Without particularly wishing to start a thread on a specific court case, a prominent one that has just finished includes (from the BBC report), this snippet:
Lord Judge had previously told Sewart that any prison sentence on her would be suspended because she has a three-year-old child from whom she had already been separated during the crown court trial.
How do the panel feel about suspension of jail terms because of kids?
|
Entirely depends on the severity of the offence and the possible harm to the child.
Think the judge got it right in this case. The acquitted defendant did not make efforts to seek out the juror. The juror did however seek out the defendant, and offered support and information.
|
I have seen this happen more times than I care to remember.
The barrister will effectively say: "You cannot lock her up, your honour, she's got babies."
I've also seen examples of what we now call 'tactical pregnancy'.
A woman will get nicked for something which she knows should send her to prison, so she gets herself pregnant.
The gestation period of a court case is not dissimilar to that of the human being.
The woman knows by the day of sentence she will either be heavily pregnant, or have just given birth.
Women are not the only people who play the baby card - Ryan Giggs did it to help get his superinjunction.
"It's not for me, think of the harm this will do to my children."
|
|
Not dissimilar to people asking not to be banned from driving because they need to drive for their job?
|
Surely this goes along the same lines as another thread on a misdeed by a police driver.
If you drive for your job then a need to keep that job makes you more diligent, or should do so shouldn't be a consideration.
Likewise the lady in question is fully aware of her families needs and should have considered this long ago and shouldn't be given any different sentence.
Pat
|
...Likewise the lady in question is fully aware of her families needs and should have considered this long ago and shouldn't be given any different sentence...
I err towards that view.
Particularly in the cases I see in which young mothers seem able to go out, get drunk, and start a fight at 2am in a nightclub.
But come the evil day in court, they cannot bear to be separated from their precious children.
This case is slightly different in that the woman may not have realised she was doing anything wrong - her case had finished - and almost certainly didn't realise the seriousness of the offence.
|
|
A new way to knobble juries - bribe one to contact a defendent and crash the trial ?
|
|
but there will always be a retrial. Not sure what you gain.
|
Avoiding jail, by whatever means.
Until you've had time to "tidy up loose ends"
ie. intimidate/eliminate witnesses/evidence.
I think last year there was a major criminal case tried without jury due to repeated knobbling so it wouldn't work indefinitely !
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 16 Jun 11 at 18:09
|
>> I err towards that view.
>>
>> Particularly in the cases I see in which young mothers seem able to go out,
>> get drunk, and start a fight at 2am in a nightclub.
>>
>> But come the evil day in court, they cannot bear to be separated from their
>> precious children.
Bit of a difference though. Leaving the kids with Mum/hubby while you have a night out is one thing. That idea that few drinks and somebody else being a drunken ar#e as as well might get you into jail is a hell of a leap.
|
Bromptonaut,
It is not compulsory to thump - or glass - the person next to you in a nightclub.
Of the 300 punters in that club, about 150 are women, and of those, 148 are enjoying a night out, having made childcare arrangements where appropriate.
But that still leaves two who want to fight.
|
>> Bromptonaut,
>>
>> It is not compulsory to thump - or glass - the person next to you
>> in a nightclub.
>>
>> Of the 300 punters in that club, about 150 are women, and of those, 148
>> are enjoying a night out, having made childcare arrangements where appropriate.
>>
>> But that still leaves two who want to fight.
I know that and glassing is probably beyond the scope of offence i had in mind. But when you've had a few and somebody else starts getting stroppy 'who'll look after the kids if this ends in jail' is unlikley to be at the front of the mind.
But then again maybe I'm just saying 'what if' to get on your t*ts!!!
|
... 'who'll look after the kids if this ends in jail' is unlikley to be at the front of the mind...
Agreed, although it's clearly a different point to variable sentencing.
I have seen many people - not just women - get very distressed and upset when they are sent to prison.
What if I could speak to these people a second before they were about to do the offence and say: "I'm not trying to stop you, but if you do this, in six months time a judge will send you to prison."
I reckon most would draw back.
|
>> What if I could speak to these people a second before they were about to
>> do the offence and say: "I'm not trying to stop you, but if you do
>> this, in six months time a judge will send you to prison."
>>
>> I reckon most would draw back.
Three times in my career I've had to deal with staff members squaring up to each other. All had their danders up but were sober and I had some authority as a manager. Nobody got thumped but some men were sent home to reflect!!
If I'd been a stranger and the participants drunk I'd not have had a chance.
|
Is this variable justice? - Zero
