Sunday, December 16, 2012

"If This Is Justice, I'm a Banana"

Ian Hislop' s famous remark comes to mind whenever I read the phrase Sun Justice .

This oxymoron is the label under which the paper slots its regular calls for retribution against unfashionable criminals (as opposed to criminals who have worked for the paper).

It's ironic isn't it, that the Sun's stridently populist approach to matters of crime and punishment will soon slip into second place in the public mind behind the image of the paper's former editor and chief executive tossing her flame-coloured locks in the dock at the Old Bailey next year?

19 comments:

  1. Give me £10.8 million and you can say what you like about me.....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Justice would include not naming defendants charged with rape until after they have been convicted. And not granting anonymity to women who accuse men of rape where the man is acquitted (except in the rare cases where the 'victim' is then prosecuted for the false allegation). The Conservatives promised to address these issues before the last electio, but, as in so many other issues, reneged on this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Agree with the first - for all offences, not just rape.

    Disagree with the second - acquittal just means "not proved beyond reasonable doubt" and if it meant loss of anonymity the purpose of anonymity would be undermined. Perhaps leave the court an option to withdraw it in cases where the allegation really is obviously untruthful.

    And of course if the complainant is prosecuted for perjury or wasting police time she should be anonymous unless convicted - and he should be anonymous in either event.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And why not comment on the hair colour etc. of her co-accused? Because they're not successful women? Oh dear.
    Colour Blind Female Justice

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Her hair is rather noticeable... People comment on Boris' hair just as much. It has nothing to do with sex, just with how distinctive your appearance is.

      Delete
  5. "tossing her flame-coloured locks in the dock" nothing to do with her sex. Come off it!
    A red blooded male

    ReplyDelete
  6. Your worships, I submit that the stridently populist tone of the Sun, effectively lock em up and throw allow the key, stikes an accord with quite a number of individuals, for instance victims of crime, the health and police officers who have to face the immediate aftermath of criminal activeity.

    In 2011, 47,798 offenders had a suspended sentence order imposed, representing four per cent of offenders sentenced. Immediate custody was imposed on eight per cent of those sentenced, representing a total of 102,698.

    This means that only in 12% of cases did offences that made court warrant prison in hiz honor's or your eyes. Even then you found jolly good reasons (any old excuse) not to actually send 1/3 of these cases, which had passed the custody threshold even in the Judges own eyes, to prison. Basically, the further removed from "justice" that this system becomes the faster we will move to US style sentencing matrix being imposed- and Judges removed to determining law only, and sentence left to policians (or QUANGOs) to determine. I give an example of overly lenient sentenceing leading to reform here, the 5 years for gun possession now here, and here to stay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But who is to say that more than 12% of the offences warranted imprisonment i.e. passed the custody threshold? what was the breakdown of these offences? what were the circumstances of the offences and of the offenders? It really is absurdly simplistic just to say that because 'only' 12% were deemed to pass the custody threshold, sentencing is overlenient.

      Delete
    2. To get to court you have to have passed the police & CPS. The vast majority of offences are dealt with on the street ("Go home son, you've had enough"Pubic Order type stuff); when the on the street approach doesn't work - or is not appropriate (anything above the above) the arrest and off to the cells occurs; then the opp for a caution - this now covers everything from GBH to rape (if you wish to query this inflamatory comment I will provide the Sun likns to the releases of info under FOI (many many cautions taken at his stage- I am afraid UK wide data is a little hard to come by at 00.22- a lot of cases dropped) then the CPS review 1000+ futher caution offered by them in 2011; and then only then are we let with the rump worth actually going to trial over- i.e. everyone too serious to caution, or too stbborn to take it. Of which 12% get "prison" (8% go there 4% home and free- sorry, suspended sentence- 1/3 of imprisonable people having ecpetional circumstances). Frankly "warranting" prison, but not getting it are 90% of those going to trial beig convicted but due to the justice of those currently on the bench, basically getting off (this includes fines (unpaid) community service (undone) suspended sentence (meaningless).

      Honestly, I wish I was a troll looking for a reaction, not a concerned person posting honest comments. I don't read the Sun (or M**l- I wont swear by writing it) I think justice is failing.

      Delete
  7. I hope you are fully aware of the laws of libel.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I thought we started with everyone is innocent until proved guilty. Therefore if not proved guilty then one remains innocent- this ain't Scotland. I seem to remember Lord Denning sometimes had a bit troublte with this so too did Lord Lande when dealing with a notorious IRA case

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whether an individual is or is not guilty of an offence of whatever kind (I am not referring here to any case presently awaiting the attention of the courts), that individual knows from the beginning. It is the court which at this point is in the dark. Hence the phrase is, "Presumed innocent until proven guilty". If guilt cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt, then the presumption continues in perpetuity and the defendant leaves the court, character unsullied. Only he/she knows whether they did it or not.
      Though as one of our Deputy Justices' Clerks once suggested, one might question the need for an adjournment to allow CCTV evidence to be viewed before a plea could be entered.

      Delete
  9. You're wrong, sir. This won't eclipse anything in a "Sun" reader's mind because the "Sun" won't tell them about it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I do think Team BS need to be a bit more careful. To my knowledge, none of those accused, interviewed and charged in connection with the various issues around hacking, perversion of te course of justice, corruption of public officials and working for, or having worked for the Sun has been found guilty of any offence in that context, so calling them criminals is a bit rich, and suggests that judicial impartiality (the subject of the recent edict by the Senior Presiding Judge) may have been suspended or forgotten by the judicial office holders on the team.
    Kate Caveat

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wasn't the Sun's Royal Editor locked up for something a few years back? That would justify the above.

      Delete
    2. Leagle1, easy answer: No. The former NoW Royal Editor was, but to confirm how careful one needs to be, both he and the Sun's royal editor have been questioned in the course of the current investigation and proceedings.
      Kate Caveat

      Delete
  11. The comments are on the Sun's "stridently populist tone on matters of crime and punishment"- not on any specific individual (whether associated with the Sun or otherwise). It appears some of the Sun's employees are apparently are facing a trial, and are presumed innocent unless or until proved otherwise.

    The argument above is not about them, but is simple- too many of those convicted are not sent to prison, ergo justice is perceived by some, as failing and reforms such as US style sentencing will follow. The rant is not that the Sun people are guilty of anything, but 90% of those individuals who are convicted in the Courts probably warrant prison but are not getting it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. An irony is that every defendant I've ever represented always reads The Sun whilst waiting for their case to be called on

    ReplyDelete
  13. I can see the headline now "It's the SUN wot dun it, Beccy gets a walkout". Followed by exclusive pics of her brief getting a free ride on Beccy's horse. Think I will now go and lie down in a darkened room until the red mist fades.

    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.