For Fuck's Sake

[Pappa]

And how dare the judge punish her for not pleading guilty. Isn't it the case that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. If they are guilty, punish them for being guilty, not for fucking protesting their innocence.

It's not that they get punished for pleading not guilty, but that they get more lenient sentencing for pleading guilty.

[devogue]

Do you get a lot of shop lifters, Dev?

Very few these days, but I do get them.

In October last year my solicitor and the local police put pressure on a man to settle with me before I took it further. He nicked a £40 bottle of wine. He squared me up for the bottle, paid my solictor £50 for a letter, and gave me a tenner on top for my trouble. Everyone was happy and the fucker is barred for life.

Was the guy a junkie or just a chancer?

A local ball bag who just couldn't help himself. As Douglas would say: mostly harmless.

[devogue]

And how dare the judge punish her for not pleading guilty. Isn't it the case that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. If they are guilty, punish them for being guilty, not for fucking protesting their innocence.

It's not that they get punished for pleading not guilty, but that they get more lenient sentencing for pleading guilty.

I know what you are saying, but it shouldn't be the case. If someone is guilty of a crime they should be punished after due process has found them guilty. They shouldn't be rewarded or penalised for affecting due process.

[Pappa]

And how dare the judge punish her for not pleading guilty. Isn't it the case that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. If they are guilty, punish them for being guilty, not for fucking protesting their innocence.

It's not that they get punished for pleading not guilty, but that they get more lenient sentencing for pleading guilty.

I know what you are saying, but it shouldn't be the case. If someone is guilty of a crime they should be punished after due process has found them guilty. They shouldn't be rewarded or penalised for affecting due process.

By pleading guilty they admit their guilt and also save the taxpayer money by making the trial shorter. Likewise, prisoners who don't accept their guilt don't get early release (or in the films that's what happens ).

[PsychoSerenity]

And how dare the judge punish her for not pleading guilty. Isn't it the case that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. If they are guilty, punish them for being guilty, not for fucking protesting their innocence.

It's not that they get punished for pleading not guilty, but that they get more lenient sentencing for pleading guilty.

What if they're actually not guilty? and they get wrongly convicted?

[Pappa]

What if they're actually not guilty? and they get wrongly convicted?

Well, in The Shawshank Redemption he finally figured maybe he did to it after all. So obviously that applies to all real-world examples too.

[Warren Dew]

In October last year my solicitor and the local police put pressure on a man to settle with me before I took it further. He nicked a £40 bottle of wine. He squared me up for the bottle, paid my solictor £50 for a letter, and gave me a tenner on top for my trouble. Everyone was happy and the fucker is barred for life.

What would you have done if he'd refused to admit he took anything, made the prosecutors take it to court, and you had to spend a few days at court waiting to testify?

[devogue]

In October last year my solicitor and the local police put pressure on a man to settle with me before I took it further. He nicked a £40 bottle of wine. He squared me up for the bottle, paid my solictor £50 for a letter, and gave me a tenner on top for my trouble. Everyone was happy and the fucker is barred for life.

What would you have done if he'd refused to admit he took anything, made the prosecutors take it to court, and you had to spend a few days at court waiting to testify?

I would have gone through with it because his crime was clearly visible on CCTV. There was no question it was him.

So at this point, all I want is my money back, perhaps costs for travel and loss of earnings and my legal costs - it is now up to the relevant authorities and/or the DPP to assess the seriousness of the crime and act accordingly. I would expect them to perhaps refer the case to a magistrate's court - a quick cut and dried case would end with the me being recompensed, the defendant being fined and liable to any legal costs (they would be a lot less in this scenario) and the whole incident being closed quickly.

The judiciary failed everyone in the instance of this woman - such a case should never have been allowed to reach the high court for a five day trial. That it did is not her fault and she should not be imprisoned for the bureaucratic cack-handedness of men and women who are no doubt much more intelligent and assured than she is; she does not control the machinery of the judiciary, so she should not be treated in a grossly unfair manner because the system is flawed.

[maiforpeace]

Man Faces Life Sentence After Petty Theft

POSTED: 8:56 am PST February 2, 2011

MURRIETA, Calif. -- A Riverside County man facing a potential life sentence for shoplifting has denied he took about $21 worth of merchandise from a Home Depot store.
Scott Hove testified Tuesday that he put some gloves and wire in the waistband of his pants at the Lake Elsinore store in 2009. Hove says he intended to steal the items but changed his mind before he got out the door.
However, a Home Depot worker testified that he stopped Hove outside the door.
The 44-year-old Lake Elsinore man is charged with felony petty theft and faces 25 years to life under California's three strikes law.
The North County Times says he has been to prison seven times and has previous convictions for burglary and selling methamphetamine.