Just like Jesus

[jeremyp]

Entirely due to your nit-picking obsessiverness.

Let me nit pick that post a bit....

I posted two comments early on directly related to the topic of the thread. Then it got derailed by the responses to your comments about Little Roses' views on crimes and punishment. Then just this morning, I posted a comment in response to your claim that you do not believe British justice should depend on the time of year (I am making an assumption that your "no, of course not" refers to that: apologies if my assumption is wrong).

Anyway, I don't see how this derail can be entirely due to my nit picking.

[Robbie]

New year wrangling about nothing, hope this thread doesn't turn into another treadmill like 'Searching for God'!

Frequently people are put into prison for relatively minor offences, not violent or intimidating, no possession of weapons, no grand larceny, usually stupid, opportunist and amateurish petty crimes, sometimes a drug related, resulting in short sentences. So they only do a few weeks in prison. However so many of the petty criminals have girlfriends and babies whose lives are turned upside down for those few weeks, no money, no support - it takes weeks to sort out benefits & it's not their fault their partner committed a crime.  It would surely be far more beneficial to the perpetrators, their family and society in general to put them on tag and arrange for them to do some community service. Then they would still be able to give support to their dependents (I used men as an example above because I have experience of young mothers whose boyfriends have been incarcerated and more men go to prison than women but of course there are women who offend too).

Fiona Onasanya does not have children but she is the sort of person who is committed to fight injustice which would surely include the families of prisoners.

The crime for which she is convicted is lying. Compared to the 'minor' crimes of the people I talked about above, it is nothing. Not worth a custodial sentence, she will do more good making a positive contribution to society.

In short, it's my belief is that custodial sentences should be reserved for serious offences.

[jeremyp]

The crime for which she is convicted is lying.

... to the police.

Compared to the 'minor' crimes of the people I talked about above, it is nothing.

No it isn't nothing. It necessarily carries quite a heavy penalty because otherwise everybody would do it to escape minor offences.

Furthermore, she is a solicitor and an MP. She should know how serious it is to pervert the course of justice.

[ad_orientem]

New year wrangling about nothing, hope this thread doesn't turn into another treadmill like 'Searching for God'!

Frequently people are put into prison for relatively minor offences, not violent or intimidating, no possession of weapons, no grand larceny, usually stupid, opportunist and amateurish petty crimes, sometimes a drug related, resulting in short sentences. So they only do a few weeks in prison. However so many of the petty criminals have girlfriends and babies whose lives are turned upside down for those few weeks, no money, no support - it takes weeks to sort out benefits & it's not their fault their partner committed a crime.  It would surely be far more beneficial to the perpetrators, their family and society in general to put them on tag and arrange for them to do some community service. Then they would still be able to give support to their dependents (I used men as an example above because I have experience of young mothers whose boyfriends have been incarcerated and more men go to prison than women but of course there are women who offend too).

Fiona Onasanya does not have children but she is the sort of person who is committed to fight injustice which would surely include the families of prisoners.

The crime for which she is convicted is lying. Compared to the 'minor' crimes of the people I talked about above, it is nothing. Not worth a custodial sentence, she will do more good making a positive contribution to society.

In short, it's my belief is that custodial sentences should be reserved for serious offences.

Eh? This rather an odd post. People in positions of trust should be held even more to account for such things compared to everyone else. If you can't trust them in the little things how can you trust them in the big things?

[Robbie]

I take yours and Jeremy's points of view on board and understand them. I just do not see how a short prison term will achieve anything. My view is another type of punishment would be more appropriate and might even do some good.

However it's not up to us. I'm quite interested to see how it pans out.  I know originally her brother said he was driving the car then later said he wasn't on that particular date. She might appeal. So let's wait and see.

[ProfessorDavey]

PD
Re: #64

I thought it was not difficult to understand. You quote a post or name a specific poster and/or post # if you are addressing the person who posted and making specific points about what they said. You use the Reply button if you don’t really want a one to one conversation with the poster but just want to comment on what you thought of the previous post.

I think it is usual etiquette to specifically quote a proviso post (and therefore the earlier comments) when you are specifically addressing the comments of an individual poster, as would appear to be the case here following OC's clarification. Simply 'replying' without quoting a previous post implies a general comment relating to the topic of the thread.

It would appear, following clarification, that OC was replying specifically to LR's previous post and would have been better to include that quote.

The point is that is wasn't clear what OC was meaning in his post and therefore perfectly reasonable for me to request clarification. I wasn't the only one who appears to have been somewhat confused.

[ProfessorDavey]

R said she would alert the police or authorities  if she saw someone shoplifting after it was pointed out that the shoplifter could be doing it out of need because they are poor. Christmas is traditionally considered the season of goodwill and LR posted her comment at Christmas and OC’s reply was that LR’s post did not reflect the traditional idea of magnanimity or generosity associated with the season.

Which rather confirms my comment, albeit I was referring to seasonally-lenient sentencing rather than an approach to witnessing shop lifting.

The inference of your comment (please correct me if I am wrong) is that you should take a different approach if you see a shop lifter in the Xmas period to, lets say for sake of argument, mid February. Now this is due to it being the 'season of goodwill' and nothing to do with the motivation of the shop lifter that might be identical in mid Feb to late Dec.

So you appear to be implying that under identical circumstances (a shop lifter who may, or may not, be being driven by need) that you should decide to be more understanding (i.e. not referring them to the authorities) at Xmas that in mid Feb - when you should refer them to the authorities because it isn't the season of goodwill.

So exactly the point I was making, albeit in slightly different circumstances. To me the notion that you'd take a different approach to witnessing a shoplifter in late Dec than mid Feb because it is the season of goodwill, all other things being equal, seems bonkers.

[ProfessorDavey]

The crime for which she is convicted is lying.

No it isn't, it is perverting the course of justice. In most cases lying is not illegal (albeit may be unethical). When someone lies in an attempt to prevent justice being served by frustrating a police investigation then that is a serious matter and should be treated as such. And it makes no difference whether the original offence was serious or not - indeed quite the reverse.

Where an offence is very serious a charge of perverting the course of justice is of limited deterrent if the person thinks it may help them avoid conviction. In the case of a more minor offence it is important to ensure that the consequences of perverting the course of justice is significantly greater than the original offence to act as a deterrent. It is important that individuals do not think they can get off minor offences by lying through their teeth and frustrating the investigation. And the only way to achieve this is to ensure that the consequences of perverting the course of justice are appropriately severe.

[ProfessorDavey]

People make snarky comments to rile each other up on here all the time. LR doesn’t get any worse comments than anyone else. No one is forced to stay but many do despite the comments. Some people, when taking a break from the forum, prefer to write a farewell post and then come back when they’ve cooled down.

Don't you think that there is something a tad hypocritical though about someone making a deliberately sarky comment (that's what OC said it was) about another poster's attitude while in effect accusing that post of failing to recognise the season of goodwill. If you are going to accuse others of lacking goodwill then perhaps best to be beyond reproach in the goodwill stakes yourself.

[ProfessorDavey]

In short, it's my belief is that custodial sentences should be reserved for serious offences.

Perverting the course of justice is a serious offence.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, of course not.

Yet in your response to Gabriella 'Exactemundo' you seem to be implying that you should take a different approach to witnessing shoplifting at a certain time of year that at another time of year because it is the season of goodwill.

So perhaps you'd be kind enough to answer the following: Should you take a different approach to witnessing a shoplifter in late Dec (because it is the season of goodwill) than mid Feb, all other things being equal.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Which rather confirms my comment, albeit I was referring to seasonally-lenient sentencing rather than an approach to witnessing shop lifting.

The inference of your comment (please correct me if I am wrong) is that you should take a different approach if you see a shop lifter in the Xmas period to, lets say for sake of argument, mid February. Now this is due to it being the 'season of goodwill' and nothing to do with the motivation of the shop lifter that might be identical in mid Feb to late Dec.

So you appear to be implying that under identical circumstances (a shop lifter who may, or may not, be being driven by need) that you should decide to be more understanding (i.e. not referring them to the authorities) at Xmas that in mid Feb - when you should refer them to the authorities because it isn't the season of goodwill.

So exactly the point I was making, albeit in slightly different circumstances. To me the notion that you'd take a different approach to witnessing a shoplifter in late Dec than mid Feb because it is the season of goodwill, all other things being equal, seems bonkers.

Taking a more understanding approach during the season of goodwill might sound bonkers but it's a well-known tradition or saying, hence I found OC's comment mildly funny when it referred to LR's comment.

I actually didn't read OC's comment as taking a different approach to reporting shop-lifting depending on the season, though it could be interpreted it that way. I understood the "season" as referring to the season when LR wrote her comment, which is why I found the comment mildly amusing.

She wrote her comment during the season of goodwill, so I understood it to mean that during the season of goodwill you express goodwill/ joy to your fellow man by being more charitable or understanding e.g. by not writing a post that you would report a shoplifter who was stealing out of need and poverty. But when it is no longer the season of goodwill, you might be more inclined to express such views on a forum. OC was not being serious that LR should not express her views at Christmas - it was a sarky comment for the amusement of people who find such things amusing.

Incidentally, in reference to another post of mine, do you automatically consider that if a court finds someone innocent or guilty the verdict must be correct? I often still remain "don't know" and I think whether I privately see someone as innocent or guilty is somewhat arbitrary and changeable - though it depends to some extent on what I happen to have read about the case.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Don't you think that there is something a tad hypocritical though about someone making a deliberately sarky comment (that's what OC said it was) about another poster's attitude while in effect accusing that post of failing to recognise the season of goodwill. If you are going to accuse others of lacking goodwill then perhaps best to be beyond reproach in the goodwill stakes yourself.

It may be hypocritical but it wouldn't be funny if you couldn't say "so much for the season of goodwill" because you were worried about being hypocritical.

Sometimes it's a shame to miss out on the opportunity to be sarky, unless someone is going to be very sensitive about it, which you aren't going to know until after you make the comment. If someone had said that about me, I probably would have laughed and also felt a bit irritated.

[ProfessorDavey]

I actually didn't read OC's comment as taking a different approach to reporting shop-lifting depending on the season, though it could be interpreted it that way.

That's certainly how I read it and your appear to have done so too in your comment below:

'LR said she would alert the police or authorities  if she saw someone shoplifting after it was pointed out that the shoplifter could be doing it out of need because they are poor. Christmas is traditionally considered the season of goodwill and LR posted her comment at Christmas and OC’s reply was that LR’s post did not reflect the traditional idea of magnanimity or generosity associated with the season.'

But fair enough if you did not mean it.

However useful to get your answer to the question I posed to OC: Should you take a different approach to witnessing a shoplifter in late Dec (because it is the season of goodwill) than mid Feb, all other things being equal.

[ProfessorDavey]

Incidentally, in reference to another post of mine, do you automatically consider that if a court finds someone innocent or guilty the verdict must be correct? I often still remain "don't know" and I think whether I privately see someone as innocent or guilty is somewhat arbitrary and changeable - though it depends to some extent on what I happen to have read about the case.

I'm certainly mindful of the fact that a verdict, whether guilty or not guilty, could be wrong. However, unless I actually have personal knowledge of the details of the case it is best to accept that those actually making the decision on the basis of the evidence (the Jury) are the best arbiters of the truth at that time. And certainly in legal terms we should consider the verdict to be correct until or unless proven legally to be otherwise, for example through a successful appeal or re-trial.

[ProfessorDavey]

hence I found OC's comment mildly funny when it referred to LR's comment.

We clearly have different senses of humour. OC's comment - sarky, snide - yes. Funny - nope.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That's certainly how I read it and your appear to have done so too in your comment below:

'LR said she would alert the police or authorities  if she saw someone shoplifting after it was pointed out that the shoplifter could be doing it out of need because they are poor. Christmas is traditionally considered the season of goodwill and LR posted her comment at Christmas and OC’s reply was that LR’s post did not reflect the traditional idea of magnanimity or generosity associated with the season.'

But fair enough if you did not mean it.

When I wrote it, the key points in my mind was the bit where I wrote "LR said" at the start and "Christmas is traditionally considered the season of goodwill and LR posted her comment at Christmas" and also I wrote "LR's post did not reflect.." towards the end. I can see why you focused on the bit about "alert the police or authorities" and just goes to show how different posters see different bits of a post as the key point being made and miss other stuff.   

However useful to get your answer to the question I posed to OC: Should you take a different approach to witnessing a shoplifter in late Dec (because it is the season of goodwill) than mid Feb, all other things being equal.

Should you? No.

But you might still take a more lenient approach regardless of whether you should or not, because you are influenced by your feelings  and perceptions, and that might include feeling more understanding, charitable, upbeat because of the holiday season or some other reason.

[Harrowby Hall]

Incidentally, in reference to another post of mine, do you automatically consider that if a court finds someone innocent or guilty the verdict must be correct? I often still remain "don't know" and I think whether I privately see someone as innocent or guilty is somewhat arbitrary and changeable - though it depends to some extent on what I happen to have read about the case.

I'm sure someone will correct if I am wrong, but it has always been my belief that - at least in English Law - courts do not find people innocent. They find them not guilty. They do so for precisely the reason considered by Gabriella. The test in English Law is whether guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt. This implies that someone found not guilty is not necessarily innocent - it just has not been possible to fully establish guilt.

I believe that jurisdictions descended from Napoleonic Law tend to take a different view and Scottish Law (descended from Roman Law) includes not proven as a permissable verdict.

Additional comment

Until relatively recently, it was not possible in England and Wales for a person to be tried a second time for the an offence for which they had been found not guilty. This has now been changed and suspects may be tried twice (or more times) for a specific offence. There have been occasional instances of second trials where fresh evidence (eg DNA) comes to light in serious cases.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm certainly mindful of the fact that a verdict, whether guilty or not guilty, could be wrong. However, unless I actually have personal knowledge of the details of the case it is best to accept that those actually making the decision on the basis of the evidence (the Jury) are the best arbiters of the truth at that time. And certainly in legal terms we should consider the verdict to be correct until or unless proven legally to be otherwise, for example through a successful appeal or re-trial.

I see so much evidence of people's bias and read so much about information that is suppressed because of a legal technicality, that I can't agree with your assessment of a court verdict. It's about what can be proved and how much doubt can be created rather than the truth IMO.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm sure someone will correct if I am wrong, but it has always been my belief that - at least in English Law - courts do not find people innocent. They find them not guilty. They do so for precisely the reason considered by Gabriella. The test in English Law is whether guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt. This implies that someone found not guilty is not necessarily innocent - it just has not been possible to fully establish guilt.

I believe that jurisdictions descended from Napoleonic Law tend to take a different view and Scottish Law (descended from Roman Law) includes not proven as a permissable verdict.

Good point. I should have phrased it differently to say "guilty" or "not guilty" rather than "innocent".

[ProfessorDavey]

I see so much evidence of people's bias and read so much about information that is suppressed because of a legal technicality, that I can't agree with your assessment of a court verdict. It's about what can be proved and how much doubt can be created rather than the truth IMO.

What I said was that those actually making the decision on the basis of the evidence (the Jury) are the best arbiters of the truth at that time. They are the ones who have seen the evidence, been party to the cross examination of the accused, victims, witnesses etc. I didn't say they are always right, but they are in the best position to make the right decision. Certainly better than you or I who have likely one seen snippets of evidence provided through the prism of the media.

Also, don't forget that a jury is 12 people and therefore it is unlikely that the individual biases of one can affect the verdict of all.

[ProfessorDavey]

Should you? No.

But you might still take a more lenient approach regardless of whether you should or not, because you are influenced by your feelings  and perceptions, and that might include feeling more understanding, charitable, upbeat because of the holiday season or some other reason.

But surely justice needs to be provided in a fair and consistent manner. Any situation where an individual decides to be more lenient, cos its Christmas, or less lenient because they have had a shitty day is not consistent with fair justice.

So you are correct that some people will fluctuate in their levels of leniency due to personal reasons - but they shouldn't.

[jeremyp]

I just do not see how a short prison term will achieve anything.

It's part of how you convey the fact that it is a serious crime to the general population. You can't say "it's a serious crime to do x" and then let people off with a lesser punishment. Furthermore, how would you feel if you got sent down for the same offence but somebody else got off just because they were an MP and a pillar of the community?

My view is another type of punishment would be more appropriate and might even do some good.

That may be true but what punishment do you suggest that is as serious as a custodial sentence? Note that she could get away with a fine, although the minimum recommendation is four months.

[Aruntraveller]

Also, don't forget that a jury is 12 people and therefore it is unlikely that the individual biases of one can affect the verdict of all.

Hmmm....I'm sure you could make a film about that.

[Robbie]

I honestly don't know what sort of punishment I would give her, if that was my decision. I certainly don't think she should have special treatment because she's an MP but I can't see how any of us will be better off for her going to prison. Though it is possible for people to do a lot of good work in prison, advising and helping others! Could be seen as an opportunity.....perhaps.

Then there's the gardening and milking cows (HMP Ford in Sussex)  .