The wealthy elite spared gaol.

orraloon

Possibly spared jail, possibly given the big E by the college. The BBC understands she has a bit of a track record on the old druggie habits.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ox ... e-39999312

First.Aspect

The judge's decision may be justifiable, but the tenor of his comments unquestionably smack of bias because she comes from a similar strata of society.

And lets not be afraid to be judgemental. Even in an Oxford context Christ Church College is one of the more flagrant when it comes to biased selection policies, which is judgemental. It gives me endless pleasure that my pauper's college outperformed it in my subject.

And on what basis is she "exceptional"? Because she's there in the first place? Or is she actually an exceptional student? Or does she come from an exceptional background that will open exceptional doors.

Too much pussy footing around the obvious, here, I'm afraid. Aside from anything else if an "exceptional" man had attacked his girlfriend with a knife, would this really have been the outcome?

nickice

There is usually more to these cases than is reported but it's pretty expensive to send someone to jail. There are a lot of people who don't get sent to prison until they've had a few convictions.

First.Aspect

nickice wrote:

There is usually more to these cases than is reported but it's pretty expensive to send someone to jail. There are a lot of people who don't get sent to prison until they've had a few convictions.

Yeah, like I say the decision itself might be justifiable, but the rhetoric is rather troubling. And if there was a balance point, which side of the line do you think the judge's prejudice would have urged him?

pinno

The quote from the article that is most poignant is this and namely, the first sentence:

"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. That is not to deny that unconscious social or racial bias plays a part in judicial decisions; basic neuroscience teaches us that it does, to some degree at least. But the suggestion that this exceptional course is only ever reserved for the Prom Queens (or whatever our British equivalent is) is tired and lazy. 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."

tangled_metal

Media has incomplete information on a case that is at the stage where the judge has the decisions left to make. So let's just jump on the bandwagon with it all. Can I sum things up?

She's a drug fuelled posh kid. The judge is also of the same social strata. This means he is incapable of making decisions without being biased. She's going to get off because she's a posh kid. She had free choice to take drugs and stab someone. The fact she was abused by a past partner means that she has a higher awareness of abuse so is able to prevent the abuse she suffered from affecting her. This is further enhanced by her intelligence because as everyone knows higher intelligence means you have complete.control over your.emotions right? Of course she's not that bright because she...

Get a grip!

The alternative view is perhaps as follows. She's bright with a very high potential that would never be achieved if imprisoned thus potentially making such a call excessive. The sentencing guidelines at their most serious category is 2 years which allows for suspended sentence. The law treats the crime she's admitted to the same as another more serious indeed whether she slightly nicked his leg or slashed it open it's the same thing. Suspended sentences in similar situations as indicated by the few facts that are supposedly out happen to people from lower stratas of society. There's no evidence of open bias. Unless you consider the opinions of some posters on here of course.

Oh there's one last "fact"...we don't know enough facts to determine much about this case. It's called speculation and is heavily biased by our prejudices and those of media out to self promote.

Shall we wait for September? If it hits the news in.a similar light with the facts about the case having been published come September then it's probably as being reported. If we hear nothing in September then I reckon the facts probably do not support the view being presented now that a rich kid gets off because of her social strata.

slowmart

The bin driver who lost consciousness and killed SIX people and had his license revoked for medical reasons was then caught driving again.

He received a driving ban and community service as this was his first criminal conviction and its rare for a prison sentence to follow a first conviction.Oh and this guy looks like he likes pies, chips and battered mars bars and bald to go with his questionable decision making.

Going back to Goo's original post, the sentence has been deferred but given the level of publicity I'd say the guilt party's chance of employment in the medical profession is slim to non existent due to her acknowledged coke habit and criminal conviction for GBH.

pinno

The bin lorry driver in Glasgow should never have been driving a bin lorry. He killed people. I think that is a case of miscarriage of justice.
Are you really comparing the two?

Or is it simply the comparison of first convictions?

First.Aspect

Its like a form of torture, this thread.

Decision - probably correct. Tangled Metal, save the effort of typing screeds more, no one disagrees.

Reasons given - troubling because they suggest that certain factors which shouldn't be relevant might somehow be relevant. The might be obiter here, but in some other case?

pinno

First Aspect wrote:

Its like a form of torture, this thread.

Nah, no where near crank arm lengths or the helmet debate.

(or perhaps suing the council after an off over the result of cycling on dodgy roads)