Options
Is jailing 70/80/90 years old people contrary to natural justice in a modern scoiet
jojoeno
Posts: 1,842 Forum Member
✭✭✭
After Rolf Harris I have rarely seen courts actually jail elderly men and never elderly women. I find that jailing the very old and infirm pointless and not the best advert for
justice and its objective of rehabilitation of the offender/s .
I am concerned at the way the old are now seeming to be given hefty sentences which goes backwards in terms of sentencing guidelines.
Old people given these sentence's nearly always die in prison or get so ill in prison that they are released only to die shortly after release.
There will be an appeal at the Harris tariff
justice and its objective of rehabilitation of the offender/s .
I am concerned at the way the old are now seeming to be given hefty sentences which goes backwards in terms of sentencing guidelines.
Old people given these sentence's nearly always die in prison or get so ill in prison that they are released only to die shortly after release.
There will be an appeal at the Harris tariff
0
Comments
There's an argument for slightly lower sentencing though, as in the case of teenagers. This is because some of the reasons for sentence setting may not longer be valid at a very old age (the risk of re-offending and public safety for example). Maybe that's already done via sentencing guidelines?
Depending on what the crime is, of course.
Those whiny victims, need a good shake and stern telling off for those silly feelings which they've carried around for years..*tsk what's wrong with them honestly, wanting justice against an infirm old man..or woman...(*rollseyes)
Trust me, compared to the majority of the world, our establishments are virtual liberal leaders. In the US, for example (and there's way stricter countries across the globe), these people would be looking at decades long sentences irrespective of age, and in most states handcuffed in heavy irons..even leg irons.
Harris is just lucky he was caught and sentenced here if anything.
As said though, what's the alternative.
anything else sends out the message that if you can conceal your crime for long enough you can get away with a lighter sentence, please explain how that is justice.
edit: it could also prevent victims from coming forward.
There are loads of alternatives for Judges to consider in cases like these and most good judges always come up with suitable punishments .I think because of these high profile cases Judges are literally shit scared to consider anything else for fear of their own careers and media attention.
So...*IF* these let's not lock them up measures were to be instilled for folk over a certain age, then what ?
You wait until you are 70..or 80..and then just carte blanche break the law without fear of reprisal ? The sex offenders in particular would suddenly start living very healthy lives and buying calendars so as to mark off the days.
And as for the passage of time. It might be historical in terms of the law, but for the victims such trauma never lessens. A 'good judge' would have the power to sentence someone who abused a child to natural life behind bars - however old they were at the time of the offence, and no matter how long ago.
As for the cost ? I suspect if polled, the majority of the British public would vote for their taxes to be directed towards such a policy - even if meant petrol at the pump jumped 5p a litre instantly to cover it...and a lot more I should think.
That's not what people are suggesting though, is it.
That's not what people are suggesting though, is it.
..errrr it seems to be very much what is being suggested right from the first post. My linguistic and cognitive skills whilst far from genius level, easily identified that that is precisely what is being inferred here.
Agreed, the best way to get a lighter sentence is as always - admit guilt when guilty.
So we should reward[\i] those who hide a crime for decades because they weren't found out before they were 'too old'?
In this make believe scenario, 2 men commit the same crime on the same day. Man A is apprehended immediately and is sentenced, man B gets away with it as such for twenty years, and gets a lesser sentence.
How is the above justice or fair to either the perpetrators or victims?
At 69 years old i can go to jail but 1 min after my 70th birthday i don't.
seems a good system.....
The O/P isn't written clearly but what I suspect he's suggesting is that some of the reasons for giving a high sentence to say a 30 year old may not be applicable by the time that same person is say 85. That's what I mean, anyway.
Here are the aims of giving a sentence, listed by the sentencing council: If for certain crimes one or more of the above no longer apply, but did apply when the offender was 50 years younger, there may be a valid reason to give a different sentence now than then. But it's for the judge to decide on that and some of them may well do it most of the time. However, the suspicion is that in high profile cases, judges are scared to lower sentences because of public uproar as expressed in threads like this... and if so, that is wrong.
And of course, sentencing then may be different from sentencing now and judges should not IMO attempt to circumvent that except in exceptional cases e.g. where a sentence is now lower.
I have no idea if any of the above should or does apply to Harris, I'm speaking generally. The judge's sentencing comments when published will probably explain all.
People go into prison at a young age and die in there, its no new thing, has happened for years before, and will happen for years ahead.
Sentences need to consistent regardless of the characteristics of the criminals.
And for the record it is a crime in itself how easily Harris got off, he should rot and die in prison, he'll be out in two years. Disgusting. Another shameful sentence, but what would we really expect from Britain?