I do think someone ought to point out that "eligible for parole in five years" is not the same as "only got a pitiful sentence and in five years he'll be out, roaming the streets, to do that to another three year old."
Parole rules are clear and extremely strict. He will only be released if he no longer presents a threat. And do you think that's likely?
No, nor me. And he's been inside for a similar offence and released before, so they know he's high risk. In my view he'll be in prison for a very long time. And then there's the chance he'll be deemed incurable and sent to Rampton. For life.
And, the judge is forced by the rules to offer one third off for an early guilty plea. Them's the rules. Same deal for you and me if we get caught shoplifting or fiddling our expenses.
(for anyone who doesn't know what I'm banging on about - here's some background info)
For anyone who reads non-tabloids; beware the agenda behind the Red Top crusade against lenient sentencing. They are being used as a propoganda tool by those who wish to elect judges. And that's not a great idea.
UPDATE: Lord Falconer (Lord Chancellor) was on R4 this morning and it seems that the 1/3 off "rule" is in fact precedent established last year in the Appeal court. There is the interesting matter too that he raised of whether a criminal caught red-handed and confessing accordingly is in fact entitled to this 1/3 off (in both the rape of the baby and of the three year old, the perpetrators were caught red-handed, one on film, and one in the vehicle). He was also gracious enough to mention, despite John Humphrys best efforts, that the judge in the abduction case said in his sentencing that he doubted if Sweeney would ever be released. That was the same speech that the tabloids shrieked and wailed about light sentencing.
I am all for checks and balances, and a free and responsible media is an essential part of that. But this isn't responsible or even fair reporting. It's government sponsored (probably) sensationalisation, and we are being manipulated. And I, for one, strongly object. But in this "democracy" what can I do about it?
And how does Rebbekah Wade sleep at night (with or without Grant, or is it Phil, from EastEnders by her side)?
6 comments:
sorry, but what's Red Top?
(der, just occurred to me: it's a tabloid, isn't it)
It is just lazy inexcusable sensationalism.
Having said that I still wish there was a way round the third off for pleading guilty rule. I'm thinking about the bastard who raped the 12 week old baby and got a reduction for pleading guilty...though as there was film of him on the internet commiting the crime I don't see how he could have pleaded otherwise.
DCI - Der. Yes.
JJ - I think (underlined, italicised and in bold caps) that the 1/3 off is something to be 'taken into account' that the current government hardened up into a guideline, or even rule, last year. In other words there used to be discretion for the presiding judge, but now there is none.
It pretty much has to be straight away though, as far as I can gather. No denying it for two weeks until they say "we've got some film of you, now what do you say?". It's got to be "guilty" at the very first opportunity: an "early plea".
But IMO it should go back to being discretionary. The Judge is best placed to know whether it should be used as a mitigating element of the sentencing decisions, and he also knows his decision will be tested in the appeal courts if the prosecutiuon are not happy with it.
Checks and balances. That's what it's all about. Only some have been taken away. And more are at risk: jury trial and elected judges
Back in the 80's I used to be heavily involved with the national association for civil liberties. I never dreamt it would be a Labour governemnt that would threaten trial by jury in our country.
I'm suddenly very depressed :-(
Easily lead, leading the easily misled!
Thanks for giving us a bit of useful insight Beep. It's so easy to be misled by headlines and so easy to mislead too.
Post a Comment