Do Judges Live in the Real World?

SimonAH

He's obviously a nob, but a white collar nob with all of the advantages of money and (as they say) nobody died. Still a wrong judgement however.

But what incenses me is from the other end of the scale - I was watching Crimewatch the other night (first time I'd seen it in a decade) and saw CCTV of an unprovoked attack in a pub where two guys were stamping on the head of a guy on the floor so hard that their bodies were bouncing in the air. Crimewatch showed the mugshots of the two perpetrators that the show had helped to be caught and proudly announced that they had both been sentenced to eighteen months.

Let me repeat that. Eighteen flocking months.

Out in under a year for a deliberate vicious attack that only by sheer luck was not murder.

alfablue

notsoblue wrote:

alfablue wrote:

I would be interested in a list of laws I am okay to ignore. Can anyone help me with this? CiB perhaps?

You've never broken a law?

How does that help with the list I want?????

richk

since when did you use the M42 to get to Stoke from Bolton? :?:

cje

I have a relative who is a judge. Whilst a very nice man, it is fair to say he fits into the Polly Toynbee-esque stereotype of someone who is very forgiving of criminals because they live in a nice, crime-free area.

dunnnooo

SimonAH wrote:

He's obviously a nob, but a white collar nob with all of the advantages of money and (as they say) nobody died. Still a wrong judgement however.

But what incenses me is from the other end of the scale - I was watching Crimewatch the other night (first time I'd seen it in a decade) and saw CCTV of an unprovoked attack in a pub where two guys were stamping on the head of a guy on the floor so hard that their bodies were bouncing in the air. Crimewatch showed the mugshots of the two perpetrators that the show had helped to be caught and proudly announced that they had both been sentenced to eighteen months.

Let me repeat that. Eighteen flocking months.

Out in under a year for a deliberate vicious attack that only by sheer luck was not murder.

Yeah, but, I have to ask- why do we send people to jail? At a really fundamental level, why?

shouldbeinbed

SimonAH wrote:

He's obviously a nob, but a white collar nob with all of the advantages of money and (as they say) nobody died. Still a wrong judgement however.

But what incenses me is from the other end of the scale - I was watching Crimewatch the other night (first time I'd seen it in a decade) and saw CCTV of an unprovoked attack in a pub where two guys were stamping on the head of a guy on the floor so hard that their bodies were bouncing in the air. Crimewatch showed the mugshots of the two perpetrators that the show had helped to be caught and proudly announced that they had both been sentenced to eighteen months.

Let me repeat that. Eighteen flocking months.

Out in under a year for a deliberate vicious attack that only by sheer luck was not murder.

I saw that too, it was sick. For those 2 I'd quite happily have seen them have their feet cut off, since they can't be trusted to use them in a humane and responsible manner

dunnnooo wrote:

Yeah, but, I have to ask- why do we send people to jail? At a really fundamental level, why?

assuming you're not trolling for the obvious pinko liberal bites.

at a really fundamental level, there are a small number of amoral people (Levi Bellfield, Antoni Imielia) or those who's mental illnesses are felt unsuitable to be treated in the public arena but which manifest in violence or homicide that the public need to be (feel) protected from, we don't kill or transport people for minor infringements anymore, a bit of historical tradition, a lot of public expectation of punishment or revenge (IYGWIM) for wrongdoing, something of a misguided assumption that prison has some sort of deterrent effect & a bit of 'what else do we do with them, we can't just let them off & do we want the hassle of chasing them up for missing probation or community payback time'

have you got an alternative suggestion? one which the state could ensure is enforced and satisfies the various strands of punishment, public protection, deterrence and rehabilitation.

cycladianpirate

You want justice?

Believe in a God. Any God.

dunnnooo

shouldbeinbed wrote:

assuming you're not trolling for the obvious pinko liberal bites.

at a really fundamental level, there are a small number of amoral people (Levi Bellfield, Antoni Imielia) or those who's mental illnesses are felt unsuitable to be treated in the public arena but which manifest in violence or homicide that the public need to be (feel) protected from, we don't kill or transport people for minor infringements anymore, a bit of historical tradition, a lot of public expectation of punishment or revenge (IYGWIM) for wrongdoing, something of a misguided assumption that prison has some sort of deterrent effect & a bit of 'what else do we do with them, we can't just let them off & do we want the hassle of chasing them up for missing probation or community payback time'

have you got an alternative suggestion? one which the state could ensure is enforced and satisfies the various strands of punishment, public protection, deterrence and rehabilitation.

TBH, I was just curious to see what response I got. It annoys me when I hear complaints that such and such only got so many years in jail- I don't believe that it's an effective answer in most cases. Equally I believe that an individual case within the justice system shouldn't be biased by the parties involved, or society as a whole. Is biased the right word? I mean that I think society should be able to create the laws, as seems appropriate at the time, but should not then attempt to sway an individual case because it seems a particularly abhorrent example of that law (eg the sentences now being handed out following the riots). Equally, each party to a criminal claim should be able to put forward their case, but once that is done the jury- or magistrate- should decide the outcome, with the judge deciding the punishment, based on the offence. I don't think the victims should have scope to affect this (A la the Victims Personal Statement). Perhaps this seems a detour, but if enough people feel dissatisfied then politicians have been known to get involved, and that worries me.

I do think jail is appropriate for the small number who simply cannot live within society, but for the rest? It's hardly a great punishment, it's counter productive to the idea of rehabilitation- and indeed can make people more likely to commit crime, and, as you said, it doesn't really do that great a job of deterrence.

I'd like to see people integrated back into the community (with a bit of punishment thrown in, to show the 'rod' part of the law). I'd like to see the money used to jail then used to subsidise their rent, for as long as is necessary, so they have a roof over their head. I'd like to see them in jail for a short period, by way of punishment, with free labour thrown in- make them work. But not work for the sake of punishment entirely- work whereby they join a workplace outside of jail which suits their skills, and allows them to build a CV, contacts and a job for when their released. If they have no skills, then find somewhere they can learn some (look at Jamie's 15 idea- it works).

Quite how to convince people to work, and employer to hire them I have no idea, short of saying 'strict penalties if you don't', which would of course mean jail, which would kinda defeat the purpose. But I do still believe, practical or not, we need to stop ostracising 'criminals' and give them a reason to work within society. I think they need to be accepted back into society, not seperated from it- which is why I really dislike people saying 'give them longer in jail,' and I've now typed a small essay up online, which is no doubt incredibly dull to everyone else and open to flaming.

Cycloslalomeur

Right I'll stick my hypermiler lefty neck out. Regarding speeding, it never ceases to amaze me how many motorists there are out there who think speed limit enforcement is some sort of evil war against the motorist money-making scheme. Some even go as far as entertain the fantasy that they're not affected by thinking and stoppiong distances. Sorry chaps and chapettes by Sir Isaac doesn't suffer fools gladly.

Yes I agree that it is a massive problem that most speeders get away with it but that does not mean that speed limits are not a Good Thing for all sorts of reasons. There is a world of difference in safety between 70mph and 85mph, not to mention between 60 and 85. Just an anecdocte, granted, but I was in a motorway pile-up a couple of years ago and was glad I was doing my usual 92kph instead of whatever it is that is permitted on Slovenian motorways when I rammed an eejit who decided it was a good idea to swerve sideways into traffic from a sliproad.

Get rid of speed camera signs and fit cameras on every mile of road for all I care. Don't want to be ripped off by the motorist-hating government? Stick to the speed limit.

Income-pegged fines? Bring it on. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3477285.stm

DonDaddyD

On the motorway don't the police have a 10% + 2 rule before they take action. I work that out as 79mph.

But if the speed the majority are travelling on average is 80mph and it is on the M25, the police cannot stop everyone. So you take the 10% + 2 rule and apply it to 80mph. That's 90mph, in real terms that's the real speed limit or the speed you're most likely to be stopped. Why? Because at that speed or above you're most likely to be travelling faster than everyone else who are also likely to be breaking the 70mph limit.

rjsterry

The limit is 70 (or less in some places). The fact that some people drive faster than this doesn't change this. Many vehicles that use the motorways are limited below 70 anyway, and it's perfectly possible to stick to the limit and still need to overtake plenty of vehicles. The idea that you "have" to drive at 80+ because "everyone" else is, is just rubbish.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

The limit is 70 (or less in some places). The fact that some people drive faster than this doesn't change this. Many vehicles that use the motorways are limited below 70 anyway, and it's perfectly possible to stick to the limit and still need to overtake plenty of vehicles. The idea that you "have" to drive at 80+ because "everyone" else is, is just rubbish.

Indeed.

That's the logic the rioters used .

bigmat

DonDaddyD wrote:

On the motorway don't the police have a 10% + 2 rule before they take action. I work that out as 79mph.

But if the speed the majority are travelling on average is 80mph and it is on the M25, the police cannot stop everyone. So you take the 10% + 2 rule and apply it to 80mph. That's 90mph, in real terms that's the real speed limit or the speed you're most likely to be stopped. Why? Because at that speed or above you're most likely to be travelling faster than everyone else who are also likely to be breaking the 70mph limit.

This is rubbish on so many levels. You don't have to drive the speed of everyone else - if every other cyclist went through a red light, would you? I don't believe the average speed on the M25 is anything even approaching 70mph, never mind 80mph. The 10% +2 "rule" is fiction - I recently got clocked doing 79mph and will be getting "speed awareness training" in the near future. Even if it was the "rule", there is no basis to suggest that the police would apply it to "the speed everyone drives" rather than the actual speed limit, so your 90mph figure is arbitrary nonsense. Just because the police don't normally have the time or the inclination to stop cars that are speeding on motorways does not make it legal or appropriate (FWIW I'm fairly relaxed about motorway speeds to be honest - no real issue with 90mph on an empty road or 80 where sufficient gaps are being left etc).

DonDaddyD

I drive at ambient traffic speed, if I don't then I tend to find people drive right up my arse (in all three lanes) and some refuse to switch lanes and overtake. I tend to prefer maintaining a reasonable distance from the car infront and behind. I drive in part in accordance to those around me while attempting to stay within the law.

And there is one glaring fact. Research shows that most now drive at 80mph, this is why "they" are going to riase the motorway speed limit to 80mph.

SimonAH

I do a lot of driving - I cover England south of Loughborough and east of Gloucester from my base in South Wales. The bulk of these miles are motorway.

I set my cruise control to 74mph and, apart from a very occasional dab of throttle when overtaking, this is as fast as I go. On average I overtake far more vehicles (discounting speed limited vehicles) than overtake me.

The 74mph by the way is selected as it equates to a real 70mph as measured by my sat nav.

It quite amuses me watching the sphincters hammering along at 95 until they have to brake hard and then sit two feet off the bumper of the next car in front, spend a minute bullying that car into a slower lane before hammering off again for another hundred yards. Usually takes them a good five minutes to get far enough ahead that you can't see them anymore.

Obviously well worth the misery, blood pressure, fuel and brake pad wear that this sort of c*ckish driving causes and costs. I bet they get to their destinations at least two minutes earlier.

alfablue

DDD you will probably find that if you drive under the motorway speed limit you will often get a nice empty lane, the inside one, as all the mindless drivers (that thankfully also posess superhero type reactions and F1 ability brakes) will be tailgating in the middle and outer lanes at excessive speeds. It works for me; I am calmer, enjoy driving more (well, it is less unpleasant), I use less fuel, and I get to the next hold up to find the "other lot" waiting there, having risked life, limb, and excess fuel to get there first.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

bigmat

DonDaddyD wrote:

I drive at ambient traffic speed, if I don't then I tend to find people drive right up my ars* (in all three lanes) and some refuse to switch lanes and overtake. I tend to prefer maintaining a reasonable distance from the car infront and behind. I drive in part in accordance to those around me while attempting to stay within the law.

And there is one glaring fact. Research shows that most now drive at 80mph, this is why "they" are going to riase the motorway speed limit to 80mph.

I find that there is always somebody in my boot wanting to go faster, however fast I drive, also whenever you leave a suitable gap to the car in front, some c*ck will cut in front of you. There are just a lot of idiots who can't drive on motorways for some reason. As for driving at ambient speed, they have this cunning set up where there are three lanes moving at different speeds - I would suggest that you will normally find at least one of those has traffic moving within the speed limit - if you want to drive faster, fair enough, but less of the excuses! Don't get the "attempting to stay within the law" bit. Its not really that difficult. I could argue that in hitting 79mph going downhill on the A1 at 11pm on a Friday night with some idiot in my boot as I was overtaking a lorry was mitigating circumstances for a minor infringement, but I'd rather just take responsibility for my actions (and me grateful I've never been caught out doing a whole lot more in the past!)

DonDaddyD

I will concede that if I have my son in the back I drive much more conservatively and tend not to use the middle/outside lane.

rjsterry

alfablue wrote:

DDD you will probably find that if you drive under the motorway speed limit you will often get a nice empty lane, the inside one, as all the mindless drivers (that thankfully also posess superhero type reactions and F1 ability brakes) will be tailgating in the middle and outer lanes at excessive speeds. It works for me; I am calmer, enjoy driving more (well, it is less unpleasant), I use less fuel, and I get to the next hold up to find the "other lot" waiting there, having risked life, limb, and excess fuel to get there first.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

This. Try it.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

I will concede that if I have my son in the back I drive much more conservatively and tend not to use the middle/outside lane.

Hmm, this might be a solution to the problem of expensive childcare keeping parents from going back to work full time. Every motorway could have a baby exchange station. Parents drop their kids off in the morning, they spend the day going up and down motorways. Parents get free childcare, and motorists drive more safely. Win win.

I should work for a thinktank.

mudcovered

SimonAH wrote:

I set my cruise control to 74mph and, apart from a very occasional dab of throttle when overtaking, this is as fast as I go. On average I overtake far more vehicles (discounting speed limited vehicles) than overtake me.

The 74mph by the way is selected as it equates to a real 70mph as measured by my sat nav.

Apart from the fact I don't have cruise control in my current car I pretty much do exactly this as close as I can manage it using manual throttle control. It's amazing how much less stressful driving is when you take this approach and unless you are driving really huge distances the amount of time it costs you is peanuts. It also means you don't have to keep an eye out for mobile speed cameras.

Mike

navt

The speed at which I am willing to drive is determined by the cost of filling my tank. I simply could not afford to drive very much more than the current legal speed limit. The consumption on my 2.4l Volvo does not permit.

rick_chasey

navt wrote:

The speed at which I am willing to drive is determined by the cost of filling my tank. I simply could not afford to drive very much more than the current legal speed limit. The consumption on my 2.4l Volvo does not permit.

'tis true.

It's amazing how much petrol you save doing 70 instead of 80.

For the long drives up the A1 to see my girlfriend (a good 2hrs or so), it easily saved me £5er each way, and added about 5-10 minutes to my journey.