Onchanguy Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/DoT-conside...imit.3500389.jp What's the point in doing this? Today we have had another ludicrous decision in a Manx court where a woman has not been jailed despite driving at over THREE times over the legal limit. The current legal limit is 80mg. The talk is to reduce this to 50mg. This would have made her FIVE times over the legal limit. If the courts are not going to jail people for being over the current limit they won't jail them for being over the new limit so what is the point?? How far over the limit do you need to be to get jailed????? What exactly do we pay the Attorney General for? It's time he was stamping on the Deemsters for giving out these ridiculous sentences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 We pay the AG to advise Government don't we, not to act as an intermediary court of appeal? It is always very easy to look at bald facts and make a judgement without knowing all the facts. I have a very close friend who was done for DD; they didn't cause an accident and were stopped the 'morning after' just as part of random checks. They were told to expect a custodial sentence but got a ban and a fine etc. I am not defending them at all; they were wrong, they fully accept and admit they were wrong (and that they have a problem which they are now dealing with). But a custodial sentence in their case would also have been wrong and the Deemster seemed to reflect this in the sentence he gave. Just as an aside, I thought 80 was the legal limit and this friend would have been one and a half times over that limit, but was told they were three times over. So I am still not clear what the legal limit is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 How far over the limit do you need to be to get jailed????? Depends how many people are already in prison. And the new prison will be open soon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onchanguy Posted November 23, 2007 Author Share Posted November 23, 2007 Gladys, I'm sure I will be corrected if I am wrong but I was under the impression that the AG has overall responsibity for the judiciary on the island and, therefore, he should be dealing with these ludicrous sentences. With regard to your second paragraph. IMHO it is irrelevant whether someone is involved in an accident or not. There is a far greater chance of an accident if you are under the influence. As I recall the bus driver who was jailed for drink driving recently was not involved in an accident but he was put away. Nor was the policeman who, surprise surprise, didn't get jailed. Surely the AG should be getting equivalent sentences for the same crime? Mr. S, totally agree. Hopefully when the new prison is opened we shall start seeing proper sentencing again but I won't hold my breath..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 The AG may be involved in the appointment process, but surely has no role in the sentencing? As for my (and your) second paragraph, I couldn't agree more; there is absolutely no excuse/reason for driving whilst under the influence - it is just plain wrong. My point was not so much mitigation, but making the punishment fit the crime and the offender. Just sending people to jail is not the answer in every case. Custodial sentences have several purposes: rehabilitation (well, that is a debate in itself), removal of someone so anti-social that they shouldn't be allowed their freedom or fair and square retribution. I think you have to ponder very carefully the reason why you would wish this offender or that to go to prison and the ultimate benefit it would give to society. By no means am I a libertarian (I would quite happily see chemical castration of paedophiles, for example, seeing as we no longer have the death penalty and physical castration doesn't actually work to reduce the libido), but I do think that the knee jerk 'send 'em to prison' does no more than give a momentary glow of retribution when the newspaper headline is read without further thought on just how it affects the whole of society in terms of cost, lack of results (vide latest armed robbery) and effective removal of real threats to the very fundaments of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Over the legal limit - Fine + 5-year ban. Twice the legal limit - Fine + 10-year ban More than twice the legal limit - Fine + lifetime ban. Suitable punishments and no long term expense for the taxpayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Not an expert in Manx law, but in the UK the AG can refer cases for judicial review if he believes that the law has not been properly applied, and this would include perverse sentencing. The UK has sentencing guidelines which set down criteria for sentencing in different types of cases, including the aggravating or mitigating factors: http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/ Custodial sentences are generally used as a last resort where the offender is persistent, is convicted of a very serious crime, or where the offender represents a danger to the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gin Span Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Not an expert in Manx law, but in the UK the AG can refer cases for judicial review if he believes that the law has not been properly applied, and this would include perverse sentencing. The UK has sentencing guidelines which set down criteria for sentencing in different types of cases, including the aggravating or mitigating factors: http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/ Custodial sentences are generally used as a last resort where the offender is persistent, is convicted of a very serious crime, or where the offender represents a danger to the public. Is someone driving a car over the legal limit not potentially dangerous enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Custodial sentences are generally used as a last resort where the offender is persistent, is convicted of a very serious crime, or where the offender represents a danger to the public. Is someone driving a car over the legal limit not potentially dangerous enough? In this context the "danger to the public" refers to how dangerous a person might be post conviction. A fairly decent proportion of those prosecuted for any first time offence usually keep their nose clean afterwards and are not imprisoned as they'll not continue to be a danger. Persistent offenders or those that don't seem to care that they've done wrong are quite probably going to carry on offending and should be removed from society for everyone's sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Over the legal limit - Fine + 5-year ban.Twice the legal limit - Fine + 10-year ban More than twice the legal limit - Fine + lifetime ban. Suitable punishments and no long term expense for the taxpayer. I'm normally criticised for being "soft on crime" but I think that repeated offences of this nature, offences which caused an accident and offences more than double over the legal limit should result in a prison sentence unless there are exceptional circumstances (e.g. the defendent is already enrolled on an AA course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 How far over the limit do you need to be to get jailed????? Depends how many people are already in prison. And the new prison will be open soon... I don't think the new prison holds that many more than the old prison does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Not an expert in Manx law, but in the UK the AG can refer cases for judicial review if he believes that the law has not been properly applied, and this would include perverse sentencing. The UK has sentencing guidelines which set down criteria for sentencing in different types of cases, including the aggravating or mitigating factors: http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/ Custodial sentences are generally used as a last resort where the offender is persistent, is convicted of a very serious crime, or where the offender represents a danger to the public. The AG has done this at least once that I can recall, he appealed (or whatever the right word is) against a sentence. IIRC the police asked him to do it because they considered it too lenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Coarsely speaking in a nutshell, when someone is accused of doing something very naughty and the police get involved and take them to court, it is the Attorney General's office who decide if the Police have a case or not and whether to proceed with court. It is an advocate from the AG's office who represents the Crown or rather in the IoM, the Chief Constable. If found guilty and the sentence is considered too low, then the AG's office can appeal the sentence. The AG is not, not, not, some sort of impartial supremo. Far from it. As a crown appointment, he does provide legal advice to the government and it is he as a )non voting) member of the Legislative Council who will more often than not answer questions in Tynwald of a legal bent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.