to serve, completely watering down the previous "agreement".
See A Land Fit for Criminals: An Insider's View of Crime, Punishment and Justice in the UK: Amazon.co.uk: David Fraser: Books
See A Land Fit for Criminals: An Insider's View of Crime, Punishment and Justice in the UK: Amazon.co.uk: David Fraser: Books
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
crazyspeedfreakz
Wanted
17
05 October 2015 07:19 PM
