The point I've been striving to make all along is the danger in factoring public opinion to sentencing when the public aren't fully appraised of the case facts and are relying on other sources for the information that shapes their views.
The sentencing for this crime seems far too lenient, you need to watch the video, it's horrific and could have been catastrophic. Drug fuelled driver was arrested at the scene and a toxicology report later revealed he had tested positive for cocaine.
Cumpsty, of Chester, admitted drug-driving and dangerous driving and was handed a 12-month community order, including 200 hours of unpaid work at Chester Magistrates' Court. This is a case where the punishment should act as a deterrent to anyone who thinks it's ok to drive under the influence of drugs.
Tree Fellers- years of planting trees would be appropriate punishment- if drugs or alcohol involved then punishment for that- but there was no violence to humans or animals so jail is not appropriate.
The tree is an icon in the North East. It's like claiming when the Cutty Sark suffered an arson attack that it was just a boat. The locals would be furious if the sentences weren't severe.
The tree is an icon in the North East. It's like claiming when the Cutty Sark suffered an arson attack that it was just a boat. The locals would be furious if the sentences were severe.
A key factor is that they made a round trip of fifty miles to commit their heinous act. If this wretched pair just wanted to feel like big men by chopping down a tree, they could have found one at the end of their street in Carlisle. They didn't though. They went well out of their way to what was, quite likely, the most iconic tree in the north of England. They did so because they wanted to make a big impact and they wanted to do that by hurting as many people as they could. Not only did they chop down a beautiful living being that is irreplaceable within our lifetimes and damage historical architecture that has stood for thousands of years, but they deliberately upset millions of people, which is precisely what they set out to do. The more I think about it, the more I think the sentence is too lenient. I quite like the suggestions of some that their punishment should be of an arboreal nature, my personal choice would be for a vengeful, wrathful god to send a giant tree crashing down around their scabby little heads.
A key factor is that they made a round trip of fifty miles to commit their heinous act. If this wretched pair just wanted to feel like big men by chopping down a tree, they could have found one at the end of their street in Carlisle. They didn't though. They went well out of their way to what was, quite likely, the most iconic tree in the north of England. They did so because they wanted to make a big impact and they wanted to do that by hurting as many people as they could. Not only did they chop down a beautiful living being that is irreplaceable within our lifetimes and damage historical architecture that has stood for thousands of years, but they deliberately upset millions of people, which is precisely what they set out to do. The more I think about it, the more I think the sentence is too lenient. I quite like the suggestions of some that their punishment should be of an arboreal nature, my personal choice would be for a vengeful, wrathful god to send a giant tree crashing down around their scabby little heads.
A sycamore seed should be planted on the day they're sent to jail. And they can come out once it's fully grown.
The point I've been striving to make all along is the danger in factoring public opinion to sentencing when the public aren't fully appraised of the case facts and are relying on other sources for the information that shapes their views. That's a general point. If our legal system allows for that, then the answer to your question is no.
What I will say to conclude my point is that I expect most judges think they've applied sentencing guidelines appropriately or properly, and yet sentences can and do get reduced on appeal. Hallam's did (the JSO protestor) from 5 years to 4. Were the guidelines there applied properly in the first instance? Seems not, or else why was it reduced. I guess we'll only know the answer in this case should an appeal be lodged, but you've already made you mind up. I'll wait to see.
You keep talking about “public opinion” when what the Judge was doing was little different to taking account of victim statements before sentencing.
You can’t dismiss the views of many people who were affected emotionally and mentally as “public opinion” any more than you can regard the views of a victim of a crime as being just “public opinion”. They are the views of people emotionally impacted, to a lesser or greater degree, some of whom were vulnerable adults.
To compare this particular act of vandalism to cutting down a random tree or a minor act of vandalism that is worthy merely of disdain, is perverse.
The point I've been striving to make all along is the danger in factoring public opinion to sentencing when the public aren't fully appraised of the case facts and are relying on other sources for the information that shapes their views. That's a general point. If our legal system allows for that, then the answer to your question is no.
What I will say to conclude my point is that I expect most judges think they've applied sentencing guidelines appropriately or properly, and yet sentences can and do get reduced on appeal. Hallam's did (the JSO protestor) from 5 years to 4. Were the guidelines there applied properly in the first instance? Seems not, or else why was it reduced. I guess we'll only know the answer in this case should an appeal be lodged, but you've already made you mind up. I'll wait to see.
You keep talking about “public opinion” when what the Judge was doing was little different to taking account of victim statements before sentencing.
You can’t dismiss the views of many people who were affected emotionally and mentally as “public opinion” any more than you can regard the views of a victim of a crime as being just “public opinion”. They are the views of people emotionally impacted, to a lesser or greater degree, some of whom were vulnerable adults.
To compare this particular act of vandalism to cutting down a random tree or a minor act of vandalism that is worthy merely of disdain, is perverse.
I'm glad you picked up on that. I since realised I wasn't making that distinction and was applying a wider interpretation of general opinion not specific to the victims experiences in this case.
Not sure what to make of your last remark if it relates to one of my posts though. I haven't given my view of the sentence, only questioned the factors taken into account into arriving at it. The reason I haven't goes back to the general point I made though. I wasn't at the trial, and only know about the case through what's been disclosed in media outlets, therefore I don't feel I'm in possession of enough information to give a view one way or the other.
My gut feel is that it was a wilful act of senseless vandalism and I'm all for climate justice, as I posted earlier. What that is though is for others more expert and informed than I to decide, and they should be allowed to without taking account of what the general public consider lenient or harsh.
Edit. I say that because, as you can see from this forum, opinions on that vary considerably.
15 year old girl gets run over & killed on a zebra crossing by a driver driving above the speed limit.
He got 16 months.
Yep. A tree is worth 3 times more than a life it seems.
Presumably the girl wasn't deliberately run over.
The driver deliberately drove above the speed limit though.
There's no point looking at every, different case. It's the ultimate whataboutery.
But it's perfectly reasonable to have the opinion that the Sycamore Gap case resulted in an appropriate sentence, while others haven't.
It's perfectly reasonable to think that the Sycamore Gap case sentencing is completely excessive in comparison with other crimes which have caused far greater physical and mental damage to their victims.
And the answer, in an overcrowded prison system, isn't just to say that all those other crimes should have higher sentences.
The two individuals are thick, unsympathetic idiots, whereas more eminent and rich individuals hire expensive lawyers...
Comments
Retreats into the shadows…….
The sentencing for this crime seems far too lenient, you need to watch the video, it's horrific and could have been catastrophic. Drug fuelled driver was arrested at the scene and a toxicology report later revealed he had tested positive for cocaine.
Cumpsty, of Chester, admitted drug-driving and dangerous driving and was handed a 12-month community order, including 200 hours of unpaid work at Chester Magistrates' Court. This is a case where the punishment should act as a deterrent to anyone who thinks it's ok to drive under the influence of drugs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8gwvl6ln5o
He got 16 months.
Yep. A tree is worth 3 times more than a life it seems.
To compare this particular act of vandalism to cutting down a random tree or a minor act of vandalism that is worthy merely of disdain, is perverse.
I'm glad you picked up on that. I since realised I wasn't making that distinction and was applying a wider interpretation of general opinion not specific to the victims experiences in this case.
Not sure what to make of your last remark if it relates to one of my posts though. I haven't given my view of the sentence, only questioned the factors taken into account into arriving at it. The reason I haven't goes back to the general point I made though. I wasn't at the trial, and only know about the case through what's been disclosed in media outlets, therefore I don't feel I'm in possession of enough information to give a view one way or the other.
My gut feel is that it was a wilful act of senseless vandalism and I'm all for climate justice, as I posted earlier. What that is though is for others more expert and informed than I to decide, and they should be allowed to without taking account of what the general public consider lenient or harsh.
Edit. I say that because, as you can see from this forum, opinions on that vary considerably.
But it's perfectly reasonable to have the opinion that the Sycamore Gap case resulted in an appropriate sentence, while others haven't.
And the answer, in an overcrowded prison system, isn't just to say that all those other crimes should have higher sentences.
The two individuals are thick, unsympathetic idiots, whereas more eminent and rich individuals hire expensive lawyers...