Excusing the inexcusable

[Mawsley]

Someone pass me some nachos with cheese and jalapeños, ta.

 

[Longcliffe]

I tried to give him a clue.

Can't you read aswell?

 

[Blue Maniac]

Where does it say anything about the FATHER killing his son?

It doesn't, it says the father got five years ffs! That's why I questioned it!

 

[Mawsley]

*munch*

*munch*

*munch*

*slurp*

*munch*

 

[Leesoh]

I'm genuinely interested Leesoh, how easy is it to detach yourself from crime and your feelings towards it. I will never have to but I'm not sure I would be able to.

Would you honestly be able to give you all for a client knowing that they were almost certainly guilty of say sexual abuse against a child?

Same here Gaz.

I don't know how they are able to detach themselves from it either.
I see what Lisa is saying- about how everyone deserves the right to representation and all that, but it must sit uneasily with those defending someone who is guilty of such crimes.

You aren't the first to ask, and won't be the last!

I do have some first hand experience of these types of cases, and for obvious reasons (confidentiality etc), I won't go into details on a public message board. I, surprisingly, have managed to stay focused and detached. I don't know how or why, maybe I'm a hard-hearted cow. I think the expectation of professionalism, and consciously not taking in the gravity of the situation (if that makes sense) helps.

With regards to guilty defendants. as long as they plead guilty, all my role would be is to represent them in proceedings, and to mitigate when it comes to sentencing. Most offences have sentencing guidelines, and it's a case of fitting your client somewhere along the scale, and hoping that the Judge agrees. As I said before, I don't have to agree with the defendant but I have a duty to put forward their case, no matter how ludicrous it is, without misleading the Court.

If a defendant is guilty of an offence, but says that he or she will plead not guilty, then I have to walk away. I cannot mislead the Court, and so I would not be able to present their case effectively.

If a defendant is obviously guilty, but maintains his or her innocence, then unfortunately I have to put that case forward, again, no matter how ridiculous it is.

 

[Longcliffe]

It doesn't, it says the father got five years ffs! That's why I questioned it!

I was explaining an emotive event in my life and you treat as a laugh. Fair play to you and your pedantic friends, I hope you are proud of yourselves.

 

[Blue Maniac]

I was explaining an emotive event in my life and you treat as a laugh. Fair play to you and your pedantic friends, I hope you are proud of yourselves.

Oh for f.. Look, you're obviously not reading anything I'm actually posting. That makes this an entirely one-sided conversation. I'm sorry you've misunderstood / ignored my posts, I hope we can get past this.

 

[Leesoh]

5 years for causing death by dangerous driving is not unusual. Have you ever tried reading the Sentencing Guidelines?

Considering the cuts being made, should people be thrown into prison for years on end, when a shorter custodial sentence and re-education/rehabilitiation programmes might be a more effective use of public money?

 

[Blue Maniac]

5 years for causing death by dangerous driving is not unusual. Have you ever tried reading the Sentencing Guidelines?

Considering the cuts being made, should people be thrown into prison for years on end, when a shorter custodial sentence and re-education/rehabilitiation programmes might be a more effective use of public money?

I think Longcliffe's point was the driver has served a small fraction of that five year sentence. The lad is never coming back but the bloke who took his life has had his return almost to normal after little more than a year. Does that seem fair to you? Seems pretty shit to me.

 

[spionfox]

Can't you read aswell?

Perfectly, hence why your post caused confusion.

Look, I know you didn't mean what you wrote in the way that you wrote it so let's just move on eh?

 

[Leesoh]

I think Longcliffe's point was the driver has served a small fraction of that five year sentence. The lad is never coming back but the bloke who took his life has had his return almost to normal after little more than a year. Does that seem fair to you? Seems pretty shit to me.

I think we're missing part of the story.

The earliest that you can be considered for full release is when you've served half the sentence, so I am guessing that this chap was remanded, which would count towards the sentence given.

 

[Blue Maniac]

I think we're missing part of the story.

Don't start that again.

 

[Leesoh]

Don't start that again.

Ha ha!

Sorry....

 

[Longcliffe]

5 years for causing death by dangerous driving is not unusual. Have you ever tried reading the Sentencing Guidelines?

Considering the cuts being made, should people be thrown into prison for years on end, when a shorter custodial sentence and re-education/rehabilitiation programmes might be a more effective use of public money?

I have looked on that website thanks. I think most people concerned were surprised the defendant got as long as he did, I thought he might've got 2-4 years in the case I know about. As I said the defendant could be out within 14 months which does'nt seem appropriate.
My mate knows whatever sentence the defendant was given it could not bring his son back. My mate just wanted some sort of justice.

 

[H T B]

In my eyes, anybody that willingly goes out drinking with the full intention of driving whilst under the influence and then causes death by drinking and driving should be treated as the murderer they are.

Judicial system is too fecking soft in this country.

 

[Longcliffe]

Oh for f.. Look, you're obviously not reading anything I'm actually posting. That makes this an entirely one-sided conversation. I'm sorry you've misunderstood / ignored my posts, I hope we can get past this.

I didn't misunderstand "Explain or **** off", and that my jokes are racist. The jokes maybe sexist and ageist but not racist (I think).

 

[Blue Maniac]

In my eyes, anybody that willingly goes out drinking with the full intention of driving whilst under the influence and then causes death by drinking and driving should be treated as the murderer they are.

Judicial system is too fecking soft in this country.

:thumbs_up

 

[Blue Maniac]

I didn't misunderstand "Explain or **** off", and that my jokes are racist. The jokes maybe sexist and ageist but not racist (I think).

Yet you still don't know why I questioned what you posted originally

 

[Leesoh]

I have looked on that website thanks. I think most people concerned were surprised the defendant got as long as he did, I thought he might've got 2-4 years in the case I know about. As I said the defendant could be out within 14 months which does'nt seem appropriate.
My mate knows whatever sentence the defendant was given it could not bring his son back. My mate just wanted some sort of justice.

Within 14 months of what though? Now? The sentencing?

Anyone who's been sentenced to longer than 4 years can apply for parole, releasing them halfway through their sentence. If this guy's been sentenced to 5 years, he's not entitled to be released before 2.5 years, not 14 months, unless he's served 16 months on remand; this is beyond the custody time limits, which is 112 days for committal to Crown Court for trial, 70 days if he pleaded guilty. Although this can be extended with permission of the Court, 16 months is taking the piss.

Further, if he is paroled, he's released on licence. There will be conditions attached, one of which will be if he commits another offence within a specified period (usually the time left to run), he will sent back to prison and will have to serve the remaining 2.5 years.

 

[spionfox]

The jokes maybe sexist and ageist ....

Don't forget the bit about stereotypes!