The guy & his Mum were incredibly self-centered and naive, and punishment was deserved. But I'm not sure that this punishment was necessarily the best for this type of offence - 2 weeks of litter clearing or similar might be just as much of a deterrent for others, cheaper for the taxpayer, and you get cleaner streets as an outcome. Jail for nastier crimes, for sure
Also, BBC says the other 11 jurors reached a verdict, so the trial was not held up.
We get told criminals cannot be jailed so why jail this bloke?
Society does not need protecting from him so a community sentence would surely be appropiate.
I'd sooner see scumbag muggers jailed than misguided students.
I am in no way condoning the contempt of court shown but judges are very good at not jailing people Joe Public would consider need locking up and the key thrown away yet someone like this chap gets locked up.
Madness. Either the prisons are full or they are not!
i entirely agree the punishment doesnt fit the crime ...its just that its an easy conviction ...our forbears DID literally fight for the freedoms we enjoy in society today,the right to vote,the right to be tried fairly in a court of law for example,however a bigger right is to feel protected by the law ..the use of violence or theft for example in my opinion is a more seriously punishable crime than this ,yes he deserves punishment but the priorities are wrong here
The guy & his Mum were incredibly self-centered and naive, and punishment was deserved. But I'm not sure that this punishment was necessarily the best for this type of offence - 2 weeks of litter clearing or similar might be just as much of a deterrent for others, cheaper for the taxpayer, and you get cleaner streets as an outcome. Jail for nastier crimes, for sure
Also, BBC says the other 11 jurors reached a verdict, so the trial was not held up.
it was held up. The day he rung in 'sick' the jury was sent home for the day.
of course it is the right sentance. The whole jury was sent home in his absence and it cost the tax payer money, held up valuable court time and showed a total disrespect to everyone involved.
On the issue of age, how old is too old to serve ? 60 ? 70 ? You could argue for instance that those over say 60 are so set in there way's with their views that they should be excluded before we start excluded those under 20. In my opinion a jury should represent the whole spectrum of society so that we get balanced views enabling a jury to reach the right verdict. A jury entirely of those under 25 would reach a totally different verdict from one made up of those entirely over 65 in some instances.
Pretty much sums up my views. Although I can see why some think the sentence is a bit disproportionate compared with muggers etc getting community service.
Interesting that it was his boyfriend who dropped him in it.
Judges really hate it when the process gets disrespected. They pretty much take it personally. Giving the bloke a criminal record and making him unemployable for any decent job for some time will cost us all thousands in lost tax revenue.
Doesn't make any sense to say that 19 is too young to be called up, or that only people over 30 should be called up. At 19 I was one year into a law degree, pretty sure I'd have a better grip of the legal proceedings than most. I've also known plenty of 30 year olds who can't tell their arse from their elbow. You can't tell me you'd rather have an idiot over a person who would do a good job just because of when they were born. Just look at that kid's mother; whether you think the sentence is too harsh or not her argument is that he hasn't done anything wrong and lying and shirking your responsibility - after swearing an oath to uphold it - is fine if it doesn't suit you. Pretty sure she was over 30 so pray you don't get her if you ever end up in court
Got the right level of punishment. An example had to be set for future jurors. The mother wants to appeal the decision. So she clearly has not understood the point the judge was making. I do wonder how they pick people for jury service. No one in my family has ever been called up. All respectable with no convictions.
Why did the papers report that he was gay? Where is the relevance?
However, got all that he deserved.
The paper I read didn't report that he was gay, just mentioned that his boyfriend had dropped him in it,as they would have done if the juror had been female, Chirps.
Comments
The guy & his Mum were incredibly self-centered and naive, and punishment was deserved. But I'm not sure that this punishment was necessarily the best for this type of offence - 2 weeks of litter clearing or similar might be just as much of a deterrent for others, cheaper for the taxpayer, and you get cleaner streets as an outcome. Jail for nastier crimes, for sure
Also, BBC says the other 11 jurors reached a verdict, so the trial was not held up.
Pretty much sums up my views. Although I can see why some think the sentence is a bit disproportionate compared with muggers etc getting community service.
Interesting that it was his boyfriend who dropped him in it.
Why did the papers report that he was gay? Where is the relevance?
However, got all that he deserved.
The mother wants to appeal the decision. So she clearly has not understood the point the judge was making.
I do wonder how they pick people for jury service. No one in my family has ever been called up. All respectable with no convictions.
The paper I read didn't report that he was gay, just mentioned that his boyfriend had dropped him in it,as they would have done if the juror had been female, Chirps.