adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,009
Likes: 4,821
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 28, 2021 10:40:04 GMT
Before that sentence you actually brought some useful information to the debate. You need to move your apostrophe on a character though. Umm, you do know that's exactly what Newsbeat is, right? The BBC's simplified news channel for a younger audience... www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat(And, no, both the apostrophe are in their correct places.)
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 2,692
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jul 28, 2021 10:54:09 GMT
I must live on a differenet planet to everyone else. That's why I like this forum. Its pseudo anonymous chat allows me to see just how far away I am ! To me, rape is a terrible crime that should carry a range of sentences of many years. I don't believe it is as bad as murder though which carry the same maximum sentence. I would argue that in some cases sexual assault is worse than rape. For example, when a man is "raped" the act itself isn't something we are biologically designed for. Anyway, that's a sidetrack. Now this latest twist of allowing a judge to give out the same punishment as s/he might do for murder for a crime which might consist only of not informing the partner whether or not you're wearing a condom is to me completely disproportionate. I don't understand how "we" (not me anymore) can live in a country were we say lying about a condom is as bad as killing someone in cold blood where there are no iffs and buts about what might or might not happen - the person has been murdered. I'm certainly not saying its ok to do it just how can it be equated to murder (or torture) ? Note also that the argument about "giving HIV" is not relevant as it is already well covered. Someone infeected with HIV who knowingly infects a partner is likely already covered by manslaughter/murder laws.Of course they may not know what infections they are carrying, they just don't care that they may pass them on. There are varying degrees of rape, from the one discussed here to violent beatings and rapes of women and men, to serial random rapists and those who abduct and attack children, the latter should be locked up and the key thrown away as far as I'm concerned. The maximum sentence is never going to be applied in the case under discussion (probably just a slap on the wrist if they can be even be proved guilty) but the option to give a severe sentence to the worst cases of rape seems right to me. I don't want them back on the streets ever. Now there is no death penalty for murder there is no way to differentiate the taking of a life from other serious crimes in terms of maximum punishment, you could say murderers get off lightly rather than other nasty individuals are overly punished. Life in prison is also rarely if ever life these days.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,009
Likes: 4,821
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 28, 2021 16:21:09 GMT
Now there is no death penalty for murder there is no way to differentiate the taking of a life from other serious crimes in terms of maximum punishment, you could say murderers get off lightly rather than other nasty individuals are overly punished. No, not really... Life sentences come with a recommendation from the judge of the minimum period before the offender is eligible for parole. And if that's a whole life order, then they will never be eligible for parole unless an appeal overturns that. www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/sentencing-and-the-council/types-of-sentence/life-sentences/Nobody ever serves their full tariff in prison, unless they're stupidly resistant to clue, and act up the entire time they're inside. It's one of the main ways in which behaviour in prison is managed - behave, get out earlier. Misbehave, stay longer. If the sentence always 100% MEANT every single day of the sentence, there would be no incentive to behave. But... for the entirety of their original sentence, they are on licence. That means that they can be recalled to prison without trial for the most trivial of reasons, and they don't get out again without going through the parole procedure afresh. For somebody who gets a life sentence, that's a life licence. Until the day they die, they can be back in prison without trial... Pop to the shops, get involved in something silly? The missus is going to be waiting awhile for the loaf and milk. The only exception to that is that the licence can be lifted.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 2,692
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jul 28, 2021 17:26:04 GMT
Now there is no death penalty for murder there is no way to differentiate the taking of a life from other serious crimes in terms of maximum punishment, you could say murderers get off lightly rather than other nasty individuals are overly punished. No, not really... Life sentences come with a recommendation from the judge of the minimum period before the offender is eligible for parole. And if that's a whole life order, then they will never be eligible for parole unless an appeal overturns that. www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/sentencing-and-the-council/types-of-sentence/life-sentences/Nobody ever serves their full tariff in prison, unless they're stupidly resistant to clue, and act up the entire time they're inside. It's one of the main ways in which behaviour in prison is managed - behave, get out earlier. Misbehave, stay longer. If the sentence always 100% MEANT every single day of the sentence, there would be no incentive to behave. But... for the entirety of their original sentence, they are on licence. That means that they can be recalled to prison without trial for the most trivial of reasons, and they don't get out again without going through the parole procedure afresh. For somebody who gets a life sentence, that's a life licence. Until the day they die, they can be back in prison without trial... Pop to the shops, get involved in something silly? The missus is going to be waiting awhile for the loaf and milk. The only exception to that is that the licence can be lifted. How much of a life sentence is a significant part of life probably then depends on how good your genes are, 20 years could be fatal for some and 30 not for others whatever their crime. Exactly. But once they are out how tight a leash are they on? It seems sometimes they can't be found.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Jul 28, 2021 17:34:38 GMT
Sometimes the penalty for breaching the licence is woefully inadequate. Just Look at the list of crimes committed by Jon Venables since his release for the murder of Jamie Bulger
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,009
Likes: 4,821
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 28, 2021 17:46:10 GMT
Sometimes the penalty for breaching the licence is woefully inadequate. Just Look at the list of crimes committed by Jon Venables since his release for the murder of Jamie Bulger That'd be the Venables that was released for the murder in 2001, recalled to prison in 2010 and eventually tried and sentenced to two years. He was then denied parole in 2011, released on parole in 2013, recalled in 2017, tried and sentenced to three years, and is still in prison having been denied parole in September 2020...? So out of the last 11 years, he's spent just four outside prison? Or another Venables?
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 28, 2021 17:50:58 GMT
This was new to me. Clearly not the honourable thing to do. Does something similar apply if the women falsely claims to be on the pill? In either case, how can it possibly be compared to murder when considering the punishment ? www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-57618003A bit worse than that. It could well be a life changing act if the man passes on a nasty disease like Aids, syphilis or other STDs or it results in an unwanted pregnancy with all the risks involved and the possibility of single parenthood. And I suspect in most cases it would be impossible to prove unless the man admitted it. I believe someone did get a relatively harsh sentence for deliberately passing on Aids by having unprotected sex with multiple partners when he knew he had Aids. I don't know if the victims agreed to unprotected sex in those cases (they didn't know he had Aids). No need to believe: they absolutely did. In fact I think several have. But I can't recall what law they were prosecuted under. EDIT: google as always is your friend. "The law used in England and Wales to prosecute people for HIV
transmission is the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA 1861).
Of course this nineteenth-century law does not mention HIV – people
are prosecuted under the sections of the OAPA 1861 on ‘grievous bodily
harm’.
There are two possible offences – ‘reckless transmission’ (under section
20 of the OAPA 1861) and ‘intentional transmission’ (under section
18). There has never yet been a successful prosecution for intentional
transmission (see end of leaflet) and so most of this leaflet will focus on
‘reckless transmission’ cases."
From another source: "The law is broken if:
someone knows that they are HIV positive when they have sex
and they understand how HIV is transmitted
and the other person was not aware of the HIV positive status
and a condom was not used
and HIV was transmitted from person A to person B
Transmission must take place for the law to have been broken in England and Wales; it is not illegal to have sex without disclosing."
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 2,767
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Jul 28, 2021 18:08:45 GMT
Nobody ever serves their full tariff in prison, unless they're stupidly resistant to clue, and act up the entire time they're inside. It's one of the main ways in which behaviour in prison is managed - behave, get out earlier. Misbehave, stay longer. If the sentence always 100% MEANT every single day of the sentence, there would be no incentive to behave.I thought that was what discipline and solitary confinement was for ? Sounds to me likes its done for reason of cost. Disciple probably costs more.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 28, 2021 18:21:40 GMT
I must live on a differenet planet to everyone else. That's why I like this forum. Its pseudo anonymous chat allows me to see just how far away I am ! To me, rape is a terrible crime that should carry a range of sentences of many years. I don't believe it is as bad as murder though which carry the same maximum sentence. I would argue that in some cases sexual assault is worse than rape. For example, when a man is "raped" the act itself isn't something we are biologically designed for. Anyway, that's a sidetrack. Now this latest twist of allowing a judge to give out the same punishment as s/he might do for murder for a crime which might consist only of not informing the partner whether or not you're wearing a condom is to me completely disproportionate. I don't understand how "we" (not me anymore) can live in a country were we say lying about a condom is as bad as killing someone in cold blood where there are no iffs and buts about what might or might not happen - the person has been murdered. I'm certainly not saying its ok to do it just how can it be equated to murder (or torture) ? Note also that the argument about "giving HIV" is not relevant as it is already well covered. Someone infeected with HIV who knowingly infects a partner is likely already covered by manslaughter/murder laws.on the second highlighted point. No, they would not be covered under manslaughter/murder laws as quite obviously the victim would have to first expire before any such charges could be brought. Which given that thank god (with a little 'g') we now have highly effective treatments to suppress HIV may never happen. The correct aoffence to use is 'Reckless Transmission', Section 20 of the Offences against the Person act 1861. On the first point. This is simply a fundamental misunderstanding of how sentencing works/is done within the English criminal justice system. Period. It just doesn't work like that. The offence under which it is prosecuted as you say will have a maximum. That does NOT mean that a judge is simply at liberty to dish out a sentence up to that maximum for any and all convictions under that offence. This is not a system whereby 'hanging judge Jefferies' can don his black cap, pass a sentence of 'hanging by the neck until dead', quietly get a little sexually excited in the process, and there be no comeback. Sentencing in this country is governed by both the law - e.g. maximum sentence - AND by sentencing guidelines. The latter are a tad important. They recognise that not all actual offences of the same type are equal, and they provide (very strong) guidance as to the right tariff range for a judge to use for different severity/subset of offences prosecuted under the same actual legal offence. Quote: "The primary role of the [Setencing Council] is to issue guidelines on sentencing, which the courts must follow unless it is in the interests of justice not to do so". This is to help ensure consistency of sentencing across the judiciary; helps to maintain credibility thereof; reflects the huge variation of sub-category of offence while not tying the legislature up in knots by having to define in law a zillion different types of sub-category of offence with different maximum sentences; retains a level of independence from both the judiciary and MoJ level; while still enabling a level of individual freedom in sentencing by judges. While in theory a judge could (and occasionally does) hand down a sentence which may be considered to be outside of the guidelines for the actual act, if they do so that is going to immediately be strong grounds for a sentencing appeal. This is as equally true for the Home Office Attorney General/CPS in the case of a sentence they consider too lenient as it is for the convicted if the sentence is thought to be too harsh. If you want to actually find out a bit more then this might be a reasonable starting point: www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/sentencing-and-the-council/about-the-sentencing-council/
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Jul 28, 2021 18:58:01 GMT
Sometimes the penalty for breaching the licence is woefully inadequate. Just Look at the list of crimes committed by Jon Venables since his release for the murder of Jamie Bulger That'd be the Venables that was released for the murder in 2001, recalled to prison in 2010 and eventually tried and sentenced to two years. He was then denied parole in 2011, released on parole in 2013, recalled in 2017, tried and sentenced to three years, and is still in prison having been denied parole in September 2020...? So out of the last 11 years, he's spent just four outside prison? Or another Venables? I had perhaps wrongly assumed he was on Licence when he committed the further crimes, and therefore his recall should have been activated and he should be behind bars for life
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 28, 2021 19:10:33 GMT
Sometimes the penalty for breaching the licence is woefully inadequate. Just Look at the list of crimes committed by Jon Venables since his release for the murder of Jamie Bulger That'd be the Venables that was released for the murder in 2001, recalled to prison in 2010 and eventually tried and sentenced to two years. He was then denied parole in 2011, released on parole in 2013, recalled in 2017, tried and sentenced to three years, and is still in prison having been denied parole in September 2020...? So out of the last 11 years, he's spent just four outside prison? Or another Venables?Terry Venables maybe ? Still, bit harsh simply for losing to Germany in 1996 I'd say. Others of course might have a different view on that.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,009
Likes: 4,821
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 28, 2021 19:13:40 GMT
That'd be the Venables that was released for the murder in 2001, recalled to prison in 2010 and eventually tried and sentenced to two years. He was then denied parole in 2011, released on parole in 2013, recalled in 2017, tried and sentenced to three years, and is still in prison having been denied parole in September 2020...? So out of the last 11 years, he's spent just four outside prison? Or another Venables? I had perhaps wrongly assumed he was on Licence when he committed the further crimes He was. It was. Serving his life sentence again, so no release simply because the sentence has expired... The only release (on licence...) is if a parole board deems him fit for release again. Which they didn't do in 2011, did in 2013, didn't in 2020.
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,458
Likes: 1,167
|
Post by travolta on Jul 28, 2021 19:32:08 GMT
And this is what you lay yourself open to when you have casual sex.................listen to your grandmother (or great grandmother).
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 2,692
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jul 28, 2021 20:11:16 GMT
And this is what you lay yourself open to when you have casual sex.................listen to your grandmother (or great grandmother). I assume you mean men and women put themselves at risk by casual sex, not just women by the use of the female 'grandmother', grandfathers might also give guidance one might hope and it applies to both sexes. But young people will do what young people do, and always did.
|
|
Mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 648
Likes: 444
|
Post by Mike on Jul 28, 2021 22:25:14 GMT
And this is what you lay yourself open to when you have casual sex.................listen to your grandmother (or great grandmother). Nowadays it's the job of the government to legislate away all risk of anything that is naturally risky, so we can all retain our pride as bone fide victims rather than mugs. P2P? Football index? "Revenge porn"? Etc. The unfortunate truth is that people are often (eventually) dishonest. Trusting people you don't properly know is risky, and always will be - no matter what laws exist.
|
|