Justice ?

[leowyatt]

Originally Posted by starscream

Are there any circumstances in which peoples sentences should be either reduced or increased?

it depends entirely on the specific situation. For his case I don't see what possible reason he has validly try and reduce his.

[TinkerBell]

Originally Posted by starscream

Are there any circumstances in which peoples sentences should be either reduced or increased?

If there is proof that the judgement was wrong, and therefore the person sentenced was wrongly sentenced in some way. But on the whole sentences should be kept as they are.

[Chuckles]

Originally Posted by TinkerBell

If there is proof that the judgement was wrong, and therefore the person sentenced was wrongly sentenced in some way.

But that's exactly what has happened. An appeal court (which is higher than the one that made the original judgement) has decided that the judgement was wrong.

[TinkerBell]

That isn't how I see it though, by proof I mean some evidence showing that he didn't do the thing he was sentenced for, which in this case he did so shouldn't have a change in his sentence.

[Rich_L]

Originally Posted by TinkerBell

If there is proof that the judgement was wrong, and therefore the person sentenced was wrongly sentenced in some way. But on the whole sentences should be kept as they are.

And as a whole, they are.

Stats from CoA (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/coareview2006-7.pdf)

For example, in 2006/07, there were 5,176 applications to appeal the sentence, 2,131 of which progressed to a hearing, of which 72% (1,534) succeeded, so approximately 30% of applications result in a successful appeal.

Then if you look at sentencing trends (http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/sentencing-stats2006.pdf)

In 2006, the total number of people sentenced was 1,420,600, of which custodial sentences formed 96,000.

Assuming that custodial sentences are the only ones appealed, approx 5% of custodial sentences are appealed, of which 1.5% are successful.

Interesting statistics really, I wonder what the public perception of the percentage of successful criminal appeals would be

[Chuckles]

Originally Posted by TinkerBell

That isn't how I see it though, by proof I mean some evidence showing that he didn't do the thing he was sentenced for, which in this case he did so shouldn't have a change in his sentence.

If there was evidence that he didn't do the think is was sentenced for, you would appeal against the conviction and if successful, the CPS would have to go for a new one if they felt there was enough evidence still. It wouldn't be the case that the sentence would simply be reduced.

Personally I don't see the justice in giving the original judge of a trial the be all and end all say in the punishment of an offender when often more senior judges may have a better interpretation of the law.

[iCraig]

Impossible to say either way without analysing the specifics of the appeal and *why* it's been reduced. Over zelous sentencing from the judge? New evidence come to light? Contracdictory to precidents set in the past? etc etc

[Von Smallhausen]

I do not bay from blood as a generalisation.

O/t a bit but I was involved in a job where a man was wanted for a serious assault, and I mean serious and he was found with serious injuries and my first thought was ..... save life.

I went to work patching him up and in all honesty I would do the same for David Bieber if I found him but that does not change my opinion of who he is and what he has done.

Anyone who has seen and heard the tape inside Ian Broadhurst's car ( not many ) might understand a little better as to how cold a bastard David Bieber was, is and will always be.