You Are the Judge!

[Idaho]

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...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Age and PTSD?

[InsaneApache]

An ex-New Labour MP?

[Vladimir]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Idaho]

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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...

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

[Monk]

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 in the process.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm with the chain smoking medic.


One law for ordinary people, another for (former) law enforcement.

[PanzerJaeger]

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?

[TinCow]

[edit] one sec...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

[TinCow]

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 about sentencing guidelines, which gives the minimum at 5 years plus a fine. This is the bit 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]

I thought y'all just shipped'em off to Australia. See what happens when you fix sumptin that ain't broke!

[Vladimir]

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 about sentencing guidelines, which gives the minimum at 5 years plus a fine. This is the bit 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.

There should be an icon for Reason.