We have always had a 2-tier justice system. Just not in the way some elements of the Tory Party would have you believe.
90% of the prison population come from the poorest 10% of the population. Always have, always will. There can only be 2 reasons for that. Either people are poor because they are bad. Or bad because they are poor.
At this point, people always trot out the line about "they had a poor upbringing, and they were fine". Now I am not knocking those people. But that is not the key point here.
If you take someone from the poorest start, the sort of sink estate where no-one wants to live, where employers will reject applicants even for an interview because of their address, you stand a high chance of going to prison. Various studies, with varying results, but let's run with a 10-20% chance. As opposed to the 0.1% chance of the wealthier kids. Much, much easier fitting in to the 99.9% than the 80-90%.
Then you get the categorisation of different crimes. So-for example-you get nice categories like "white collar crime". It is crime-don't award it a fluffy label. Someone who thieves £millions from pensioners gets many years' less inside than 4 men with 1 gun that they never used/was not even loaded who robbed a garage of £200.
Then you get the advantages of privilege. A White, middle class offender goes before a White, middle class Judge. He has a written job offer from a family friend in order to try and get a non-custodial sentence. And it works. Someone from an Afro-Caribbean background is considerably more likely to go to prison than someone who is White (or various other groups). That is more likely for the identical offence
Judges need to be able to take lots of things into account in relation to sentencing. As a simple example, a supportive, well-connected family will help. And it should. But it is not a 1-way street
Been many years since I regularly dealt with Criminal Law. Because I fondly remember a time when things worked better than they do now.
Back in the "old days" (pre-2010) it was standard for any Judge/Magistrate when considering imprisoning somebody to order what may be turned a "pre-sentencing report". Where Probation/Social Services considered the family circumstances, effects etc, and made recommendations for Judges to take into account. That is why you often see a newspaper headline "adjourned for sentencing". There was usually a 3-week window to check on various stuff.
In news that will shock absolutely no-one, this went from standard to very rare. Why? Because of the enormous budget cuts in Probation/Social Services.
In news that should also shock absolutely no-one, it has been acknowledged that this has led to many "minority" groups being adversely affected. The biggest of which has been pregnant women. Who are now massively more likely to be imprisoned as the elderly White Judge is not made aware of the massive impact of giving a 6 month prison sentence to an 8-month pregnant woman. By which I do not mean just the Criminal. I mean the unborn child and the massive impact on the Care/Fostering costs.
So-who has introduced this new scheme? The Conservative Party. In 2021.
We have always had a 2-tier justice system. Just not in the way some elements of the Tory Party would have you believe.
90% of the prison population come from the poorest 10% of the population. Always have, always will. There can only be 2 reasons for that. Either people are poor because they are bad. Or bad because they are poor.
At this point, people always trot out the line about "they had a poor upbringing, and they were fine". Now I am not knocking those people. But that is not the key point here.
If you take someone from the poorest start, the sort of sink estate where no-one wants to live, where employers will reject applicants even for an interview because of their address, you stand a high chance of going to prison. Various studies, with varying results, but let's run with a 10-20% chance. As opposed to the 0.1% chance of the wealthier kids. Much, much easier fitting in to the 99.9% than the 80-90%.
Then you get the categorisation of different crimes. So-for example-you get nice categories like "white collar crime". It is crime-don't award it a fluffy label. Someone who thieves £millions from pensioners gets many years' less inside than 4 men with 1 gun that they never used/was not even loaded who robbed a garage of £200.
Then you get the advantages of privilege. A White, middle class offender goes before a White, middle class Judge. He has a written job offer from a family friend in order to try and get a non-custodial sentence. And it works. Someone from an Afro-Caribbean background is considerably more likely to go to prison than someone who is White (or various other groups). That is more likely for the identical offence
Judges need to be able to take lots of things into account in relation to sentencing. As a simple example, a supportive, well-connected family will help. And it should. But it is not a 1-way street
So would the general public think it fairer if judges disregarded any mitigation.
We have always had a 2-tier justice system. Just not in the way some elements of the Tory Party would have you believe.
90% of the prison population come from the poorest 10% of the population. Always have, always will. There can only be 2 reasons for that. Either people are poor because they are bad. Or bad because they are poor.
At this point, people always trot out the line about "they had a poor upbringing, and they were fine". Now I am not knocking those people. But that is not the key point here.
If you take someone from the poorest start, the sort of sink estate where no-one wants to live, where employers will reject applicants even for an interview because of their address, you stand a high chance of going to prison. Various studies, with varying results, but let's run with a 10-20% chance. As opposed to the 0.1% chance of the wealthier kids. Much, much easier fitting in to the 99.9% than the 80-90%.
Then you get the categorisation of different crimes. So-for example-you get nice categories like "white collar crime". It is crime-don't award it a fluffy label. Someone who thieves £millions from pensioners gets many years' less inside than 4 men with 1 gun that they never used/was not even loaded who robbed a garage of £200.
Then you get the advantages of privilege. A White, middle class offender goes before a White, middle class Judge. He has a written job offer from a family friend in order to try and get a non-custodial sentence. And it works. Someone from an Afro-Caribbean background is considerably more likely to go to prison than someone who is White (or various other groups). That is more likely for the identical offence
Judges need to be able to take lots of things into account in relation to sentencing. As a simple example, a supportive, well-connected family will help. And it should. But it is not a 1-way street
So would the general public think it fairer if judges disregarded any mitigation.
The "general public" tend to be (mostly unwittingly) incredibly two-faced about this. The typical answer is "yes". But, of course, people are quite happy at the same time to support the continuance of existing biases.
Someone who could afford to pay me (or any other competent Lawyer) money was rather less likely to go to prison than someone who could not afford it.
And mitigation is a vital part of the system. Let's start with the most common "mitigation". And the self-same people who will say they object to mitigation will support this one.
We have a legal system where there is a considerable discount on sentence for an early Guilty plea. Which saves the Taxpayer millions of pounds in Lawyer and Court fees. Save untold stress for the victims of crime (a victim of rape doesn't want to wait for 3 years to learn how bad the cross-examination will be).
It goes back to a marvellous post from, I think, @kapowblamz a little while ago. Everyone wants to vote against things. Provided someone else pays. And they don't think it will adversely affect them.
We have always had a 2-tier justice system. Just not in the way some elements of the Tory Party would have you believe.
90% of the prison population come from the poorest 10% of the population. Always have, always will. There can only be 2 reasons for that. Either people are poor because they are bad. Or bad because they are poor.
At this point, people always trot out the line about "they had a poor upbringing, and they were fine". Now I am not knocking those people. But that is not the key point here.
If you take someone from the poorest start, the sort of sink estate where no-one wants to live, where employers will reject applicants even for an interview because of their address, you stand a high chance of going to prison. Various studies, with varying results, but let's run with a 10-20% chance. As opposed to the 0.1% chance of the wealthier kids. Much, much easier fitting in to the 99.9% than the 80-90%.
Then you get the categorisation of different crimes. So-for example-you get nice categories like "white collar crime". It is crime-don't award it a fluffy label. Someone who thieves £millions from pensioners gets many years' less inside than 4 men with 1 gun that they never used/was not even loaded who robbed a garage of £200.
Then you get the advantages of privilege. A White, middle class offender goes before a White, middle class Judge. He has a written job offer from a family friend in order to try and get a non-custodial sentence. And it works. Someone from an Afro-Caribbean background is considerably more likely to go to prison than someone who is White (or various other groups). That is more likely for the identical offence
Judges need to be able to take lots of things into account in relation to sentencing. As a simple example, a supportive, well-connected family will help. And it should. But it is not a 1-way street
We have always had a 2-tier justice system. Just not in the way some elements of the Tory Party would have you believe.
90% of the prison population come from the poorest 10% of the population. Always have, always will. There can only be 2 reasons for that. Either people are poor because they are bad. Or bad because they are poor.
At this point, people always trot out the line about "they had a poor upbringing, and they were fine". Now I am not knocking those people. But that is not the key point here.
If you take someone from the poorest start, the sort of sink estate where no-one wants to live, where employers will reject applicants even for an interview because of their address, you stand a high chance of going to prison. Various studies, with varying results, but let's run with a 10-20% chance. As opposed to the 0.1% chance of the wealthier kids. Much, much easier fitting in to the 99.9% than the 80-90%.
Then you get the categorisation of different crimes. So-for example-you get nice categories like "white collar crime". It is crime-don't award it a fluffy label. Someone who thieves £millions from pensioners gets many years' less inside than 4 men with 1 gun that they never used/was not even loaded who robbed a garage of £200.
Then you get the advantages of privilege. A White, middle class offender goes before a White, middle class Judge. He has a written job offer from a family friend in order to try and get a non-custodial sentence. And it works. Someone from an Afro-Caribbean background is considerably more likely to go to prison than someone who is White (or various other groups). That is more likely for the identical offence
Judges need to be able to take lots of things into account in relation to sentencing. As a simple example, a supportive, well-connected family will help. And it should. But it is not a 1-way street
Been many years since I regularly dealt with Criminal Law. Because I fondly remember a time when things worked better than they do now.
Back in the "old days" (pre-2010) it was standard for any Judge/Magistrate when considering imprisoning somebody to order what may be turned a "pre-sentencing report". Where Probation/Social Services considered the family circumstances, effects etc, and made recommendations for Judges to take into account. That is why you often see a newspaper headline "adjourned for sentencing". There was usually a 3-week window to check on various stuff.
In news that will shock absolutely no-one, this went from standard to very rare. Why? Because of the enormous budget cuts in Probation/Social Services.
In news that should also shock absolutely no-one, it has been acknowledged that this has led to many "minority" groups being adversely affected. The biggest of which has been pregnant women. Who are now massively more likely to be imprisoned as the elderly White Judge is not made aware of the massive impact of giving a 6 month prison sentence to an 8-month pregnant woman. By which I do not mean just the Criminal. I mean the unborn child and the massive impact on the Care/Fostering costs.
So-who has introduced this new scheme? The Conservative Party. In 2021.
Pensioner, 93, with dementia convicted in fast-track SJP courts for not having car insurance
There are always 2 sides to every story. Except in the Press-which increasingly only tells 1 side. As an example, every Friday I have a quick peek online to check where the Express says Reform/Tories "triumphed" over Labour on the previous night's Question Time. Which happens. Every single week.
So. Let's tell the other side of this particular story. Simply because it chooses to omit the other side of this particular story.
1. The SJP is not compulsory. It is a choice. The Defendant has a choice. She can either accept the SJP, plead Guilty, and get a lower penalty and Court Costs. Or she can plead either Guilty or Not Guilty and actually choose to go to Court. She chose the former
2. It's a lovely story. But it fails to mention some facts on the other side. As an example, she ceased being Insured in November 2023. And went into a Care Home in November 2024. Don't know when she had her Stroke-but that was not mentioned in her plea. And is clearly later than November 2023. And a diagnosis of dementia does not of itself mean that you can no longer drive
3. When you cancel car insurance, you get a refund-and are given clear warning about the duties of getting a SORN or selling the vehicle. You get warnings about the vehicle. And people who are incapable of dealing with SORNs tend to be the self-same people who forget they can no longer drive a car. Because people with dementia forget that, as well. And sometimes kill themselves or others. SORNs exist for a reason.
4. She got a Conditional Discharge. She could have pleaded Not Guilty. Taken her chance. Tried to establish that she lacked sufficient capacity for the entire period. That no-one else had Power of Attorney. That no-one else had the Power to resolve this. The problem with the traditional method is that it has traditional costs. Putting a 93-year-old with Dementia through cross-examination at the Magistrates. Taking the chance that it could be established that there was no wrongdoing of her or her relatives. And running up £hundreds in Court Costs.
There are always 2 sides to every story. Except in the Press-which increasingly only tells 1 side. As an example, every Friday I have a quick peek online to check where the Express says Reform/Tories "triumphed" over Labour on the previous night's Question Time. Which happens. Every single week.
So. Let's tell the other side of this particular story. Simply because it chooses to omit the other side of this particular story.
1. The SJP is not compulsory. It is a choice. The Defendant has a choice. She can either accept the SJP, plead Guilty, and get a lower penalty and Court Costs. Or she can plead either Guilty or Not Guilty and actually choose to go to Court. She chose the former
2. It's a lovely story. But it fails to mention some facts on the other side. As an example, she ceased being Insured in November 2023. And went into a Care Home in November 2024. Don't know when she had her Stroke-but that was not mentioned in her plea. And is clearly later than November 2023. And a diagnosis of dementia does not of itself mean that you can no longer drive
3. When you cancel car insurance, you get a refund-and are given clear warning about the duties of getting a SORN or selling the vehicle. You get warnings about the vehicle. And people who are incapable of dealing with SORNs tend to be the self-same people who forget they can no longer drive a car. Because people with dementia forget that, as well. And sometimes kill themselves or others. SORNs exist for a reason.
4. She got a Conditional Discharge. She could have pleaded Not Guilty. Taken her chance. Tried to establish that she lacked sufficient capacity for the entire period. That no-one else had Power of Attorney. That no-one else had the Power to resolve this. The problem with the traditional method is that it has traditional costs. Putting a 93-year-old with Dementia through cross-examination at the Magistrates. Taking the chance that it could be established that there was no wrongdoing of her or her relatives. And running up £hundreds in Court Costs.
Unlike journalists, I am prepared to let the facts get in the way of a good story
We could, of course, abandon the SJP and go back to the old Rules. 2 things to bear in mind:-
1. Courts are now required to run at a Profit. As a result, "victim surcharges" + Lawyers' fees (of both sides) are going to cost people an absolute fortune
2. Even with SJP, and a whole raft of other corner-cutting schemes, the Courts are hopelessly overwhelmed. Cases are routinely taking months to get to Court, and some of the most serious are taking years. It's all very well the Press campaigning for stuff. As long as we don't mind more innocent people locked up for years awaiting Trial, and more Criminals outside on Bail because their case hasn't been heard...
Comments
90% of the prison population come from the poorest 10% of the population. Always have, always will. There can only be 2 reasons for that. Either people are poor because they are bad. Or bad because they are poor.
At this point, people always trot out the line about "they had a poor upbringing, and they were fine". Now I am not knocking those people. But that is not the key point here.
If you take someone from the poorest start, the sort of sink estate where no-one wants to live, where employers will reject applicants even for an interview because of their address, you stand a high chance of going to prison. Various studies, with varying results, but let's run with a 10-20% chance. As opposed to the 0.1% chance of the wealthier kids. Much, much easier fitting in to the 99.9% than the 80-90%.
Then you get the categorisation of different crimes. So-for example-you get nice categories like "white collar crime". It is crime-don't award it a fluffy label. Someone who thieves £millions from pensioners gets many years' less inside than 4 men with 1 gun that they never used/was not even loaded who robbed a garage of £200.
Then you get the advantages of privilege. A White, middle class offender goes before a White, middle class Judge. He has a written job offer from a family friend in order to try and get a non-custodial sentence. And it works. Someone from an Afro-Caribbean background is considerably more likely to go to prison than someone who is White (or various other groups). That is more likely for the identical offence
Judges need to be able to take lots of things into account in relation to sentencing. As a simple example, a supportive, well-connected family will help. And it should. But it is not a 1-way street
Back in the "old days" (pre-2010) it was standard for any Judge/Magistrate when considering imprisoning somebody to order what may be turned a "pre-sentencing report". Where Probation/Social Services considered the family circumstances, effects etc, and made recommendations for Judges to take into account. That is why you often see a newspaper headline "adjourned for sentencing". There was usually a 3-week window to check on various stuff.
In news that will shock absolutely no-one, this went from standard to very rare. Why? Because of the enormous budget cuts in Probation/Social Services.
In news that should also shock absolutely no-one, it has been acknowledged that this has led to many "minority" groups being adversely affected. The biggest of which has been pregnant women. Who are now massively more likely to be imprisoned as the elderly White Judge is not made aware of the massive impact of giving a 6 month prison sentence to an 8-month pregnant woman. By which I do not mean just the Criminal. I mean the unborn child and the massive impact on the Care/Fostering costs.
So-who has introduced this new scheme? The Conservative Party. In 2021.
Someone who could afford to pay me (or any other competent Lawyer) money was rather less likely to go to prison than someone who could not afford it.
And mitigation is a vital part of the system. Let's start with the most common "mitigation". And the self-same people who will say they object to mitigation will support this one.
We have a legal system where there is a considerable discount on sentence for an early Guilty plea. Which saves the Taxpayer millions of pounds in Lawyer and Court fees. Save untold stress for the victims of crime (a victim of rape doesn't want to wait for 3 years to learn how bad the cross-examination will be).
It goes back to a marvellous post from, I think, @kapowblamz a little while ago. Everyone wants to vote against things. Provided someone else pays. And they don't think it will adversely affect them.
And life just does not work like that.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/pensioner-93-dementia-convicted-fast-170026094.html
So. Let's tell the other side of this particular story. Simply because it chooses to omit the other side of this particular story.
1. The SJP is not compulsory. It is a choice. The Defendant has a choice. She can either accept the SJP, plead Guilty, and get a lower penalty and Court Costs. Or she can plead either Guilty or Not Guilty and actually choose to go to Court. She chose the former
2. It's a lovely story. But it fails to mention some facts on the other side. As an example, she ceased being Insured in November 2023. And went into a Care Home in November 2024. Don't know when she had her Stroke-but that was not mentioned in her plea. And is clearly later than November 2023. And a diagnosis of dementia does not of itself mean that you can no longer drive
3. When you cancel car insurance, you get a refund-and are given clear warning about the duties of getting a SORN or selling the vehicle. You get warnings about the vehicle. And people who are incapable of dealing with SORNs tend to be the self-same people who forget they can no longer drive a car. Because people with dementia forget that, as well. And sometimes kill themselves or others. SORNs exist for a reason.
4. She got a Conditional Discharge. She could have pleaded Not Guilty. Taken her chance. Tried to establish that she lacked sufficient capacity for the entire period. That no-one else had Power of Attorney. That no-one else had the Power to resolve this. The problem with the traditional method is that it has traditional costs. Putting a 93-year-old with Dementia through cross-examination at the Magistrates. Taking the chance that it could be established that there was no wrongdoing of her or her relatives. And running up £hundreds in Court Costs.
We could, of course, abandon the SJP and go back to the old Rules. 2 things to bear in mind:-
1. Courts are now required to run at a Profit. As a result, "victim surcharges" + Lawyers' fees (of both sides) are going to cost people an absolute fortune
2. Even with SJP, and a whole raft of other corner-cutting schemes, the Courts are hopelessly overwhelmed. Cases are routinely taking months to get to Court, and some of the most serious are taking years. It's all very well the Press campaigning for stuff. As long as we don't mind more innocent people locked up for years awaiting Trial, and more Criminals outside on Bail because their case hasn't been heard...