It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Ste2652
Whilst some of the sentences passed (or lack of them, in some cases) are very concerning, I remind you that judges aren't supposed to take into account 'public opinion' - that's a politician's job. A judge is supposed to pass sentence using their best judgement (hence the job title ) based on the evidence they've seen in court and the decision of the jury.
The last thing we want is Big Brother-style phone lines where you ring up and vote for the sentence a criminal is given... let's face it, the right to a fair trial would be out of the window if everyone were involved. Some people simply wouldn't have a clue, and we must also keep in mind that the media likes to sell their newspapers by biased reporting. Read a story in the Daily Mail, then read the same story in the Guardian - I suspect you'll find two very different views. Which one is right? Why is that one right? Why is the other one wrong?
Apparently the Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips has said that murderers are spending 'too long' in jail! He also wants judges to be able to reduce the mandatory sentence, which for murder is 15 years.
Does he live in the real world? Most people I know think that when a 'life' sentence is passed then it should mean for life, not just 15 years!
Of course the poor murderers have the human rights act on their side, and it's not their fault anyway because they didn't have a daddy.
Meanwhile the 2003/2004 NHS budget is £68.7 billion
It now stands at 75 billion
Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
And what has "they didn't have a daddy" got to do with anything?
But their sentences have now been reduced by a judge by two years for being excessive.
Labour you are responsible…
These kind of cases do make you wonder just when someone is going to think 'enough' and go out looking for the scrotes with a loaded gun.
Perhaps this is a lesson in how discounting public opinion completely merely radicalises it in the end.
I wonder how many of these judges would be so lenient if the murderer or whatever lived next-door to them?