 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Ok, so a guy in Glasgow is in court for downloading and storing circa 300,000 indecent images of children. He accessed these images between 1999-2010.
bail has been requested on the basis that he is a first offender.
should the law not look at it's interpretation of this...clearly, the offence started in 1999...just because he was only caught out in 2010, doesn't make that his first offence?
I know how the law currently interprets it, but does anyone agree with that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"No should not get bail should rot in jail. What next community service in a school playground."
oh i agree, would love anyone who is charged with any violation against a child to be bound over automatically when charged, but i guess that would revoke the rights of those innocent until proven otherwise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No should not get bail should rot in jail. What next community service in a school playground."
Bail is only ever offered to those who have yet to go to trial, so therefore he hasn't been found guilty yet. Innocent until proven guilty blah blah blah.
If he was found guilty, then at that point he can rot in jail. But let's not act as judge, jury and executioner before the guy's trial has even taken place, regardless of what he has been charged with. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok, so a guy in Glasgow is in court for downloading and storing circa 300,000 indecent images of children. He accessed these images between 1999-2010.
bail has been requested on the basis that he is a first offender.
should the law not look at it's interpretation of this...clearly, the offence started in 1999...just because he was only caught out in 2010, doesn't make that his first offence?
I know how the law currently interprets it, but does anyone agree with that?"
I see your point, but the definition for first offence is, "the fact of committing an offence for the first time, which makes it less likely to result in a prison sentence in the case of summary offences". The key word in that is 'fact', which in legal terms, means that it's been proven by evidence in a court of law.
As such, even though the acts which he was charged with happened many thousands of times and span a ten-year period, it's still classed as his first offence. For that reason, I think it is valid, and that his lawyer was acting in his best interest to submit the request in the way it was submitted.
I think it would be in the defendant's best interest for the judge to refuse bail. I'd hate to think what would happen to the guy if he was released on bail after being charged with downloading child porn.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Ok, so a guy in Glasgow is in court for downloading and storing circa 300,000 indecent images of children. He accessed these images between 1999-2010.
bail has been requested on the basis that he is a first offender.
should the law not look at it's interpretation of this...clearly, the offence started in 1999...just because he was only caught out in 2010, doesn't make that his first offence?
I know how the law currently interprets it, but does anyone agree with that?
I see your point, but the definition for first offence is, "the fact of committing an offence for the first time, which makes it less likely to result in a prison sentence in the case of summary offences". The key word in that is 'fact', which in legal terms, means that it's been proven by evidence in a court of law.
As such, even though the acts which he was charged with happened many thousands of times and span a ten-year period, it's still classed as his first offence. For that reason, I think it is valid, and that his lawyer was acting in his best interest to submit the request in the way it was submitted.
I think it would be in the defendant's best interest for the judge to refuse bail. I'd hate to think what would happen to the guy if he was released on bail after being charged with downloading child porn.
"
I am actually just using this case as an example...though it is an emotive issue in itself.
just wondering about the definition of first offender and whether it in itself should allow for bail or whether bail should be based solely on the crime..in itself difficult because, as said, it is innocent until proven |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Suppose you could stretch it out, most of us have committed offences for which we've never been caught (no matter how small) throughout our lives, we wouldn't want them being taken into consideration if we did have the misfortune to be caught doing something.
Its horrible, but then you've gotta remain rational when it comes to having uniform 'rule' across a whole civilisation.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
First offence or frst time he has been caught?...
Whether he has one or a thousand and one images he should go away for a ten stretch minimum..then hopefully he will also get the scalding sugar water face wash and anything else they can serve up..
As someone sais...we have all probably sinned in some shape or form...but that stuff is inexcusable..people like him help create a market for the ones who actually physically do it...thus ruining countless kids lives..
I would like to think that some limp wristed old prick of a judge would grant bail...just so he could be got at by the public first..
THe dangerous downside is that he is innocent..hardly likely in this case though..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *iewMan
over a year ago
Forum Mod Angus & Findhorn |
"
I would like to think that some limp wristed old prick of a judge would grant bail...
"
why does the judge need to be limp wristed?
and not being an expert in Law or having statistics that show percentage of first time offenders being held in custody versus being bailed.
probably can't really comment of the rights and wrongs of the decision.
however in general terms.. Child abuse in any fashion is abhorrent |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I would like to think that some limp wristed old prick of a judge would grant bail...
why does the judge need to be limp wristed?
and not being an expert in Law or having statistics that show percentage of first time offenders being held in custody versus being bailed.
probably can't really comment of the rights and wrongs of the decision.
however in general terms.. Child abuse in any fashion is abhorrent"
Limp wristed as in spineless and liberal..soft touches..not gay
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No should not get bail should rot in jail. What next community service in a school playground.
oh i agree, would love anyone who is charged with any violation against a child to be bound over automatically when charged, but i guess that would revoke the rights of those innocent until proven otherwise."
However, do you have any idea how hard it is even when there is clear evidence to get as far as charging someone for a crime like this.... it is a very very low percentage of offenders that get charged, let alone get as far as court and then even less who actually get found guilty and sentenced. In the main this is not because they are innocent but because of a technicality such as the wrong search warrant was used etc etc etc. I won't go on or this would be in danger of becoming a rant!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
