MJ Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 talking about getting off lightly http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/news_08_2008/Drunk%20with%20ecstasy.htm So have I got this right, he was caught with nearly 100 ecstasy tablets, but all he needed to do was lend the court £750 for a year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 ist that sort of the quantities a pushers has. very kind sheriff. a value of just over £2 a tab that seems rather cheap. never mind im sure the lad can cover his losses very quickly. thought a long jail term was usual for supply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 One of the major problems faced by the British justice system is that everybody is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. And everything has to be proven by due judicial argument.This is all good and well, but it precludes the sheriff from making any assumptions, or logical conclusions, based on press reports or local knowledge. The Sheriff can't consider thoughts, such as: "I know he's just got a job in an attempt to prove he's a good guy.", or "I know he's done this before, or after, but we can only consider the facts presented in this case", or "Everybody on Shetlink knows this guy should go to jail, but the law cannot be seen to bow to public opinion or lynch mob tactics"., etc.. etc.. Perhaps in this case, the volume of opinion on Shetlink against this criminal will only make it more unlikely that the sheriff can hand down a decent sentence. If he were to jail the person, it could be assumed that he is bending to public opinion. And Lord forbid the law should ever sink so low as to listen to the public it is supposed to be serving and protecting. I still say "Hang the SOB" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 ^^ Exactly, which is why there should be fixed penalties for far more things than not wearing a seatbelt, parking in the wrong place, or having a swig out of a red tin furt. Nobody seems to have a problem with fixed penalties, so why not have one of 5 years in jail and £5000 fine for letting off a firearm in public. Can anyone present a decent logical case for why a sentence for such a crime should vary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 The law deals as much with intent as event; so variable penalties are a must - each unlawful killing, for example, is not the same as the next. It is naive to assume that we've thought of everything when drafting a particular penalty. This is why we have judges to pass sentence; to take the history and specific circumstances into account when deciding on what's appropriate. Also, just for another example angle, if there's no scope for varying sentences, then how does the justice system encourage informers to co-operate? It is also worth bearing in mind that a judge is better placed to decide what is appropriate than we, sitting a distance apart from the case. It is easy to have a "Hang the SOB" mob mentality, without being in possession of the full facts and having no actual responsibility. imho, etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlady Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 ^^Sarcasm Alert !!!! Well ... They might have had a deprived childhood! or ... Their parents may be divorced! or ... They may have been bullied at school! or ... They may have an ingrown toenail! so ... we should pat them on the head saying "there there we know you've been so hard done by so run along and cause more mayhem! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 ^ I'm not really talking about this particular case, just the idea of flexible penalties in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlady Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 ^^ Me neither ... just being generally sarcastic about our justice system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 ^^It sucks !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 ^^Sarcasm Alert !!!!......"or ... They may have an ingrown toenail!"...... I had an ingrown toenail once. Does that mean I can get away with causing mayhem?And is an ingrown toenail more dangerous than a BB gun? Perhaps the judicial system will answer these questions, perhaps it will not, but stay tuned to the next episode of SOAP (Shetland's Overly Awkward Police), for answers to these and other questions.... Ooops,,, more accidental sarcasm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 I didnt word my post above very well, most importantly by missing out the word "minimum". As we all know fixed penaltys are really fixed minimum's. If someone is parked illegally with a bald tyre and sitting steaming drunk in the car while its running, they wont just get the fixed £30 fine... No amount of circumstance can alter the fact that certain crimes have been commited. Obviously in cases where what has happened is unclear etc, traditional investigation etc must be undertaken. However, in cases like the one which inspired this thread, why not have a fixed minimum sentence, completely non-negotiable, and let the decision of whether that is enough, or if more is deserved/appropriate, be decided in the traditional manner. It's not about any sort of "Hang the SOB" revenge knee-jerk reaction - its about people taking responsobility for their own actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlady Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 - its about people taking responsobility for their own actions. Here here I totally agree .. that's whats wrong with society in general, far to quick to pass the blame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Spinner72,I'm afraid to say that if you don't accept the "Hang The SOB" attitude for somebody that aims, and fires, a weapon in the direction of a child, then you really need to rethink your attitude towards what is and isn't acceptable behaviour. Perhaps you don't have children, but as a parent my "Hang Em" attitude is a very fixed, and non-negotiable, sentiment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohanofNess Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 One of my aunts once said that me and my older brother and younger sister were always very well behaved when in other peoples houses and she could never understand why we were sooo polite and well mannered compared to the other bairns. Very simple answer I said, we were absolutely scared to death of pissing off our mother, she could strike the fear of god into me at 5 years old with a single look. If you're afraid of the consequences of your actions then you're more inclined to think twice before doing something stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Spinner72,I'm afraid to say that if you don't accept the "Hang The SOB" attitude for somebody that aims, and fires, a weapon in the direction of a child, then you really need to rethink your attitude towards what is and isn't acceptable behaviour. Perhaps you don't have children, but as a parent my "Hang Em" attitude is a very fixed, and non-negotiable, sentiment. I think you might have misread my post! I was making the point that anyone who does something like this should face a harsh, fixed, minimum sentence which can then increased if necessary, but with no option under any circumstance for it to be reduced. Our wives and bairns have the right to walk outside without being shot at, if anyone removes those rights, they automatically remove any rights they had themselves. A little bit of a dig through other threads of this nature will show you i am a staunch advocate of capital punishment, and i am always at pains to point out that there is nothing "knee-jerk", as is often suggested, about my opinion. To me its plain and simple logic. So, i'm in total agreement with "Hang the SOB". But, as pointed out by JohanofNess, the SOB's should know, without any doubt, that they will hang the minute they fire their weapon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.