Judge Puts A Criminals Feelings Before The Victims. Why?

[iansheff 88]

I have just read an article about a 4 year old girl who was killed by a moron driving at 83mph in a 30mph limit. If the fact that he only got 9 years 4 months is not bad enough the judge upheld the defendants barristers claims that the impact statement would be too upsetting for him and that it could be edited.  An MP told a Westminster Hall debate that McAteer's barrister successfully objected to the parent's full statement. She said: “The judge accepted this and the CPS barrister gave the parents a copy of their impact statement with parts they could not read out in open court highlighted. The whole purpose of the victim impact statement is the impact on the victims and the survivors, not the defendant". 

 

I thought the whole point of these statements was to try and get across to the defendant how their actions had an impact on the victims lives, not protect the defendants feelings  from the fact, in this case they have ruined a family's life.

 

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/parents-victim-statement-edited-spare-17855829#ICID=Android_TMNewsApp_AppShare

[Cyclone 10]

20 years would be an unusually high sentence for a deliberate murder wouldn't it?  He was doing something criminal, reckless and dangerous, which is basically the same as manslaughter, which carries a sentence range of 2 - 10 years, so if you agree that what he did is the equivalent of manslaughter then the sentence is on the top end.

Even for murder the basic tariff is 15 years, so 20 would be for a murder with some aggravating factors.

Edited July 11, 2019 by Cyclone

[iansheff 88]

What annoys me is the way they have considered the feelings of the criminal, and didn't want to upset him. The sentence was laughable it should have been a lot more plus the fact he fled the country.

Edited July 11, 2019 by iansheff

[Cyclone 10]

20 minutes ago, gaz 786 said:

I agree totally but 20years usually only do 10 that's my point... 

But that's how it works for manslaughter and murder.  So a 20 year sentence might serve 10 and be released on license, a 10 year manslaughter sentence might serve 5 and be released on license.  This is consistent with the sentence given in this case.

 

The victim statement is ludicrous though, his feelings are being spared, what a traversy of a decision.

[Albert the Cat 0]

On 11/07/2019 at 11:21, gaz 786 said:

OK the sentence is a pittance for the crime but why was he speeding? A life ban and 20 years sounds better society today is all to easy on criminals its about time the death penalty was brought back that should straighten a few people out 

The death penalty? Really?

 

I think people should look at the case instead of acting on emotion. There was no malice in the accident. The driver didn’t have intent on killing the child. As sad as the outcome is, it was an accident. The punishment did fit the crime. 

 

People need to to respect the justice system. Is it perfect, probably not. But it is the best we could hope for. It can evolve over time and I am sure it will for the better. 

 

The extremists need to be put back in a box. 

[Pettytom 1]

Driving at 80 in s 30 zone isn’t done by accident. Doing such a thing removes any sympathy for the driver.

 

I’d make him listen to the impact statement once a month.

[tlangdon12 13]

My understanding of a defence barrister's role is that they put the defendant's defence to the court in order to ensure the defendant gets a fair hearing, and a fair sentence. As the judge uses the victim impact statements to decide the sentence, if there is anything that is unfair in the impact statement, the barrister can argue that the judge should not hear it; but I can't see there is any argument that the defendant shouldn't hear it.

[JamesR123 0]

3 hours ago, Pettytom said:

Driving at 80 in s 30 zone isn’t done by accident. Doing such a thing removes any sympathy for the driver.

 

I’d make him listen to the impact statement once a month.

That's true.  So if he was going to jail for speeding, you are right in that it would be an accident.

 

However, as he is going to prison for killing someone, it is an accident.

[Pettytom 1]

Not really.

 

By driving at 80 in a 30 zone, you must know that if you encounter a pedestrian crossing the road then you are likely to kill them.

 

Manslaughter would have been a suitable conviction if we didn’t make silly exceptions for people piloting large metal machines in an irresponsible way.

[catmiss 12]

I could never support the death penalty for any crime but I do think some drivers see speeding tickets as an occupational hazard and awareness courses as something to get through and avoid the fine. Guilty drivers should hear the full victim impact statements however harrowing to realise the effect of their crime 

[Eddie_shef 10]

9 hours ago, Pettytom said:

Not really.

 

By driving at 80 in a 30 zone, you must know that if you encounter a pedestrian crossing the road then you are likely to kill them.

 

 

But you understand how that isn't the same as going out to deliberately murder/kill a specific person? As previous posters pointed out, the sentence does fit the crime