Ironwithin Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Does anyone else find the sentences give out by the sheriff court odd at times and not consistant? For example he puts this person to jail:http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/6494-sheriff-stands-firm-on-jailing-dealers While these two get what more or less is a slap on the wrist:http://www.shetnews.co.uk/newsbites/6495-hooded-burglars-avoid-prison I know which of them I would have sent to jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piggywiggie Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 I'm sure he gives the sentence he feels fit for each individual case. Stealing has always been seen as a lesser offence than drugs. Although I do not condone either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorrie Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Does anyone else find the sentences give out by the sheriff court odd at times and not consistant? For example he puts this person to jail:http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/6494-sheriff-stands-firm-on-jailing-dealers While these two get what more or less is a slap on the wrist:http://www.shetnews.co.uk/newsbites/6495-hooded-burglars-avoid-prison I know which of them I would have sent to jail. The immigrants? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Mitigating circumstances. Why punish some one when they have changed their ways the same as some on who hasn't for exactly the same crime? That would be unfair. There are many other factors involved. If you can be bothered, you could ask here... http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/1/0/Home Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Really?http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2008/07/11/curfews-criticised-in-sheriff-courtPersonally I think it's about time. Just because he's moved tae a posh bit of Cults doesn't mean he's still not the toerag who got away with far too much in the past.Remember back in 2007 he was only fined £350 for his involvement in obtaining cannabis... unfortunately can't find an archive for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 If the probation part of rehabilitation had not been tried, perhaps, as a last chance, it should be tried. As for curfews, they are wildly used. A HDC can be as effective in many cases to either allow the prisoner to restart any employment sooner if a short sentence, or even as a sentence or start to integrate the prisoner back into society. Sadly, I feel this thread may turn into a bit of a witch hunt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infiltrator Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Really?Remember back in 2007 he was only fined £350 for his involvement in obtaining cannabis... unfortunately can't find an archive for that. [***Mod edit - removed cut and pasted text from a news article. A copy of the article can be found here. ***] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattie Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 It is really sad that the Shetlink "moderators" allow this topic to flourish.Naming and shaming Shetland folks online.Disgusting .. springs to mind!!This topic should be locked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHUCK NORR1S Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 It is really sad that the Shetlink "moderators" allow this topic to flourish.Naming and shaming Shetland folks online.Disgusting .. springs to mind!!This topic should be locked. I agree!!! I understand the above report is in the public domain but that was 6 year ago FFS!!! I didn't actually know about this but I know one of the lads in that report, he's a stand up guy now and obviously learned a lesson, I'm sure he doesn't need something like that being brought out to folks attention again after so long!!! At the very least you could have blanked out names of people that wasn't relevant to the OP's post. I'm sure no-one would have bothered to go hunting for the report to find all that out. Very unsavoury!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 I have to disagree as it's a matter of Public Record and not really a 'name and shame exercise although, I do feel that Infiltrator should have posted a link instead of the 'cut and paste' job.That way, anyone who wished to read it could have done so whilst the rest of us could have assumed that 'they did the crime and they did the time'. As for one of the lads being a 'stand up guy' now. OK and well done but, (not that it really matters) what of the other two? I suppose it comes down to the fact that some people are prepared to 'forgive and forget', some will only just 'forgive' and, others will do neither.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHUCK NORR1S Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 I completely agree Colin, the matter is in the public domain so is free for people to read, I just think that was a bit p*ss poor to throw it out there like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances144 Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 A small place, long memories and as much turd stirring in between. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHUCK NORR1S Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 A small place, long memories and as much turd stirring in between. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 I thought this thread was going to be a discussion about the differences with sentencing, alas, no, to drag up folks past from over 6 years ago to have another go. I know from experience of a friend the harm that can be done because of such openness. One has to weigh up really the overall detriment to society. When someone is accused of something, then to publish their name and street they live in without any guilt proved can really harm folk, the family and the lives of other who may know them. This prejudges cases, and can cause some serious problems, especially after found not guilty. I wonder how fair is that. Would anyone please explain, how this protects society, personally, involving others not in the "target zone" as you have, is quite wrong. Folk may have moved on, families have forgiven and got on again. Quite sad really that folk feel the need to do this. Again, easier to look at and pick apart others lives behind an anonymous guise than to look closer to home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 Does anyone else find the sentences give out by the sheriff court odd at times and not consistant? Pretty much all the time, there's neither rhyme nor reason with most of them, but I don't think that's necessarily the local Court's fault, more to do with those upstairs writing and approving the statutes and penalties not taking the broader view. What I do find highly objectionable and possibly of questionable legality is the apparently recently established habit (or maybe the Times just haven't bothered reporting it before) of the prosecution/Police making, and getting away with insinuations they cannot apparently prove that paints a much blacker picture of an accused than can be proven beyind reasonable doubt. By that I mean the now almost infamous type of line such as "there is a suspicion that alcohol was involved in this incident" when some motoring offence is being tried. No evidence is apparently presented to support such allegations, therefor to maintain any pretence of "innocent until proven guilty" such comment should be inadmissable as irrelevant. Don't try and tell me because there is no evidence it makes no difference, it is unavoidable it influences sentencing, as it has no other purpose to be thrown in to the mix for. Certainly you can argue that if the "suspicion" was founded on fact, that no real harm is done, however it all goes very badly pear shaped when some incompetent or vindictive Plod decides to throw it in for no other reason than "just because" and someone picks up a ban and everything that goes with it that they neither earned nor deserved, and it could very easily happen to anyone at any time with any charge. Our "justice" system is built on, and relies on "proven facts" to sustain, allowing unprovable, irrelevant and damaging remarks to be made, and to stand in a Court, in the way the Times have reported on a few occasions this last year or two is the beginnings of a very dangerous slippery slope. 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.