Inappropiate sentencing - Page 2

jaysay · 28-06-2008, 09:15

It appears that murder charges were dropped and they were charged with manslaughter instead, the judge said she would have got 22 years if it had have been a murder charge. Isn't that what is wrong with our system of justise in this country, make the punishment fit the crime

longballking · 28-06-2008, 10:05

I hope that when the pair do get out their home address is public knowledge.

derekgas · 28-06-2008, 10:12

I think if somebody had murdered this poor child by recognised methods, they would have got life (for what that is worth in this country), to put this in perspective, neglecting the child, starving the child, child cruelty and casuing her death should have all been seperate charges with seperate sentences not running concurrently, my guess is that would add up to more than they got, and would still not be enough, in cases like this, manslaghter should not be an option, starving a child to death is murder and nothing less, for that they should both have hung.

WillowTheWhisp · 28-06-2008, 10:40

It's a technicality isn't it? Murder has to be when you actually intend to kill and the defence will be that they didn't.

***Mr D*** · 28-06-2008, 11:23

How can someone do that to a child.

Sickening, and she was heard commenting about her dog weight and condition.

I hope she get a good pasting in jail daily.

jaysay · 28-06-2008, 12:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

It's a technicality isn't it? Murder has to be when you actually intend to kill and the defence will be that they didn't.

Well Willow to me if your going to starve a two year old child for twelve months, whilst at the same time worrying about your dog losing weight, you can't actually convince anybody with half a brain that your not trying to kill the poor little mite, both you and me know what their intentions were, its just a pity that the judge in their Ivory Towers can't actually see throught the rubbish that is our legal system. Until we start dishing out sentencing that is actually deterrant to these low lifes, then nothing is going to change anytime soon.

yerself · 28-06-2008, 13:16

How do people like this manage to find someone to defend them? I know we all have a living to make but surely even lawyers have a conscience and draw the line at which cases they take on. Or are they assigned certain cases? Perhaps our resident legal eagle, Ms. Blazey QC, could enlighten us.

jaysay · 28-06-2008, 13:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by yerself

How do people like this manage to find someone to defend them? I know we all have a living to make but surely even lawyers have a conscience and draw the line at which cases they take on. Or are they assigned certain cases? Perhaps our resident legal eagle, Ms. Blazey QC, could enlighten us.

Whats the QC for yerself,

ah must be Quite Cute

yerself · 28-06-2008, 13:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

Whats the QC for yerself, ah must be Quite Cute

Isn't it some cheap brand of sherry? I presume this is your personal opinion of our learned colleague.

panther · 28-06-2008, 13:48

!2 years for killing a kid?..........thats typical british justice for ya

jambutty · 28-06-2008, 14:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by yerself

How do people like this manage to find someone to defend them? I know we all have a living to make but surely even lawyers have a conscience and draw the line at which cases they take on. Or are they assigned certain cases? Perhaps our resident legal eagle, Ms. Blazey QC, could enlighten us.

Every person charged with committing a crime, no matter what it is, is entitled to defend themselves or hire a lawyer to do so on their behalf. Most people who face a criminal charge will have a defence lawyer appointed or they can select one if they cannot afford one under the Legal Aid scheme. In spite of the attempts by the media we do not try the accused by media or public opinion. And that is it should be because in the eyes of the law the accused is innocent until proved guilty by their peers.

I think that the only grounds that a lawyer can refuse a case are the lack of expertise in that particular field of the law or not having the time to take on another case. Thus a lawyer generally dealing with corporate law would be able to decline a criminal case and vice versa.

A defence lawyer does not judge the client and will do everything in his/her power to get the accused off the charge or gain the absolute minimum sentence. That’s his/her job. Similarly the prosecution team do the opposite.

The judge applies the law once a jury has come to a decision although the judge can direct the jury if the prosecution evidence is so weak or extremely strong. But the jury are not obliged to take the direction on board.

This particular crime was beyond belief but the law is the law, even if it is an ass at times and without it we would have vigilante groups and anarchy.

jaysay · 28-06-2008, 14:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by yerself

Isn't it some cheap brand of sherry? I presume this is your personal opinion of our learned colleague.

No just passing a comment yerself

but I don't think she's a cheap sherry

jaysay · 28-06-2008, 14:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

Every person charged with committing a crime, no matter what it is, is entitled to defend themselves or hire a lawyer to do so on their behalf. Most people who face a criminal charge will have a defence lawyer appointed or they can select one if they cannot afford one under the Legal Aid scheme. In spite of the attempts by the media we do not try the accused by media or public opinion. And that is it should be because in the eyes of the law the accused is innocent until proved guilty by their peers.

I think that the only grounds that a lawyer can refuse a case are the lack of expertise in that particular field of the law or not having the time to take on another case. Thus a lawyer generally dealing with corporate law would be able to decline a criminal case and vice versa.

A defence lawyer does not judge the client and will do everything in his/her power to get the accused off the charge or gain the absolute minimum sentence. That’s his/her job. Similarly the prosecution team do the opposite.

The judge applies the law once a jury has come to a decision although the judge can direct the jury if the prosecution evidence is so weak or extremely strong. But the jury are not obliged to take the direction on board.

This particular crime was beyond belief but the law is the law, even if it is an ass at times and without it we would have vigilante groups and anarchy.

Ya JB but it still doesn't stop me wondeing how they sleep at night

jaysay · 28-06-2008, 14:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by panther

!2 years for killing a kid?..........thats typical british justice for ya

Must agree panther, mind you I've always thought that in cases like this the terrif should be set by a panel of mothers with young children, I think then scum like this would get their just desserts

katex · 28-06-2008, 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

A defence lawyer does not judge the client and will do everything in his/her power to get the accused off the charge or gain the absolute minimum sentence. That’s his/her job. Similarly the prosecution team do the opposite.

[/SIZE][/FONT]

Of course Jambutty, and that is the way the law should operate. Just wondered what defence was put up here. Must have been particularly difficult to put up any kind. They surely must be completely off their trolley that's the only defence I can think of at this moment after reading that report ... heartbreaking case. Difficult to get the images out of your head of how this 3-year old must have suffered, isn't it.