Re: A cyclist and real justice
Posted: 12 Sep 2019, 5:51am
It seems that some think that the word 'justice' actually means 'the most severe, excessive and cruel punishment you can devise'.
Discussion boards hosted by Cycling UK
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/
Mike Sales wrote:Would a gun owner who lost their temper and injured someone with their gun ever get a gun licence again?
reohn2 wrote:IMO anyone who has a 12month or more driving ban imposed on them should have to resit their driving test and should then have a probationary period of two years without conviction otherwise the ban is repeated.
Resiting the test would be a real handicap at this driver's age,along with a very heavy fine and confiscation of the 'weapon' would be enough rehab.
Cugel wrote:The utility cyclist wrote:Hull prison, medium security usually for offenders more than 4 year sentences. It's irrelevant though, the sentence was incredibly lenient given the crime, the 15 month driving ban is also a joke
Not irrelevant in this sense: revenge is a poor substitute for justice. Putting a loon in a school for loons is not such a good way to achieve reform, either. Even in that fulminating gimmer, recidivism is possible. And, as another has mentioned, there's the cost.
Personally I feel those who are irresponsible need to be taught responsibility. This doesn't happen in the clink but rather in social scenarios where the irresponsible one is forced and encouraged to be responsible, so ....
Five years compulsory working in those institutions wherein those at the end of life, unable to cope mentally & physically (perhaps because run over by a car loon). Daily travel thereto via any mode of transport other than a car. If the offending loon was also well off financially, make him not-so and donate the money to those same institutions.
**********
Perhaps you might consider calming down now and then, which may enable a less emotive mode of consideration concerning means & ways to deal with road rage. Having lock-'em-up rage is not a good state of mind in which to consider these issues perhaps?
Cugel
Oldjohnw wrote:It seems that some think that the word 'justice' actually means 'the most severe, excessive and cruel punishment you can devise'.
DaveGos wrote:Personally I am not so interested in prison sentences , though he deserves it , they are expensive and do little good . Its the ban that gets me. It should be a life ban in these situations not 18 months , driving is not a human right . If you cannot control yourself it should be a life ban , after all there is still public transport , uber , bikes and electric bikes.
The utility cyclist wrote:Cugel wrote:The utility cyclist wrote:Hull prison, medium security usually for offenders more than 4 year sentences. It's irrelevant though, the sentence was incredibly lenient given the crime, the 15 month driving ban is also a joke
Not irrelevant in this sense: revenge is a poor substitute for justice. Putting a loon in a school for loons is not such a good way to achieve reform, either. Even in that fulminating gimmer, recidivism is possible. And, as another has mentioned, there's the cost.
Personally I feel those who are irresponsible need to be taught responsibility. This doesn't happen in the clink but rather in social scenarios where the irresponsible one is forced and encouraged to be responsible, so ....
Five years compulsory working in those institutions wherein those at the end of life, unable to cope mentally & physically (perhaps because run over by a car loon). Daily travel thereto via any mode of transport other than a car. If the offending loon was also well off financially, make him not-so and donate the money to those same institutions.
**********
Perhaps you might consider calming down now and then, which may enable a less emotive mode of consideration concerning means & ways to deal with road rage. Having lock-'em-up rage is not a good state of mind in which to consider these issues perhaps?
Cugel
How is getting the sentence the law says he should 'revenge'? For one he's already been charged with a lesser offence the law says he committed, he's been given an unduly lenient sentence according to what the law says the starting tariff should be for such a violent act on a minor, remember this is a child he has attacked, and they've been affected mentally too as the lad has said he doesn't want to cycle anymore through fear.
The utility cyclist wrote:The correct prison sentence sends out a message that you will be dealt with to the extent of the law, it's putting someone out of the way of society so that they can do no harm, have their freedom removed and time to have a real hard think about not just what they've done that has resulted in having their freedom removed but also how they go about their life when they leave.
The utility cyclist wrote:Maybe you think someone who uses their motor to chase down a girl and rapes them should also be given a lenient sentence and not have the correct charges applied, what aboout a murderer, armed robber, arsonists? Where does it stop being about applying correct and appropriate sentences and in your opinion about revenge?
The utility cyclist wrote:Do you think a slap on the wrist is enough to make others think, do you think prosecuting to a lesser charge and lenient sentencing is helping or hinder the crime in our country? We've already seen a decrease in charges/prison sentences and dangerous driving especially 'death by' being reduced to careless and the negative outcome from that, well?
The utility cyclist wrote:Oldjohnw wrote:It seems that some think that the word 'justice' actually means 'the most severe, excessive and cruel punishment you can devise'.
And yet the criminal got a downgraded charge and the lowest sentence possible despite the aggravating factors against a minor, don't start imagining what others think because you're wrong. The most severe would have been life imprisonment for a S18 wounding with intent, even a S20 is 5 years maximum, the judge gave the criminal the least that he could and clearly ignored the aggravating factors/intent and what the tariff/law says he should have been handing out which was a lot more than 6 months.
So frankly your 'thinking' of what others think is massively off the mark!
The utility cyclist wrote:6 months for a brutal assault with a deadly weapon, hardly 'real' justice! :twisted:
belgiangoth wrote:The utility cyclist wrote:6 months for a brutal assault with a deadly weapon, hardly 'real' justice! :twisted:
Worth noting that if you have a drink and then attack someone on the way out of a pub that's about the sentence you'll get ... if you're unlucky.