|
|
Post by andym1958 on Sept 17, 2024 12:20:07 GMT 1
wasnt we giving the death penalty out a few weeks back for looting a bar of soap from Lush ? well done starmer, got your priorities right there NOT I agree Huw Edwards should have been sent to prison. As regards Starmer wanting the rioters jailed he was correct in jailing them. |
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Sept 17, 2024 12:23:30 GMT 1
Check the papers and web sites every day and you will find this a pretty standard sentence for this standard of first offence. Maybe the shame, the loss of job, loss of relationships that follow has something to do with it. Any further offence and he serves the 6 months plus, and his electronic devices will be inspected.
We don't have the prison places, or the money, to lock them all up.
These offenders should be offered or sentenced to chemical castration drugs. |
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Sept 17, 2024 13:26:50 GMT 1
I'm assuming what Welshshrew is getting at is the fact Huw Edwards was arrested and charged would suggest it's not two tier policing. I understand the anger at the sentencing but that's got nothing to do with policing. Here is an extract from an article explaining why he got what he got: Sentencing can be a very finely balanced act
The burning question for many tonight is why was Huw Edwards not sent to prison? The simple answer is ... there is no simple and uniform solution for dealing with offenders.
The offence he committed could in theory lead to 10 years in jail.
But, in practice, detailed sentencing guidelines, developed over years of comparing varying cases, save that severe punishment for the worst of the worst people who are producing the images that Williams scooped up and went on to share. Edwards, by receiving them, was at the bottom of that chain of abuse.
So his sentence was always going to be well short of that maximum 10 years - and, likely to be shorter than the 12 months suspended sentence given to Alex Williams in March.
The guidelines say that for someone in Edwards' position, the starting point is a year in jail with a range of between six months and three years.
Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring began his sentencing calculation with a year. He knocked three months off to take into account the mental health evidence and the fact that this was a first offence. This is absolutely standard procedure.
He then discounted the sentence by a third, bringing it down to six months, to credit the earliest possible guilty plea.
Again, this discount for an admission is a standard feature of sentencing law. It is an offer to focus an offender’s mind on pleading guilty early and accepting their crimes.
It saves a huge amount of public money by not tying up the criminal justice system with a jury trial. And it means, if the offender is willing, they can get on with the long and hard process of rehabilitation as soon as possible.
The next question was whether Edwards needed to be jailed to protect the public. The chief magistrate concluded not, because he accepted evidence that the offender before him had already understood the gravity of what he had done - and was responding to therapy.
And so he moved down a notch from immediate jail to a suspended six month sentence. That means that if Edwards were to commit another offence in the next two years, he would be likely to go to jail immediately. But if he stays on the road to reform, he Won't.
The prosecution had argued that Edwards needed to be subject to restrictions on his liberties through a Sexual Harm Prevention Order. That would have allowed agencies to monitor or curtail his communications and movements - including knowing his entire internet history on every device he uses.
The court heard that probation experts had used a "predictor tool" to estimate the likelihood of Edwards reoffending. It had found his risk of indirect internet-based offending - meaning viewing more images - to be medium.
But his lawyers argued that risk was diminishing because he was on the mend and had shown genuine remorse.
The chief magistrate said that it was not necessary to subject Edwards to the additional SHPO conditions, given the progress towards rehabilitation already underway.
Edwards must complete a 40-day Sex Offender Treatment Programme and 25 rehabilitation sessions aimed at helping him to fix his mental health and use of alcohol.
Even if all that is successful, there is a sting in the sentencing tail.
For the next seven years Edwards will be on the sex offender register - meaning he has to keep the police informed of his whereabouts. It will be difficult for him to travel abroad on holiday and some countries may never let him in at all.
He’s free from prison - but he is not free in the true sense of the word. His life choices will be watched on and off for years to come.
Thank you for taking the time to give us a detailed breakdown of the rationale behind his sentence. Whilst the judge followed the guidelines. For most people it won't feel like justice.he may have to report to the police for the next seven years but he has his freedom. As for the therapy he will probably have cognitive behavioural therapy for his behaviour, the research findings are less than convincing for it's clinical effectiveness for this issue. I doubt the children who were exploited who will be damaged for life will feel they got justice. But we all know people rarely get justice in the legal system. |
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Sept 17, 2024 13:29:32 GMT 1
Check the papers and web sites every day and you will find this a pretty standard sentence for this standard of first offence. Maybe the shame, the loss of job, loss of relationships that follow has something to do with it. Any further offence and he serves the 6 months plus, and his electronic devices will be inspected.
We don't have the prison places, or the money, to lock them all up.
These offenders should be offered or sentenced to chemical castration drugs. Good point about the prison places. The UK already has one of the highest prison populations per population in the western world. If we’re going to increase that new prisons are needed and they cost £50 to £100 million to build and then recruiting new guards and probation staff costs too Many prisons closed over the last 15 years and haven’t been replaced It’s understandable people want tougher sentences but without a really big investment in the prison system, some convicted criminals will have to be dealt with via community orders instead There is a whole other debate about probation services too which are massively understaffed at the moment leading to poor post prison supervision when people are released |
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Sept 17, 2024 13:31:48 GMT 1
wasnt we giving the death penalty out a few weeks back for looting a bar of soap from Lush ? well done starmer, got your priorities right there NOT I agree Huw Edwards should have been sent to prison. As regards Starmer wanting the rioters jailed he was correct in jailing them. He was correct in jailing then as a combination of large counter marchers and very tough sentences stopped the right wing thugs. To avoid any further allegations of been two tier starmer, he will need to pass equally tough sentences in the future for rioters who damage property. |
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Sept 17, 2024 13:33:31 GMT 1
I'm assuming what Welshshrew is getting at is the fact Huw Edwards was arrested and charged would suggest it's not two tier policing. I understand the anger at the sentencing but that's got nothing to do with policing. Here is an extract from an article explaining why he got what he got: Sentencing can be a very finely balanced act
The burning question for many tonight is why was Huw Edwards not sent to prison? The simple answer is ... there is no simple and uniform solution for dealing with offenders.
The offence he committed could in theory lead to 10 years in jail.
But, in practice, detailed sentencing guidelines, developed over years of comparing varying cases, save that severe punishment for the worst of the worst people who are producing the images that Williams scooped up and went on to share. Edwards, by receiving them, was at the bottom of that chain of abuse.
So his sentence was always going to be well short of that maximum 10 years - and, likely to be shorter than the 12 months suspended sentence given to Alex Williams in March.
The guidelines say that for someone in Edwards' position, the starting point is a year in jail with a range of between six months and three years.
Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring began his sentencing calculation with a year. He knocked three months off to take into account the mental health evidence and the fact that this was a first offence. This is absolutely standard procedure.
He then discounted the sentence by a third, bringing it down to six months, to credit the earliest possible guilty plea.
Again, this discount for an admission is a standard feature of sentencing law. It is an offer to focus an offender’s mind on pleading guilty early and accepting their crimes.
It saves a huge amount of public money by not tying up the criminal justice system with a jury trial. And it means, if the offender is willing, they can get on with the long and hard process of rehabilitation as soon as possible.
The next question was whether Edwards needed to be jailed to protect the public. The chief magistrate concluded not, because he accepted evidence that the offender before him had already understood the gravity of what he had done - and was responding to therapy.
And so he moved down a notch from immediate jail to a suspended six month sentence. That means that if Edwards were to commit another offence in the next two years, he would be likely to go to jail immediately. But if he stays on the road to reform, he Won't.
The prosecution had argued that Edwards needed to be subject to restrictions on his liberties through a Sexual Harm Prevention Order. That would have allowed agencies to monitor or curtail his communications and movements - including knowing his entire internet history on every device he uses.
The court heard that probation experts had used a "predictor tool" to estimate the likelihood of Edwards reoffending. It had found his risk of indirect internet-based offending - meaning viewing more images - to be medium.
But his lawyers argued that risk was diminishing because he was on the mend and had shown genuine remorse.
The chief magistrate said that it was not necessary to subject Edwards to the additional SHPO conditions, given the progress towards rehabilitation already underway.
Edwards must complete a 40-day Sex Offender Treatment Programme and 25 rehabilitation sessions aimed at helping him to fix his mental health and use of alcohol.
Even if all that is successful, there is a sting in the sentencing tail.
For the next seven years Edwards will be on the sex offender register - meaning he has to keep the police informed of his whereabouts. It will be difficult for him to travel abroad on holiday and some countries may never let him in at all.
He’s free from prison - but he is not free in the true sense of the word. His life choices will be watched on and off for years to come.
An opportunity for boring point scoring pedanticism doesn't make the reason question go away , just as the debate is live now on national radio 5 , basically why have we made examples of the rioters and hew doesn't go to prison ? , had this been a few years back the question would have included the word "boris" so what goes round comes around Cos the law allows harsher sentences to be handed out at times of civil unrest which we had, to bring control back to our streets. Other sentences like Huw Edwards are decided under the same judicial rules as when Boris was in charge so would have been the same outcome. Not my rules but reading mattmw’s link (copied above) makes it more understandable under the ‘current’ system, not Starmer’s system but the way the judiciary works. |
|
|
|
Post by ssshrew on Sept 17, 2024 13:54:52 GMT 1
Whilst seeing the points that Matt made are logical, I’m sorry but as a mother and grandmother I am absolutely appalled at the leniency of this sentence. He is a well known figure and a string sentence for him may have made others think.
Anyone who abuses children should have much stronger sentences. The law needs changing and sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Sept 17, 2024 14:05:11 GMT 1
Whilst seeing the points that Matt made are logical, I’m sorry but as a mother and grandmother I am absolutely appalled at the leniency of this sentence. He is a well known figure and a string sentence for him may have made others think. Anyone who abuses children should have much stronger sentences. The law needs changing and sooner rather than later. I would expect the majority of the population would share your views. |
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Sept 17, 2024 16:46:14 GMT 1
at least we don't have anyone on here suggesting he is a great bloke for what he did whilst presenting the news, and therefore we shouldn't even be questioning anything else he got up to maybe someone could start a TM ( Trevor mcdonut ) or HE ? thread to see if anyone is silly enough to say Hew is the best guy  |
|
