Judge Mental
Let’s play a game - You are a judge in court passing sentence on two criminals who have committed acts of violence while drunk - you are going to give you two scenarios where you have to use your common-sense and logical thought ability to choose the correct course of action - OK, ready?
Scenario 1 - The Violent Thug
A 19-year-old thug was released from prison for affray just over two months ago after serving nine-months of his sentence. He then went into York city centre, got steaming drunk and attacked a complete stranger in a nightclub queue, causing actual bodily harm.
Which of the following sentences should you pass?
A) Send him back to prison for a minimum of three years; as it is clear his first spell inside hasn’t taught him a lesson?
B) Enlist him in the army, and have him immediately deployed on the front-line in Helmand Province, without basic training or equipment?
C) Give him a community order with two years’ supervision, an alcohol rehabilitation programme and 150 hours’ unpaid work and order him to pay £500 compensation to his innocent victim as well as £350 prosecution costs within 28 days because you fear that if you jailed him again, the teenager would probably be more angry and hit someone else after he was released.
A tricky choice between options A & B for those of us not from a legal background isn’t it? B is probably the most appealing but even with our limited knowledge of the law, it probably wouldn’t be allowed so let’s be sensible and choose A. If you did then well done - A is the right answer. However, Judge Jonathan Durham Hall QC - a professional vested with the responsibility for making sure justice is done for both the victim and society as a whole - appeared to be so confused by the options on offer that he unbelievably chose C and released the yob back onto the streets?
Scenario 2 - The thick bloke who had just been arguing with his girlfriend
A drunken plasterer, clearly wound up after an argument with his girlfriend, randomly shouted racial abuse at two Asian men outside York’s Theatre Royal before attacking them and leaving them with minor injuries. The assailant had one previous conviction for violence but had never before been sent to prison.
Put your wigs back on folks and let’s look at the options for crime number two!
A) Give him a community order where he must do 200 hours of unpaid work with ethnic minority groups and make him pay £500 compensation to each of the two men he assaulted?
B) Enlist him in the army, and have him immediately deployed on the front-line in Helmand Province, without basic training or equipment?
C) Send him to prison for 15 months purely because the victims were Asian and political correctness demands that “racial” assaults be deemed more important than ones against white people?
It’s an easy decision this time isn’t it? If sentencing is to be consistent then option A is the only choice, unless, of course, you are our old friend Judge Jonathan Hall QC who seems to think that the second attack is far more serious than the one in the nightclub queue. Maybe it was: who knows? What I do know is that this judge is utterly spineless and politically correct. Possibly both men should have gone to prison, but to have different sentencing policy based on the racial origin of the victim(s) is nothing short of scandalous.
We could have a separate game altogether now couldn’t we?
Is Judge Jonathan Hall QC…
A) A highly enlightened individual who, by giving tough sentences against those convicted of race-hate crimes, is addressing racial issues in our ever increasing multi-cultural society?
B) A lily-livered, PC-fearing wimp who shouldn’t be entrusted with passing sentences on any criminal, never mind a couple of drunken numbskulls with pork scratchings for brains?
Anyone who chooses option A can put on the dunces cap and go sit in the corner facing the wall.
See you soon…
February 22nd, 2008 at 04:53 pm
There are too many cases similar to this. People who are getting off hedious crimes for reasons which are beyond unbelievable. Our justice system needs an overhaul when a drunk who beats up a cripple gets away scott free and someone who swindles a few hundred quid gets 5 years.