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.
VVVV I agree with you if that wasn't clear
Last edited by Sasaki Kojiro; 06-09-2010 at 21:27.
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.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.
Last edited by TinCow; 06-09-2010 at 21:28.
I thought y'all just shipped'em off to Australia. See what happens when you fix sumptin that ain't broke!
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." *Jim Elliot*
Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
Ik hou van ferme grieten en dikke pintenOriginally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Down with dried flowers!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Bookmarks