...And For The Defense...

Uncle Mick · 28-09-2007, 20:05

In this weeks Accy Observer there is a story regarding a drunken mother arrested following an argument on her own doorstep. The defence solicitor said, and I quote " I cannot add much to this case but my client has not been before the court before and is in receipt of benefits"

Now I can understand the not being before the court bit, as it shows the defendant is not an habitual criminal, but being in receipt of benefits?. Does this mean that people on benefits are regarded as criminals or are they frequently drunk which mitigates there anti social behaviour?

Maybe any Accy Web members who are in receipt of benefits would like to comment... providing they are not plastered or causing a breach of the peace.

BERNADETTE · 28-09-2007, 20:35

That is just the sort of statement that is absolutely uncalled for and has absolutely no bearing on the case. If someone who is in employment comes before the courts is their wage disclosed as part of the evidence? It is totally out of order being arrested for being drunk whether you are on benefits or not IMHO.

Lilly · 28-09-2007, 20:37

I don't see why they had to bring the fact that she's on benefits into it.

Gayle · 28-09-2007, 20:41

I think it means - she's never done anything like this before, she's a bit poor so could you go easy on her when you're fining her.

Lilly · 28-09-2007, 20:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

I think it means - she's never done anything like this before, she's a bit poor so could you go easy on her when you're fining her.

Maybe, Gayle. I never thought of that.

BERNADETTE · 28-09-2007, 20:48

True enough statement Gayle. Never entered my head.

Margaret Pilkington · 28-09-2007, 20:52

But could this bit of information not be given in private?....and I certainly don't think it needed to be disclosed in the newspaper.

BERNADETTE · 28-09-2007, 20:54

Also true Margaret, personal circumstances should be kept private.

Ianto.W. · 29-09-2007, 05:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE

True enough statement Gayle. Never entered my head.

How did you manage to extrude it then?

Mick · 29-09-2007, 06:27

The reason they tell the court she is on benefits is so she wont get a big fine and if she does get a large fine she will then get time to pay and not have to pay in one lump
if you see what i mean

Margaret Pilkington · 29-09-2007, 12:13

I see that and it makes good sense, but could this information not be kept confidential....surely the courts get some kind of social report or background on the defendant.

lancsdave · 29-09-2007, 12:26

It also highlights what a stupid legal system we have. Why is a crime any different for people depending on their income ? Is it not the same crime. Would you get 10 years for murder if you are on benefits and life if you are fully employed. Maybe it might be the other way round, you get life if you are on benefits and less if you are employed because the government needs you back paying tax as soon as possible. A crime is a crime and the punishment should be the same regardless of who it is.

katex · 29-09-2007, 12:33

I read this and had the same thoughts as Uncle Mick ... was well out of order. Did make it look like people on benefits were more likely to behave in this way rather than the rest of us that aren't.

Would we forgive Jambutty more if he had assaulted someone with a walking stick for parking in the wrong spot, and it was mentioned that he was a Blue Badge holder ...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better run quick before he sees it.

SPUGGIE J · 29-09-2007, 14:35

Looking at cases over the years the more dosh you have the less chance of jail. Money buys you better lawyers and a better chance of getting of lightly. If the opposite is true then I might need a bit of persuading.

steeljack · 29-09-2007, 16:31

is there an alcohol allowance included in a benefits package ? , time was benefits were paid as a safety net between jobs ,not to support an idle lifestyle, and if the woman is on the sick list she shoudn't be drinking .