Ched Evans

[hans kraay fan club]

I was wondering whether Usain Bolt would be worth a look? He's expressed an interest in football, and looks like he has a decent touch in his adverts. Oh and he's quick.

I've had a kick about with him* and he's really not that good.


*true story

 

[BensGrandad]

Yes I know. I'm not calling you the devil or anything here. You were making the suggestion about him training with us before any appeal is heard. I'm just saying you weren't thinking, you were being silly, as you should know that our club could not do that. No decent club could.

You are probably correct I was assuming that if an appeal was granted it would only be so if they considered it highly likely that the conviction was dangerous and would be overturned but perhaps they do not look at it so logically and base their decisions more on possibility than probability of a miscarriage of justice. So perhaps best to just forget the idea.

 

[Acker79]

To me all crimes that are punished in the same manner are equal. I can never understand the people who say that the death penalty should be be brought back for the murder of certain groups of people. To my way of thinking all murders are equal, a life was taken. We as people are saying that although both crimes, the judge may have decreed warranted a 5 year sentence or whatever, we are saying that a particular crime is worse than another with the same sentence that is where we are setting the moral highground. Not just in this particular case but in general.

This is going off in a tangent...

But that is a contradiction. Not all murders are "punished in the same manner". Yet you deign to make your own judgement on murder regardless. Treating the guy who dies after a single self-defence punch the same way as someone who viciously tortures and kills someone simply because in both situations a life was taken.

Just to make this perfectly clear I was making the suggestion about training with us being subject to the CCRC granting him an appeal which if granted I would expect to be heard very quickly.

But you're also suggesting we make the offer now, while he is still a convicted rapist, and taking it away if that doesn't change, rather than waiting for him to have his conviction overturned and then offering him a job with us.

Offering him a contract while he is still a convicted rapist, hoping that his appeal is successful and it'll turn out all right is what Oldham did. Sponsors pulled out, others threatened to do so should the contract be signed. It won't matter that we're closer to the results of the CCRC review. There would still likely need to be an appeal.

Letting him just train with us to stay fit is what Sheffield United did. Patrons resigned, fans threatened boycotts if he was signed, petitions sprung up, politicians had their two penneth, and Sheffield got nothing positive out of it.

I disagree with the idea 'at least'. If he was to have an appeal, and was successful, then he'd be a man innocent of any crime, and if he's not then given the chance to play I think that would be a terrible injustice.

But what if the appeal leads to a re-trial? I get that he would, for that period, be an innocent man in the eyes of the law, but in the eyes of society he would be a man whose rape conviction was overturned (possibly on a technicality, rather than due to evidence - the article I linked earlier this evening mentions the possibility he wasn't properly cautioned before the police took his statement) and is now being re-tried. Isn't that likely to make the situation still a little bit toxic, and thus 'at least' would be a reasonable qualifier?

 

[BensGrandad]

This is going off in a tangent...

But that is a contradiction. Not all murders are "punished in the same manner". Yet you deign to make your own judgement on murder regardless. Treating the guy who dies after a single self-defence punch the same way as someone who viciously tortures and kills someone simply because in both situations a life was taken.
?

All murders are the same and receive the same punishment, the only one a judge can give Life Imprisonment. Other killings can be classified differently ie manslaughter unlawful killing etc. Murder is murder and a life sentence.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

All murders are the same and receive the same punishment, the only one a judge can give Life Imprisonment. Other killings can be classified differently ie manslaughter unlawful killing etc. Murder is murder and a life sentence.

A life sentence does not always mean life in jail. But sometimes it does. The judge recommends how many years the murderer should spend inside.

So, obviously, murders are not always given the same punishment.

*sigh*

 

[drew]

All murders are the same and receive the same punishment, the only one a judge can give Life Imprisonment. Other killings can be classified differently ie manslaughter unlawful killing etc. Murder is murder and a life sentence.

Life isn't life though. Judges can set minimum terms before parole, effectively setting different sentences. The outcome of murder is the same but the cause can vary considerably.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_-_mandatory_life_sentences_in_murder_cases/

 

[clapham_gull]

All murders are the same and receive the same punishment...

They don't because you are ignoring both the minimum term and the whole life order which both apply to the Life Sentence. I struggle with the phrase "rape equals rape" as well as I would with the phrase "murder equals murder", because quite obviously they don't in terms of sentencing. That's simply the reality and has been for many many years. Judges quite rightly have the authority to judge individual crimes as being far worse than another that in the same in name only.

That being if you are guilty of either you rightly get a very long stretch. However some others also quite rightly never get out.

 

[The Rivet]

All murders are the same and receive the same punishment, the only one a judge can give Life Imprisonment. Other killings can be classified differently ie manslaughter unlawful killing etc. Murder is murder and a life sentence.

Sorry but for me you are very wrong. Not all murders are the same and they certainly do not receive consistent sentances. Agreed the maximum tariff is whole life, or life with recommended term. However the judge is advised by guidelines but not bound by them.

 

[BensGrandad]

The punishment is the same Life Imprisonment. The suggestions made by the judge as to the length of life is one that the Home Secretary can accept or reject. Hasnt the EU said that such recommendations are illegal and we have been brought to task over them.

 

[Acker79]

All murders are the same and receive the same punishment, the only one a judge can give Life Imprisonment. Other killings can be classified differently ie manslaughter unlawful killing etc. Murder is murder and a life sentence.

But they are not all given life imprisonment.

Minimum terms have to be given, unless the seriousness of the offence is considered exceptionally high. So right off the bat there are different standards of punishment.

Then the minimum term is decided using one of four starting points for convicts who are 21 or older, three for 18-20 year olds, and one for youths. Then judges have to take into consideration all sorts of things, including the weapon used, motivation, number of victims, previous convictions, the victim (i.e. if they are a police officer) etc. So a whole range of tariffs, depending on the circumstances of the murder and the murderer.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_-_mandatory_life_sentences_in_murder_cases/

The law does not punish all murders the same.

 

[drew]

The punishment is the same Life Imprisonment. The suggestions made by the judge as to the length of life is one that the Home Secretary can accept or reject. Hasnt the EU said that such recommendations are illegal and we have been brought to task over them.

Suggest you read the link that in my post before you post again.

 

[Acker79]

The suggestions made by the judge as to the length of life is one that the Home Secretary can accept or reject.

No it's not. Because of Anthony Anderson, the home secretary has been stripped of that power as there were too many political consequences, and in 2003, the criminal justice act came in and granted judges that power in accordance with a set of guidelines, while the judge can ignore the guidelines, he has to give a reason.

 

[The Rivet]

The punishment is the same Life Imprisonment. The suggestions made by the judge as to the length of life is one that the Home Secretary can accept or reject. Hasnt the EU said that such recommendations are illegal and we have been brought to task over them.

The home secretary can obviously have influence and probably a lot of powers to enforce that view. However, when home secretaries have the final say on justice instead of trail judges this country is doomed.

 

[BensGrandad]

Extract from the Guidance of Law as highlighted by Drew.in post no 2473 and is contained in the opening paragraphs

The Legal Guidance does not create any rights enforceable at law, in any legal proceedings.

This would indicate that this is a guide to judges not obligatory and the 1 sentence that is remains as Life Imprisonment.

 

[clapham_gull]

The punishment is the same Life Imprisonment. The suggestions made by the judge as to the length of life is one that the Home Secretary can accept or reject. Hasnt the EU said that such recommendations are illegal and we have been brought to task over them.

The judiciary needs to be independent else don't bother to defend it.

The EU were quite correct and sorted our system out. I've forgotten the finer details but they had a problem with a non independent individual i.e. the Home Secretary getting involved in something that they should have had nothing to do with them. Good. If you want to vote your Judges and Jury in every five years but that's anothe debate. They can stilll release people early which seems a bit odd to me still.

The result ? Our judges being given the ability to detain people indefinately. Rather than the ridiculous press coverage at the time the resulting review actually resulted in an utter cast iron confirmation that a few prisoners were never getting out.

Yep. The EU "interference" lead to cast iron life equals life.

There were a few oddities - Peter Sutcliffe I recall took a while to be sorted. He was issued it only recently. That was because of some technicality where he was never issued a tariff originally or something by neither the Judge or the Home Secretar

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/feb/03/european-human-rights-whole-life-tariff-hutchinson

 

[BensGrandad]

A complete but common misintepretation.The judiciary needs to be independent else don't bother to defend it.

The EU were quite correct and sorted our system out. I've forgotten the finer detals but they had a problem with a non independent individual i.e. the Home Secretaty getting involved in something that should have nothing to do with them. Only they had the ability to issue a whole life tariff.

The result ? Our judges being given the ability to detain people indefinately. Rather than swallowing the press coverage at the time - the review actually resulted in an utter confirmation that a few prisoners were never getting out.

There were a few oddities - Peter Sutcliffe I recall took a while to be sorted. He was issued it only recently. That was because of some technicality where he was never issued a tariff originally or something. I remember some of the press incorrectly reporting that at the time and making the same incorrect assumption you have made above.

Thanks for clearing that up. So what about the highlighted piece in my post above yours? How do you interpret that?

 

[Acker79]

Extract from the Guidance of Law as highlighted by Drew.in post no 2473 and is contained in the opening paragraphs

The Legal Guidance does not create any rights enforceable at law, in any legal proceedings.

This would indicate that this is a guide to judges not obligatory and the 1 sentence that is remains as Life Imprisonment.

No it doesn't.

I've just re-read down to the tenth chapter and have yet to see that line.

I have seen:

All offenders convicted of murder need to have a minimum term set. This is the minimum time that the offender will serve before being eligible for parole. - the first line

The provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 now apply to all cases where the date of offence is on or after 18 December 2003. - the fourth paragraph

In accordance with section 269 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 all courts passing a mandatory life sentence are required to order the minimum term the prisoner must serve before the Parole Board can consider release on licence, unless the seriousness of the offence is so exceptionally high that the early release provisions should not apply in other words, a 'whole life order'. - paragraph 9

There's also chapter 7 - It is the prosecuting advocate's duty to point out errors of law, such as, in these circumstances, if the court were to fail to give its reasons for departing from the starting point. The prosecuting advocate will need to be alive to the possibility that the minimum term may be unduly lenient, and be in a position to provide urgent advice. which shows that the guidance is not law, it is guidance, and the judge can, if he gives reasons, ignore the guidance. Which I believe is what is probably meant by the bit you have highlighted.

 

[BensGrandad]

Acker 79

It is the 5th parapraph about 17th line in The Purpose of Legal Guidance. I would be interested in your interpretation.

 

[Acker79]

Acker 79

It is the 5th parapraph about 17th line in The Purpose of Legal Guidance. I would be interested in your interpretation.

So, on another page not the one that is actually relevant?

I have given my interpretation - It is legal guidance meaning it is a suggestion for the judges to follow, not absolute, as is made clear on the actual page about murder sentencing page - judges do not have to follow the guidance, but if they stray from it, they have to give a reason.

I would also, now I know you are referring to another page that is a general overview of the site, suggest if it is not the above, then it is a general disclaimer that the website can't be used as a legal document in court proceedings, it is more a reference piece. Which is pretty sensible.

Either way, I can't see how you can possibly interpret it as that because this guidance is not legally binding it means the only sentence is life imprisonment. It quite clearly isn't, as evidenced by everything else in the actual article.

 

[Triggaaar]

But what if the appeal leads to a re-trial?

Yes, I've misinterpreted dazzer's comments and taken them to mean Ched having a successful legal challenge, where the legal process is over, rather than one where he still faces trial.