View Full Version : You Are the Judge!
Ok - lets take this case. You are the sentencing judge:
A man uses CS gas to attack guests in a hotel neighbouring his house, he is arrested and a subsequent search of his home unearths four more canisters of CS gas, as well as two unlicenced pistols.
Bear in mind, in the UK, there is a mandatory minimum of 5 years inside just for possession of one illegal firearm.
Other factors you may want to consider in sentencing are that he has a number of "minor convictions for low level violence or disorder" on his record between 1991 and 2000.
How long do you think he got for possession of these illegal weapons, as well as the assault on two women and one man? And before looking, can you guess why the sentencing was exceptionally light?
And the verdict is... (http://www.metro.co.uk/news/829973-ex-policeman-used-cs-gas-to-end-noisy-party)
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-09-2010, 12:05
Age and PTSD?
InsaneApache
06-09-2010, 12:08
An ex-New Labour MP? :inquisitive: :laugh4:
Vladimir
06-09-2010, 12:33
So you're in favor of tougher, U.S. style sentencing? He needs help, not the rule of an oppressive state. This seems reasonable for Europe.
Besides, he's an old nutter anyway.
Rhyfelwyr
06-09-2010, 12:50
Well I guess his intent counts for something. Should someone who collects guns because they are a bit obsessive get the same sentence as some guy who keeps them on hand because he might need them in some gangland shootout?
Why did this guy have guns anyway?
KukriKhan
06-09-2010, 13:46
So you're in favor of tougher, U.S. style sentencing? He needs help, not the rule of an oppressive state. This seems reasonable for Europe.
Besides, he's an old nutter anyway.
60 ain't old.
But I agree: this seems par-the-course for the eastern Atlantic States. Imagine the trouble of housing him 5+ years among the badGuys he put in prison during his active duty.
Vladimir
06-09-2010, 15:01
60 ain't old.
But I agree: this seems par-the-course for the eastern Atlantic States. Imagine the trouble of housing him 5+ years among the badGuys he put in prison during his active duty.
No it's not, just practicing my UK slang. Did you just take a clever jab at the UK?
He is a "bad guy". Hoarding illegal firearms and using CS spray on people makes you bad. That's what the law says.
You americanos seem to think that you have to wear black leather, have stubble and act like a b-movie villain.
Vladimir
06-09-2010, 16:07
We like our baddies bad you see. Foul body odor is a plus. One thing we insist on is perfect teeth.
I'm certain that flexibility exists under British law. If the authorities thought this was the best decision, it likely was.
A touching faith in the British criminal justice system.
He was let off because he was an ex-policeman. Justice is meant to wear a blindfold.
Vladimir
06-09-2010, 16:12
A touching faith in the British criminal justice system.
He was let off because he was an ex-policeman. Justice is meant to wear a blindfold.
...and have large breasts. However, the blindfold makes it difficult to see evidence.
Are you a proponent of mandatory minimum sentencing? How does the sentencing in this case compare to similar cases?
Ja'chyra
06-09-2010, 17:14
He should have got at least 5 years as per the law.
You make your choices and live with the consequences, or at least you should. The fact that he was an ex-policeman means he should know better.
Sasaki Kojiro
06-09-2010, 17:15
A touching faith in the British criminal justice system.
He was let off because he was an ex-policeman. Justice is meant to wear a blindfold.
"Justice is meant to wear a blindfold" means that justice should be objective, doesn't it? How is this not objective? Especially if you consider the description of the event you gave in the op to be objective.
If prison is particularly worse for someone than it is for another person charged with the same crime, it's just to do the house arrest supervision thing.
CS gas is tear gas, it's not some crazy terrorist weapon. The guy's an ex-policeman with four cans of tear gas and pepper spray in his house, plus two pistols that he hadn't registered. That sounds a lot like surplus police gear to me, not some criminal horde. Hell, I've got three cans of pepper spray at home myself, plus an unregistered rifle. Five years in prison for this guy that seems like a total waste of resources, he's not a danger to anyone and would cause more problems for society by locking him up than by getting him some anger management therapy. I applaud the verdict.
rory_20_uk
06-09-2010, 17:39
A Muslim with CS canisters and a nasty pamphlet wouldn't see daylight for decades.
PTSD my arse. That's no excuse to have a couple of pistols at home and to assault others. Nothing states that he was undergoing help, merely that undertaking his job has made him an irritable, violent thug who is a law unto himself which the defence lawyer dressed up as a medical condition. As Idaho stated, this seems to be more to do with his previous job.
Fine him heavily, curfew him. The only reason I'd not send his arse to jail is the cost to the state. If we could devise some cheaper ones then lock him up for a bit mainly as an inconvenience more than anything else.
~:smoking:
Ja'chyra
06-09-2010, 17:45
CS gas is tear gas, it's not some crazy terrorist weapon. The guy's an ex-policeman with four cans of tear gas and pepper spray in his house, plus two pistols that he hadn't registered. That sounds a lot like surplus police gear to me, not some criminal horde. Hell, I've got three cans of pepper spray at home myself, plus an unregistered rifle. Five years in prison for this guy that seems like a total waste of resources, he's not a danger to anyone and would cause more problems for society by locking him up than by getting him some anger management therapy. I applaud the verdict.
Surplus police gear? Really?
And if it is then do him for theft as well.
Crazed Rabbit
06-09-2010, 17:48
How long do you think he got for possession of these illegal weapons, as well as the assault on two women and one man? And before looking, can you guess why the sentencing was exceptionally light?
And the verdict is... (http://www.metro.co.uk/news/829973-ex-policeman-used-cs-gas-to-end-noisy-party)
I'm not surprised. In the US, you can murder a man at a nightclub for touching your girlfriend's butt, and the police chief will say no one should 'rush to judgment' and won't even arrest you and put you in jail until the prosecutor decides to charge you, even though you put 13 bullets into a man who wasn't attacking you (EDIT: when your an off duty cop who's been drinking).
CR
Surplus police gear? Really?
And if it is then do him for theft as well.
Meh, I've never understood the UK's obsession with minor weapons. The bans on civilian ownership of tear gas and (especially) pepper spray are ludicrous. They're non-lethal weapons that are an excellent alternative to firearms. Given the growing problem with firearms in the UK, tear gas and pepper spray should be legalized for civilian self-defense. Same with tasers. Any society that is trying to combat the use of firearms should be promoting non-lethal alternatives for personal use.
I'm not surprised. In the US, you can murder a man at a nightclub for touching your girlfriend's butt, and the police chief will say no one should 'rush to judgment' and won't even arrest you and put you in jail until the prosecutor decides to charge you, even though you put 13 bullets into a man who wasn't attacking you.
CR
Just as long as you don't shoot yourself (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4493887) in the process.
Louis VI the Fat
06-09-2010, 18:01
I'm with the chain smoking medic.
One law for ordinary people, another for (former) law enforcement.
rory_20_uk
06-09-2010, 19:13
Meh, I've never understood the UK's obsession with minor weapons. The bans on civilian ownership of tear gas and (especially) pepper spray are ludicrous. They're non-lethal weapons that are an excellent alternative to firearms. Given the growing problem with firearms in the UK, tear gas and pepper spray should be legalized for civilian self-defense. Same with tasers. Any society that is trying to combat the use of firearms should be promoting non-lethal alternatives for personal use.
That's fine. But irrelevent.
He broke the law. He assaulted others. His penalty was inappropriate.
~:smoking:
HoreTore
06-09-2010, 19:42
Possession and a minor assault?
About a year seems fine to me. At least nothing more.
EDIT: The punishment he got seems fine to me. It does not specify how long he's electronically tagged though, is it throughout his community service?
PanzerJaeger
06-09-2010, 20:30
Bear in mind, in the UK, there is a mandatory minimum of 5 years inside just for possession of one illegal firearm.
Wow. Excessive much? :dizzy2:
Sasaki Kojiro
06-09-2010, 21:19
I don't see why they should look it up TinCow. Justice is blind, remember. Unless you mean that they have braille law books.
VVVV I agree with you if that wasn't clear
I don't see why they should look it up TinCow. Justice is blind, remember. Unless you mean that they have braille law books.
It's a pet peeve of mine. In any case I was looking at the wrong section with that previous post. Here is the proper section (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1968/cukpga_19680027_en_14) about sentencing guidelines, which gives the minimum at 5 years plus a fine. This is the bit (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1968/cukpga_19680027_en_8) that let the judge do what they wanted:
The court shall impose an appropriate custodial sentence (or order for detention) for a term of at least the required minimum term (with or without a fine) unless the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender which justify its not doing so.
The point being that the law was followed in this case, because the law specifically allows a judge to go below the minimum term if they think it appropriate.
Hosakawa Tito
06-09-2010, 23:26
I thought y'all just shipped'em off to Australia. See what happens when you fix sumptin that ain't broke!
Vladimir
06-10-2010, 04:09
It's a pet peeve of mine. In any case I was looking at the wrong section with that previous post. Here is the proper section (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1968/cukpga_19680027_en_14) about sentencing guidelines, which gives the minimum at 5 years plus a fine. This is the bit (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1968/cukpga_19680027_en_8) that let the judge do what they wanted:
The point being that the law was followed in this case, because the law specifically allows a judge to go below the minimum term if they think it appropriate.
:logic:
There should be an icon for Reason.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.