stickyfngrdboy posted:

It's ridiculous that judges have to sentence based on those given at the time of the offence.

stickyfngrdboy posted:

It's ridiculous that judges have to sentence based on those given at the time of the offence.

nothing to seehere posted:

Its an integral part of a fair legal system. You cannot prosecute someone for a crime that did not exist when the offence was committed, right? (like in the case of Robert Schifreen and Stephen Gold, who could not be prosecuted for hacking because hacking was not a crime when they did it) So you also can't take a minor offence someone has committed, and then jack up the punishment for it, then apply that punishment to them. Again, its a method to unfairly manipulate the justice system, something no-one wants. It is aggravating, I agree, but the logic is sound, and the fact of the conviction does not change.

nothing to seehere posted:

Its an integral part of a fair legal system. You cannot prosecute someone for a crime that did not exist when the offence was committed, right? (like in the case of Robert Schifreen and Stephen Gold, who could not be prosecuted for hacking because hacking was not a crime when they did it) So you also can't take a minor offence someone has committed, and then jack up the punishment for it, then apply that punishment to them. Again, its a method to unfairly manipulate the justice system, something no-one wants. It is aggravating, I agree, but the logic is sound, and the fact of the conviction does not change.

stickyfngrdboy posted:

The logic in minor crimes is sound, but crimes against minors should maybe be exempt from such a system.

Nintendo Kid posted:

You really, really, couldn't do that.

stickyfngrdboy posted:

Oh.

nothing to seehere posted:

You say crimes against minors should be exempt, but why> it is because its a sexual crime, and therefore also why not rapes of adults be subject to the same conditions? Or is it because the crime is committed against a child, and then you ask why not child murders are held to the same rules? And if child murder is worth breaking sentencing about, why not the murder of adults? Or any crime that harms a child, even if not grievously?

You can't just have one or two specific exemptions to these principles, because then you open the argument to broaden them, and then the entire system breaks down. Its not like he's getting away scot-free because of this, and he is still branded a child-rapist.

stickyfngrdboy posted:

The logic in minor crimes is sound, but crimes against minors should maybe be exempt from such a system.

Brown Moses posted:

Just before the election, I'm sure Cameron is over the moon.

EvilGenius posted:

Punishing under modern guidelines would be punishment for the failures of law in the past - the failure to deter him and the failure to catch him. I.e. he may not have done it had today's rules applied back then, and if he'd have been caught then he would have served the 16 years.

What about the people already in jail? You can't apply modern sentencing to Gary Glitter just because he happened not to have been jailed at the time. It's inconsistent.

stickyfngrdboy posted:

Yeah I don't like the "I wouldnt have done it if I'd known I would get more time" argument. Ignorance isn't a defence. I also think that, especially in cases involving children, if they were too young or afraid to come forward while it was happening the accused shouldn't benefit in sentencing because of that. Also, you raped kids (or murdered someone or whatever), go gently caress yourself, if you'd confessed forty years ago you'd have got those guidelines. You didn't, unlucky.

I do agree with the last argument you make, though, obviously. I still think exceptions could be made.

stickyfngrdboy posted:

Yeah I don't like the "I wouldnt have done it if I'd known I would get more time" argument. Ignorance isn't a defence. I also think that, especially in cases involving children, if they were too young or afraid to come forward while it was happening the accused shouldn't benefit in sentencing because of that. Also, you raped kids (or murdered someone or whatever), go gently caress yourself, if you'd confessed forty years ago you'd have got those guidelines. You didn't, unlucky.

I do agree with the last argument you make, though, obviously. I still think exceptions could be made.

AVeryLargeRadish posted:

How would you feel about this:

Someone has committed a crime, the story is getting nation wide coverage and the public is outraged. This crime is punishable by a maximum of five years of imprisonment and the public is outraged about that too. Should the government be able to pass a change to the law changing the penalty for this crime from a maximum of five years of imprisonment to a minimum of life imprisonment without possibility of parole and apply that penalty to the guilty party that committed the crime before the change to the law?

Because that is exactly what you are asking for here.

Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:

UKMT is the other thread, can we keep actual news to this thread?

EvilGenius posted:

Oh I don't believe for one second he wouldn't have done it had the sentencing been different in the 70s. But it is a possibility, and that brings doubt into the equation. Maybe if you could prove he would have done it under modern sentencing it would be workable, but that's just not possible.

AVeryLargeRadish posted:

How would you feel about this:

Someone has committed a crime, the story is getting nation wide coverage and the public is outraged. This crime is punishable by a maximum of five years of imprisonment and the public is outraged about that too. Should the government be able to pass a change to the law changing the penalty for this crime from a maximum of five years of imprisonment to a minimum of life imprisonment without possibility of parole and apply that penalty to the guilty party that committed the crime before the change to the law?

Because that is exactly what you are asking for here.

EvilGenius posted:

Yeah, this. Do you really trust the Tories, who are already making awful knee-jerk laws, with the application retrospective sentencing? Greater punishment because someone famous did it?

EvilGenius posted:

Oh I don't believe for one second he wouldn't have done it had the sentencing been different in the 70s. But it is a possibility, and that brings doubt into the equation. Maybe if you could prove he would have done it under modern sentencing it would be workable, but that's just not possible.

stickyfngrdboy posted:

This isn't even close to what I'm suggesting. My comments have been based entirely on the judge's comments. I dont care about public outcry, because the public are, mostly, idiots.

AVeryLargeRadish posted:

It's quite literally what you suggested, you just don't like it being pointed out.

hakimashou posted:

Wouldn't that imply you could pass a new law with harsher penalties and then use it to extend the sentences of people already in prison?

stickyfngrdboy posted:

No, it doesn't bring doubt into anything. This isn't a case of 'maybe he didn't do it' it's a case of 'we punish this poo poo [like this] now. We didn't then. Why not?' Doubt is already well out of this equation.

Edit: I was going to put all three responses in one post but that's not easy to do on a phone. If you care about triple posts apologies, but also, lol get a life.

Ron Paul Atreides posted:

Can't retroactively apply punishment for crimes already ruled on. Double jeopardy and all that

EvilGenius posted:

Much of a poo poo as he is, 'why not' is not really Garry Glitter's problem. The sentencing at the time wasn't enough to deter him, so it's not fair to apply a harsher sentence which might have done.

stickyfngrdboy posted:

Yeah you can. The crown prosecution service can, if they think it warranted, appeal sentences already handed down, in the hope that an appeal court will hand down a more severe sentence.

Ron Paul Atreides posted:

Can't retroactively apply punishment for crimes already ruled on. Double jeopardy and all that

stickyfngrdboy posted:

Yeah you can. The crown prosecution service can, if they think it warranted, appeal sentences already handed down, in the hope that an appeal court will hand down a more severe sentence.

goddamnedtwisto posted:

They can apply to have the sentence increased within the range allowed in the law

Don't say I didn't warn you posted:

Police and social workers in Oxfordshire perceived that girls as young as 11 had consented to sex with men, an independent report into the failure to stop their exploitation has said.

Throughout their interactions with six young girls in Oxford, professionals struggled with the law on consent, failing to understand that such was the power of the grooming process the children had no power to say no to gang rape, sexual torture and violence.

The serious case review, commissioned by Maggie Blyth, independent chair of the Oxfordshire safeguarding children board, said there were grounds for believing that 373 girls had been sexually exploited across Oxfordshire in the past 15 years.

One police officer recorded that a 13-year-old having sex with an older Asian man was in an “age-appropriate relationship”. Another sergeant described how a 14-year-old girl had initiated sexual intercourse with two men. Social workers, the report said, appeared to tolerate the under-age sex the girls were having with much older men.

The report called on the government to examine whether its guidance on the age of consent fed attitudes that made it easier for perpetrators to abuse victims.

“The overall problem was not grasping the nature of the abuse – the grooming, the pull from home, the erosion of consent, the inability to escape and the sheer horror of what the girls were going through – but of seeing it as something done more voluntarily. Something that the girls did as opposed to something done to them,” the report said.
[...]
The report said key failings by police and social workers included:

A culture of denial;
Blaming the girls for their precocious and difficult behaviour;
Blaming the girls for putting themselves at risk of harm;
Tolerance of underage sexual activity by the girls with older men;
A failure to recognise the girls had been groomed and violently controlled.
Such was the nature of the sexual exploitation and abuse suffered by the girls, who all had backgrounds in care, that it was likened to torture. The abuse took place in Oxford, in a guest house or in parks and churchyards, and the girls were plied with drugs and subjected to gang rape and sexual atrocities for more than eight years between 2004 and 2012.

The report highlighted multiple missed opportunities by Thames Valley police and Oxfordshire social services to act rigorously.

These included a neighbourhood city council official who in February 2007 raised concerns with senior police officers and children’s social services manages about a 13-year-old girl. He reported “men going into the flat every night” and said he saw the child lying under a cover with an adult male. But he was reprimanded by city council officials after an intervention by the head of child social care in Oxfordshire county council – who was not named in the report. The then director of children’s services in the council – also not named in the report - was copied into the emails.

quote:

Despite damning findings in the 114-page report, no one has been disciplined or sacked over the child protection failures.
[...]
The report failed to hold any senior managers or directors accountable, saying there was no evidence of “wilful professional misconduct” and senior managers were not made aware of what was going on. Instead she blamed lack of knowledge and understanding and organisational failings.

Middle managers in social services, however, gave evidence that they were afraid to escalate concerns amid an “oppressive culture” within the council at the time.

Next week's nightmare schedule posted:

"I went to the police, blood all over me, soaked through my trousers to the crotch. They dismissed it as me being naughty"
-Sex abuse victim

Murderion posted:

willie_dee posted:

The incompetence astounds me, even now.

Serotonin posted:

It's not incompetence. It's wilful classism and rape culture shite.