What do you have to do to get sent to prison?

Take a look at this scum. His name is Reece Kent, 19.

This shit beat up this gandfather.

Now you would expect Reece Kent to be sent to jail wouldn't you, but no he walks out of court with a suspended sentence.

An extract from the article;

A drunken thug who attacked a terminally-ill grandfather and kicked his head 'like a football' has walked free from court.

Reece Kent, 19, repeatedly punched Ken Oliver in the head before kicking him on the floor after he mistakenly knocked on the 62-year-old's door at 3.30am.

Cancer sufferer Mr Oliver - who has been given just three months to live - was left in a pool of blood on his doorstep with horrific injuries.

He spent a week in intensive care following the assault, with bleeding on his brain.

Kent admitted carrying out the unprovoked attack - which was filmed on a mobile phone by his friends - and pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm.

But Mr Oliver, a grandfather-of-three from Broxbourne, Hertfordshire, watched in disbelief as his attacker walked free from court last week with a six-month suspended sentence.

What do you have to do to get sent to jail?

You're more likely to get sent to jail for not paying your council tax than for grievous bodily harm.

If there is karma in the world, i hope it comes down on Reece Kent like a ton of bricks.

Reece Kent should be sent to Afghanistan so he can see, while he is beating the crap out of a grandfather, what  our soldiers are having to go through.

What about all the soldiers from WW1 and WW2. I doubt very much that they gave their lives so we could be free, so scum like Reece Kent can beat up a grandfather.

What ever happened to 'the punishment should fit the crime',

It's all well and good the government getting to grips with the nations finances, but it better get law and order sorted as well, because I'm sick and tired of all the lawlessness i see on the streets.

I'm still trying to get my head around this case...

Regarding the case of the 2 ten year olds.

I was trying to put into words what my thoughts were on the subject, until I saw this article. Philip Johnston says it all in the article

Was this really attempted rape – or children playing?

By Philip Johnston

Two boys aged 10 and 11 have been found guilty of the attempted rape of an eight year old girl. I find it almost impossible to get my head around this.

The evidence in the case suggested that they were indulging in the sort of curiosity that children have shown in each other’s bodies since the dawn of time. They were initially charged with rape until the little girl told the court that this had not actually happened.

Boys of that age are almost certainly pre-pubescent and their interest in the little girl almost certainly non-sexual. A jury at the Old Bailey heard the evidence and found them not guilty of rape but guilty of attempted rape. They will now be on the sex offenders register, though as the judge said he had no idea what that meant for children of this age.

Is there any other period in our history, or any other country in the world, where the pre-pubescent fumblings of children would result in a rape trial? We bombard children with sexual imagery and then are surprised when they show interest in what it means. It is astonishing that they were convicted but even more amazing is that it even came to court at all.

Have we lost all concept of childhood in this country?

“I don’t think anyone who has sat through this trial would think for a moment that the system that we employ is ideal,” said Mr Justice Saunders.

He can say that again.

Could this set a precedent or can common sense be brought in?

 This case looks like it was just 3 children being curious, but the girl became scared and worried about what her mother would think.

The reasons why this case was brought to court needs to be looked at.

Now we have 2 boys found guilty of attempted rape, for just being curious. How will this effect their future lives?

What about the girl in this, how will she feel in the future about this, how will it effect her life in the future.

All the adults in this case, the police the CPS, the parents, the court system have to answer questions about this case and the future well being of the 3 children

Who would you think should get a heavier fine?

A robber or a motorist who parked illegally?

Have a look at this article;

Robbers receive soft penalties than illegal parkers

Robbers are escaping with softer punishments than motorists who park illegally, it has emerged.

An extract;

Magistrates are handing out fines as little as £47 to convicted robbers, a drop of a third under Labour.

In contrast motorists who park unlawfully face fines of up to £70 outside London and up to £120 within the capital.

Your going to love this extract;

Magistrates admitted the fines are low because offenders cannot afford higher penalties and get discounts for guilty pleas.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow Justice Secretary, said: "Ministers have tried to bully magistrates to give fewer jail and community sentences, but it is no wonder that magistrates have little confidence in fines when Ministers haven't bothered to uprate fine levels in all the time they've been in power.

"As a result, fines for serious offences like robbery and criminal damage are cheaper than some parking tickets. No wonder public confidence in the justice system has been undermined."

Can you believe that?

Fine them £1000+, and if they can't pay the fine, jail them. It's simple.

Don't give them soft fines because the poor little mite can't afford to pay the fine.

Broken record time.

Is this what Labour meant when they said 'Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.'

Punishment should fit the crime.

Why has this been allowed to happen?

I cannot believe this has been allowed to happen.

The following comes from this article

Eleven rapists and hundreds of other sex offenders 'let off with cautions'

Eleven rapists and hundreds of other self-confessed sex offenders have been let off with cautions over the past five years in one police force area alone, figures show.

An extract;

More than 600 cautions were issued for crimes that include rape and child abuse in Avon and Somerset since 2004, police admitted.

Cautions are handed out when guilt is admitted and mean offenders do not appear in court, do not have their names made public and they do not risk going to prison.

You have people committing some of the most serious crimes against a person and they get a caution. No wonder the reporting of rapes is at an all time low.

An extract;

The figures, released under the Freedom of Information Act, showed cautions as punishment for sexual offences increased over the five years within the force area.

A total of 611 sex offenders were issued with cautions by the constabulary after the criminals admitted guilt, officers said.

Were they thinking that once the criminals were given the caution, they would be good and not do it again, yeah right

These included 11 rapists who confessed their crimes. Four of those had admitted the rape of a child under the age of 13.

How the **** can you not jail these scum, they admitted the crime. Why aren't they in jail now?

What about the safety to the public?

What is stopping them from committing the same crime again?

The figures also revealed 74 sexual assaults on women, seven on men and 28 on children were dealt with by caution rather being taken through the courts.

Four cautions were given for incest or familial sexual offences, two for abuse of children through prostitution or pornography and two for sexual grooming.

Who ever agreed to these cautions, for these serious crimes, should be put in jail themselves for endangering the public.

The country is a joke.

You get jailed for letting a few people smoke in your pub.

You have people going to jail for not paying the council tax.

But if you rape a child you get a caution

What a wonderful country we live in. NOT

What happened to the 'Punishment should fit the Crime'

I have just been reading this article in the Telegraph, and I was wondering what happened to the saying the 'Punishment should fit the Crime'.

This is the headline to the article;

Thousands of criminals to serve less time in prison under Government plans

Tens of thousands of criminals will spend less time in prison under Government plans to limit the ability of judges to set jail sentences, an official document has disclosed.

Here is an extract from the article;

It suggests that officials are alarmed that judges are giving criminals longer sentences than proposed by ministers, which they refer to as “upward sentencing drift”. From April, a new Sentencing Council will effectively force judges to follow sentencing guidelines drawn up in Westminster.

An official assessment of the impact of the move concludes that if judges follow guidelines set down by the council it will avoid the need for more than 1,000 future prison places. This represents tens of thousands of criminals being spared jail time over the next few years.

'Officials are alarmed that criminals were getting longer sentences'.

What is wrong in giving a criminal a proper jail sentence. The judges hear the evidence against the criminal and give a sentence that he thought would fit the crime. Although there are some judges who need to see what it is like outside their comfortable lives and see what it is like for the rest of us out in the real world.

According to this article in the Mail there are some criminals like drug traffickers, burglers and even rapists who were given cautions. A CAUTION, for crying out loud you get given a slap on the wrist for a serious crime.

What about Munir Hussain who was jailed for attacking someone who broke into his home, held his family hostage and they jailed him. He should of been rewarded for what he did.

Another extract from the article;

The Sentencing Council will become the body providing sentencing guides for judges and magistrates when it replaces the Sentencing Guidelines Council and Sentencing Advisory Panel. It has greater powers because legislation says courts “must follow” guidelines and have a “duty” to impose sentences within an identified range. Under the previous bodies, courts needed only to “have regard” to any guidelines.

'Courts must follow the guidelines'. As long as those guidelines make sure the punishment fits the crime.

Guidelines are that, a guide for judges to impose a sentence.

All this is to keep the prison population down, and the government are trying to spin it.

'Punishment should fit the crime'

Another Nail in the Coffin for Justice

A few days ago i wrote this blog about the seven muslim protesters disrupting a home coming parade by the Royal Anglian Regiment, and how they refused to stand up in court to show respect to the judge and the court.

Now the seven muslim men were found guilty.

Their punishment, a £500 fine. Which they admit we, the tax payer, will have to pay because all of them are on benefits.

You can read newspaper articles here, here and here

Here is an article of the damage they have caused to the community.

Judge Carolyn Mellanby has basically given the far right parties more ammunition and more followers to their cause.

It's not just this case, but many other criminal cases where people are found guilty of a crime and the sentence is just a joke.

Justice in this country is becoming a joke, if it isn't already.

Why weren't they charged with Contempt of Court?

If you are in a court of law and the judge walks in everyone must stand up to show respect to the court and the court officials.

If you don't you can be charged with contempt of court.

This article in the Telegraph has me wondering, how far will the judge give leeway to the accused.

Here is a quote from the article;

The accused are seven muslim men who are accused of disrupting the homecoming parade of the 2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment last March. As the soldiers paraded through the town, the men were allegedly heard to shout: “British soldiers go to hell” and “They are killing babies”. They were also allegedly seen to display placards with slogans such as “Butchers of Basra” and “Cowards, Killers, Extremists”, and so face charges under the Public Order Act.

These men live in this country and they should abide by the laws of this country. They were arrested for breaking the laws of this country and are now on trial.

Here is the quote from the article that makes you wonder what will happen in this trial;

When the case opened, the accused refused to stand for Miss Mellanby. Their religion, they argued, forbids them to stand for anybody except Allah, and they were therefore unable to show their respect for the court’s officers in the customary manner.

What do you think the judge did next;

Did she charge them with contempt of court, or change hundreds of years of common law.

What she did was arrange it so the accused men would enter the court after the judge.

Now i ask you, WHY?

The last paragraph of the article says;

It’s up to District Judge Mellanby to decide whether these men are guilty of “threatening abusive or insulting behaviour”, and we, of course, expect that she will do so in a fair and proper manner. But we should keep an eye on the case, to see if she brings in any other radical legal innovations, overturning centuries of common law, in the process.

This case does make me uneasy. If she gives in on them not standing when she enters the court what else will she do?