British Justice is too liberal

[STEED]

Toddler fight women sentenced

Four women who forced two toddlers to fight and filmed them punching each other have each been given 12-month suspended sentences.
Zara Care, 29, Carole Olver, 48, Serenza Olver, 29, and Danielle Olver, 19, all members of the same family from Plymouth, Devon, had pleaded guilty to child cruelty at an earlier hearing.
The court heard how they goaded the youngsters to hit each other in the face, and when one did not fight they called him a "wimp" and a "faggot".

http://www.itv.com/news/index_b3f7215bf510fb5a2592ee8fe4f746e8.html

Once again the system hands out a liberal sentence, I am disgusted.

[Letum]

I really don't think we can begin to say what we think the sentence should be with out having heard the court case in full.

To pass judgement ourselves it to judge the book completely by the [media] cover. I may not have complete trust in the courts, but I have far less trust in the mainstream media and the knee-jerk reactions it produces in some people.

The tabloid press loves nothing more than to stir up the "England's going to-hell-in-a-handcart" league.

If the British system is anything like the US system, and I think it is. Plea bargain is the culprit. People plead guilty to a crime they did not commit to save themselves, and the court system the time, expense, and publicity, of a trial to a crime they may have commited.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by waste gate

If the British system is anything like the US system, and I think it is. Plea bargain is the culprit. People plead guilty to a crime they did not commit to save themselves, and the court system the time, expense, and publicity, of a trial to a crime they may have commited.

How much of the linked article did you read?

Originally Posted by Letum

How much of the linked article did you read?

I read the entire arcticle and never once was a trial mentioned.

'Care pleaded guilty to causing or procuring the children to be ill-treated in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury and was sentenced to 12 months for each child, to run concurrently and suspended for two years'.

Sounds like a plea. What were the original charges? Court documents are acceptable if you'd like to show that a plea bargain was not used.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by waste gate

I read the entire arcticle and never once was a trial mentioned.

'Care pleaded guilty to causing or procuring the children to be ill-treated in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury and was sentenced to 12 months for each child, to run concurrently and suspended for two years'.

Sounds like a plea. What were the original charges? Court documents are acceptable if you'd like to show that a plea bargain was not used.

There isn't a direct reflection of a "plea bargain" for cases like this in the UK.
All cases of this severity continue through the full court process, although a early guilty plea will ensure a faster court case and usually a reduced sentence.
The court case took place at Plymouth Magistrates Court.



*edit* 2nd post merged:

Originally Posted by STEED

I am not saying life or 20 years but that sentence was liberal. If that's the best our justice system can hand out no wonder criminals are laughing.

I don't understand how you can claim to know this without knowing all the details of the case. For example the article hinted that both women where bought up with similar abuse by their own parents. I suspect other factors like this where taken into account.

It's going to be a hell of a long time until the women can see their kids again without supervision and if they commit any crimes for 12 years they will serve a very long sentence.

I can't comment on weather this is severe enough, but it certainly isn't a walk in the park.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Letum

I really don't think we can begin to say what we think the sentence should be with out having heard the court case in full.

I am not saying life or 20 years but that sentence was liberal. If that's the best our justice system can hand out no wonder criminals are laughing.

[STEED]

Suspended sentence is a joke.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by STEED

Suspended sentence is a joke.

They're a good balance between an incentive not to reoffend, and horrifically overcrowded prisons.
Of course there are margins, where the system doesnt work. just like accepting a raise bumps you into a higher tax band, and reduces your income

in this case, the mothers arent going to do it again, and it's preferable to placing the children in the care of the state. (subjective personal biased liberal opinion :p)

[down and out]

The fight, filmed on a home video recorder, was found by the children's father who is in the Army and had returned from a tour of duty in Iraq.
He had been looking for some footage of his children playing to show their grandparents, but instead found the fight and reported it to social services.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...261618,00.html

The court heard that, when interviewed by police, Carole Olver said: "I didn't see any harm in toughening them up - I done the same with my own children."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/6574907.stm

[STEED]

There is no excuse what so ever to abuse children what ever form it takes.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by STEED

Suspended sentence is a joke.

From the perspective of behaviorism, it is indeed. From any other perspective I could imagine, it is as well. Suspended sentences should be forbidden. If a judge think it is justified that somebody deserves just a warning shot (for whatever reasons), he should make the penalty less severe. For example every juvenile stealing in a warehouse for the first time would go to jail with me being the judge, without exception. The point is that I probably wouldn't send him there for months, when it is the first time. Mybe - depending on the case and my impression of it - only for one week or so. Enough to get the message thoroughly felt by the offender and give him a chance to perceive that being in prison is not a comfortable thing. A penalty that is not felt is useless, from a psychological perspective.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

From the perspective of behaviorism, it is indeed. From any other perspective I could imagine, it is as well. Suspended sentences should be forbidden. If a judge think it is justified that somebody deserves just a warning shot (for whatever reasons), he should make the penalty less severe. For example every juvenile stealing in a warehouse for the first time would go to jail with me being the judge, without exception. The point is that I probably wouldn't send him there for months, when it is the first time. Mybe - depending on the case and my impression of it - only for one week or so. Enough to get the message thoroughly felt by the offender and give him a chance to perceive that being in prison is not a comfortable thing. A penalty that is not felt is useless, from a psychological perspective.

That's not gonna be cheep. Short sentences cost a lot, not only in prison space, security and admin, but also because if often means the guilty party loses his/her tax-paying job.
Suspended sentences do reduce crime and they are cheep. They do help from the perspective of behaviorism because the guilty party often serves the full sentence and more in prison if they commit another crime in the sentence period.
I don't want to waste anymore tax money then is absolutely necessary when dealing with those that find themselves on the wrong side of the law.

[P_Funk]

I think that Skybird gets the point somewhat. but I am hesitant to throw kids in jail without question.

There needs to be a purpose in sentencing. It isn't just good enough to say "Lock 'em as long as we can". The point of a criminal justice system is rehabilitate people when you can. The problems with lengthy prison sentences is that they desocialize inmates, attach strong stigma to them, and ultimately don't deal with the underlying issue of why a crime was committed.

If encarceration alone were good enough then the US, the most encarcerated nation in the world, would have the loweset repeat offender rate.

[TteFAboB]

There you go. School shooting to take place in Britain 20 years from now.

Now any sentence that doesn't condemn these women to fight each other with hairsprays, magazines and whatever else untill the judges find that they've had enough, and this enough is at least as long as the toddlers fought plus time proportional to the adults increased size, age and strength, is a too light sentence.

Now there isn't anything wrong in "toughening them up" indeed but what they did is not even close to how that's done, beginning by ridiculously improper age. Lame pretext to hide their sadism.