Six years? Dont even get that if you kill someone these days.
Agree with you there bro'. The scummy w**kers who killed those 2 young boys in Coventry last week will probably get less than 10 years as will the driver who is currently on trail for killing the schoolboys in Southall.
"The Court of Appeal in R v Cooksley and others[6] gave guidelines for cases where death is caused by dangerous driving. In R v Richardson[7] the Court of Appeal reassessed the starting point set out in R v Cooksley taking into consideration the increase in the maximum penalty. The relevant starting points identified in Cooksley should be reassessed as follows:
i) No aggravating circumstances – twelve months to two years' imprisonment (previously 18 months); ii) Intermediate culpability - two to four and a half years' imprisonment (previously 3 years); iii) Higher culpability – four and a half to seven years' imprisonment (previously 5 years); iv) Most serious culpability – seven to fourteen years' imprisonment (previous starting point of 6 years)."
Well, indeed. The usual uncorroborated rubbish on crime and punishment. Where do people get this stuff? The Daily Mail, I suspect.
If we look at actual, you know, data, these will show that immediate custodial sentences are handed down in less than 20% of fraud cases and where there is a custodial sentence it averages about 14 months. That demonstrates just how seriously the court took the long-standing, deliberate fraudulent activity of this bunch of criminals. In addition at huge cost to the taxpayer Aizlewood chose to opt for a not guilty plea and a lengthy, complex trial. Quite rightly, the Judge would have sought retribution for that.
Meanwhile, defendants found guilty of ‘death by dangerous driving’ and ‘causing death by careless driving under influence of drink or drugs’ invariably receive immediate custody, with custody rates of 93% and 95% respectively. (Sometimes an accident is actually just an accident, not premeditated behaviour.)
Now, over to actual homicide. The MINIMUM sentence for an adult defendant will be 15 years. It can be as much as 30 or even banged up for life for the most horrendous cases. In any event, the average time spent in prison by a murderer is 16 years.
Incidentally, some interesting stats about homicide in the UK. Nearly double the number of murder victims are men rather than women. The largest percentage of murdered men (35%) are killed by their friends. Whereas 44% of women murder victims are killed by their partners. In addition, around 85% of female murder victims are killed in the home. It seems it is safer on the streets.
Multiple child abuse when in a position of trust 5.5 years but only after an appeal to increase the sentence. Original sentence 4 years (will serve 2.75 years).
As I asserted above money and property are valued more than people. The recent sentences I have quoted would seem to lend credence to this opinion.
No, Len, they really, really aren't. That's why the maximum sentence for fraud is ten years, whereas for murder, it's a minimum 15 years. Of course, cases and judges all differ from one another and there are outliers. These tend to make the press for the obvious reason that the media likes to boil people's piss.
In any event, in both the examples you quote the defendants would have benefited from up to a one third reduction in sentence by virtue of their guilty pleas. A guilty plea is much appreciated because it (a) normally reduces the impact of the crime upon victims; (b) saves victims and witnesses from having to testify; and (c) is in the public interest in that it saves public time and money on investigations and trials.
Setting aside the age (and health?) of the defendant (75) which might well have had an impact on sentencing, one of the difficulties with sentencing Webb is that he had already served an 18-month sentence for offences against one of his victims. The effect of the Appeal Court judgement is that the Court decided that he should serve the equivalent to a 7-year sentence for the totality of his offending. Of course, the newspaper conveniently "forgot" to tell you that.
Multiple child abuse when in a position of trust 5.5 years but only after an appeal to increase the sentence. Original sentence 4 years (will serve 2.75 years).
As I asserted above money and property are valued more than people. The recent sentences I have quoted would seem to lend credence to this opinion.
What are you suggesting though, Len? That any offence against the person should have a longer sentence than someone who embezzles millions in a very calculated way?
I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with all the above sentences - i don't know the ins and outs of each case and the child-abuser will, I hope, face plenty of other sanctions & restrictions once released. But Aizlewood and co. have committed many, many, offences - OK each one similar to the others, but this was not a one-off. Plenty would say white-collar criminals are treated too leniently by the system...
Multiple child abuse when in a position of trust 5.5 years but only after an appeal to increase the sentence. Original sentence 4 years (will serve 2.75 years).
As I asserted above money and property are valued more than people. The recent sentences I have quoted would seem to lend credence to this opinion.
What are you suggesting though, Len? That any offence against the person should have a longer sentence than someone who embezzles millions in a very calculated way?
I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with all the above sentences - i don't know the ins and outs of each case and the child-abuser will, I hope, face plenty of other sanctions & restrictions once released. But Aizlewood and co. have committed many, many, offences - OK each one similar to the others, but this was not a one-off. Plenty would say white-collar criminals are treated too leniently by the system...
There will always be exceptions, that in my view is why we have a judicial system, but yes in general I believe violence or abuse against the person, particularly if the person is vulnerable, should be punished more severely than financial or, to use your phrase, 'white collar' crime.
Why do I say this?
Essentially because firstly a 'proper' prison sentence is the only legal 'retribution' available to the victim of a crime against the person and secondly banging the perpetrator up goes some way to protecting others from suffering similarly.
I don't seek to trivialise the trauma victims of financial crime also suffer. However, in many circumstances, there is insurance or other compensation to offer those victims restitution. The need from a victim's perspective to see the perpetrator suffer a stiff sentence is not as acute in my view.
As I asserted above money and property are valued more than people. The recent sentences I have quoted would seem to lend credence to this opinion.
No, Len, they really, really aren't. That's why the maximum sentence for fraud is ten years, whereas for murder, it's a minimum 15 years. Of course, cases and judges all differ from one another and there are outliers. These tend to make the press for the obvious reason that the media likes to boil people's piss.
In any event, in both the examples you quote the defendants would have benefited from up to a one third reduction in sentence by virtue of their guilty pleas. A guilty plea is much appreciated because it (a) normally reduces the impact of the crime upon victims; (b) saves victims and witnesses from having to testify; and (c) is in the public interest in that it saves public time and money on investigations and trials.
Setting aside the age (and health?) of the defendant (75) which might well have had an impact on sentencing, one of the difficulties with sentencing Webb is that he had already served an 18-month sentence for offences against one of his victims. The effect of the Appeal Court judgement is that the Court decided that he should serve the equivalent to a 7-year sentence for the totality of his offending. Of course, the newspaper conveniently "forgot" to tell you that.
I don't doubt that appropriate guidelines have been complied with in arriving at the sentences, although it was suggested that an error was initially made with Webb (not explicitly in the attached article), but the bottom line is that a financial fraud has been punished more severely than multiple child abuse and a violent physical attack on somebody answering his own front door.
Crimes of violence and abuse leave life long scars on the victims so should be punished more severely than white collar crime in my opinion.
So, to answer your question directly,.... what would you say was the appropriate sentence for knocking a couple of teeth out?..... in the circumstances described a lot more than 15 months. This was an invasion and attack by a stranger on a victim in his own home! That bloke will be haunted by that incident whenever his doorbell rings. I don't think Aizlewood's crime will affect any ordinary individuals in that way so I don't see that such a vast differential in the imposed sentences is justified.
As I asserted above money and property are valued more than people. The recent sentences I have quoted would seem to lend credence to this opinion.
No, Len, they really, really aren't. That's why the maximum sentence for fraud is ten years, whereas for murder, it's a minimum 15 years. Of course, cases and judges all differ from one another and there are outliers. These tend to make the press for the obvious reason that the media likes to boil people's piss.
In any event, in both the examples you quote the defendants would have benefited from up to a one third reduction in sentence by virtue of their guilty pleas. A guilty plea is much appreciated because it (a) normally reduces the impact of the crime upon victims; (b) saves victims and witnesses from having to testify; and (c) is in the public interest in that it saves public time and money on investigations and trials.
Setting aside the age (and health?) of the defendant (75) which might well have had an impact on sentencing, one of the difficulties with sentencing Webb is that he had already served an 18-month sentence for offences against one of his victims. The effect of the Appeal Court judgement is that the Court decided that he should serve the equivalent to a 7-year sentence for the totality of his offending. Of course, the newspaper conveniently "forgot" to tell you that.
I don't doubt that appropriate guidelines have been complied with in arriving at the sentences, although it was suggested that an error was initially made with Webb (not explicitly in the attached article), but the bottom line is that a financial fraud has been punished more severely than multiple child abuse and a violent physical attack on somebody answering his own front door.
Crimes of violence and abuse leave life long scars on the victims so should be punished more severely than white collar crime in my opinion.
So, to answer your question directly,.... what would you say was the appropriate sentence for knocking a couple of teeth out?..... in the circumstances described a lot more than 15 months. This was an invasion and attack by a stranger on a victim in his own home! That bloke will be haunted by that incident whenever his doorbell rings. I don't think Aizlewood's crime will affect any ordinary individuals in that way so I don't see that such a vast differential in the imposed sentences is justified.
Okay, that's your opinion, that's fine. I'm not going to change it. All I will add is that I have in the past been involved in investigating and prosecuting financial crime. In almost all cases, the impact upon the victims is both traumatic and extremely long-lasting. Having some scroat nick your life savings really is no joke and has a very bad impact on individuals' lives. To cite one example, one victim I took a witness statement from had lost everything and had to go back to work - as a hod carrier - at the age of 79! The perpetrator got a fine despite taking a total of £2.5mn off 150 people. I think they got back around 15p in the £. (By any standards, it was a shockingly lenient sentence. Two of the victims were so outraged that they tried to take out a contract on the defendant's life and got ten years each for the inchoate offence of soliciting a murder.)
With regard to insurance, you are just wrong. Most individuals' insurance policies (even if they have insurance) specifically exclude losses from fraud. Nor, at least for the stuff I used to deal with was there compensation as that only applied to authorsied businesses and thus specifically excluded criminal activity. People expected some form of safety net and were surprised and upset to be told that looking after their own money was their own responsibility. So generally speaking people do not get their money back.
Comments
If we look at actual, you know, data, these will show that immediate custodial sentences are handed down in less than 20% of fraud cases and where there is a custodial sentence it averages about 14 months. That demonstrates just how seriously the court took the long-standing, deliberate fraudulent activity of this bunch of criminals. In addition at huge cost to the taxpayer Aizlewood chose to opt for a not guilty plea and a lengthy, complex trial. Quite rightly, the Judge would have sought retribution for that.
Meanwhile, defendants found guilty of ‘death by dangerous driving’ and ‘causing death by careless driving under influence of drink or drugs’ invariably receive immediate custody, with custody rates of 93% and 95% respectively. (Sometimes an accident is actually just an accident, not premeditated behaviour.)
Now, over to actual homicide. The MINIMUM sentence for an adult defendant will be 15 years. It can be as much as 30 or even banged up for life for the most horrendous cases. In any event, the average time spent in prison by a murderer is 16 years.
Incidentally, some interesting stats about homicide in the UK. Nearly double the number of murder victims are men rather than women. The largest percentage of murdered men (35%) are killed by their friends. Whereas 44% of women murder victims are killed by their partners. In addition, around 85% of female murder victims are killed in the home. It seems it is safer on the streets.
Aizlewood 6 years (will serve 3)
Attacking a homeowner 15 months (will serve 7.5 months).
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/thug-locked-up-after-attacking-160813/
Multiple child abuse when in a position of trust 5.5 years but only after an appeal to increase the sentence. Original sentence 4 years (will serve 2.75 years).
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/16052126.Former_private_school_teacher___s_sex_abuse_jail_sentence_increased/
As I asserted above money and property are valued more than people. The recent sentences I have quoted would seem to lend credence to this opinion.
Out of interest, what would you say was the appropriate sentence for knocking a couple of teeth out? From the sentence, I'm guessing it was an ABH rather than a GBH or common assault. Here's the complex sentencing guidelines to assist you in your deliberations. https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Assault_definitive_guideline_-_Crown_Court.pdf
In any event, in both the examples you quote the defendants would have benefited from up to a one third reduction in sentence by virtue of their guilty pleas. A guilty plea is much appreciated because it (a) normally reduces the impact of the crime upon victims; (b) saves victims and witnesses from having to testify; and (c) is in the public interest in that it saves public time and money on investigations and trials.
Setting aside the age (and health?) of the defendant (75) which might well have had an impact on sentencing, one of the difficulties with sentencing Webb is that he had already served an 18-month sentence for offences against one of his victims. The effect of the Appeal Court judgement is that the Court decided that he should serve the equivalent to a 7-year sentence for the totality of his offending. Of course, the newspaper conveniently "forgot" to tell you that.
I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with all the above sentences - i don't know the ins and outs of each case and the child-abuser will, I hope, face plenty of other sanctions & restrictions once released. But Aizlewood and co. have committed many, many, offences - OK each one similar to the others, but this was not a one-off. Plenty would say white-collar criminals are treated too leniently by the system...
Why do I say this?
Essentially because firstly a 'proper' prison sentence is the only legal 'retribution' available to the victim of a crime against the person and secondly banging the perpetrator up goes some way to protecting others from suffering similarly.
I don't seek to trivialise the trauma victims of financial crime also suffer. However, in many circumstances, there is insurance or other compensation to offer those victims restitution. The need from a victim's perspective to see the perpetrator suffer a stiff sentence is not as acute in my view.
Crimes of violence and abuse leave life long scars on the victims so should be punished more severely than white collar crime in my opinion.
So, to answer your question directly,.... what would you say was the appropriate sentence for knocking a couple of teeth out?..... in the circumstances described a lot more than 15 months. This was an invasion and attack by a stranger on a victim in his own home! That bloke will be haunted by that incident whenever his doorbell rings. I don't think Aizlewood's crime will affect any ordinary individuals in that way so I don't see that such a vast differential in the imposed sentences is justified.
With regard to insurance, you are just wrong. Most individuals' insurance policies (even if they have insurance) specifically exclude losses from fraud. Nor, at least for the stuff I used to deal with was there compensation as that only applied to authorsied businesses and thus specifically excluded criminal activity. People expected some form of safety net and were surprised and upset to be told that looking after their own money was their own responsibility. So generally speaking people do not get their money back.