TrentVilla Posted July 4, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 4, 2014 Okay, after much searching I seem to have found a definitive answer on this. Here are some basic principles from the guideline case on sentencing historic sexual offences, R v H2012 2 Cr App R (S) 21: 1) The offence of which the defendant is convicted and the sentencing parameters (in particular, the maximum available sentence) applicable to that offence are governed not by the law at the date of sentence, but by the law in force at the time when the criminal conduct occurred. 2) Article 7(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights prohibits the imposition of a heavier penalty than one “applicable” at the time when the offence was committed. 3) Although sentence must be limited to the maximum sentence at the date when the offence was committed, it is wholly unrealistic to attempt an assessment of sentence by seeking to identify in (2013) what the sentence for the individual offence was likely to have been if the offence had come to light at or shortly after the date when it was committed. 4) Similarly, if maximum sentences have been reduced, as in some instances, for example theft, they have, the more severe attitude to the offence in earlier years, even if it could be established, should not apply. 5) As always, the particular circumstances in which the offence was committed and its seriousness must be the main focus. Due allowance for the passage of time may be appropriate. The date may have a considerable bearing on the offender’s culpability. http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2013/05/06/historic-sexual-abuse-allegations/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 That was the blog that I read earlier talking about Coulson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 4, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 4, 2014 That was the blog that I read earlier talking about Coulson. Its a good blog judging by what I've read so far. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) Yep. There were some good posts about the hacking stuff. Edited July 4, 2014 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I guess this is a crude example but if the punishment for murder in the 1950's was to hang someone but they are not caught until 2014 should we hang them now 'applying the relevant sanctions of the day against the guilty actions'? Yes (were they found guilty to the same standards) if capital punishment were still an option. One can rein in the level of punishment - I don't see why that would appear the same as increasing it. So that would mean that if our maximum level of punishment was x and the offence at that time drew the maximum level of punishment then it would correspond (i.e. capital offence may be a life term offence). I fail to see what you can't understand. If I (as in society/the law) tell you it's fine to do x then I can't (or shouldn't) come back to you afterwards and tell you that it's illegal. If I (as in society/the law) tell you that doing x carries a penalty of y then I can't (or shouldn't) then tell you the penalty is other than y. If you don't get that then there's no point. Taking away any thoughts of capital punishment what if the punishment for stealing a loaf of bread in the 1950's was say eight years in prison. If the crime came to light now in the year 2014 should that person be sentenced to eight years? "If I (as in society/the law) tell you that doing x carries a penalty of y then I can't (or shouldn't) then tell you the penalty is other than y." Yes but that's like giving someone a choice like putting a price on a crime offering it for exchange, I think the idea should be that you don't commit the crime at all, any thoughts of what sentence you might get shouldn't come into it. Using Rolf as an example how can we say we'll only sentence him to this amount of time because that's what he would have expected whilst committing the crimes? Because he wouldn't have done it if the punishment was more severe? I'm sure there is a good reason for things being as they are I'm just saying that as things stand I don't understand why they are as they are. Like I said I'm happy to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I actually haven't got a clue what i'm baning on about or why I'm banging on about it. It's not something that I feel strongly about or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Taking away any thoughts of capital punishment what if the punishment for stealing a loaf of bread in the 1950's was say eight years in prison. If the crime came to light now in the year 2014 should that person be sentenced to eight years?One can rein in the level of punishment - I don't see why that would appear the same as increasing it.I've got to say to you that, even if English isn't your first language, I'm getting really annoyed explaining the same thing and the same concept to you over and over and over again, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) Taking away any thoughts of capital punishment what if the punishment for stealing a loaf of bread in the 1950's was say eight years in prison. If the crime came to light now in the year 2014 should that person be sentenced to eight years? One can rein in the level of punishment - I don't see why that would appear the same as increasing it. I've got to say to you that, even if English isn't your first language, I'm getting really annoyed explaining the same thing and the same concept to you over and over and over again, English is my first language if your getting annoyed at explaining concepts to me then simply don't explain them. I think your posts in reply to mine take on a pretty harsh tone considering I've admitted that I don't know what I'm talking about and I'm happy to learn it's just that I'm not learning anything from what you have posted. Are you actually formally trained in Law, you seem to be just mechanically repeating the law rather than 'explaining' anything. By the way thank you very much for trying to explain at all though, like I said I'm sure there is a reason for things being as they It's just beyond my understanding as things stand. Edited July 4, 2014 by useless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) I think your posts in reply to mine take on a pretty harsh tone considering I've admitted that I don't know what I'm talking about...So why are you failing to respond to what other people post?Edit sorry - problm with keyboard. Cannottyt-pe prperl any m9oer. aKEYBOARD cross room;. Edited July 4, 2014 by snowychap 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Sorry I'm just replying to you replying to me and I wouldn't call my not responding to what other people post as failing. Like I say though thanks for at least trying to explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) ... Edited July 5, 2014 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponky Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Either way it's good to see you lot importing criminals from Australia for a change. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 5, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 5, 2014 Aren't all Aussie's that come here criminals? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 English is my first language if your getting annoyed at explaining concepts to me then simply don't explain them. I think your posts in reply to mine take on a pretty harsh tone considering I've admitted that I don't know what I'm talking about and I'm happy to learn it's just that I'm not learning anything from what you have posted. Are you actually formally trained in Law, you seem to be just mechanically repeating the law rather than 'explaining' anything.Apologies for the harsh tone - that may well have had more to do with the combination of wine consumed and dodgy keyboards than my frustration in not being able to explain my reasoning.No, I'm not a lawyer/trained in the law or anything else.Keyboard(s) still bust so I can't go in to it any more as it has taken an age to write this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I only asked whether you had been trained in law because you seem to know a lot, and thinking that if I can't get it from what you had written then there really isn't any hope for me. I didn't mean to suggest that you can't have an opinion or anything if you don't have certain qualifications. I think the closest I came to understanding is the relationship between these to scenarios that you posted. If I (as in society/the law) tell you it's fine to do x then I can't (or shouldn't) come back to you afterwards and tell you that it's illegal. If I (as in society/the law) tell you that doing x carries a penalty of y then I can't (or shouldn't) then tell you the penalty is other than y. So maybe I'm on my way to learning a little something afterall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponky Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Aren't all Aussie's that come here criminals? Pretty sure they're marked "return to sender". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Aren't all Aussie's that come here criminals? Pretty sure they're marked "return to sender". I did particularly enjoy the irony or bare faced cheek of the white australian woman in the latest phone footage 'scandal' giving an asian woman abuse and telling her to go back to her own country. Although to be fair to that woman, she may be mid breakdown. Anyway, that's off off topic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 A suspended sentence would have been fair for a person of his age who is no threat to society. I know people will strongly disagree. but its not how this country should treat the elderly... I had to read this post twice, I'm shocked that you think this. What he has done is absolutely terrible and he has ruined so many lives, he was in a position to take advantage and he did. I just don't get how anyone can be a peadophile but I can go with the fact that for some people its an illness. Some are just plain evil,where others will try and get help for it. I've shared my life with someone who got sexually abused and raped, and it affected that persons life so much. I'm not saying he should be given life but he without a doubt deserves a lenghty prison sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponky Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 (edited) Prison is probably the safest place for him now anyway. Edited July 5, 2014 by Ponky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoony Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 His sentence is technically more than 5 years and 9 months because some of his sentences will run concurrently. I do kind of get concurrent sentencing otherwise you end up with some ridiculous sentences like you do in America and it's also not necessarily fair or equitable to punish someone with a prison sentence to be served in its fullest for each offence. But at the same time, that's why I think his sentence has become so lenient. It is correct for all sorts of legal and public policy reasons that people should be punished for their crimes as the law was at the time the criminal conduct occurred. It is also correct that people shouldn't be made to serve their entire sentence in prison if they have behaved well and shown signs of rehabilitation otherwise prison would be utterly pointless. I know people hate to hear it but prison shouldn't be about giving people the harshest punishment possible because by doing that you create more crime, perpetuate criminality, disillusion people, cost the country an absolute fortune and give people no reason to better themselves. A good example is America where they have the death penalty and very lengthy, harsh sentences and they have the worlds highest percentage of the population behind bars and their penal system is exuberantly expensive for the country. Coincidence? Regarding Harris, again I do think his sentence is unduly lenient and I should suspect that it will be increased. I also don't think rehabilitation even comes into the picture in his case. That being said, I don't think he will or should spend it all in prison because of his age. I don't think this because he's old and frail, I think this because by having someone that will require that much high security together with that much care would be a huge drain on resources. Better to keep him in prison for a bit and then parole him with restrictions on his movements and all sorts of conditions. Basically like house arrest. That is still a big punishment as it effectively destroys the rest of his life but it also avoids costing the tax players a fortune. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts