It was just a flesh wound...

[Nearly Sane]

It's not necesarily a wrong decision, imo, just one that isn't consistently applied.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-41389520

[Harrowby Hall]

I tend to agree.

Whether or not she spends time inside a prison she still has a prison sentence. The idea of any judgement in a criminal case is to make the guilty individual atone for his or her act and to impose some sort of punishment. Being removed from everyday social life being just one punishment.

But being exposed to the world as a miscreant can be just as punishing as being locked up.

As a society we are, perhaps, too fond of sending people to prison. No doubt the sad people who receive their world view from the Daily Mail and such may consider that unless prison is involved then there is no punishment. "They haven't had justice" they moan, not realising that justice is a process not an outcome.

Prison should be for more than punishment, it should also be for reformation - for changing behaviour. However, since the UK government system has elevated cost accounting to the position of the greatest cultural and intellectual achievement in the history of humanity, prisons do not receive adequate resources to reform criminals and prevent recidevism. Our prisons are full to bursting point, it could be different.

This young woman appears to be atoning for her crime and also seeking to reform herself.  She is apparently working to free herself of the need to use alcohol and Class A drugs. There are other aspects of punishment that could await her - she may lose her university place, she may lose the opportunity to become a medical practitioner. To her these may be far greater punishments than being locked up for a while.

[floo]

I was shocked when I saw the sentence this girl was given, she should be serving a prison term. I suspect if it has been her boyfriend who had done the deed he would be behind bars. One wonders if it was because she is a reasonable looking girl that the judge decided on this daft sentence? I hope there is an appeal.

[Nearly Sane]

What good would a prison sentence do?

[floo]

What good would a prison sentence do?

A just punishment, imo. 

[Nearly Sane]

A just punishment, imo.

so it would be 'good' because it was what you wanted?

[floo]

so it would be 'good' because it was what you wanted?

So if someone stabbed you would you be content if they didn't spend some time behind bars?

[Harrowby Hall]

I was shocked when I saw the sentence this girl was given, she should be serving a prison term.

She was given a prison term. It was suspended.

Her real punishment is potentially far greater than being locked up for a while. Why should the State spend £50,000 or so just because you think it should?

[Nearly Sane]

So if someone stabbed you would you be content if they didn't spend some time behind bars?

if someone stabbed me I'd want them hung drawn and quartered which is probably why I shouldn't be the one doing the sentencing. So again, what good would it do sending her to prison in this circumstance?

[Walter]

so it would be 'good' because it was what you wanted?

hahahaha, you make me laugh  cheers!

[Rhiannon]

I don't see how she can work in medicine if she will fail an enhanced CRB check.

[Rhiannon]

A just punishment, imo.

How do you rate which punishments are 'just'?

[Walter]

A suspended prison term isn't a punishment, imo.

you have a very high opinion of your 'imo' ,don't you?

[floo]

We will have to agree to differ where this topic is concerned, I have no more to say about it.

[Walter]

A suspended sentence carries up to 12 court requirements which the court sets and have to be complied with or face prison for the original offence plus punishment for the new one .

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

She was given a prison term. It was suspended.

Her real punishment is potentially far greater than being locked up for a while. Why should the State spend £50,000 or so just because you think it should?

It would be interesting to find out if the judge has given immediate custodial sentences at Crown Court for men or students not at Oxford University for inflicting similar wounds, even if they had no previous convictions,  a good career/ were intelligent and remorseful. In which case his stated reason for not imposing a custodial sentence would appear biased.

The judge commented that she was immature for her age and had an "emotionally-unstable personality disorder, a severe eating disorder and alcohol drug dependence". Would these be mitigating factors for a man or someone who had not had the family background advantages and intelligence to get into Oxford?

She seems to have taken many steps to try and rid herself of her alcohol and drug dependency between the time she committed the crime and the time she was sentenced, but that is presumably because she comes from a relatively rich background that can fund counselling and rehab before the sentencing date.

Having said that, I looked up the sentence a celebrity got after being convicted for assaulting someone he was in a relationship with - he got a suspended sentence and a restraining order at a Magistrates court - presumably that means it was a less serious offence as it did not go to Crown Court.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/11/jeremy-mcconnell-given-suspended-sentence-for-assault-of-stephanie-davis-6845959/

[Humph Warden Bennett]

The impression given is that leniency is shown to those who are considered to be of more potential use to society. Hardly a case of justice being blind.

[Nearly Sane]

The impression given is that leniency is shown to those who are considered to be of more potential use to society. Hardly a case of justice being blind.

and yet justice isn't, surely? If someone shows remorse or it's a first offence, then of seems to me that it isn't unjust to consider that? 

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I think that a majority opinion would be that in this case,remorse and a first offence has been taken into more consideration than is usual .

[Nearly Sane]

I think that a majority opinion would be that in this case,remorse and a first offence has been taken into more consideration than is usual .

Apart from the definition of an argument ad populum 'majority opinion',  the idea of justice being blind seems to be accepted by you as not something you believe in. The question is surely is this judgement wrong in your opinion? Or are the other judgements that you think might be happening that do not follow the same approach wrong?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think there isn't an issue so long as a man who used a bread knife that was lying around to inflict wounds that were not very serious on a woman he was dating would be treated in a similar way if it was his first offence, he was drunk, high, emotionally unstable and remorseful. 

I am not sure why the judge mentioned the defendant's exceptional intelligence when he was considering his sentence - justice is carried out in public partly because it is supposed to send a message about the standards society expects and society normally expects a custodial sentence if someone turns abusive and uses a knife against a victim during a domestic abuse situation, especially given the worry about rising knife crime.

By not imposing a custodial sentence partly because of her intelligence, it's a strange message to send society that it is less harmful to society if intelligent, privileged, immature substance abusers stab a partner compared to less intelligent, less privileged, substance abusers stabbing their partner.

[Nearly Sane]

I think there isn't an issue so long as a man who used a bread knife that was lying around to inflict wounds that were not very serious on a woman he was dating would be treated in a similar way if it was his first offence, he was drunk, high, emotionally unstable and remorseful. 

I am not sure why the judge mentioned the defendant's exceptional intelligence when he was considering his sentence - justice is carried out in public partly because it is supposed to send a message about the standards society expects and society normally expects a custodial sentence if someone turns abusive and uses a knife against a victim during a domestic abuse situation, especially given the worry about rising knife crime.

By not imposing a custodial sentence partly because of her intelligence, it's a strange message to send society that it is less harmful to society if intelligent, privileged, immature substance abusers stab a partner compared to less intelligent, less privileged, substance abusers stabbing their partner.

It may be that he sees it as underlining why custodial sentences shouldn't be applied, in similar circa.  Have you read the entire verdict, or just short news reports?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It may be that he sees it as underlining why custodial sentences shouldn't be applied, in similar circa.  Have you read the entire verdict, or just short news reports?

Yes maybe, which is why I think it would be interesting to see if men in similar circumstances - first offence, remorseful - who come before this judge received similar sentences. Maybe he doesn't see custodial sentences as being particularly useful in these situations - so long as he applies that equally to men and women I don't have a problem. I might have a problem if he factored in her intelligence in arriving at a sentence - while I enjoyed the whole Good Will Hunting scenario in a movie - I am not  sure I would have felt the same way if Will had escaped custody while being from a privileged background while a less privileged, under-achieving Will was sent to jail.

I haven't read the verdict. I was looking at it from the perspective of the intended message the sentence was sending to society - most people in society won't read the verdict but they will be forming an opinion on the fairness or bias of the judicial message being sent out by the sentence.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes maybe, which is why I think it would be interesting to see if men in similar circumstances - first offence, remorseful - who come before this judge received similar sentences. Maybe he doesn't see custodial sentences as being particularly useful in these situations - so long as he applies that equally to men and women I don't have a problem. I might have a problem if he factored in her intelligence in arriving at a sentence - while I enjoyed the whole Good Will Hunting scenario in a movie - I am not  sure I would have felt the same way if Will had escaped custody while being from a privileged background while a less privileged, under-achieving Will was sent to jail.

I haven't read the verdict. I was looking at it from the perspective of the intended message the sentence was sending to society - most people in society won't read the verdict but they will be forming an opinion on the fairness or bias of the judicial message being sent out by the sentence.

It's quite difficult to do this sort of analysis of individual judges because of the number of variables involved in this sort of approach. How do you measure remorse shown in an abstract sense? Further, we don't have or would, I think support, a completely blind justice system where any accused could only be represented by an avatar, and even then how they use language, and what they said would still have impact. And that's not even getting into the effect of a good lawyer.


I think it's impossible to sect a judge to work out how to phrase what they say do that in those few cases they get reported on in any detail, any representation of that in the media is such that it will give a correct impression of any message they want sent out taking into account any specifics of the cases and any media bias.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It's difficult to analyse perfectly, but it should be possible to form an opinion on whether the judge considers domestic violence against men to be a serious issue based on how he sentences offenders, which is one of the concerns raised about the sentencing in this case. If the judge does not believe in immediate custodial sentences due to the negative impact on the careers  of remorseful men who use a knife as a weapon against their female partner to inflict relatively minor injuries as a first offence before being disarmed - fair enough.

I've seen women turn on the waterworks and look vulnerable and shaky when the police show up - I find it worrying how easily they have an advantage in this area over men even when the woman starts the violence, as much as I acknowledge that generally men have the advantage in physical strength over women outside the court.

My concern is whether the judiciary are doing enough to send out a message that men will get support from the judiciary if they find themselves in a domestic violence situation. I know someone who can't just walk away and get a divorce because he loves his kids and does not want to leave them behind in a bad situation or for them to feel like he did not love them enough to stay, but given he is over 6 foot and his wife is tiny, if he tries to report her to the police for violence she will make false allegations about his violence to her and she has all the advantages of her size and crying and emotional vulnerability to bring into play to influence the outcome of the situation.

He either has to rely on the little children to act as witnesses against their mother, which is risky, or he needs secret cameras to get footage of what goes on in the house. Hitting her back is obviously not an option for legal as well as moral reasons - he's not sure if a self defence argument would be accepted or if he would just get locked up and lose access to the kids.