Thread: Fucking Judges Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005681
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
A medical student receives preferential treatment because of being too talented, despite a drug-fuelled, bloody assault.
What the Hell is the qualification to judgeship?
This time it is a woman getting off, so progress?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Possibly worth reading this before getting too lathered up.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Possibly worth reading this before getting too lathered up.
First, he gives the cricketer case as an example of over-reacting without all the information. Bullshit. the fact that he lost his leniency because he didn't have a cricket contract ignores the fact that it shouldn't have been a consideration in the first.

Whilst his point that the full facts of the case are not yet known, it is still a case of privilege being a mitigating factor. A poor, especially black and poor, man of upstanding character would not likely be given the same treatment.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Possibly worth reading this before getting too lathered up.
Whilst his point that the full facts of the case are not yet known, it is still a case of privilege being a mitigating factor. A poor, especially black and poor, man of upstanding character would not likely be given the same treatment.
From mr. cheesy's link:

quote:
And, lest anyone be seduced by the reflexive narrative that such merciful sentences are only afforded to white, middle class defendants, let me assure you: this course (as I said in the Bashir posts) is not unusual. Where a defendant who has never been in trouble is facing a custodial sentence of 2 years or under, and where they have the prospect of employment, education or caring responsibilities, judges will often strive to avoid passing a sentence of immediate imprisonment.

 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
The Secret Barrister is extremely good. Always worth reading him/her before getting het up.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Possibly worth reading this before getting too lathered up.
Whilst his point that the full facts of the case are not yet known, it is still a case of privilege being a mitigating factor. A poor, especially black and poor, man of upstanding character would not likely be given the same treatment.
From mr. cheesy's link:

quote:
And, lest anyone be seduced by the reflexive narrative that such merciful sentences are only afforded to white, middle class defendants, let me assure you: this course (as I said in the Bashir posts) is not unusual. Where a defendant who has never been in trouble is facing a custodial sentence of 2 years or under, and where they have the prospect of employment, education or caring responsibilities, judges will often strive to avoid passing a sentence of immediate imprisonment.
From reality. Privilege trumps everything. I'd wager if you graph who gets the benefit of that leeway, it will track nicely along the rich, white and wealth. With sporting figures and celebs being the outliers on the colour factor.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Yeah, right. Cos, y'know, what does this secret barrister character know about it, only being an experienced criminal lawyer 'n'all, compared to someone who's read something about it online and has a very fixed idea about how the world works.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Possibly worth reading this before getting too lathered up.
Whilst his point that the full facts of the case are not yet known, it is still a case of privilege being a mitigating factor. A poor, especially black and poor, man of upstanding character would not likely be given the same treatment.
From mr. cheesy's link:

quote:
And, lest anyone be seduced by the reflexive narrative that such merciful sentences are only afforded to white, middle class defendants, let me assure you: this course (as I said in the Bashir posts) is not unusual. Where a defendant who has never been in trouble is facing a custodial sentence of 2 years or under, and where they have the prospect of employment, education or caring responsibilities, judges will often strive to avoid passing a sentence of immediate imprisonment.
Also from mr cheesy's link:
quote:
unconscious social or racial bias plays a part in judicial decisions
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that her academic prospects at a top university helped defer the sentence.

If it's any consolation to lilbuddha [Two face] had she been in France, the fact that she was a woman could well have made her sentence more severe than if she had been a man.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yeah, right. Cos, y'know, what does this secret barrister character know about it, only being an experienced criminal lawyer 'n'all, compared to someone who's read something about it online and has a very fixed idea about how the world works.
I'm an experienced prison chaplain'n'all.

My prison is full of the underprivileged, illiterate, and foreign, whilst I read in the local paper of business school students with bourgeois parents and wealthy lawyers getting suspended sentences for equivalent offences.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Privilege trumps everything. I'd wager if you graph who gets the benefit of that leeway, it will track nicely along the rich, white and wealth.
quote:
Where a defendant who has never been in trouble is facing a custodial sentence of 2 years or under, and where they have the prospect of employment, education or caring responsibilities, judges will often strive to avoid passing a sentence of immediate imprisonment.
There are two conditions here:

1. Previous good behaviour and
2. Prospects of employment, education or caring repsonsibilities


It's easier for nice middle-class white people to meet both criteria. They are more likely to be able to demonstrate previous good character, because their youthful escapades are unlikely to have attracted police attention. They are more likely to have had a good education, more likely to have family or friends who can generate offers of secure employment, more likely to have the offer of a stable supportive place to stay that avoids association with known criminals, and so on.

But I'll bet that if you control for these socioeconomic factors, you'll find poor young black men getting suspended sentences at similar rates to photogenic white women.

The Secret Barrister writes:
quote:
The reason you don’t hear about the suspended sentences handed down for less photogenic defendants – for the 19 year-old lad starting his apprenticeship, or the 48 year-old mobile hairdresser – is mainly because the media tends not to report on them.
Because let's face it - "attractive, wealthy, Oxford undergraduate stabs boyfriend in drugged-up rage" makes a good story. "Bloke punches other bloke outside pub" doesn't.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
The fact that this story has received media coverage doesn't make the way she or everyone else is treated right.

Your list of "control criteria" is basically just confirmation that the criminal justice system discriminates against the underprivileged. Which it does. The fact that this is an apparently insoluble problem shouldn't stop us trying to mitigate it [Mad]

[ 17. May 2017, 21:29: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
Mr Cheesy, that link was helpful - thanks.

Huia
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
The Secret Barrister is extremely good. Always worth reading him/her before getting het up.
Q: How many lawyers does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: How many can you afford?

With respect to m'learned friend, the idea that the Secret Barrister is a paragon of legal objectivity and the very acme of nuanced opinion is, well, a matter for the courts. I suspect that he (and I'm guessing it's a he) would have left your honour's presence shaking his head at the paucity of perspicacity on numerous occasions, and adjourning to the nearest drinking establishment to contemplate how a mere judge could have disagreed with such a fine legal mind as his so clearly is.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
Well said, Doc Tor and Eutychus. Albertus' faith in this barrister is stupid and naive. So is anyone else's.

Q: How do you address a lawyer with an IQ of less than 80?
A: "Your Honour."

Q: Less than 70?
A: "Good morning, Senator ..."
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Well said, Doc Tor and Eutychus. Albertus' faith in this barrister is stupid and naive. So is anyone else's.

Q: How do you address a lawyer with an IQ of less than 80?
A: "Your Honour."

Q: Less than 70?
A: "Good morning, Senator ..."
60% = Mr. Speaker
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I'm sure we al have our favourite lawyer jokes. All professions suffer weakness and blind-spots. And Secret Barrister is demonstrating this. The law might not have inequality written in, but this doesn't mean it is excluded. And bias is inherent in humanity.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
It has always been the case. When I was at university students being caught for jolly japes such as stealing street signs got their knuckles rapped. Where I ended up working, the same aged lads from the factory floor had paid fines, had criminal records and suspended statements.

The guy on the same course as me who became very aggressive when drunk was given the sort of sentence that triggered this thread, with time to finish his exams so long as he stayed sober, following a very nasty bar brawl when he broke jaws. Any young lad on the factory floor who got into fights tended to serve time for ABH or GBH.

And that's before you factor in race.

This rapidly becomes a vicious circle as the existence of a criminal record makes people less employable and even more likely to be seen as a risk when in court for any offence.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Well said, Doc Tor and Eutychus. Albertus' faith in this barrister is stupid and naive. So is anyone else's.

Fuck off.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
And your qualifications are?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
I wonder whether this judge would have been inclined to hand down a suspended sentence for a male medical student who stabbed his girlfriend? Domestic violence against men is taken less seriously. Heck, some people still think it's funny.

[ 18. May 2017, 08:09: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Well said, Doc Tor and Eutychus. Albertus' faith in this barrister is stupid and naive. So is anyone else's.

Fuck off.
Back at yer, dickhead. [Smile]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And your qualifications are?
Yours appear to consist of being a prison chaplain in a completely different country under a completely different legal system. So I don't think you're really in a position to question other people's qualifications about their knowledge of the British judicial system.

Of course, as anyone with a braincell can appreciate, the two things can be true. It can be true that people in a similar situation are commonly offered the same kind of sentance and that these almost inevitably favour the middle classes, who are more likely to be on a path towards a quote "career" unquote than your local unemployed yoof.

Not big or clever, but what exactly is it that we want the law to do?

Some idiot does something out of character and is in a position to improve their lives and contribute to society. Do we want the judges to just throw them directly to jail, do not pass GO, do not collect £200? Or do we want to wait to see if they can actually turn their lives around and get on with a career?

I agree, this is terribly unfair on the lad who hasn't got a medical career lined up. But, I'm sorry to say, I know of situations where young men have been given multiple chances and have avoided custodial sentances on multiple occasions.

Yes. Some people seem to have the book thrown at them for no good reason whilst others seem to be able to do and continue doing all kinds of bloody stupid stuff before getting sent to prison.

I think on this occasion, a non-custodial might well be the right option given what we know about the offender. By all means keep an eye on her and send her straight to jail if she offends in any way again.

Because, y'know, there are already too many idiots in prison before sticking more there.

[ 18. May 2017, 18:26: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It can be true that people in a similar situation are commonly offered the same kind of sentance and that these almost inevitably favour the middle classes, who are more likely to be on a path towards a quote "career" unquote than your local unemployed yoof.
Except that the first half of your statement belies historical application of law. It is exactly why Human Rights Acts exist. Commonly is the world in that part of your post that I think is highly unlikely.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yours appear to consist of being a prison chaplain in a completely different country under a completely different legal system.
I have lost count of the numbers of prisons I've visited and of the number of countries in which I've done so. I am in regular contact with chaplains all over the world. Panama, Canada, Congo Kinshasa, UK... that's this week. I think I'm as qualified to comment as some blogger. Who as I noted acknowledges that the system is biased by the way.
quote:
I don't think you're really in a position to question other people's qualifications about their knowledge of the British judicial system.
I didn't question anybody's. I asked Albertus to supply his.
quote:
Some idiot does something out of character and is in a position to improve their lives and contribute to society. Do we want the judges to just throw them directly to jail, do not pass GO, do not collect £200? Or do we want to wait to see if they can actually turn their lives around and get on with a career?
Show me where I said that jail was the correct solution for this girl.

The outrage in my case is not that she escaped a custodial sentence but that many others committing similar offences get one straight away simply because the system is stacked against them.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Except that the first half of your statement belies historical application of law. It is exactly why Human Rights Acts exist. Commonly is the world in that part of your post that I think is highly unlikely.
Why, are you a legal librarian and you can tell how many times deferred sentences have been handed out?

If it is so unusual, how come it is fairly easy to find cases, including
this woman who stole from a charity shop, this bloke who got a deferred sentence after 100 offences, this man who stole money from a church and was given the chance to repay it and so on.

The idea that this is a special kind of thing which only applies to wealthy women studying medicine belies the actual evidence. And if I can find these things in 5 mins of searching, there is a fairly strong chance that it is a fairly common thing to happen.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
Isn't that the system isn't designed to address the specific situation of the crime, its victim/s or its perpetrator/s but to make the terminally prurient feel better?

The whole mentality of "getting justice for..." stinks. It's not justice; it's vengeance, and that's not for any human agency to visit upon any human being.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I have lost count of the numbers of prisons I've visited and of the number of countries in which I've done so. I am in regular contact with chaplains all over the world. Panama, Canada, Congo Kinshasa, UK... that's this week. I think I'm as qualified to comment as some blogger. Who as I noted acknowledges that the system is biased by the way.
You are entitled to comment, you clearly are not entitled to claim superiority over someone else who actually works in the British system. Because that would be the height of stupidity.


quote:
I didn't question anybody's. I asked Albertus to supply his.
Why, because you're the only person around here that's worked in a prison? Newflash: you're not.

And, newsflash, some of us have even worked in British prisons.

quote:


The outrage in my case is not that she escaped a custodial sentence but that many others committing similar offences get one straight away simply because the system is stacked against them.
And you know that how? How do you know how many people get deferred sentences in the UK when you don't even work in England?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And if I can find these things in 5 mins of searching, there is a fairly strong chance that it is a fairly common thing to happen.
Actually, it does not indicate this. Judges would hardly admit they were ignoring the guidance that allows this. Your examples are more likely news because they are exceptional, not because they are common.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Actually, it does not indicate this. Judges would hardly admit they were ignoring the guidance that allows this. Your examples are more likely news because they are exceptional, not because they are common.
Well unless you actually have some evidence, maybe you'd like to keep that opinion to yourself rather than making yourself even more of an idiot.

Deferred sentences are used in various circumstances. Just a fact.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You are entitled to comment, you clearly are not entitled to claim superiority over someone else who actually works in the British system. Because that would be the height of stupidity.
Yes it would. Although deliberately shit-stirring about things I have not claimed comes at least a close second.
quote:
quote:
I didn't question anybody's. I asked Albertus to supply his.
Why, because you're the only person around here that's worked in a prison?
No, rather because Albertus insinuated that those disagreeing with him were doing so simply on the basis of something they'd read online somewhere. I can legitimately claim to have more experience than that, and challenged him to provide his - something he has so far not done.
quote:
And you know that how? How do you know how many people get deferred sentences in the UK when you don't even work in England?
I haven't made any specific claim about prisons in the UK. I have made general comments about how I have seen the criminal justice system work, from the inside.

If you want to disagree and provide some actual arguments, fine, but your habit of picking fights by misreading just about anything anyone posts anywhere is getting really old.
 
Posted by irreverend tod (# 18773) on :
 
Aside from any other argument, I'd question her employable. Would you want someone with that lack of self control anywhere near you in a medical capacity. I damn well wouldn't. You'd never be allowed to teach in England (my current work life) following that and I'm buggered if the medical profession should be different.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Actually, it does not indicate this. Judges would hardly admit they were ignoring the guidance that allows this. Your examples are more likely news because they are exceptional, not because they are common.
Well unless you actually have some evidence, maybe you'd like to keep that opinion to yourself rather than making yourself even more of an idiot.

Deferred sentences are used in various circumstances. Just a fact.
You know, overall you are not a bad person form what I can tell from your posting, but sometimes you can be a right arsehole. Minorities and poor have a higher rate of incarceration. It is highly unlikely the particular guidance used in this case is any exception.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes it would. Although deliberately shit-stirring about things I have not claimed comes at least a close second.
Fuck off.


quote:
I didn't question anybody's. I asked Albertus to supply his.
You said:

quote:
The fact that this story has received media coverage doesn't make the way she or everyone else is treated right.
That's an implication that something about the way she was treated was wrong.

quote:
I'm an experienced prison chaplain'n'all.

My prison is full of the underprivileged, illiterate, and foreign, whilst I read in the local paper of business school students with bourgeois parents and wealthy lawyers getting suspended sentences for equivalent offences.
That's a claim to special knowledge about this situation even though you're in a different fucking country with a different fucking legal system.

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yeah, right. Cos, y'know, what does this secret barrister character know about it, only being an experienced criminal lawyer 'n'all, compared to someone who's read something about it online and has a very fixed idea about how the world works.
then you said:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And your qualifications are?
He doesn't need qualifications you self-righteous jerk. He just needs to believe that a blogger with a lot of credibility with a post which gives an explanation as to the regime in England and details which can be independently checked knows more about the law in England, and the details of this case, than some chaplain in France.

Yes, we all know that the judicial system is fucked. Yes. We all know that it is disproportionally incarcerating the poor and uneducated, the dispossessed and the socially outcast.

But that is not in any sense to suggest that the judge did anything wrong in this case, that he made the wrong decision or that somehow he wouldn't also make a decision to defer to a person in completely different circumstances.

Of course you don't give a shit about the fact that there is plenty of evidence that this is used in a range of situations, including where the defendant is completely different to the one in the OP, where the person is in drug treatment, where there is evidence that they're doing something else with their lives or even where there is evidence that they're making every effort to put things right and pay back money they've stolen.

Because it doesn't suit your narrative of "I know better". Well you don't know better.

quote:
No, rather because Albertus insinuated that those disagreeing with him were doing so simply on the basis of something they'd read online somewhere. I can legitimately claim to have more experience than that, and challenged him to provide his - something he has so far not done.
Bollocks. You're claiming to know more about the sentencing regime, and the rightness of this particular case, than someone who has a lot of knowledge of the British legal system. Because you are a chaplain in France.

You've no basis for challenge. You've got no knowledge of Albertus and his interactions with the justice system, you've got no knowledge of anyone else here and how they know what they know. You're just insisting that you are right because you are right. Even when you're self-evidently wrong; the fact is that the sentence is this case was legal and within the parameters of the guidelines set down for this situation.

If you don't like it, puh, who cares.


quote:
I haven't made any specific claim about prisons in the UK. I have made general comments about how I have seen the criminal justice system work, from the inside.

If you want to disagree and provide some actual arguments, fine, but your habit of picking fights by misreading just about anything anyone posts anywhere is getting really old.
No, fuck off.

If you want to talk about how the system crushes people are already weak, then fine lets talk about it. But if you want to join in the dogpile of a legal situation you clearly don't know the first thing about, then don't be surprised if you get some push-back.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You know, overall you are not a bad person form what I can tell from your posting, but sometimes you can be a right arsehole. Minorities and poor have a higher rate of incarceration. It is highly unlikely the particular guidance used in this case is any exception.
You know, I'm really at the end of my tether with you and your self-erected standards on this fucking bulletin board.

Read what I've actually said, not what you think I've said. The system is broken, but in this situation the judge did the right thing.

And put away your lectures about being a "bad person" or being an arsehole, because quite honestly being someone you consider an arsehole is hardly any great achievement on a bulletin board where you go around insisting that your views are obviously correct and anyone who disagrees is clearly ignorant or worse.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
[Snore]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by irreverend tod:
Aside from any other argument, I'd question her employable. Would you want someone with that lack of self control anywhere near you in a medical capacity. I damn well wouldn't. You'd never be allowed to teach in England (my current work life) following that and I'm buggered if the medical profession should be different.
Exactly. What if you said something she didn't like just before you went under the anesthetic? Would she let her little scalpel slip?

I read things like this and don't think race bias but intelligence bias.
quote:
“It seems to me that if this was a one-off, a complete one-off, to prevent this extraordinary able young lady from not following her long-held desire to enter the profession she wishes to would be a sentence which would be too severe,” he said.
What makes this hateful, violent woman so "extraordinary" in the judge's eyes? Her IQ. If it was someone on the way to fulfilling her long-held desire to go to beauty school or get her carpentry permit, I'll bet it wouldn't even be a consideration. To the judge this woman is extraordinary in the same way he is, academically. I doubt if he has much respect for any other type of excellence.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Possibly worth reading this before getting too lathered up.
First, he gives the cricketer case as an example of over-reacting without all the information. Bullshit. the fact that he lost his leniency because he didn't have a cricket contract ignores the fact that it shouldn't have been a consideration in the first.

Whilst his point that the full facts of the case are not yet known, it is still a case of privilege being a mitigating factor. A poor, especially black and poor, man of upstanding character would not likely be given the same treatment.
The Secret Barrister does make the point that the deferral means that she has to demonstrate to the court she's got her shit together otherwise it's business as usual. And doesn't the Home Office have the right to review and adjust sentences they deem "too lenient"?

But I agree, I suspect that if she wasn't ticking all those posh and privileged boxes she would have gone directly to jail without passing go.

It's always worth looking for additional information about court cases that make the press as the reports are usually wrong / skewed. (I read a lot of cases for work).

Tubbs
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Minorities and poor have a higher rate of incarceration.
Per head of population, or per court appearance?

It's an important distinction, because if 6% of Group A commit crimes but only 2% of Group B commit crimes then it's only natural that the incarceration rate per head of population will be roughly three times larger for Group A even if the incarceration rate per court appearance is the same for both groups.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Per head of population, or per court appearance?

It's an important distinction, because if 6% of Group A are arrested but only 2% of Group B are arrested for committing the same crime then it's only natural that the incarceration rate per head of population will be roughly three times larger for Group A even if the incarceration rate per court appearance is the same for both groups.
Fixed that for you.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by irreverend tod:
Aside from any other argument, I'd question her employable. Would you want someone with that lack of self control anywhere near you in a medical capacity. I damn well wouldn't. You'd never be allowed to teach in England (my current work life) following that and I'm buggered if the medical profession should be different.
Truth. Not to mention the thought of such a person prone to substance abuse working near the pharmaceutical cookie jar.

Unfortunately the way the judge spoke of this sentence, the record might be expunged after the four months. Hopefully future employers have good google-fu.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by irreverend tod:
Aside from any other argument, I'd question her employable. Would you want someone with that lack of self control anywhere near you in a medical capacity. I damn well wouldn't. You'd never be allowed to teach in England (my current work life) following that and I'm buggered if the medical profession should be different.
Truth. Not to mention the thought of such a person prone to substance abuse working near the pharmaceutical cookie jar.

Unfortunately the way the judge spoke of this sentence, the record might be expunged after the four months. Hopefully future employers have good google-fu.
You can't make this sort of stuff disappear from an extended DBS certificate, which is what she'll need working with vulnerable people and children (or 'patients' as they're called).

I've no wish to wreck her life, but neither would I wish for her to be in the position to wreck other people's lives. The rates of substance abuse amongst doctors is already terrifying enough.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I wonder whether this judge would have been inclined to hand down a suspended sentence for a male medical student who stabbed his girlfriend? Domestic violence against men is taken less seriously. Heck, some people still think it's funny.
The judge has not, as yet, handed down a suspended sentence. He has deferred sentencing.

The judge is minded, in this case, to believe that this was a one-off incident, brought on by a drug problem which the student claims to be dealing with. By deferring sentencing, he is giving her the opportunity to demonstrate that she is dealing with it. If she comes back in a few months having made good progress, he'll suspend her sentence.

This is what justice should look like.

Several people have, quite reasonably, asked whether she would have been offered the same consideration were she to have been, for example, a poor young black woman with a job stacking shelves at the local Tesco, rather than a white Oxford medic.

Secret Barrister, in his blog post, says that such things happen often, but that the press only tends to report it when it's a pretty posh girl.

It's certainly an answerable question, although I suspect that sentences are not logged by the Home Office in a way that makes such analysis easy (meaning that to do such an analysis requires a couple of graduate students, the court reports, and a large quantity of coffee). I don't have those things.

But let's speculate about some things that might be true. It is likely that a wealthy student has family that will support her if she tries to fix her drug problem. They'll have the resources to put her through whatever kind of treatment program and so on.

A poor shelf-stacker might certainly have equally supportive family members, but they are unlikely to have the resources to pay for treatment for her.

So imagine two young women in basically identical circumstances. Both, through the sort of youthful foolishness that is not uncommon, have acquired a problem with drink and/or drugs, and both, in an uncharacteristic drugged-up rage, had an argument with their boyfriends in the course of which they threw a collection of household objects at him and stabbed him with one of them.

Imagine both show similar contrition, and both intend to fix their drug problem. One can afford the best treatment, and can easily adjust her living situation to keep away from her old haunts and drug-using friends. The other doesn't have that flexibility.

Which is more likely to fix her problems?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You can't make this sort of stuff disappear from an extended DBS certificate, which is what she'll need working with vulnerable people and children (or 'patients' as they're called).

I've no wish to wreck her life, but neither would I wish for her to be in the position to wreck other people's lives. The rates of substance abuse amongst doctors is already terrifying enough.
This is a very good point. One wonders if she's even going to be able to complete a medical degree, given that it appears she is going to have a record - never mind the dream of becoming a surgeon.

As the BBC reports:

quote:
Defence barrister James Sturman QC had argued it would be "almost impossible" for Woodward to become a surgeon once she had disclosed her conviction to employers.
It seems to me that she's been found guilty of the offense and is going to find it extremely difficult to explain it away on any form requiring disclosure of relevant convictions.

That said, she's obviously got prospects in life outside of being a surgeon, and it can clearly be argued that she's got a better chance of becoming a reformed character outside of prison - even if she doesn't become a surgeon - than inside.

Of course, this could all be complete bollocks and she might just go straight on a bender knowing that she's now never going to be a medic. It appears that if this is what happens then the judge has the option of making the sentence a custodial one.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
It is entirely possible that both the system operated as it is supposed to on this occasion and that, as a whole, the poor and minorities do worse under it.

My own view, generally, is that the system is too lenient in crimes of violent and not lenient enough in most other matters but the judiciary can hardly be blamed for enforcing the law of the land, ahead of my opinions.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:


Imagine both show similar contrition, and both intend to fix their drug problem. One can afford the best treatment, and can easily adjust her living situation to keep away from her old haunts and drug-using friends. The other doesn't have that flexibility.

Which is more likely to fix her problems?
Well, there's the rub, isn't it? Substance abuse and domestic violence is widespread amongst the "respectable" classes, and it isn't always possible to know whether they're actually reforming or just able to play the system.

But I think it is also true that the whole society is so monumentally fucked up that if you happen to be from a particular background, the chance of you being able to take hold of the opportunity offered by the court to reform is basically nil.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Per head of population, or per court appearance?

It's an important distinction, because if 6% of Group A are arrested but only 2% of Group B are arrested for committing the same crime then it's only natural that the incarceration rate per head of population will be roughly three times larger for Group A even if the incarceration rate per court appearance is the same for both groups.
Fixed that for you.
Thankyou. I was thinking exactly this reading Marvin's post.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Domestic violence against men is taken less seriously. Heck, some people still think it's funny.
Violence against men is still entirely acceptable. Just the other week, on a BBC radio show, a daughter rang in to say:
quote:
"[Mam] really likes to throw things and it’s dad that gets the brunt of it. He’s had pretty much everything thrown at him over the years, toasters, hair dryers, you name it.

"There’s still a dent in the wall from where she threw a knife at him — he says it’s a constant reminder to stay in her good side.”
The BBC then played Benny Hill music, laughed and gave the wife an award as 'Mammy of the Week'. If you're a man in an abusive relationship, how dispiriting would that segment be?
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This time it is a woman getting off, so progress?
One of the most significant biases in the US justice system is anti-male. Black men are treated especially badly, but gender trumps race. The UK seems to have similar issues, but no-one bothers to research it in depth.

Progress will be when women are held to similar standards as men, or (preferably) when male victims and offenders are treated with the same compassion that female ones are.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I suspect that sentences are not logged by the Home Office in a way that makes such analysis easy (meaning that to do such an analysis requires a couple of graduate students, the court reports, and a large quantity of coffee).
Very true. Some complications include that different groups are likely to commit different types of offense; the severity of offense within a single category may not be recorded at all; some demographics may be less likely to be charged in the first place; there can be biases in granting parole (and the plea bargains in the US); there will be differences in sentencing first-time offenders; race and poverty are related, not independent variables; and different minority groups may have entirely different experiences (black people vs Chinese, for instance).

A single case doesn't prove much, but the broader data could be very tricky to unravel.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Secret Barrister, in his blog post, says that such things happen often, but that the press only tends to report it when it's a pretty posh girl.

It's certainly an answerable question, although I suspect that sentences are not logged by the Home Office in a way that makes such analysis easy (meaning that to do such an analysis requires a couple of graduate students, the court reports, and a large quantity of coffee). I don't have those things.
I suspect it would be nearly impossible because, as I said earlier, a judge is unlikely to document that they ignored the guidance. Given the bias in the system that even Secret Barrister admits, why on earth would anyone expect this particular guidance to be any less so?

quote:

Which is more likely to fix her problems?
A doctor, who will have easy access to drugs will be? Someone who just had their "Specialness" and privilege affirmed?
Yes, treatment and support can help a person turn themselves around. But not all less well off offenders are without family and, for now, has the NHS to cover treatment.

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Domestic violence against men is taken less seriously.
This is true and it is wrong. Though, women are far more likely to suffer domestic abuse, and though it is prosecuted more than it has been, it is still reluctantly addressed by the legal system.
quote:

Progress will be when women are held to similar standards as men, or (preferably) when male victims and offenders are treated with the same compassion that female ones are.
Higher sentences for men are actually a reflection of the inequality of women. Women are regarded as less responsible for their actions. When women are truly equal, this will change.
I am not saying that the current status is a good thing, it isn't. But understanding the cause is the way to enact a cure.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[Snore]
Yep. His outrage seems to stem from which side of the pint he was woken up on.

[ 19. May 2017, 19:12: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
a judge is unlikely to document that they ignored the guidance.
Doesn't matter. The guidance is well known, the sentence is known, so you can draw your own conclusions. (And there's nothing in this case about the judge ignoring the guidance. Sentences of less than two years are suspendable, and my reading of the sentencing guidelines suggests that 12-18 months is about the mark for this particular offence. So if the judge came back in September and handed out a 12 month suspended sentence, that would be entirely within the guidelines.)

At the most basic level, you can look at the sentence given to members of particular groups for the same offence. That's independent of whatever a judge says he's doing.

Beyond that, judges do usually explain their sentence (in that they list the aggravating or mitigating factors that they are applying). So you can score those factors, and if you find a racial disparity in sentencing, you can ask whether black men (for example) are being deemed to have committed more serious crimes than white men, or whether black men are being given a larger sentence for the same seriousness of crime.

And then you can dig into the details.

This is eminently studiable.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

This is eminently studiable.
[Killing me] It not only is studiable that race affects everything from being stopped to length of incarceration, it has been studied and confirmed.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
What a crap article. It's written as if she'll definitely avoid jail and completely ignores the word "if" in the judge's quoted remarks.

I don't normally expect The Guardian to be in the business of manufacturing outrage.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0