Five Teenages Attack Fellow Tram Passengers, And Walk Free From Court.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317645/Teenagers-walk-free-court-frenzied-attack-tram-passengers-New-Addington-Croydon.html

How is it possible for these young thugs to walk free, and since their three victims were Afghans why wasn't it also classes a racist attack?

/// Detective Constable Ostin Elkins, from British Transport Police, said: 'This was a callous, brutal and ultimately cowardly attack and we welcome the sentences handed down. ///

"We welcome the sentences handed down" surely he has to be joking?

[FredPuli43]

Ridiculous. The gravity of the offence lies in three or more together using unlawful violence such that would cause anyone to fear for their own safety; there doesn't have to be anyone hurt; it's a public order offence, one down from riot(riot needs twelve people together). This case is made worse because this was a joint enterprise, the gang going armed and mob handed, the aim of which was to beat people up. That nobody suffered gbh is only matter of chance; the intent was there, though the group never succeeded in achieving it .

The maximum is 5 years. The court has a duty to take firm action against "packs of dogs", gangs intent on this kind of violence, to the fear of anyone who sees it. Custody should be inevitable, plea or no plea.

[FredPuli43]

PS I've no idea what race has got to do with it. Did you misunderstand the law applied in such cases, aog ?

[Zacs-Master]

None twisted things to his own ends Fred. Plus ca change.....

[Zacs-Master]

No he

[birdie1971]

Jim360 - “... I think it must be the case that the guilty plea has helped them recieve a lighter sentence, or perhaps there's some genuine remorse...”

I've never understood why someone who 'expresses' remorse about having committed a particular crime gets a more lenient sentence than a person who doesn't. The crime is still the same crime. The victim or victims are still the same. Nothing's changed except that the perpetrator now 'expresses' remorse.

In my experience, the only people who are remorseful about their crimes are those who get caught, charged and successfully prosecuted. It's amazing how many of them suddenly have an acute attack of conscience once they're locked up.

[FredPuli43]

Birdie, there's a discount on a plea because 1)it saves a trial with the time and expense, and putting witnesses through what can be the ordeal of cross-examination 2) it is something of an inducement to the defendant, that he knows he'll get a lesser sentence 3) at least he's being honest for once; we still have the idea of a repenting sinner being a good thing.

[Svejk]

//3) at least he's being honest for once;//
Mm, kinda doubt that, Fred.

[Svejk]

They do like to see people being contrite and humble. Even when its their regular 'customers' who obviously don't mean it. Is it a sort of self-aggrandizement by the Judiciary I wonder?

[FredPuli43]

I doubt it too, Svejk. When I started, I innocently asked my pupil master "What can you say for a defendant who has pleaded, or been found, guilty and there is nothing to say ?" He replied "Oh, there's always something to say. You can always say he's sorry. He's bound to be sorry that he has been caught!"

Mitigation always follows a set pattern, with the same sentences cropping up: "He has a job starting on Thursday", "His girlfriend is standing by him" etc. I did suggest that these should be numbered, to save time: "Your Honour, the mitigation is number 6, with a touch of 7, closing on 3". Unfortunately, the Bar never took this up.

[Svejk]

Yep, its amazing how many are on the verge of straightening their lives out. ;-)

[birdie1971]

Fred -

I was being rather flippant when I said that, “... I've never understood why someone who 'expresses' remorse about having committed a particular crime gets a more lenient sentence...”. Of course I understand the reasons for it but the point I was making is that a more lenient sentence for a person who expresses remorse doesn't change the facts of the crime nor the impact on the victim. For certain crimes there is an argument to be made that the victim would further suffer if they were required to relive the ordeal under cross-examination but those cases are in the minority. In my experience, most victims want to have their day in court.

I think that the real reason for leniency is part of your first point – it saves money, time and effort on the part of those involved. Having seen the wheels of justice turn first hand, I don't think for a minute that the overriding concern is for the victim – it's for the convenience of those involved in the process.

I was going to comment on your third point but Svejk has beaten me to it!