Friday, April 06, 2012

Comment Is Free But Facts Are Flexible

I have often complained about the Mail's deliberate distortion of news relating to courts and the law. Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi is probably emblazoned on the newsroom wall - if not it is certainly embedded in the mind of many Mail staffers.
Today the paper features a piece demonising Karen Matthews who has been released at the usual halfway point in her prison sentence,  the headline using CAPITALS for the word 'half'.

Any prison term is preceded by the word 'just' and if it isn't a prison sentence the phrase 'walked free from court' is bound to feature.

The brightest and best young graduates are hired by Fleet Street, and are then trained in the ignoble art of deliberate distortion. It isn't a very honourable way to earn a living.

44 comments:

  1. What the hell is wrong with you?

    The whole! "half thing" is new. The Mail hate the "half thing". Most of the public hate the "half thing". What is "suggesto falsi" about that? What is "suppresso veri" about that?

    Nothing, that's what. they are DRAWING ATTENTION TO the truth, and suggesting no falsehoods whatsoever. Labour saw fit to say that, if a judge believes that the most fitting and deserved sentence for a crime is 10 years, the perpetrator should serve five.

    Memento veri, is more like.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree on so many levels

      Delete
    2. Ed (not Bystander)7 April 2012 at 00:56

      How DARE you suggest that BS is himself doing the "suggesto falsi" thing himself, just go gain attention? THAT IS CLEARLY NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE

      Delete
    3. Prior to release at half-sentence, parole was set at 1/3rd of sentence served, so it actually increased under Labour.

      Delete
    4. Hotlush, I don't think these people a re minded to take on board minor details like "facts".

      Delete
  2. If she is sentenced to 10 years and serves 5, sentence her to 5 years and ensure she serves 5 years. I do like the life imprisonment without the possibility of parole here in some of the States in the US.

    The Dude

    ReplyDelete
  3. Serve-half and half-on-licence may not be popular with the Great Unwashed but it promotes good behaviour among Her Majesty's unwilling guests.

    As for the DM: Well. The Daily Hate Mail is a vile rag. Bears sh*t in the woods. Now can we have some news?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree the Daily Mail is a vile rag read, generally, by ignorant bigots. But, you have got this one totally wrong. The Mail has pointed out that Matthews has served just half of her eight year sentence before being released. For once, the Mail has got the facts right.
    In this case the paper is, quite rightly, reminding and informing the public that when offenders are sentenced the public are conned into believing effective sentences are being given. Those in the justice system know they serve only half and that for most persistent offenders the justice system is an ineffective joke that encourages continued offending.
    @andrewofgg - serving half your sentence might encourage good behaviour. Serving the full sentence and doing extra for poor behaviour would work just as well.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The present arrangement for release at the halfway point was brought in by the last Conservative government, that lost office in 1997, so it is hardly 'new'. The Mail chooses to highlight the cases where they can insinuate that someone the public does not like has had special tratment of some sort.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1997 is new in criminal justice terms - just about long enough to begin seeing the consequences.

      I was not aware that it was brought in by the previous government, so I thank you for the correction.

      However since neither during Labour's years, nor during this present government, has it been reversed, they must share the blame.

      Delete
  6. That's no wey to trat your readers, BS.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Many years ago, Billy Connolly started his speech at a dinner:

    'My Lords, Ladies, Gentlemen, public, animals, creatures that live in the soil, bacteria, microbes, press reporters.'

    It's not the exact text, but you get the drift.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And that's no way to spell, Pedant

    ReplyDelete
  9. The media knows it is now part of an industry - somewhere between the entertainment and the information industry. Industries have to sell their product to make money and the media (including the Mail) know they need to please their market if they are to sell stuff to them. What is frightening about heavily biased material like this is not so much that salesmen (which is what journalists are nowadays) distort to produce an appealing product for the market, but that the market has these characteristics. Mail readers are far more scary than Mail journalists. The sort of vigilanteism and lust for vengeance that is so marked in the US bubbles just under the surface here. We should treasure and protect our justice system, because it is far more vulnerable to lynch mob mentality than we imagine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem with that is that their readers don' t see that. They think 'It's a newspaper, it must be printing the news' with no angle attached.

      Delete
  10. I'm afraid that, to a point, I'm with the DM. As Anonymous at 06:55 says, if a person is sentenced to 10 years, but right from the start it's a given that they will only serve 5, that's a falsehood.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I'm afraid to say (although only as an academic lawyer, but our host will correct any mistakes) that there are clear instructions on the actual duration of sentences and reductions applicable in given circumstances, all of which are publicly available, should the public take the time to look. Unfortunately, the DM and other tabloid publications rely on their readers only reading headlines and being too gullible to investigate further. In other situations that would be fraud.

      Delete
    2. Rot. It is fraudulent to try and con the public into believing that effective sentences are being given in the first place.

      Delete
  11. T shouldn't be an automatic mechanism, but rather depend on good behaviour, penitence, understanding what hurt the crime hss csuded AND the knowledge that another faux pas, however small, would mean a go to jail card, with the sentence starting from scratch, with no possibility of early release.

    Further, the scheme shouldn't be available for repeat offenders, and at a third prisonterm there should be a three strikes and you're out clause!

    ReplyDelete
  12. 'The brightest and best young graduates are hired by Fleet Street'

    Really? Where on earth did you get that idea from?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "....reductions applicable in given circumstances..."? There are no 'given circumstances'. It is well known that as soon as a prisoner has been driven through the gates of a prison, 50% of the custodial sentence is knocked off for good behaviour! Sentences for a number of offences usually run concurrently, rather than consecutively as they should, so when a sentence for one offence has ended, a sentence for another offence begins. That, I do believe, will concentrate the mind of a criminal somewhat.
    Plodnomore

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good behaviour doesn't come into it. District Judges routinely attend prisons and they can impose extra periods of time for disciplinary offences.

      Delete
  14. Yes, the Wail has printed what is factually true, and the public should be aware that sentences are halved automatically, BUT they have failed to point out that Karen Matthews has been treated no differently to any other prisoner, and thus suggested her case has been considered individually and some particular decision made in relation to her. It is of course distortion.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "The brightest and best young graduates are hired by Fleet Street, and are then trained in the ignoble art of deliberate distortion. It isn't a very honourable way to earn a living".

    Seems to me that this could equallly apply to the "magic circle" and "Chambers"

    Just a thought.

    Happy Easter to you all

    Smuggler x

    ReplyDelete
  16. As soon as early release came in the sentencing powers for all offences should have been doubled, especially for Magistrates. I can't recall the maximum number of weeks (and I think Bystander did publish it on here) that a Mags sentenced individual will actually serve once you add on discount, tag and everything else. It was an awful lot less than 3 months...

    "I sentence you to X months imprisonment" is a lie. And you can be damn sure if the govenment were to end early release some human rights lawyer would be squealing. Half the reason Parliament keeps knee jerking sentences upwards is because inmates spend less and less time inside. Plus the recall rates are hardly so high as to keep people in line.

    None of this of course is the fault of Magistrates. But it would be nice if they were able to do some "truth in sentencing" so the public were constantly reminded of the cost of the automatic release.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But it would be nice if they were able to do some "truth in sentencing""

      But they do. Every sentencing (admittedly in crown court) I've ever seen has been handed down in very clear terms, something like:

      "I sentence you to x years imprisonment. In the usual fashion you will serve half of this term in custody, being y years, and then be released on license. The terms of your licence will be explained to you at the relevant time."

      Of course it's never reported that way. It is the media who need to practice some truth.

      Delete
  17. I think you should blame parliament or maybe the Ministry of Justice, not the Daily Mail.
    My wife explodes every time she hears on TV that someone has been sentenced to "life" followed by "is to serve a minimum of XX years".
    Its time that that our politicians, courts, etc told the truth and didn't disguise it the way they do.
    Obviously those involved in the administration of justice don't like the Mail's approach of constantly telling the real truth, they prefer to hide it with weasel words.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It is now quite rare for prisoners to lose remission since Governors were stripped of that role.
    Suggesting that DJ's impose extra periods of time is as disingenuous as the original sentence. They don't impose extra time they simply make them serve a little bit more of the time they should be serving anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Bystander, You'd do well to get over this thing and admit that there are just some newspapers you don't agree with. Some represent the interests of the Prosecution, others the Defence. Would you really expect an advocate to plead the other side's case?

    No.

    Counsel for the Prosecution would not hesitate to cite the Accused's inebriated state as a selfish extravagance which he indulged in despite knowing that he would be driving home.

    Counsel for the Defence would cite his vulnerability to the ravages of alcoholism due to the untimely death of his Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

    It's a game.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sorry anon, you aren't comparing like with like. The court is an adversarial scenario; the national newspaper purports to offer news that is objective and comment that is opinionated. It may be a cliché but comment is free facts are sacred is okay by me.

    ReplyDelete
  21. (the same anon)

    I couldn't agree less. There is no obligation or duty of impartiality on the national newspapers and neither should there be. It is for the papers themselves to adopt whatever editorial line they choose they choose, be that the tactics of an adversarial court system, a shock 'n' awe sci-fi comic, or a soap opera.

    Your beef with the tabloids (well, usually just two of them) is curious not always fair. Even Leveson and his showbiz pals haven't (yet) attempted outlawing the use of CAPITALS and it is factually correct to say that she 'walked free from prison' (unless she got a cab perhaps?).

    In any case, it is a dead cert that one paper or another will use what is left of free speech to print some similarly disrespectful commens about the justice system any day soon so, as forewarned is forearmed, you have time to temper your 'Outraged from Isleworth' tendencies. Unless, God forbid, that breathless incredulity is but a melo-dramatic journalitic affectation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Impartiality is one thing - we're all aware of the various stances of the media and individuals in it and can make the appropriate allowances. But outright lying, or economy with the actualité, is the stock-in-trade of a number of rags, and the Daily Mail, closely followed by The Telegraph, is primus inter pares when claiming to inform its readership while in fact doing the opposite, particularly in EU and Human Rights matters. The Grauniad equally has its failings when reporting such matters, but too far biased in the other direction. I'm sure that this results in distorted views of right and wrong, and rights, and laws, the consequences of which our host and his colleagues probably witness every day.

      Having followed last summer's riot season from a distant land, these differences were all too obvious. Not that they are easily (if at all) explainable, but the high-toned claims by certain media of objectivity were entirely at odds with the evident lack of it. One could imagine, however high in the clouds one's head might float while doing so, applying an obligation of fact checking to the media. As Mark Twain said "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as much as you please."

      And at the risk of being considered a troll, I shall now shut up.

      Delete
  22. There was a particularly pig-ignorant rellie of my wife, now definitely dead and probably damned, who would announce the most awful rabid rubbish and if anyone challenged her would say "But it's true - in the papers!".

    She read the Hate Mail and the Express and believed every word of both of them. I always hoped that one day they would disagree about something she found interesting and then I could watch turning around in ever-diminishing circles until like the Oozelum Bird . . . I'll leave it there.

    Anyone get the impression that I couldn't stand the old bitch?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Just so I am understanding this correctly.

    If someone is sentenced to 3 years in gaol, they will know that they'll only serve 18 months. Unless of course they break the law in gaol and then, perhaps, they'll have to serve more than five years.
    Also, if I recall correctly, five years after their sentence is over it can't be referred to for employment checks except for a few crimes.

    If someone is given a 3 year driving ban, they have to serve the full 3 years and it can be referred to for 11 years after it is served.

    So the only reason for the automatic is to reduce the number of people in gaol.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think thirty months is the longest sentence you can get which will never be spent. In the early days of the Act a judge got a bollocking from the CA Crim Div for giving a punter 31 months to evade that.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Do you not think that the Mail staffers might be disgusted with the libertarian attitudes of today's judiciary?
    Magistrates forget that the law belongs to the people, NOT to the judiciary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed (not Bystander)26 April 2012 at 17:03

      You are wrong. The law belongs to the representatives of the people, i.e. Parliament.

      Delete
    2. No, Ed, the law belongs to us. They are only our agents. That's what "representitive" means.

      Delete
    3. Ed (not Bystander)28 April 2012 at 20:56

      Your plea for populist people's tribunals would be less unconvincing if your spelling were better. Representative democracy is the only workable form of democracy.

      Delete
  26. My what? I think you think you are talking to someone else. I have never askd for poplulist people's tribunals.

    Yes, representative democracy is necessary. No, that does not mean the law belongs to the representatives. It belongs to us, we merely employ them to sort out the details, like an accountant, or a bin man.

    I think you should familiarise yourself with how some other democracies work. There are devices such as ballot measures and recall votes. Looking at Switzerland would be a good start.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed (not Bystander)29 April 2012 at 22:27

      I am entirely familiar with those systems. Direct democracy has severe limitations, which I expect you do not fully understand. In the meantime, in this country, since the Glorious Revolution, power (and its benignly impartialised version, law) belongs to Parliament. The success of the system demonstrates it is the best way.

      Delete
  27. Certainly they think it belongs to them, but it does not, and when they act like it does they act wrongly.

    Certainly it has had more success than some other systems, but the experience of many other representative democracies suggests that is at least as much luck as design.

    We are not going to agree so I suggest we draw a line here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed (not Bystander)30 April 2012 at 22:33

      I accept your apology.

      Delete
  28. No apology was given or required, Ed.

    ReplyDelete

Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.