Does the sentence fit the crime?

It appears that lots of people (me included) are baffled by the sentences that get handed out by the Guernsey courts. As an experiment, I'd be interested to see how people would list the following 10 crimes, starting with the most serious first:-

Drug importation - class B
Drug importation - class A
Possession of an illegal firearm (with ammunition)
Possession of an offensive weapon (9 inch knife)
Manslaughter
Rape
Murder
GBH
Indecent assault on a child
Fraud (say £100,000)

My own choice would be as follows:-

Murder
Rape
Manslaughter
Indecent assault on a child
Possession of an illegal firearm
Possession of an offensive weapon
GBH
Drug importation - class A
Fraud
Drug importation - class B

Anybody else like to have a go?

I cannot add to that Technophobe (be careful we may have found a 'common ground' where we can agree :-) )

Murder
Manslaughter
Indecent assault on a child
GBH
Rape
Drug importation - class A
Possession of an illegal firearm
Fraud
Drug importation - class B
Possession of an offensive weapon


Guesswork, do you have the definitive answer Technophobe?





.

No,I don't, but during the last five years or so I can remember the following sentences:-

Murder - life (13 year minimum I think)
Drug importation - class A (12 years)
Drug importation - class B (9 years)
Manslaughter - 7 years
Rape - 6 years
Manslaughter - 5 years
Rape - 4 1/2 years
GBH - 4 years
Fraud - 18 months
Possession of an illegal firearm - 1 year
Indecent assault on a child - 6 months
Possession of an offensive weapon - community service

There will be other examples of some of these offence where the sentences have been different, although I don't think so in the case of the murder/manslaughter/rape examples.

Do people really think it is right that offenders should be consistently sentenced to less time in prison for manslaughter or rape than they should for cannabis importation??

Or that fraud is a more serious offence than the illegal possession of a loaded firearm??

I am not attempting to trivialise certain offences, but there is little potential for loss of life if someone fiddles an insurance claim, whereas someone carrying a loaded firearm (or a knife for that matter, as we have seen from a relatively recent incident) runs the risk of using it and killing one or more people as a result.

Similarly, the importation of cannabis is seen by many to be a fairly minor offence (and by some as no offence at all) wheras I don't think many people would consider manslaughter in the same light. And yet the penalty for cannabis importation can be nearly double that for manslaughter. And also double that for rape, another crime which is despicable in pretty much everyone's eyes.

Do we need an overhaul of sentencing policy? How could this come about? Does anyone have any ideas?

Perhaps Dave Jones might be able to throw some light on the situation?

Very good post Tech :)

Murder
Rape = Indecent assault on a child THESE SHOULD BE DEALT WITH EQUALLY RE SENTENCING
Manslaughter

Possession of an illegal firearm
Possession of an offensive weapon
Drug importation - class A
GBH
Drug importation - class B
FRAUD

technophobe wrote:No,I don't, but during the last five years or so I can remember the following sentences:-

Murder - life (13 year minimum I think)
Drug importation - class A (12 years)
Drug importation - class B (9 years)
Manslaughter - 7 years
Rape - 6 years
Manslaughter - 5 years
Rape - 4 1/2 years
GBH - 4 years
Fraud - 18 months
Possession of an illegal firearm - 1 year
Indecent assault on a child - 6 months
Possession of an offensive weapon - community service

There will be other examples of some of these offence where the sentences have been different, although I don't think so in the case of the murder/manslaughter/rape examples.

Do people really think it is right that offenders should be consistently sentenced to less time in prison for manslaughter or rape than they should for cannabis importation??

Or that fraud is a more serious offence than the illegal possession of a loaded firearm??

I am not attempting to trivialise certain offences, but there is little potential for loss of life if someone fiddles an insurance claim, whereas someone carrying a loaded firearm (or a knife for that matter, as we have seen from a relatively recent incident) runs the risk of using it and killing one or more people as a result.

Similarly, the importation of cannabis is seen by many to be a fairly minor offence (and by some as no offence at all) wheras I don't think many people would consider manslaughter in the same light. And yet the penalty for cannabis importation can be nearly double that for manslaughter. And also double that for rape, another crime which is despicable in pretty much everyone's eyes.

Do we need an overhaul of sentencing policy? How could this come about? Does anyone have any ideas?

Perhaps Dave Jones might be able to throw some light on the situation?

There has always been critiscism of the Gsy sentencing system and laying out what you have read/remember as far as sentences are concerned doesn't really help cause there are a lot of factors to be taken into consideration. For instance Class B Drug importation, How much is involved, Previous convictions, circumstances of the case, political climate at the time of the offence. These factors are not shown with the sentences and to get a clear view of why the sentence was applied full circumstances should be shown.

Very interesting and though provoking, good topic.







.

Plimmerton

It is impossible to show full circumstances of every case, it is the principal of sentencing that I am trying to address.

For instance, I couldn't care less whether 1kg or 100kg of cannabis was imported, it could never be as serious a crime as rape or manslaughter in my eyes. Do you disagree?

I would put Indecent assault on a child, just after murder
for the rest I agree with Techno list.
I would also add that the sentencing here is just as inappropriate. The criminals seem to have more right than the victims!

Techno', sorry I do disagree, depending on circumstances, rape is a horrid offence and there is no excuse for it but could there be circumstances where manslaughter or murder are warranted. For instance mercy killings, manslaughter where a person reacts when they feel threatened.
As I said before the circumstances around an offence do matter.
Crim's certainly do appear to have the law and protection leaning their way which makes it difficult to prosecute.

I had to read the following report twice to believe it....

Attacked Street Furniture

A man seen punching a lamp post and kicking a traffic bollard in anger was fined £300 in the Magistrate's Court when he admitted disorderly behaviour.....etc etc etc

Apparentely he was hard working and of good character with no previous - but was angry and took it out on a bollard and a lamp post!!! I read it twice to make sure I was reading correctly.....he didn't attack anyone (even though he was angry with friends) didn't resist arrest - so can someone in the know tell me what warrented a fine of that dimension????

GEP 28th August, 2009

just a
thought but murder,
Manslaughter and rape are all involving one person.......but importing class A
or class B drugs (depending on how much is imported) can change the lives of
hundreds or thousands of lives.......How many of the users will rape, assault a
child,?...or..How many young kids will be drug addicted because of this?
So maybe each crime committed because of the drugs is the fault of the person
who imported them?

alpbach1 wrote:just a
thought but murder,
Manslaughter and rape are all involving one person.......but importing class A
or class B drugs (depending on how much is imported) can change the lives of
hundreds or thousands of lives.......How many of the users will rape, assault a
child,?...or..How many young kids will be drug addicted because of this?
So maybe each crime committed because of the drugs is the fault of the person
who imported them?

So is it the landlord's fault if a drunk person commits a crime?

alpbach1 wrote:just a
thought but murder,
Manslaughter and rape are all involving one person.......but importing class A
or class B drugs (depending on how much is imported) can change the lives of
hundreds or thousands of lives.......How many of the users will rape, assault a
child,?...or..How many young kids will be drug addicted because of this?
So maybe each crime committed because of the drugs is the fault of the person
who imported them?

that's fairly standard stereotype. You make it sound like Guernsey is a couple of kilos away from self destruction.

Are there more rapes/assaults on 'drugs' than when boozed? I doubt any kids would get a look when stuff is distributed. What drugs are we talking about here anyway?

If you have prohibition then you have to have OTT sentencing. Would work more badly without. But if the penalties are harsh and the drugs are still getting in, does that mean they're not harsh enough?

Does the death penalty in some asian countries stop the trade there? Would it work here?

This is why the drugs are still getting in..................................

and this..............

people who are addicted to drugs will do anything for the next fix.........

Technophobe, the landlord has to take some moral responsibiklity if he serves and allows a person to get drunk on his premises in fact the law dictates that he has a responsibility NOT TO SERVE a drunk.
Fast Robert I think what Alpbach is saying is that the sentence for drug importattion is high because of the potential impact it has on lots of lives, the victims can run into hundreds, almost on a par with someone like Hitler who doesn't pull the trigger just loads and aims the gun, but still an accessorie to the death and misery that is caused.

plimmerton811 wrote:Technophobe, the landlord has to take some moral responsibiklity if he serves and allows a person to get drunk on his premises in fact the law dictates that he has a responsibility NOT TO SERVE a drunk.
Fast Robert I think what Alpbach is saying is that the sentence for drug importattion is high because of the potential impact it has on lots of lives, the victims can run into hundreds, almost on a par with someone like Hitler who doesn't pull the trigger just loads and aims the gun, but still an accessorie to the death and misery that is caused.

Thank you plimmerton811........... :party3:

plimmerton811 wrote:Technophobe, the landlord has to take some moral responsibiklity if he serves and allows a person to get drunk on his premises in fact the law dictates that he has a responsibility NOT TO SERVE a drunk.
Fast Robert I think what Alpbach is saying is that the sentence for drug importattion is high because of the potential impact it has on lots of lives, the victims can run into hundreds, almost on a par with someone like Hitler who doesn't pull the trigger just loads and aims the gun, but still an accessorie to the death and misery that is caused.

But that's a situation created by society, a sum total of our attitudes.
Heroin is diamorphine. One isn't from hell and one isn't from heaven. The line in the sand is completely arbitrary. We have chosen to support policies that criminalise the whole massive market.

If I were to start finding you pictures of deformed babies and the like caused by any one of the everyday recreational activities that our society permits then what would be the difference?

People seem to be under the impression that the whole world wants to get wasted on toxic chemicals.
No, only the same people want to get wasted, more may be inquisitive. The only ones we stop completely by prohibition are those that can't be bothered anyway.

If I was a smack addict, customs would offer no deterrent. I'd get the stuff in somehow. As albach says, the hardcore will do anything. Surely going to a doctor to get weaned off is better than going to a criminal? They hardly ever do go to the doc because they don't want to go to jail/lose their kid. Whatever.

How many more lives does the drug industry adversely affect being a criminal enterprise?

plimmerton811 wrote:Technophobe, the landlord has to take some moral responsibiklity if he serves and allows a person to get drunk on his premises in fact the law dictates that he has a responsibility NOT TO SERVE a drunk.
Fast Robert I think what Alpbach is saying is that the sentence for drug importattion is high because of the potential impact it has on lots of lives, the victims can run into hundreds, almost on a par with someone like Hitler who doesn't pull the trigger just loads and aims the gun, but still an accessorie to the death and misery that is caused.

Have you EVER seen that law enforced? I certainly haven't, and it's a law that's broken hundreds of times every single week.

As for the Hitler comparison, quite frankly it's absolutely ridiculous. Did the millions of Jews choose to get gassed? Does a junkie choose to take drugs? The answers are plainly diferent and that's where the comparison fails completely.

We are not talking about who wants to do anything. We are talking about the sentence that is handed down to a drug dealer as opposed to a murderer. What has been said is that on the face of it drug dealing may not be as bad as a murder so lets have a lighter sentence. What Alpach and I are saying is on the face of it, it may be worthy of a lesser sentence but consider what misery a drug dealer leaves in his wake and that is possibly why they are given a greater sentence. perhaps this is what the magistrate takes into cionsideration when he levies a stiff sentence to druggies. Hitler did not to my knowledge actually kill anyone, much the same as a dealer, however he gave orders which was responsible for the deaths of millions much like a dealer selling drugs knowing what he/she is doing and the lives they are to ruin. So the way I think the comparison is not ridiculous, it just needs some lateral thinking. Irrespective of whether I have seen the alcohol law enforced, and I believe it has been where a death was involved through someone drinking too much on licensed premises, it is still an offence and to my mind if they get someone pissed out their tiny mind then they have a responsibility as a landlord.

The Criminal Court on Friday found activist Daranee Chancheonsilapakul, aka Da Torpedo, guilty of lese majeste and sentenced her to a combined jail term of 18 years.

Daranee, 46, made a series of inflammatory speeches at the red-shirt rallies, notably the demonstration last June at Sanam Luang. Her remarks were against the 2006 coup but laced with offensive references to the monarchy.

The court said in its verdict that Daranee had maliciously offended the monarchy as per Article 112 of the Criminal Code.

She was penalised for three counts of lese majeste, each carrying the punishment for six year imprisonment.

The court found no cause for leniency because the defendant showed no remorse.