Following the conviction of Levi Bellfield for the murder of Milly Dowler, his previous convictions for the murder of two other women, and his suspected involvement in the gang-rape of teenage schoolgirls, there has, in the national press, been an altogether understandable revulsion at his actions and a call for such monsters to suffer judicial execution.
Leaving aside that the return of capital punishment is a non-starter, prohibited as it is by the Human Rights Act, and the fact that we no longer have any working gallows, or anyone trained in their use, I am reminded of the words of our most famous executioner, Albert Pierrepoint who, in his 1974 autobiography, Executioner: Pierrepoint, wrote:
“I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people...The trouble with the death penalty has always been that nobody wanted it for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off”.
The problem with execution within a civilised society is that emotions become confused with justice.
It would seem that a significant, or at least a vocal, proportion of the population wanted Myra Hindley executed for her part in the 1960’s Moors Murders yet when Ruth Ellis was sentenced to death in 1955 a petition, signed by 50,000 people, was sent to the Home Office asking for clemency and the execution was roundly condemned both in the press and by the great and the good.
Yet Ruth Ellis committed a cold-blooded murder in broad daylight in a London street when she took a .38 calibre Smith & Wesson revolver from her handbag and shot dead David Blakely, shooting him four times while he lay on the ground.
At her trial at the Old Bailey she said in the witness box: “It's obvious when I shot him I intended to kill him”.
For all her obvious guilt, her execution led directly to the abolition of capital punishment in the United Kingdom in 1965, just a year before Myra Hindley stood trial.
So why did one woman receive such support, and the other such condemnation?
Why should there be such a call for one to hang and the other to be reprieved?
To re-quote Pierrepoint: “nobody wanted it (the death penalty) for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off” which will always be the case, and pandering to the press’s version of public opinion is no way to ensure that justice is done.
Sunday 26 June 2011
Saturday 25 June 2011
Role models
It has been reported that Martin Aspinwall, a 29 year old rugby league football player with Castleford Tigers, was recently convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm when, in a drunken brawl, he broke another man’s jaw, hitting him so hard that in the process he dislocated his own shoulder.
Whilst awaiting sentence for this offence, and once again drunk, he led the police on a 10 mile long high-speed car chase through the streets of Wigan and surrounding towns.
For the assault he received an eight month jail sentence, suspended for two years and for dangerous driving while over the proscribed limit he was sent to jail for four months.
I’m a firm believer in the principle that once an offender has paid his or her debt to society they should be allowed to resume, and get on with their life, but…………
Those who are in the public eye, and who act as a role model for the young, have a greater responsibility than others so I view with concern the report that Aspinwall’s club coach has said he will be welcome back into the squad at the end of his sentence.
I hope that both Aspinwall and Castleford Tigers will use their undoubted influence with their young supporters to reinforce the message that such action is both despicable and unacceptable and that other young men will not look upon Aspinwall as a role model for their future behaviour.
Whilst awaiting sentence for this offence, and once again drunk, he led the police on a 10 mile long high-speed car chase through the streets of Wigan and surrounding towns.
For the assault he received an eight month jail sentence, suspended for two years and for dangerous driving while over the proscribed limit he was sent to jail for four months.
I’m a firm believer in the principle that once an offender has paid his or her debt to society they should be allowed to resume, and get on with their life, but…………
Those who are in the public eye, and who act as a role model for the young, have a greater responsibility than others so I view with concern the report that Aspinwall’s club coach has said he will be welcome back into the squad at the end of his sentence.
I hope that both Aspinwall and Castleford Tigers will use their undoubted influence with their young supporters to reinforce the message that such action is both despicable and unacceptable and that other young men will not look upon Aspinwall as a role model for their future behaviour.
Tuesday 14 June 2011
Children, Crime and Prison
Amazing what you see on children’s television (courtesy of my grandson).
CBBC today had a report about children in prison, and some ‘child expert’ predictably condemning the practice.
It would seem that she has little regard for the murder of James Bulger by two children, the rape of a girl by two Doncaster children and the gang of boys, some as young as 13, who repeatedly shot two London teenagers for their iPods and phones.
Prison? Oh dear me no, children shouldn't be in jail.
The Youth Offending Board say that a quarter of all children between the ages of 11 and 16 have committed a crime in the past year, and of those excluded from school almost two-thirds admitted doing so.
Stealing or threatening someone were the most common offences among both groups of children.
The top five crimes among school pupils were fare-dodging, graffiti, shoplifting, criminal damage and carrying a weapon.
One in five also admitted stealing from school, handling stolen goods, or stealing from home.
One in four excluded pupils said they had stolen a mobile phone within the last year.
About 40% admitted vehicle theft and arson, a quarter had attempted burglary and almost one in five claimed to have carried a gun.
But she says, prison is no place for children and discipline and punishment should be carried out by parents in the home.
Don’t blinkered morons like this realise that the very reason so many children are involved in crime is precisely because their parents either can’t, or won’t, discipline and control their off-spring?
One wonders what this do-gooder’s reaction would be if a gang of street urchins invaded her leafy suburb, armed with knives and baseball bats, stealing, destroying and maybe killing.
Whatever, I’ll bet it wouldn’t be ‘send them back to their parents for a good talking to’.
CBBC today had a report about children in prison, and some ‘child expert’ predictably condemning the practice.
It would seem that she has little regard for the murder of James Bulger by two children, the rape of a girl by two Doncaster children and the gang of boys, some as young as 13, who repeatedly shot two London teenagers for their iPods and phones.
Prison? Oh dear me no, children shouldn't be in jail.
The Youth Offending Board say that a quarter of all children between the ages of 11 and 16 have committed a crime in the past year, and of those excluded from school almost two-thirds admitted doing so.
Stealing or threatening someone were the most common offences among both groups of children.
The top five crimes among school pupils were fare-dodging, graffiti, shoplifting, criminal damage and carrying a weapon.
One in five also admitted stealing from school, handling stolen goods, or stealing from home.
One in four excluded pupils said they had stolen a mobile phone within the last year.
About 40% admitted vehicle theft and arson, a quarter had attempted burglary and almost one in five claimed to have carried a gun.
But she says, prison is no place for children and discipline and punishment should be carried out by parents in the home.
Don’t blinkered morons like this realise that the very reason so many children are involved in crime is precisely because their parents either can’t, or won’t, discipline and control their off-spring?
One wonders what this do-gooder’s reaction would be if a gang of street urchins invaded her leafy suburb, armed with knives and baseball bats, stealing, destroying and maybe killing.
Whatever, I’ll bet it wouldn’t be ‘send them back to their parents for a good talking to’.
Saturday 11 June 2011
Sentencing for Assault
We had a demonstration today as to the effects of the new sentencing guidelines for assault.
The case in question, like so many allegations of Common Assault, was one of domestic violence.
It ticked all the boxes for aggravating features:
injury caused, a sustained attack, a breach of trust (common to all cases of domestic violence), committed whilst in drink (an all too common feature of DV cases), children present at the time of the assault and an attempt by the defendant to prevent the victim leaving and/or seeking help.
With two or more aggravating features the starting point is a custodial sentence and given the plethora of aggravating features, and the defendant's past record of like offending, we decided a sentence of 120 days imprisonment, reduced by a third for his guilty plea to 80 days, was appropriate.
Just out of interest we later compared this sentence under the old guidelines with what it would be come Monday when the new Sentencing Guidelines take effect.
Following the method set out in the guidelines:
The factor indicating greater harm:
Sustained or repeated assault on the same victim
The factor indicating lower culpability:
Lack of premeditation
This suggests it to be Category 2 offence ie greater harm and lower culpability, with a starting point of a medium level community order.
Statutory and other aggravating factors to take into account, which may result in an upward or downward adjustment from the starting point, or in some cases, to sentence outside the identified category range, are:
Previous convictions, the presence of children, the abuse of trust, the commission of the offence whilst under the influence of alcohol and the steps taken to prevent the victim from obtaining assistance.
There are no factors which reduce the seriousness or reflect personal mitigation.
Given these aggravating features an upward move of the starting point to a high-level community order would be justified, resulting in a sentence of a 12 month Community Order with a 12 month Supervision requirement, attendance on a ‘Safer Relationships’ program, and 210 hours of un-paid work, reduced by a third to 140 hours for his guilty plea.
Which is the more just, that or 80 days in jail?
Let me know what you think.
The case in question, like so many allegations of Common Assault, was one of domestic violence.
It ticked all the boxes for aggravating features:
injury caused, a sustained attack, a breach of trust (common to all cases of domestic violence), committed whilst in drink (an all too common feature of DV cases), children present at the time of the assault and an attempt by the defendant to prevent the victim leaving and/or seeking help.
With two or more aggravating features the starting point is a custodial sentence and given the plethora of aggravating features, and the defendant's past record of like offending, we decided a sentence of 120 days imprisonment, reduced by a third for his guilty plea to 80 days, was appropriate.
Just out of interest we later compared this sentence under the old guidelines with what it would be come Monday when the new Sentencing Guidelines take effect.
Following the method set out in the guidelines:
The factor indicating greater harm:
Sustained or repeated assault on the same victim
The factor indicating lower culpability:
Lack of premeditation
This suggests it to be Category 2 offence ie greater harm and lower culpability, with a starting point of a medium level community order.
Statutory and other aggravating factors to take into account, which may result in an upward or downward adjustment from the starting point, or in some cases, to sentence outside the identified category range, are:
Previous convictions, the presence of children, the abuse of trust, the commission of the offence whilst under the influence of alcohol and the steps taken to prevent the victim from obtaining assistance.
There are no factors which reduce the seriousness or reflect personal mitigation.
Given these aggravating features an upward move of the starting point to a high-level community order would be justified, resulting in a sentence of a 12 month Community Order with a 12 month Supervision requirement, attendance on a ‘Safer Relationships’ program, and 210 hours of un-paid work, reduced by a third to 140 hours for his guilty plea.
Which is the more just, that or 80 days in jail?
Let me know what you think.
Friday 10 June 2011
How are the mighty fallen
As judges are not amongst my favourite people just now, see ‘I Should Live So Long’, Monday 6 June 2011, I was tickled pink to read of judge Beatrice Bolton’s latest brush with the law.
> See here
This is the same judge who last year was convicted and fined £2,500 by Carlisle Magistrates after one of her dogs attacked her neighbour’s son and who has so little respect for the Magistrates that she described the findings of their court as “a ******* travesty”
It is the very same judge, who seemingly thinks she is above the very law she is sworn to uphold, that erected a garden dividing fence without first obtaining Planning Permission.
Not currently sitting at Newcastle Crown Court she is subject to an investigation by the Office for Judicial Complaints.
How are the mighty fallen indeed.
> See here
This is the same judge who last year was convicted and fined £2,500 by Carlisle Magistrates after one of her dogs attacked her neighbour’s son and who has so little respect for the Magistrates that she described the findings of their court as “a ******* travesty”
It is the very same judge, who seemingly thinks she is above the very law she is sworn to uphold, that erected a garden dividing fence without first obtaining Planning Permission.
Not currently sitting at Newcastle Crown Court she is subject to an investigation by the Office for Judicial Complaints.
How are the mighty fallen indeed.
A Lesson from History
I was intrigued enough, on reading that ‘The Gemlich Letter’ had been bought by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, to read it for the first time:
read it here
Written in September of 1919, the letter espouses Adolf Hitler’s views on what he considers to be the ‘Jewish threat’ to post World War I Germany.
Whilst I do not, and emphatically reject, the central premise of the letter, and it’s conclusions, whether attached to Jews or any other ethnic minority, two paragraphs stood out as a chilling reminder of the dangers to any society of the separation of one culture from the mainstream of their country of residence, and here I quote from the letter:
“The danger posed by Jewry for our people today finds expression in the undeniable aversion of wide sections of our people”.
“And thus comes the fact that there lives amongst us a non German, alien race which neither wishes nor is able to sacrifice its racial character or to deny its feeling, thinking, and striving. Nevertheless, it possesses all the political rights we do”.
The persecution of any ethnic minority is now prohibited by law, and rightly so, but no-one could have imagined that one of the most civilised and cultured of nations, as Germany was, and is again, could have ever embarked upon the course of conduct it did in the 1930’s and 40’s.
That being said, there will always exist the danger that where there “lives amongst us” an “alien race which neither wishes nor is able to sacrifice its racial character or to deny its feeling, thinking, and striving” racial intolerance will flourish and will fuel the fires of extremism.
If we can learn one lesson from history it is this; that in any socio/economic conflict the minority will, in the end, lose, they will not re-build society in their own image nor impose their will upon the majority.
Integration will always involve sacrifice by those wishing to integrate; it is to be hoped that in this new multi-cultural Britain the will to make such sacrifices exist.
read it here
Written in September of 1919, the letter espouses Adolf Hitler’s views on what he considers to be the ‘Jewish threat’ to post World War I Germany.
Whilst I do not, and emphatically reject, the central premise of the letter, and it’s conclusions, whether attached to Jews or any other ethnic minority, two paragraphs stood out as a chilling reminder of the dangers to any society of the separation of one culture from the mainstream of their country of residence, and here I quote from the letter:
“The danger posed by Jewry for our people today finds expression in the undeniable aversion of wide sections of our people”.
“And thus comes the fact that there lives amongst us a non German, alien race which neither wishes nor is able to sacrifice its racial character or to deny its feeling, thinking, and striving. Nevertheless, it possesses all the political rights we do”.
The persecution of any ethnic minority is now prohibited by law, and rightly so, but no-one could have imagined that one of the most civilised and cultured of nations, as Germany was, and is again, could have ever embarked upon the course of conduct it did in the 1930’s and 40’s.
That being said, there will always exist the danger that where there “lives amongst us” an “alien race which neither wishes nor is able to sacrifice its racial character or to deny its feeling, thinking, and striving” racial intolerance will flourish and will fuel the fires of extremism.
If we can learn one lesson from history it is this; that in any socio/economic conflict the minority will, in the end, lose, they will not re-build society in their own image nor impose their will upon the majority.
Integration will always involve sacrifice by those wishing to integrate; it is to be hoped that in this new multi-cultural Britain the will to make such sacrifices exist.
Monday 6 June 2011
I should live so long
In late 2010 an unemployed young man, taking part in an extensive drinking session, ran out of beer and took a friend’s car in order to buy more. Driving without either licence or insurance he ran a red light and crashed broadside into another car. Thankfully no-one was hurt but our friend fled the scene of the accident and was arrested too late to be breathalysed.
For, amongst other things, the aggravated taking of a vehicle without the owner’s consent, he was later sentenced to a large number of hours of un-paid work and you might think he was lucky to avoid a jail sentence.
He consistently failed to turn up for work, despite having additional hours imposed and being given the stark and unequivocal warning that further breaches of the order would result in it being revoked and him being sent to prison.
After more failures to comply with the order the Probation Service finally lost patience with him and summoned him to court for revocation and re-sentence.
He didn’t attend court and it took a warrant without bail to ensure his attendance. In court the Probation Officer expressed the opinion that he had no confidence that this individual would carry out any form of community-based punishment.
The order was duly revoked and he was re-sentenced to 12 weeks imprisonment, again a rather lenient sentence giving the circumstances.
He duly appealed the sentence and appeared before a judge in the Crown Court who promptly quashed the prison sentence and, despite the Probation Service’s reservations, re-imposed the un-paid work order but cut it in half, leaving him with a sentence less that he got for the original offence and ignoring the contempt with which he’d treated the previous order.
I have no idea what thoughts were going through the judge’s mind but I do know that justice, the rule of law and the protection of the public were concepts not amongst them. If anyone can equate for me His Honour’s decision with these ideals and the circumstances of this case then I’d be greatly obliged for I confess I don’t understand it, and I doubt I ever will.
For, amongst other things, the aggravated taking of a vehicle without the owner’s consent, he was later sentenced to a large number of hours of un-paid work and you might think he was lucky to avoid a jail sentence.
He consistently failed to turn up for work, despite having additional hours imposed and being given the stark and unequivocal warning that further breaches of the order would result in it being revoked and him being sent to prison.
After more failures to comply with the order the Probation Service finally lost patience with him and summoned him to court for revocation and re-sentence.
He didn’t attend court and it took a warrant without bail to ensure his attendance. In court the Probation Officer expressed the opinion that he had no confidence that this individual would carry out any form of community-based punishment.
The order was duly revoked and he was re-sentenced to 12 weeks imprisonment, again a rather lenient sentence giving the circumstances.
He duly appealed the sentence and appeared before a judge in the Crown Court who promptly quashed the prison sentence and, despite the Probation Service’s reservations, re-imposed the un-paid work order but cut it in half, leaving him with a sentence less that he got for the original offence and ignoring the contempt with which he’d treated the previous order.
I have no idea what thoughts were going through the judge’s mind but I do know that justice, the rule of law and the protection of the public were concepts not amongst them. If anyone can equate for me His Honour’s decision with these ideals and the circumstances of this case then I’d be greatly obliged for I confess I don’t understand it, and I doubt I ever will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)