Crazy sentences - our legal system is bonkers!

[David]

I can only speak from my own personal experience of seeing how 15-year old people do not change all that much in terms of maturity of thought in the short period of time when they become 18 years of age.

There are forum members between 14 and 18 years of age who could give their own perspective on how much a 15 year-old will mature in thought in the short period of attaining the age of 18.

Unfortunately, you can never predict how anyone can change or mature in a certain amount of time. Some people will be dead set in their ways/beliefs and will never change. Others will change their ways and/or mannerisms over a period of time,

Teenagers (and pre-teens) are completely different, as their views and mannerisms, and their idea's of right and wrong are still being influenced by everyone else around them possibly up until the age of 18 to 20. This is because they are in their most formative years. A teenager who grows up in a hard working middle class area will probably adopt the ideas and mannerisms of those who live around them, same for a teenager who grows up in an area dominated by chavs (for want of a better term).

However, it's those young teenagers, or those approaching their teen years who will change most if they move from 1 type of area to another. Let me tell you a story ....

3 years ago, a new family moved into the end of the street I live in. A single mother with 6 children. (The end of the world I hear you shout.) The eldest child, who was then a 16yo girl quickly moved out because "she wanted to be with the people she most associated with". IE. Chavs. Her life has been a mess since, including drugs, arrests, going to A&E because the "boyfriend" beat her up to "demonstrate how much he loved her", etc. However ....

The next eldest child, who was 12 when they moved in, was nearly as feral as the girl. But due to going to a different school, interacting with people who have a different set of ideals/morals, and basically being told to "put up or shut up" has changed his ways completely. He is approaching his 16th birthday, expected to get straight A-C's in his GCSEs, plus he is volunteering at a local charity shop every Saturday. His attitude as well is completely different from when the family first moved in. Then it was a case of "<explitive> you", now it is a case of "can I help in any way?"

[Cliché alert]

While it is partially a case of 'never judge a book by it's cover', it is a case (and a true story) of how 'an old dog can learn new tricks'.

[/Cliché alert]

 

[Butts]

Of course the biggest problem with the death sentence is if you make a mistake - or do we feel it is part of the process that a few innocent people are executed is an acceptable price to pay ?

 

[HST Power]

I lean towards the death penalty in exceptional circumstances, though I would be concerned with incorrect executions. That would be no price worth paying. Unfortunately, we remain bound by the conventions of the European Court of Human Rights. If we can't deport foreign criminals and decide for ourselves whether or not prisoners should be voting, without the intervention of the European Court, there is no hope for any form of capital punishment in our society.

Whilst the arguments circulate that it is 'unjust, a breach of basic rights,' etc...I don't buy into any arguments founded on the basis of rights and liberties. This is 21st century Britain, not North Korea.

 

[Butts]

I lean towards the death penalty in exceptional circumstances, though I would be concerned with incorrect executions. That would be no price worth paying. Unfortunately, we remain bound by the conventions of the European Court of Human Rights. If we can't deport foreign criminals and decide for ourselves whether or not prisoners should be voting, without the intervention of the European Court, there is no hope for any form of capital punishment in our society.

Whilst the arguments circulate that it is 'unjust, a breach of basic rights,' etc...I don't buy into any arguments founded on the basis of rights and liberties. This is 21st century Britain, not North Korea.

What would you describe as "exceptional circumstances" - where do you draw the line ?

Surely it is the mark of a Civilised Society how it deals with those who deviate from the "norm" (whatever that is). If we kill people as someone mentioned earlier that is more akin to reteibution or revenge. Rehabilitation should be the cornerstone of the Justice System.

 

[LE Greys]

From my point of view, if I had to choose between being hanged and going to prison for life, I'd rather be hanged.

And that's why I don't support the death penalty.

 

[Butts]

From my point of view, if I had to choose between being hanged and going to prison for life, I'd rather be hanged.

And that's why I don't support the death penalty.

I wonder which is the quickest method of depatch - I would have thought The Guillotine

 

[LE Greys]

So no research then? If we're into assumptions then I'd suggest that 'most' assaults at a young age don't need to be reported to the police and can easily be dealt with by the schools.

And therein may lie a problem. Recently, I saw an opinion piece (and for the life of me I can't remember where) that dealt with the problem in schools. When in schools, all of them, there is a problem where some pupils can get away with low-level violence and anti-social behaviour. It's generally called bullying. The thing is, the victim is in a position where he or she cannot fight back (either because it's an unfair fight or the victim will be punished equally) and cannot report it to anyone (either because it will get worse because they 'grassed' or the teachers will not take any serious action). So what's the message both parties receive from this? To the victim: 'The law is not on your side, nobody will help you and you are not allowed to help youself. You just have to put up with it.' To the bully: 'You can get away with violence because the authorities do not care and people cannot fight back.'

Is it any wonder we have so many problems when they get a bit older?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wonder which is the quickest method of depatch - I would have thought The Guillotine

Firing squad, but it's a bit less certain. Pistol to the back of the head has been used to finish the victims off on many occasions (and is practically instantanious).

 

[tbtc]

I can only speak from my own personal experience of seeing how 15-year old people do not change all that much in terms of maturity of thought in the short period of time when they become 18 years of age.

There are forum members between 14 and 18 years of age who could give their own perspective on how much a 15 year-old will mature in thought in the short period of attaining the age of 18.

So what's the answer?

Treat fifteen year olds as adults, as far as sentences go?

Where do you draw the line? Genuine question.

 

[GB]

What would you describe as "exceptional circumstances" - where do you draw the line ?

Those that murder two or more people, serial killers and those that commit mass murder would be a start.

As for 15 years olds, regardless of what circles they move in, they know full well whats right and wrong and they know full well killing someone is wrong...so yes, treat them as adults. (unless of course they have a mental condition)

 

[tbtc]

As for 15 years olds, regardless of what circles they move in, they know full well whats right and wrong and they know full well killing someone is wrong...so yes, treat them as adults. (unless of course they have a mental condition)

Based on Paul's assertion that you don't mature much between fifteen and eighteen, and that things are "deeply ingrained" then should we be treating thirteen year olds as knowing right from wrong? Ten year olds?

There has to be a line somewhere.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Based on Paul's assertion that you don't mature much between fifteen and eighteen, and that things are "deeply ingrained" then should we be treating thirteen year olds as knowing right from wrong? Ten year olds?.....There has to be a line somewhere.

As a species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens cannot have made a great leap forward in terms of evolution over the last 500 years. The prevailing wisdom of the judiciary has been one that has changed in Britain over that period of time. In the period 1688 to 1815, part of the British legal code was the "Bloody Code". One item in this code was the death penalty for children aged between 7 and 14 years of age where "A strong evidence of malice" was involved in certain crimes committed. Fortunately, the death penalty has been abolished in Britain and over the last 100 years, credence has been given to the raising of age of responsibility in young people and the raising of the school leaving age.

Yet on the other side of the coin, there are demands often heard for the reduction in age for young people, such as the matter of the age in which they are allowed to be able to vote.

Therefore, I totally agree with your assertion that a line has to be drawn somewhere. The trouble is that this line is something akin to the religious terminology of a "movable feast" in its position of nominating a certain age range.

 

[Butts]

As a species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens cannot have made a great leap forward in terms of evolution over the last 500 years. The prevailing wisdom of the judiciary has been one that has changed in Britain over that period of time. In the period 1688 to 1815, part of the British legal code was the "Bloody Code". One item in this code was the death penalty for children aged between 7 and 14 years of age where "A strong evidence of malice" was involved in certain crimes committed. Fortunately, the death penalty has been abolished in Britain and over the last 100 years, credence has been given to the raising of age of responsibility in young people and the raising of the school leaving age.

Yet on the other side of the coin, there are demands often heard for the reduction in age for young people, such as the matter of the age in which they are allowed to be able to vote.

Therefore, I totally agree with your assertion that a line has to be drawn somewhere. The trouble is that this line is something akin to the religious terminology of a "movable feast" in its position of nominating a certain age range.

Another aspect to bear in mind is that Prisons were quite late to develop within the penal system, hence the multitude of Capital Offences. Of course a lot of the sentences were commuted with the offenders suffering transportation to America and subsequently Australia.

 

[transmanche]

Unfortunately, we remain bound by the conventions of the European Court of Human Rights.

I'd say fortunately - you can't pick and choose which bits you 'like' and ignore the rest.

People often forget that it was Churchill who wanted to extend 'British values' and fair play across Europe after WWII which led to the creation of the European Convention on Human Rights. And that it was largely drafted by British lawyers.

And bizarrely it was Thatcher who signed the extension to the ECHR, which prohibited all capital punishment in peacetime. (Blair signed a later extension who prohibited capital punishment even in wartime.)

 

[SS4]

I lean towards the death penalty in exceptional circumstances, though I would be concerned with incorrect executions. That would be no price worth paying. Unfortunately, we remain bound by the conventions of the European Court of Human Rights. If we can't deport foreign criminals and decide for ourselves whether or not prisoners should be voting, without the intervention of the European Court, there is no hope for any form of capital punishment in our society.

Whilst the arguments circulate that it is 'unjust, a breach of basic rights,' etc...I don't buy into any arguments founded on the basis of rights and liberties. This is 21st century Britain, not North Korea.

I don't know, denying suffrage to prisoners is the start of a slippery slope especially when combined with custodial sentences for minor breaches. Where does it end? Will people be locked up shortly before election time to stop them voting? Granted that example is hyperbole but it's something we need to keep an eye on.

Question: How many people knew that the Coalition put a time limit of 12 months payment on ESA(C) claims for those not in the support group? I suspect it's few because the media hysteria was condemning the very few people who take advantage.

It's very easy to say we're not North Korea but vigilance is the price we pay for that liberty. It's laws slipping through under cover of a greater/more socially acceptable event. It's quite scary to see just how easily the media can turn people against their fellow citizens.

=============

The law is pretty fair overall, I'd like to see new laws governing online content and speech though, I don't feel the existing laws are close enough to deal with it, the OP's example of conspiracy to defraud being one of them which would surely be the civil matter of copyright infringement.
Speaking of new laws we really need some to protect us from unfair terms of service.

 

[LE Greys]

I don't know, denying suffrage to prisoners is the start of a slippery slope especially when combined with custodial sentences for minor breaches. Where does it end? Will people be locked up shortly before election time to stop them voting? Granted that example is hyperbole but it's something we need to keep an eye on.

Question: How many people knew that the Coalition put a time limit of 12 months payment on ESA(C) claims for those not in the support group? I suspect it's few because the media hysteria was condemning the very few people who take advantage.

It's very easy to say we're not North Korea but vigilance is the price we pay for that liberty. It's laws slipping through under cover of a greater/more socially acceptable event. It's quite scary to see just how easily the media can turn people against their fellow citizens.

The thing is, we're not denying prisoners the vote, we're not granting them the vote. There's a rather famous Suffragette poster saying that 'Convicts and Lunatics have no Right to Vote!'. It would be different if it was the other way round.

The law is pretty fair overall, I'd like to see new laws governing online content and speech though, I don't feel the existing laws are close enough to deal with it, the OP's example of conspiracy to defraud being one of them which would surely be the civil matter of copyright infringement.
Speaking of new laws we really need some to protect us from unfair terms of service.

I agree with all that, and would add that we need something to help deal with overseas and multi-national trade, especially tax havens. However, that might mean a UN Parliament with a universal jurisdiction.

 

[Bungle73]

It's not like companies trading abroad don't have to follow any laws; they have to follow the laws that are present in the country where they are based.

There are unfair contract laws already.

 

[SS4]

The thing is, we're not denying prisoners the vote, we're not granting them the vote. There's a rather famous Suffragette poster saying that 'Convicts and Lunatics have no Right to Vote!'. It would be different if it was the other way round.

I stand corrected

I still think prisoners should be able to vote though, even if it's those in for "minor" offences (meaning < 12 months)

 

[yorksrob]

I don't know, denying suffrage to prisoners is the start of a slippery slope especially when combined with custodial sentences for minor breaches. Where does it end? Will people be locked up shortly before election time to stop them voting? Granted that example is hyperbole but it's something we need to keep an eye on.

Personally, I regard the right to vote as a civil right, and since prisoners have been removed from civil society it seems perfectly logical to deny them that right, at least until they return to civil society. If the right to vote is a human right, how comes infants are routinely denied the right to vote as surely they're humans as well !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd say fortunately - you can't pick and choose which bits you 'like' and ignore the rest.

People often forget that it was Churchill who wanted to extend 'British values' and fair play across Europe after WWII which led to the creation of the European Convention on Human Rights. And that it was largely drafted by British lawyers.

And bizarrely it was Thatcher who signed the extension to the ECHR, which prohibited all capital punishment in peacetime. (Blair signed a later extension who prohibited capital punishment even in wartime.)

As one of the honourable members remarked in the recent parliamentary debate on the issue, the convention wasn't signed so that Rudolf Hess and Albert Speer could be given the vote.

It's interesting to note how many times the convention has been amended with protocols since it was drafted. In my view, we should wait until the next round of negotiations are due and refuse to sign anything unless a protocol is included expressly exempting us from the requirement to enfranchise serving prisoners.

 

[transmanche]

As one of the honourable members remarked in the recent parliamentary debate on the issue, the convention wasn't signed so that Rudolf Hess and Albert Speer could be given the vote.

And as that honourable member doubtless well knew, there's nothing in the ECHR that would have automatically entitled Rudolf Hess or Albert Speer to have the vote.

It's the blanket ban on voting which the judges found objectionable.

Take Canada (a country which shares a common political and legal heritage with the UK): the government tried to prevent prisoners who have been sentenced to two years or more lose the right to vote. The Canadian Supreme Court disagreed and found:

"To deny prisoners the right to vote was to lose an important means of teaching them democratic values and social responsibility and ran counter to democratic principles of inclusiveness, equality, and citizen participation"

"Nor could it be regarded as a legitimate form of punishment as it was arbitrary – it was not tailored to the acts and circumstances of the individual offender and bore little relation to the offender’s particular crime – and did not serve a valid criminal law purpose, as neither the record nor common sense supported the claim that disenfranchisement deterred crime or rehabilitated criminals."​

In the UK case, the judges said:

"General, automatic and indiscriminate disenfranchisement of all serving prisoners, irrespective of the nature or gravity of their offences, is incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No 1 [the right to free elections] of the European Convention on Human Rights,"

And accepted "the UK government's argument that each state has a wide discretion as to how it regulates the ban, both as regards the types of offence that should result in the loss of the vote and as to whether disenfranchisement should be ordered by a judge in an individual case or should result from general application of a law".​

 

[yorksrob]

And as that honourable member doubtless well knew, there's nothing in the ECHR that would have automatically entitled Rudolf Hess or Albert Speer to have the vote.

It's the blanket ban on voting which the judges found objectionable.

Take Canada (a country which shares a common political and legal heritage with the UK): the government tried to prevent prisoners who have been sentenced to two years or more lose the right to vote. The Canadian Supreme Court disagreed and found:

"To deny prisoners the right to vote was to lose an important means of teaching them democratic values and social responsibility and ran counter to democratic principles of inclusiveness, equality, and citizen participation"

"Nor could it be regarded as a legitimate form of punishment as it was arbitrary – it was not tailored to the acts and circumstances of the individual offender and bore little relation to the offender’s particular crime – and did not serve a valid criminal law purpose, as neither the record nor common sense supported the claim that disenfranchisement deterred crime or rehabilitated criminals."​

In the UK case, the judges said:

"General, automatic and indiscriminate disenfranchisement of all serving prisoners, irrespective of the nature or gravity of their offences, is incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No 1 [the right to free elections] of the European Convention on Human Rights,"

And accepted "the UK government's argument that each state has a wide discretion as to how it regulates the ban, both as regards the types of offence that should result in the loss of the vote and as to whether disenfranchisement should be ordered by a judge in an individual case or should result from general application of a law".​

Yes, but we already distinguish between convicted criminals who are imprisoned and those who are not (who are of course not subject to a ban on voting), so denying the vote to serving prisoners is just where we draw the line rather than indiscriminate disenfranchisement irrespective of the gravity of the offence.

 

[transmanche]

Yes, but we already distinguish between convicted criminals who are imprisoned and those who are not (who are of course not subject to a ban on voting), so denying the vote to serving prisoners is just where we draw the line rather than indiscriminate disenfranchisement irrespective of the gravity of the offence.

The learned judges think otherwise.

 

[yorksrob]

The learned judges think otherwise.

Judicial activism is of course, the danger inherant in any written constitution.

 

[transmanche]

Judicial activism is of course, the danger inherant in any written constitution.

Better than than politicians pandering to populist demands. (Although it's a convention, rather than a constitution - but your point is still a valid one.)

I think an adaptation of Blackstone's formulation (better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer) applies here. It's better to accept some things that you don't actually like, for the greater good. Once governments start chipping away at our rights, they won't know where to stop.

 

[Butts]

I read an account somewhere where they actually conducted an "election" in a Prison somewhere in the 1950's to coincide with the real one.

Strangely I thought the Consevatives won followed by the Liberals with Labour and the Communists bringing up the rear.

One point worth bearing in mind is that a lot of prisoners are from the sort of background that don't tend to vote on the outside let alone the inside.

 

[yorksrob]

Better than than politicians pandering to populist demands. (Although it's a convention, rather than a constitution - but your point is still a valid one.)

I personally prefer the traditional "unwritten" constitution precisely to prevent this sort of issue - although codified constitutions can also prevent countries from responding to changes in society (for example the right to bear arms in the US). However, the Convention gives the judiciary the right to strike down laws made by an elected parliament, therefore I fail to see how it could be considered not to be a constitution. The "unwritten constitution" is history.

I think an adaptation of Blackstone's formulation (better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer) applies here. It's better to accept some things that you don't actually like, for the greater good. Once governments start chipping away at our rights, they won't know where to stop.

I believe Blackstone's formulation is a better blueprint for administering the law than making it. At present, I'm more worried about the courts chipping away at our rights as a society to influence the laws by which we are governed.