Cases which show that judges have lost all sense of justice.

[King Henry V]

Recently there has been a thread here in the backroom where members were debating on the validity of trial by jury and the possibility of more cases being decided by the judges. Now we see several cases where judges have lost any sense of justice whatsoever.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/4221728.stm
For those who have not read the link, a 71 year old vicar has been imprisoned for 28 for refusing to pay a council tax bill of 61 pounds, which had been put up above the rate of inflation and which represents over a tenth of his monthly income. Not only is the Reverend Alfred Ridley imprisoned, he is ent ot a category A prison, one usually reserved for murderers, gangster and terrorists. He now has to share his cell with a brutal thug. The stupidity of this conviction is further demonstrated when the costs of imprisoning the Vicar is 3000 pounds.

Now the Sentencing Guidelines Council has recommended that murderers be set free after a ten zear sentence, often being let go if their behaviour is good. Under 17 vandalism is be treated as "low seriousness" and should be handed the ridiculously ineffective Anti-Social Behaviour orders. They also recommend that parents who use smacking as a regular form of discipline be treated the same way as those who nassault and abuse them. However, a notorious crack dealer has been handed another ASBO to add to her collection.
Do you really think these judges have any sense of justice?

[Duke Malcolm]

The man who commited the Lockerbie bombing only got 27 years imprisonment...

[Adrian II]

You are right, 27 days is far too lenient. Shoot the vicar, he is asking for it.

[AggonyDuck]

Well in Finland we recently had a case of our Supreme Court ruling that a father that had been french kissing his sons (born in 1993 and 1995), wasn't guilty of abusing them sexually due the fact that he wasn't looking for sexual pleasure. According to the Supreme Court there must be an intent of gaining sexual pleasure for something to be classified as sexual abuse.
I think this a pretty good example of the fallacy of Judges too...

[Adrian II]

Well in Finland we recently had a case of our Supreme Court ruling that a father that had been french kissing his sons (born in 1993 and 1995), wasn't guilty of abusing them sexually due the fact that he wasn't looking for sexual pleasure. According to the Supreme Court there must be an intent of gaining sexual pleasure for something to be classified as sexual abuse.
I think this a pretty good example of the fallacy of Judges too...

Rrright.. Well, it just goes to show, doesn't it? I mean the evidence is overwhelming.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Seeing as that Vicar was knowingly disobeying the law, the punishment seems pretty reasonable to me.

What was the judge supposed to say? 'Yeah, that tax is a bit harsh, I'll let you off'?

[Louis VI the Fat]

I don't get the big deal. If that retired old man has got nothing better to do with his time anymore than to fight a £541 tax because he believes it's up to him and not a democratically elected council to set tax rates, so be it.
Go judge!

[King Henry V]

I don't get the big deal. If that retired old man has got nothing better to do with his time anymore than to fight a £541 tax because he believes it's up to him and not a democratically elected council to set tax rates, so be it.
Go judge!

Why is that be cause some politician says "I'm the democratically elected representive of the people" they think that the sun shines out of their backside and they can do no wrong.
What this shows is that councils charge a bomb of money for absolutely rubbish service. Government pensions however, are hardly enough to feed and house people, let alone pay taxes and others.
I do not think that he should not be punished. However, 28 days in prison is unduly harsh when child abusers get five year sentences, and murderers can leave prison after 10 with good behaviour.

[Soulforged]

Why is that be cause some politician says "I'm the democratically elected representive of the people" they think that the sun shines out of their backside and they can do no wrong.
What this shows is that councils charge a bomb of money for absolutely rubbish service. Government pensions however, are hardly enough to feed and house people, let alone pay taxes and others.
I do not think that he should not be punished. However, 28 days in prison is unduly harsh when child abusers get five year sentences, and murderers can leave prison after 10 with good behaviour.

So your problem reduces to penal scale, and not to if there should or shouldn't be punishment... Well in that case you'll have to investigate your own law system that's very unstable, and confirm if this is really unjust. I don't believe it, a punishment of less than one month will be absurd.

[Productivity]

which had been put up above the rate of inflation and which represents over a tenth of his monthly income.

So he has taken it upon himself to decide what council rates should be? If he refuses to pay the rates then the penalty is imprisonment. He knew what he was doing.

Not only is the Reverend Alfred Ridley imprisoned, he is ent ot a category A prison, one usually reserved for murderers, gangster and terrorists. He now has to share his cell with a brutal thug.

Since when have judges determined what prison a criminal is sent to? As far as I can tell that is a function of a Justice Department, or Correctional Services Department, not of a Judge.

The stupidity of this conviction is further demonstrated when the costs of imprisoning the Vicar is 3000 pounds.

So are you suggesting that a financial crime only becomes a crime when it becomes cost effective to pursue it? Are you suggesting that the government should let anyone who has udner 3000 pounds worth of tax unpaid just ignore that tax? And while we are here, why exactly is this the fault of the judge? He didn't bring the case, the government did. Also since when does being an elderly vicar entitle you to avoid tax?

Now the Sentencing Guidelines Council has recommended that murderers be set free after a ten zear sentence, often being let go if their behaviour is good. Under 17 vandalism is be treated as "low seriousness" and should be handed the ridiculously ineffective Anti-Social Behaviour orders. They also recommend that parents who use smacking as a regular form of discipline be treated the same way as those who nassault and abuse them. However, a notorious crack dealer has been handed another ASBO to add to her collection.

The SGC is as far as I can tell, an advisory body only. The only weight it carries is that of the scholarly respect that the judges have from it. In fact, by going through their site, I quickly found that (like most other nations) maximum sentences are established in statutes. I think you will find that minimum sentences are also established via teh relevant statutes. If you want harsher sentences, lobby the government to change the sentencing structure - the judge has to work out where a crime sits on the scale, and at times they will sit low on that scale. If you feel the scale is inapropriate, the judge should not be the target of your ire, it should be those who have the power to change the framework that the judge must work within.

Do you really think these judges have any sense of justice?

Yes, yes I do feel they do. The fact that they have a sense of justice that is relatively impartial, compared to the mob mentality that the general public displays does not mean they do not have a sense of justice - indeed they have been chosen to deliver sentences, partially because they are impartial, and are unlikely to be swayed by public opinion.

[Duke Malcolm]

I reckon that imprisonment for 4 weeks is just silly. He should just get a decent fine and be done with it. Such a gaol sentence just fills up cells which could be used for more serious criminals. However, the council tax bills are just getting ridiculous, especially for the pensioners who have a small income to pay the taxes and their food...

[Productivity]

I reckon that imprisonment for 4 weeks is just silly. He should just get a decent fine and be done with it. Such a gaol sentence just fills up cells which could be used for more serious criminals. However, the council tax bills are just getting ridiculous, especially for the pensioners who have a small income to pay the taxes and their food...

Fine him for not paying taxes. What are you going to do when he doesn't pay those fines? Fine him again?

[Soulforged]

Fine him for not paying taxes. What are you going to do when he doesn't pay those fines? Fine him again?

No in fact there's ways to make his life imposible. You can cut out the credit, seize his property to the point of leaving him with just the necessary, and things like that, you see the cohercion can be used in various ways.

[Productivity]

No in fact there's ways to make his life imposible. You can cut out the credit, seize his property to the point of leaving him with just the necessary, and things like that, you see the cohercion can be used in various ways.

I know all of that. But the fact is, if they haven't worked allready (due to unpaid taxes), I fail to see how just making the value larger will do anything.

[JAG]

I see no problem with it what so ever, well I tell a lie I see two problems.

1) He shouldn't be sent to jail. No one should be sent to jail for not paying taxes, they should be given other forms of punishment, we should not simply be a nation which goes 'JAIL!!!' for every single breakage of law. There are other, far better, forms of punishment for actions such as this, such as community service, for after all it is the community he is failing by not paying his taxes anyway.

Jail should strictly be reserved for the most serious of crimes and then those who commit those crimes undergoing rehabilitation in jail like places, not abandonment as it is at the moment.

2) He is a Christian indoctrinator in chief and should be in jail anyway. All Christians should be thoroughly questioned and put into jail if any show real zeal enough to become a priest.

[Soulforged]

I see that this is a response to the other thread. But let's see all this cases you're talking about are on nations that have that incredibly archaic and flawled system....mmmm... the "common law". Right? The problem is that this system really needs juries, without them it can turn so arbitrary that it will be unbearable.

[Redleg]

2) He is a Christian indoctrinator in chief and should be in jail anyway. All Christians should be thoroughly questioned and put into jail if any show real zeal enough to become a priest.

Now that is funny - the problem though is even though I know its sarcasm - some of your earlier posts on religion could lead one to assume you are serious.

[JAG]

You will simply have to wonder.

[Redleg]

You will simply have to wonder.

Now wondering at all for me -

[Strike For The South]

2) He is a Christian indoctrinator in chief and should be in jail anyway. All Christians should be thoroughly questioned and put into jail if any show real zeal enough to become a priest.

HAHAHAHA CRAZY SOCIALIST AND HIS CRAZY IDEALS

[Devastatin Dave]

2) He is a Christian indoctrinator in chief and should be in jail anyway. All Christians should be thoroughly questioned and put into jail if any show real zeal enough to become a priest.

Ah, the true tolerance of the left shining through... What hypocracy.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Ah, the true tolerance of the left shining through... What hypocracy.

I love the "Report Bad Post" button.

[JAG]

Now that is funny - the problem though is even though I know its sarcasm - some of your earlier posts on religion could lead one to assume you are serious.

Ball 1!

HAHAHAHA CRAZY SOCIALIST AND HIS CRAZY IDEALS

Strike 1!

Ah, the true tolerance of the left shining through... What hypocracy.

Strike 2!

I love the "Report Bad Post" button.

Strike 3!

YOUR OUTTA HERE!!!!!!!

*chuckles*