useless Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I think the crimes should be punished as if they were committed in modern times. This whole thing of being more lenient because a crime was committed at a time when the punishment was less severe seems strange to me. Almost as if your putting a price on ruining someone's life and Rolf only has to pay an old price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I think the crimes should be punished as if they were committed in modern times. This whole thing of being more lenient because a crime was committed at a time when the punishment was less severe seems strange to me. Almost as if your putting a price on ruining someone's life and Rolf only has to pay an old price.It's not about 'being more lenient' but about applying the relevant sanctions of the day against the guilty actions.It seems more than strange that someone would not have a problem with retrospective applications of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 4, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 4, 2014 Buy them off? How much would be enough? I guess £15 would get them enough vodka to forget for a night. £1,000 and they could have a nice holiday and put it all behind them. I don't know if you missed it, he was still downloading the filth right up until he was arrested. What about the kids in those 2012 pictures? Chuck them a few quid and explain he's just a harmless old man? I guess whilst he's inside there's a lesser chance he'll continue downloading and creating demand for new images. Anyway, that's my lot. If you can't work out my views from that lot it ain't gonna happen. A bit more than that.... Pete Townsend had a load of kiddie pictures on his computer and he didn't get charged. I'm not trying to defend what he did... Anyway I'm finished on the subject. Come on Colombia!!! I suggest you read this article and have a bit of a think about some of the stuff you've posted in this thread and your misplaced sympathy for him. If you can read it, the whole thing not just the bit I've posted and feel sorry for him or that he shouldn't have been in court and shouldn't be locked up for the rest of his life then I'll be stunned. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2680411/Rolf-Harris-leaves-home-boat-family-including-daughter-Bindi-sentenced-today.html Harris, 84, showed no emotion as he was sentenced for 12 sexual assaults Judge said he 'took advantage of trust' - but he could be out in three years Case has been referred to Attorney General for review as 'unduly lenient' Judge said Harris got a 'thrill' abusing children, declaring him a sex offender Moments before he was sentenced he was smiling and chatting to guards Earlier he was laughing and joking as he took a boat from Berkshire home Daughter Bindi batted away tears as her father was led down to the cells It emerged police found a stash of child porn images on computer in 2012 Harris compiled images of 'extremely young' semi-naked children under 13 But charges for indecent images dropped after indecent assault conviction One victim today said Harris made her feel 'dirty, grubby and disgusting' His wife Alwen did not join him for sentencing at Southwark Crown Court Dozens have come forward with further sexual abuse claims this week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post snowychap Posted July 4, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted July 4, 2014 That's harsh. How can anyone suggest that someone read a Daily Mail article? 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I think the crimes should be punished as if they were committed in modern times. This whole thing of being more lenient because a crime was committed at a time when the punishment was less severe seems strange to me. Almost as if your putting a price on ruining someone's life and Rolf only has to pay an old price. It's not about 'being more lenient' but about applying the relevant sanctions of the day against the guilty actions. It seems more than strange that someone would not have a problem with retrospective applications of the law. I don't understand your second sentence and your first is just repeating what I disagree with apart from the 'it's not about being more lenient' part of it. Even if it were the other way around and the retrospective punishment was harsher I'd still disagree and think that current sentencing laws should be applied. Although I'm sure someone clever will give me a reason that I hadn't thought of that will makes it obvious I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted July 4, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted July 4, 2014 Buy them off? How much would be enough? I guess £15 would get them enough vodka to forget for a night. £1,000 and they could have a nice holiday and put it all behind them. I don't know if you missed it, he was still downloading the filth right up until he was arrested. What about the kids in those 2012 pictures? Chuck them a few quid and explain he's just a harmless old man? I guess whilst he's inside there's a lesser chance he'll continue downloading and creating demand for new images. Anyway, that's my lot. If you can't work out my views from that lot it ain't gonna happen. A bit more than that.... Pete Townsend had a load of kiddie pictures on his computer and he didn't get charged. I'm not trying to defend what he did... Anyway I'm finished on the subject. Come on Colombia!!! He didn't, actually. He'd got as far as entering his details on a download site, and then thought better of it and stopped. No actual pics downloaded, no prosecution. Another case of someone who was himself a victim as a child, being - in this case - borderline fascinated. Sad, but not in this case any sort of offender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 4, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 4, 2014 Its frustrating in a case like this but I'm not sure the law can work any other way than to apply the laws that were in place at the time of an offence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I don't understand your second sentence and your first is just repeating what I disagree with apart from the 'it's not about being more lenient' part of it. Even if it were the other way around and the retrospective punishment was harsher I'd still disagree and think that current sentencing laws should be applied.The second sentence pertains to the idea of retrospectively applying criminal sanctions that were not in place at the time.So the courts weren't being 'more lenient' with Harris - they were dealing with him in the due way that the law applied at the time (though I may have read that sentencing guidelines don't quite follow that now - stand to be very corrected, please).If you, useless, commit a crime now, in 2014, when the maximum sentence is 2 years and you don't go to court until 2044 (when the sentence for the same crime is death), would you think that it's fair? I know you've said that you think the reverse would be but I don't believe you've thought that or the implications of the whole of your suggestion through.Sorry, mate. It's beyond crazy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Its frustrating in a case like this but I'm not sure the law can work any other way than to apply the laws that were in place at the time of an offence. Unless I'm misunderstanding you though, that means that anybody who had a homosexual relationship prior to the change in law 50 years ago should be prosecuted now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 4, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 4, 2014 Its frustrating in a case like this but I'm not sure the law can work any other way than to apply the laws that were in place at the time of an offence. Unless I'm misunderstanding you though, that means that anybody who had a homosexual relationship prior to the change in law 50 years ago should be prosecuted now? I would assume that if something is de-criminalised then the law no longer applies. If not its a very good question, obviously I wouldn't agree with that. But neither do I agree that someone should be punished beyond the punishment for the crime at the time of the offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) The decision on whether to prosecute can be taken now as per our foibles - whether or not the law was broken and the sentencing is a matter of the age (the allowance about sentencing being on the side of reduction and no longer applying the same gravity to the 'crime').p.s. this is my view - IANAL.Edit: This is one of the things that caused an issue with Turing. The decent thing would not be for Turing to be pardoned because he was a national hero but for all people's convictions for the same crimes to be cast in to the depths of the stupidity abyss. Edited July 4, 2014 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Its frustrating in a case like this but I'm not sure the law can work any other way than to apply the laws that were in place at the time of an offence. Unless I'm misunderstanding you though, that means that anybody who had a homosexual relationship prior to the change in law 50 years ago should be prosecuted now? I would assume that if something is de-criminalised then the law no longer applies. If not its a very good question, obviously I wouldn't agree with that. But neither do I agree that someone should be punished beyond the punishment for the crime at the time of the offence. I don't know the answer, but it's an interesting debate. Very difficult to come up with something consistent when laws and public perception change very much over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Buy them off? How much would be enough? I guess £15 would get them enough vodka to forget for a night. £1,000 and they could have a nice holiday and put it all behind them. I don't know if you missed it, he was still downloading the filth right up until he was arrested. What about the kids in those 2012 pictures? Chuck them a few quid and explain he's just a harmless old man? I guess whilst he's inside there's a lesser chance he'll continue downloading and creating demand for new images. Anyway, that's my lot. If you can't work out my views from that lot it ain't gonna happen. A bit more than that.... Pete Townsend had a load of kiddie pictures on his computer and he didn't get charged. I'm not trying to defend what he did... Anyway I'm finished on the subject. Come on Colombia!!! He didn't, actually. He'd got as far as entering his details on a download site, and then thought better of it and stopped. No actual pics downloaded, no prosecution. Another case of someone who was himself a victim as a child, being - in this case - borderline fascinated. Sad, but not in this case any sort of offender. Ok fine time makes me forget.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Very difficult to come up with something consistent when laws and public perception change very much over the years.I think that 'public interest' largely covers things (though there may always be exceptions). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I don't understand your second sentence and your first is just repeating what I disagree with apart from the 'it's not about being more lenient' part of it. Even if it were the other way around and the retrospective punishment was harsher I'd still disagree and think that current sentencing laws should be applied. The second sentence pertains to the idea of retrospectively applying criminal sanctions that were not in place at the time. So the courts weren't being 'more lenient' with Harris - they were dealing with him in the due way that the law applied at the time (though I may have read that sentencing guidelines don't quite follow that now - stand to be very corrected, please). If you, useless, commit a crime now, in 2014, when the maximum sentence is 2 years and you don't go to court until 2044 (when the sentence for the same crime is death), would you think that it's fair? I know you've said that you think the reverse would be but I don't believe you've thought that or the implications of the whole of your suggestion through. Sorry, mate. It's beyond crazy. I guess this is a crude example but if the punishment for murder in the 1950's was to hang someone but they are not caught until 2014 should we hang them now 'applying the relevant sanctions of the day against the guilty actions'? If I myself were to commit a crime now but not be charged with it for another thirty years I may think that sentencing of the time is unfair but not because the crime was committed along time ago. You say what I'm saying is beyond crazy and knowing me it probably is as I really don't know what I'm talking about but to be honest nothing you have written really points to the reason why it's crazy but I'm happy to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 4, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 4, 2014 I don't know the answer, but it's an interesting debate. Very difficult to come up with something consistent when laws and public perception change very much over the years. I agree and I've tried to find something online to clarify it but without success. I would guess the basic benchmark is it still illegal or not, if its not you can't be prosecuted for it even if it was illegal at the time you did something. If it is then you can still be punished but you are punished in line with the sentencing guidelines of the time, which could be harsher or more lighter depending. I shouldn't think that there are many examples of perceptions on crimes shifting all that dramatically and I'd imagine that examples of post dated sentencing a relatively rare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 4, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 4, 2014 I guess this is a crude example but if the punishment for murder in the 1950's was to hang someone but they are not caught until 2014 should we hang them now 'applying the relevant sanctions of the day against the guilty actions'? If I myself were to commit a crime now but not be charged with it for another thirty years I may think that sentencing of the time is unfair but not because the crime was committed along time ago. I get your point. But if in your example, the death sentence had been removed from the law of the land then you could no longer be punished in line with the law of the time of your offence. If the death penalty was still part of the law then you could be I would assume. To put it another way sticking with your example. If you committed murder at a time when the sentence was life but subsequently the death sentence was introduced should you get the death sentence if convinced after that introduction? In the eyes of the law I think that is always going to be a no. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I don't understand your second sentence and your first is just repeating what I disagree with apart from the 'it's not about being more lenient' part of it. Even if it were the other way around and the retrospective punishment was harsher I'd still disagree and think that current sentencing laws should be applied. The second sentence pertains to the idea of retrospectively applying criminal sanctions that were not in place at the time. So the courts weren't being 'more lenient' with Harris - they were dealing with him in the due way that the law applied at the time (though I may have read that sentencing guidelines don't quite follow that now - stand to be very corrected, please). If you, useless, commit a crime now, in 2014, when the maximum sentence is 2 years and you don't go to court until 2044 (when the sentence for the same crime is death), would you think that it's fair? I know you've said that you think the reverse would be but I don't believe you've thought that or the implications of the whole of your suggestion through. Sorry, mate. It's beyond crazy. I guess this is a crude example but if the punishment for murder in the 1950's was to hang someone but they are not caught until 2014 should we hang them now 'applying the relevant sanctions of the day against the guilty actions'? If I myself were to commit a crime now but not be charged with it for another thirty years I may think that sentencing of the time is unfair but not because the crime was committed along time ago. You say what I'm saying is beyond crazy and knowing me it probably is as I really don't know what I'm talking about but to be honest nothing you have written really points to the reason why it's crazy but I'm happy to learn. Good point. No you couldn't be hung now for crimes commited before 1962/63 when the death penalty was abolished Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) I guess this is a crude example but if the punishment for murder in the 1950's was to hang someone but they are not caught until 2014 should we hang them now 'applying the relevant sanctions of the day against the guilty actions'?Yes (were they found guilty to the same standards) if capital punishment were still an option.One can rein in the level of punishment - I don't see why that would appear the same as increasing it.So that would mean that if our maximum level of punishment was x and the offence at that time drew the maximum level of punishment then it would correspond (i.e. capital offence may be a life term offence).I fail to see what you can't understand.If I (as in society/the law) tell you it's fine to do x then I can't (or shouldn't) come back to you afterwards and tell you that it's illegal.If I (as in society/the law) tell you that doing x carries a penalty of y then I can't (or shouldn't) then tell you the penalty is other than y.If you don't get that then there's no point. Edited July 4, 2014 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) Good point. No you couldn't be hung now for crimes commited before 1962/63 when the death penalty was abolishedIt's not a 'good point'. It's a point that suggests that you and the poster that you quote haven't thought about it sufficiently. Edited July 4, 2014 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts