Youre better off hitting someone it seems

[bazwillrun]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...gland-london-17587608

Result = Suspended sentence

Have drunk rant on Twitter about ill footballer, = 56 days jail

So it now seems that a physical attack doesnt warrant a custodial sentence yet a verbal one does

How very odd

[Canary42]

The drunken MP who recently struck another in the bar of the Commons also got a non-custodial sentence.

A good way to discourage binge-drinking - NOT.

[Gromit]

Not really a surprise that a police officer gets a very lenient sentence.

// The driver, Lee Rosier, 24, was pulled over for using a mobile phone near Hangar Lane on 1 March 2011 by the Territorial Support Group officer, the court heard.
Bartlett is currently suspended from duty, the Metropolitan Police said. //

To add insult to injury, we are also paying for him to do nothing fo a year.

[VHG]

Unfortunately we have reached the stage that any sort of "racial" element to a crime carries a far higher sentence than if there is no racial element.

On the same day Liverpool player Suarez called Evra a "bad racist word" the Villa player Hutton did a terrible two footed tackle on a WBA player that nearly broke both his legs and he was not even booked. It was mentioned on Match of the Day then forgotten.

But Suarez "bad racist word" to Evra got him an 8 game ban.

So it seems again that physical assualt gets nothing, racist verbal comment gets a huge "ban".

[FredPuli43]

That's why we have "racially aggravated assault ", VHG. The principle of aggravation by a racist element is set out in statute law.

[sp1814]

bazwillrun

You're incorrect...that vile little moron did not get sent to jail for what he said about the footballer. He went to jail for using threatening language to others who criticised his original posting.

Why are people misrepresenting this story?

I wonder why...

[sp1814]

Its great when racists and/or homophobes get hit hard. It shows them what it feels like to be victimised.

I find it incredibly difficult to feel any sympathy for those who are banged up for race or homophobic crimes.

Chuck in the Islamic extremists who scream insults at soldiers too - put the lot of them on the same wing...

...and film the results. It'll be bigger than 'Big Brother'. I would certainly tune in.

[jno]

have you got a link for that, sp1814? Every report I've read refers to his tweets about Muamba himself, though many also mention his continuing tweets to those who protested.

It appears he also had an earlier conviction for violent disorder, which his lawyer didn't know about.

[jake-the-peg]

//Unfortunately we have reached the stage that any sort of "racial" element to a crime carries a far higher sentence than if there is no racial element. //

Yes - why is that unfortunate?

It's not only racial elements that increase the sentence crimes with a sexual nature also do

And crimes where the perpurtrators are in a position of trust do as well

Crimes against vulnerable people like children also.

We do so to express a particular abhorence of rascist crimes.

[naomi24]

//We do so to express a particular abhorence of rascist crimes. //

We should express a particular abhorrence to all crime by punishing it appropriately. Physical violence should not carry a lesser sentence than verbal abuse.

[jno]

if you're going to hit someone, or even kill them, you're better off in the police. Conviction rates are really quite low (assuming they're charged in the first place).

[anotheoldgit]

When one goes into a restaurant for example, one is given a menu for the dishes on offer and their prices, this way one knows exactly how much one's meal will cost one.

So isn't it about time there was a definite 'menu' of sentences for crimes committed laid down, then an offender would know precisely what sentence to expect.

That way it wouldn't matter if the Judge or magistrate was a lenient one, or a severe one, had a bad day, or a good one, or that the perpetrator before him or her was a celebrity or an ordinary person.

They would then all receive the same sentence as laid down in the 'Menu'.

[Gromit]

AOG,

There is a sentencing guide for magistrates and judges. But every crime has different circumstances, and every criminal's behaviour is different.

The case in the OP looks like this Police Officer was for some reason the very minimun possible sentence. There must have been a reason for that.

[Zeuhl]

There are tariff guidelines Old Git

They are guides because a 'one size fits all' approach would create more injustice not less.

In my limited experience, magistrates are experienced, sensible people who carefully consider all the facts in a case and apply the guidelines best they know how.

That is certainly a more trustworthy approach than being influenced by stories in the papers which present a partial version either because the writer doesn't understand the case or chooses deliberately to be selective in order to fit a particular agenda.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// The case in the OP looks like this Police Officer was for some reason the very minimun possible sentence. There must have been a reason for that. ///

That may well be, but wasn't it you who earlier said.

/// Not really a surprise that a police officer gets a very lenient sentence. ///

Forget a general guide to sentences, Murder for example, should carry only one sentence, never mind who was murdered, why they were murdered, or how they were murdered, the victim is still dead, and the killer should serve the only one sentence set down.

[Gromit]

Both my answers are correct. Police Officers often do get dealt with leniently, but why is a mystery.

// the victim is still dead, and the killer should serve the only one sentence set down. //

What do you think the killer of Mark Duggen will get?

[Zeuhl]

<<Murder for example, should carry only one sentence>>

that is clearly nonsense.

are you suggesting you would make no distinction between someone who killed someone in an angry outburst

and someone who systematically and cold bloodedly planned a murder over several months?

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// What do you think the killer of Mark Duggen will get? ///

Mark Duggan was not murdered, he was a known armed gangster being pursued by an armed police unit, and shot and killed all within the legal execution of their duty.

/// A Metropolitan Police Federation representative asserted that the officer who killed Duggan had "an honest-held belief that he was in imminent danger of him and his colleagues being shot" ///

[anotheoldgit]

Zeuhl

Before rudely dismissing what I typed as 'clearly nonsense', perhaps you should consider what you typed.

/// are you suggesting you would make no distinction between someone who killed someone in an angry outburst ///

/// and someone who systematically and cold bloodedly planned a murder over several months? ///

The former would most likely be 'Manslaughter' and not 'Murder'.

And the later would definitely be 'Murder'.

[Gromit]

// Mark Duggan was... ...killed all within the legal execution of their duty. //

Not so.
The IPPC Inquiry into the killing has not yet come to a conclusion (one way or another), and no Coroner's Inquest has yet taken place into the death. The killing could still be deemed unlawful.

OK, that one it pending, how about the killer of Jean Charles de Menezes. What should he have got?

[Zeuhl]

Sorry Old Git

You are wrong

Even in an angry outburst, if someone attacks with premediataion it is murder

The distinction i drew there is one that doesn't exist in the definition of 'murder' that is the distinction between premeditation of 10 seconds or of 10 months