|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Public schoolboys should get a lower sentence
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I'd be interested to read studies on this if anyone's got 'em.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Lots of people have them. You seem to not want to read them.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Defense attorneys' job is to get their client off. Short of suborning perjury and other crimes, they're unfettered. They can, and do, falsely accuse witnesses, get evidence suppressed, and cast any doubt as reasonable doubt. Prosecutors are, officially, held to a higher standard, in that they're expected to act fairly, but if they've probable cause and a realistic chance of winning, they'll go for it. Judges are there to enforce the law as it's written.
Sometimes this is just. Many times, it isn't.
Holy shit. Where do you live?
I've had it explained to me numerous times that I, as a citizen, can be charged with perjury for so much as giving a false statement to a police officer, while prosecutors are completely free to lie to judges and say anything they damn well want to get a conviction. Because.
It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me, but apparently it's the way the world works.
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I'd be interested to read studies on this if anyone's got 'em.
Lots of people have them. You seem to not want to read them.
Exactly. You keep flinging them at him like snowballs.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I'd be interested to read studies on this if anyone's got 'em.
Lots of people have them. You seem to not want to read them.
Exactly. You keep flinging them at him like snowballs.
So that's why he looks like the StayPuft marshmallow man. Dang.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Holy shit. Where do you live?
Nirvana, apparently. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
I've had it explained to me numerous times that I, as a citizen, can be charged with perjury for so much as giving a false statement to a police officer, while prosecutors are completely free to lie to judges and say anything they damn well want to get a conviction. Because.
It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me, but apparently it's the way the world works.
I'm not sure what this is based on. There might not be a specific law that says, "Prosecutors can't lie to a judge," but it'd fall under contempt, misconduct in public office, malicious prosecution, etc, not to mention the professional consequences for violating the canon of legal ethics. Prosecutors are officers of the court, and expected to act like it.
Police can lie to suspects, and do, all the time (good thing too, or there'd by a lot fewer confessions from stupid criminals). Perhaps that's what you're thinking of. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Doc Tor and Kelly Alves, we all know how snowballs fare in hell. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) If anyone wants to make an argument that cites specific parts of specific studies, an argument that factors in the methodology and acknowledges its flaws, it'll fare better.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
If anyone wants to make an argument that cites specific parts of specific studies, an argument that factors in the methodology and acknowledges its flaws, it'll fare better.
Let me translate that for you:
"Even if you provide cast iron, copper-bottomed evidence I'm talking out of my arse, I can use these weasel words to ignore it."
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Defense attorneys' job is to get their client off. Short of suborning perjury and other crimes, they're unfettered. They can, and do, falsely accuse witnesses, get evidence suppressed, and cast any doubt as reasonable doubt. Prosecutors are, officially, held to a higher standard, in that they're expected to act fairly, but if they've probable cause and a realistic chance of winning, they'll go for it. Judges are there to enforce the law as it's written.
Sometimes this is just. Many times, it isn't.
Holy shit. Where do you live?
I've had it explained to me numerous times that I, as a citizen, can be charged with perjury for so much as giving a false statement to a police officer, while prosecutors are completely free to lie to judges and say anything they damn well want to get a conviction. Because.
It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me, but apparently it's the way the world works.
Where do you and Byron live? Here, lawyers behaving as either of you describes would be struck off. I cannot put something to a witness unless I have reasonable grounds to think it's true. Nor can I make a submission at the end of a case unless there is evidence to support it.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
You've provided jack, Doc Tor; you've posted a bunch of vaguely relevant links, alleging various kinds of bias, which anyone can do with 30 secs of googling. I see no indication you've even read the studies.
Before the net's cast over the entire criminal justice system, let's try and focus on the specific case. Which law or precedent are you claiming the judge's comments violate?
If you haven't got one, and he's acting within his discretion, then how d'you want his discretion to be curtailed? No references whatsoever to background? Or just education? What?
[ 15. November 2014, 20:10: Message edited by: Byron ]
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I was hoping a lawyer would chime in on that mess, because I was pretty sure that shit would get someone disbarred.
Does it happen? I'm sure it does. Is it SOP for most legal professionals? What an insulting implication.
[crosspost-- to Gee D.]
[ 15. November 2014, 20:13: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
S to the sentence itself: It's impossible to justify the comments the judge used, but a sentence like that sentence would be unremarkable here for the offence. I'd suspect that it is in the UK, but have no idea about comparable sentences in the US.
A matter for any judge sentencing is the support an offender may have in the community if given a bond, or when released on parole. Commonly a judge her will say that the offender's wife and family support him and have given good references - any person with that sort of sentencing material will get more leniency than a person with no such support. How much so is impossible to quantify; these are all matters which go into the intuitive task of determining a proper sentence for that crime for that offender.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
What sentence did you want in this case?
I'm thinking not much. Who was harmed? Do you want to destroy his life? The concern about how he'd be treated in jail has already been mentioned.
Re 16 driving a car. A learner's licence is provided at age 15 generally requiring taking driver education at school in Canada (varies). Limitations on the age 16 licence exist, varying place to place, but usually specifying zero alcohol tolerance, limits to numbers of people in the car with the driver and other such things.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I'm not sure what this is based on. There might not be a specific law that says, "Prosecutors can't lie to a judge," but it'd fall under contempt, misconduct in public office, malicious prosecution, etc, not to mention the professional consequences for violating the canon of legal ethics. Prosecutors are officers of the court, and expected to act like it.
Police can lie to suspects, and do, all the time (good thing too, or there'd by a lot fewer confessions from stupid criminals). Perhaps that's what you're thinking of.
No, that's not what I'm thinking of. I'm thinking of sitting next to a lawyer and asking how a prosecutor can say something demonstrably false to a judge and get away with it while he patiently explained to me that the rules were different for what the prosecutor could say and what I could say.
We have a center for prosecutor integrity precisely because prosecutors are rarely if ever held accountable for their actions.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Where do you and Byron live? Here, lawyers behaving as either of you describes would be struck off. I cannot put something to a witness unless I have reasonable grounds to think it's true. Nor can I make a submission at the end of a case unless there is evidence to support it.
Ever watched The Wire?
I live in a place where I've met people who were thrown in prison for a couple of weeks because they told a cop their name was Toya instead of Latoya and were impressed when their public defense attorney was actually willing to fight to have the charges dismissed instead of pleaded out to probation and fines they couldn't pay because getting thrown in prison had cost them their jobs. It's a country where Martha Coakley can serve as Attorney General and make a bid for a Senate seat.
I'm not saying there aren't prosecutors who act with integrity. Just that power corrupts and our system is broken.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
You've provided jack, Doc Tor; you've posted a bunch of vaguely relevant links, alleging various kinds of bias, which anyone can do with 30 secs of googling. I see no indication you've even read the studies.
You do realise that the second link I gave is a UK government report on itself, calling its own justice system biased against ethnic minorities.
No? Not good enough? Something tells me a signed affidavit from God Himself wouldn't pass your muster if it meant you had to entertain the thought that you might be wrong. That alone makes you an arse.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
No, that's not what I'm thinking of. I'm thinking of sitting next to a lawyer and asking how a prosecutor can say something demonstrably false to a judge and get away with it while he patiently explained to me that the rules were different for what the prosecutor could say and what I could say. [...]
Well prosecutors aren't on oath, if that's what you mean, so no, they couldn't be charged with perjury. If it was demonstrably false, did your attorney inform the judge, and/or file a complaint with the state bar?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You do realise that the second link I gave is a UK government report on itself, calling its own justice system biased against ethnic minorities.
No? Not good enough? Something tells me a signed affidavit from God Himself wouldn't pass your muster if it meant you had to entertain the thought that you might be wrong. That alone makes you an arse.
OK, accepting (arguendo) that the British justice system is racist, what does this have to do with the judge and comments in question, beyond "the system sucks"? This tangent's so vague there's little to be said about it.
Are you accepting that the judge didn't actually do anything illegal?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
The goalposts suddenly seemed to have moved, not just around the pitch, but onto a different pitch altogether. Well done. You must feel very special.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Yeah, nobody said " illegal" just "unfair, unwise, unprofessional"
And holy shit, this guy is strange. It's like trying to follow the Speedy Gonzales character at Bugs Bunny On Ice.
[ 15. November 2014, 20:43: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, nobody said " illegal" just "unfair, unwise, unprofessional"
I allowed for that above: if folk want judges' sentencing discretion curtailed, in what way? No account taken of a convicted person's education, or only limited account? If limited, in what way?
For example: a convicted person's doing well at school, and has a place at college. They're busted for a DUI, and come up for sentencing and show remorse. Should their lawyer be forbidden from arguing that justice would be better served by them continuing their education?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And holy shit, this guy is strange. It's like trying to follow the Speedy Gonzales character at Bugs Bunny On Ice.
Beep beep.
Hell brings the tricky bastard out in me, I admit. I'll dial it back. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
For his own sake, and especially if he actually believed it, you'd think he himself would want to make that argument carefully and thoroughly.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, nobody said " illegal" just "unfair, unwise, unprofessional"
I allowed for that above: if folk want judges' sentencing discretion curtailed, in what way? No account taken of a convicted person's education, or only limited account? If limited, in what way?
For example: a convicted person's doing well at school, and has a place at college. They're busted for a DUI, and come up for sentencing and show remorse. Should their lawyer be forbidden from arguing that justice would be better served by them continuing their education?
Wow, getting winded just trying to keep up with the moving targets.
BTW, your example is not a complete argument. But then, if you wished to truly make a point, you would stop switching arguments.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
What sentence did you want in this case?
It is not about the sentence this kid received, but that the same is not generally accorded across the board.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Call me a cynic, but a cannabis grower who wants to go on to study horticulture doesn't sound like a chap who's decided to put his criminal past behind him.
Perhaps he deserves extra credit for independent study?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
OK.
I believe that judges should enjoy broad discretion in sentencing. Part of that discretion is assessing the convicted person's background and character. Observing that, "I know the school where you were a student. It's a very good school which would have given you a good grounding for later life," does not, in itself, display bias or favoritism, since it's an observation of fact, and since it relates to the defendant's potential for rehabilitation, it's relevant.
Let's frame it differently, without the pricey school. A young kid from the projects comes up before the judge for dealing pot. His lawyer raises his 4.0 GPA and acceptance to a good school on a scholarship. She pleads for leniency, and points out the kid's promising future.
Are people here arguing that the judge should be allowed to take no account of this?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
You cannot see the difference in your examples?
In the first, privilege is deemed the only necessary excuse.
In the second, the benefit of the doubt must be earned.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Wow, getting winded just trying to keep up with the moving targets.
BTW, your example is not a complete argument. But then, if you wished to truly make a point, you would stop switching arguments.
My argument's the same as it was in my first two posts: prison should be avoided if at all possible; and a convict's background should be taken into account in sentencing.
Things got off-point when the focus was widened to encompass every conceivable flaw in justice system, and not by me. But hey, if that's how things were going, I ran with it.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You cannot see the difference in your examples?
In the first, privilege is deemed the only necessary excuse.
In the second, the benefit of the doubt must be earned.
Education can be relevant regardless of whether it's privileged or earned (and for all we know, Collins was at the private school on scholarship). When it comes to sentencing, the courts aren't interesting in furthering social justice: they're interested in seriousness of the crime, risk to the public, and potential for rehabilitation.
In this case, the crime was victimless and non-violent, and with college lined up, the potential for rehabilitation was high. The judge specifically said Collins should "start a new life." Whether horticulture is the best field ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I totally think the character of the defendant can be taken into account. I just think it is professionally stupid for any legal professional-- lawyer, judge, whoever-- to phrase things in a way that can be interpreted as " you're one of my kind, so you're ok." Reason number one: they stand the chance of seriously dicking over their client if they indulge in such talk.
If the judge had been more careful, perhaps people wouldn't be calling for the case to be reviewed. Why put the defendant in that position?
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
a convict's background should be taken into account in sentencing.
And you seem to think a "good" school is one of these criteria. this is merely privilege as an excuse.
This thread began on the inequity in the system. It has been moved about and you have done most of the moving.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
I don't see the judge saying "you're my kind." A quick Google tells me that he attended Taunton's School, Southampton, which was, at the time, a free grammar school. People are reading a lot into it that might not be there. He could simply be saying, "You've got a promising future, don't blow it," which judges say all the time to young defendants with a clean record.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
My response is the last sentence of my last post. The judge assuming everyone would know what he meant by the reference to his school landed him on the front page, didn't it?
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And you seem to think a "good" school is one of these criteria. this is merely privilege as an excuse.
I couldn't give a rat's ass where a defendant was educated. All that matters is that a sentence fits the crime. Part of that determination is their background and future potential.
quote:
This thread began on the inequity in the system. It has been moved about and you have done most of the moving.
OK, so like I asked, how, as regards the account judges can pay education in sentencing, d'you want the system reformed?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
This history of circumstances of the offender are required to be taken into account in Canadian criminal law. The decision which this is named for is R. v. Gladue and the method is named after the case; Gladue Report. However, it specifically applies not to the rich school boy type, it applies to cultural and socio-demographic disadvantaged aboriginal offenders.
I sure want it balanced with dangerous to people and violence potential.
I wonder how this thread would read if it was "Poor racial minorities should get a lower sentence".
[ 15. November 2014, 21:36: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
My response is the last sentence of my last post. The judge assuming everyone would know what he meant by the reference to his school landed him on the front page, didn't it?
OK, accepting that connotation the sake of argument, how d'you want this area of the law to be reformed?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I don't. I am talking about professional behavior, and it is the individual's job to regulate that. But the public sure as hell is entitled to an opinion about it.
That's what I mean by goalpost shifting-- you were the one who brought up law reform, not me.
[ 15. November 2014, 22:05: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Also, given how empathetic you seem toward the young man in the case, I am surprised you do not respond to my concern that judicial carelessness in discussing the case might fuck over they guy he is supposed to be helping out.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
A degree or two wouldn't be much of a problem. When it gives the appearance of an entire semi-circle, who can be surprised when people lose faith in the judicial system.
Yeah I was being rather disingenuous there. The "degree or two" includes a case where Police evidence and charges that borne no relation at all to the original citation sheet. Problem was, unlike most people, the person concerned decided to show up in court with the evidence ruled inadmissible) yet enough to crash the case and for the judge to invite him tpo take legal action.
[ 16. November 2014, 12:54: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
[...] His background should not impact his sentencing. [...]
Background should always impact sentencing. A woman who murders her abuser after years of physical and mental torture deserves an infinitely more lenient sentence than a woman who slays him to cash in on life insurance and run off with her lover.
Likewise, a kid who runs with a gang 'cause he raised himself while his mother's away with the pipe should expect an easier time of it than a kid who robs 'cause he's bored.
I do not agree that it is always relevant; in your first example I would call the information you provide the context of the crime rather than background. Indeed the first woman would probably not be found guilty of murder at all here but manslaughter. Should the type of her education and the religion of her parents also be taken into consideration for the sentencing?
Your later comments about defence lawyers may be true in the US but not this side of the pond, which is closer to the Australian model as expressed by Gee D. The US legal system may be broken but it does not necessarily follow that the same is true for the rest of the world.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
I do not agree that it is always relevant; in your first example I would call the information you provide the context of the crime rather than background. Indeed the first woman would probably not be found guilty of murder at all here but manslaughter. Should the type of her education and the religion of her parents also be taken into consideration for the sentencing?
It'll vary by jurisdiction, but unless an emotional distress/irresistible impulse defense is available, if it ain't self-defense, intentionally killing is murder. Criminal law's unyielding like that.
As for sentencing, generally, anything materially relevant ought to be included. If the guilty party wants to get their mom up to sob on their behalf, A-OK, it's for the judge to decide whether to take notice.
quote:
Your later comments about defence lawyers may be true in the US but not this side of the pond, which is closer to the Australian model as expressed by Gee D. The US legal system may be broken but it does not necessarily follow that the same is true for the rest of the world.
They hold for any adversarial system. The "accuse the witness" trick can be seen in the docco of this Scottish trial. Ditto getting evidence suppressed in England. Even if the question's never answered, it plants doubt in the jury's mind.
There is no "U.S. legal system." There's federal law, 50 different state systems, and D.C. and the various territories. They have their pros and cons, like any system.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Also, given how empathetic you seem toward the young man in the case, I am surprised you do not respond to my concern that judicial carelessness in discussing the case might fuck over they guy he is supposed to be helping out.
Unless the sentence is too lenient, I don't see how it would. Prosecutors generally have better things to do than appeal sentences for minor drug busts.
As for the judge's conduct, if you consider it unprofessional, surely you want the rules changed, and can detail what kind of reasoning ought to be banned in sentencing decisions?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Surely you are dancing around what I said. i already said I think personal behavior can't be legislated-- only critiqued. Why are you insisting I am trying to change laws?
And again, using my perogative to critique, whether or not it is likely something will be appealed, you're not going to convince me that it is not best practice to avoid the chance of appeal if possible.
[ 16. November 2014, 14:57: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Why can't it be legislated? Isn't "unprofessional," by definition, conduct that's inappropriate on the job? You could just support a ban on judges considering education, or, more specifically, privileged education.
If it doesn't rise to the level you consider should be banned, surely it's just a judicial quirk, like cracking bad jokes, or insisting on conducting trials from the well of the court?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And again, using my perogative to critique, whether or not it is likely something will be appealed, you're not going to convince me that it is not best practice to avoid the chance of appeal if possible.
Of course it is, but this is only going to appeal if there's reversible error, which is generally an extremely high burden. Triggered either by the sentence being inappropriate, and/or judicial misconduct. This comment about the school doesn't appear to come close.
If the sentence is in the normal range, the prosecution plain won't bother. Why would they? Appeal court reverses, it's reheard, and exactly the same sentence gets passed.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
All of which can and have been critiqued by peers and public. Sometime quite agressively. Two words-- Judge Ito.
I'm not for censuring anything - least of all critical opinions.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And again, using my perogative to critique, whether or not it is likely something will be appealed, you're not going to convince me that it is not best practice to avoid the chance of appeal if possible.
Of course it is, but blah blah blah..
Thank you. That was my entire point. The stuff after the "but" does nothing to alter it.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
There is no "U.S. legal system." There's federal law, 50 different state systems, and D.C. and the various territories. They have their pros and cons, like any system.
Pathetic semantics. Let's say "Law applicable within the U.S" and grow the fuck up.
(cross-posted with Kelly Alves)
[ 16. November 2014, 15:09: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
I'm not saying you are, but if you consider the English judge's conduct to be professionally acceptable (in the sense you don't want it banned), I don't see why it's such a big deal.
As for Ito, much of the criticism focused on his evidentiary rulings being incorrect, so folk did want changes. The decision to allow cameras in was, in hindsight, a disaster, but few could've foreseen just how bad the circus would get. Live and learn.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I'm not saying you are, but if you consider the English judge's conduct to be professionally acceptable (in the sense you don't want it banned), I don't see why it's such a big deal.
Please explain for me how thinking something isn't going to be solved by legislature is the same as finding it acceptable.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Pathetic semantics. Let's say "Law applicable within the U.S" and grow the fuck up.
If you consider "one system vs. 50+" to be semantics, then, well, each to their own.
Kelly, since there's a world of difference between error and reversible error, the rest of the post is pretty damn relevant.
This seems to boil down to, "we don't like judges commenting on preppy defendants education," well fine, I don't like judges who're prigs, but it's an irritation, not a substantive issue.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Please explain for me how thinking something isn't going to be solved by legislature is the same as finding it acceptable.
It's more you don't appear to want it to be solved, even hypothetically, with, say, a ban on judge's considering education in sentencing. There's just no argument to engage with beyond "I don't like it," which, ironically, is the kind of arbitrariness the law seeks to avoid!
Perhaps we should just go old school, and ditch all this touchy-feely consideration of background and circumstance. Haul shackled prisoners up to the bar, deliver a thunderous jeremiad, and dispatch to the penitentiary. Job done.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Peer censure and protection of reputation can be a powerful motivator, so whether or not something can or should be legislated, the right of people to discuss what they find "irritating" or "unwise" should be unfettered. There is a difference between "best practice" and "tolerable practice."
You seem to want to keep dragging me toawrd admitting I am asking for legal censure-- i am not. You seem to be wanting to censure outside opinion. I say, fuck that. Outside opinion is necessary to inform self- regulation of things not legislatable.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Also (and I'm guessing you're not a lawyer) you have egregiously, and probably deliberately, conflated mitigation (facts concerning the offence, which may explain why a person committed an offence) and character witnesses (opinions regarding the convicted criminal's character).
Both may be relevant. But "he's a privately educated man" is not relevant. Hell, look at the Tory front bench. Hell, look at the Labour front bench for the that matter...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
