Weak sentencing…

[John Wright]

29 minutes ago, AOR said:

Why did he sentence this man to a lesser sentence.

See the explanation by Gladys - immediately above.

[AOR]

...plus he was a member of the Isle of Man national football team.

Glassers United.

[AOR]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Did you read the report?  An expert witness found that his story that he shoved rather than hit was consistent with the injury.

So that's ok then?

 He still "lashed out".

I wonder if losing an eye would have been any easier to deal with knowing it was caused by a shoved rather than a [something else] glass.

[AOR]

Actually I take it all back.

The defendant got an excellent character reference from "a practising advocate".

Fuck me, we're through the looking glass now.

[Roger Mexico]

14 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Have you thought you may be reading it incorrectly, and the the remark was addressed to the general public. Sort of “I’m not sentencing this man to a lesser sentence because he’s an accomplished football player “?

Well as I've pointed out before, if the Manx judiciary don't want their sentencing remarks to be misinterpreted, they should arrange to have them published as happens in other countries.

According to the BBC:

[Deemster Cook] said he had decided not to send Burns to prison, not because of his "footballing prowess", but because of his charity work associated with it, and the fact he would lose his job in the trust sector if sent to jail.

So it wasn't because he was good at football, but  because he was middle-class.  Which seems pretty much in line with Cook's usual sentencing policy.

It's another one of his "22 months, suspended" ones.  Which always seems odd to me as I thought the decision about the length of sentence and whether to suspend it were separate and if something was serious enough to deserve 22 months, suspension would require extreme circumstances.

[Gladys]

39 minutes ago, AOR said:

So that's ok then?

 He still "lashed out".

I wonder if losing an eye would have been any easier to deal with knowing it was caused by a shoved rather than a [something else] glass.

It isn't OK, where did I, or the Deemster, say it was? All I am saying is it is not, IMV, particularly weak sentencing, he has a prison sentence of 22 months hanging over him for the next 2 years, has to pay £2,000 in compensation (which is pretty steep when you see other compensation awarded) and he now has a criminal record.  He has not escaped unpunished. 

The probationary report says he has no history of similar and was unlikely to reoffend.  His employer gave him a reference.  Do you really think a prison sentence will rehabilitate him or protect society?  Those are the main reasons for a prison sentence, not retribution or satisfying some people, who do not know him (including me), that "a crock of shite" has been sent down.

Personally, I think prison sentences should primarily be there for rehabilitation and to protect society by removing those likely to reoffend.  It seems to fail in the former going by the number of repeat offenders we have even after prison sentences are served. 

There are many other examples of weak sentencing, and you see the names with monotonous and frequent regularity. 

This, IMV, is not one of them. 

[Bandits]

Terrible reading some of the comments by his mum on Facebook. Was an identical twin. Now having to come to terms with being a non identical twin as he now has a noticeable scar on his face causing an identity crisis which I suppose is understandable. Looks like this bloke got off very lightly as he’s middle class and people were prepared to provide references for him and he did (unspecified) charity work. He still glassed someone in the face in an unprovoked attack.

[manxfisherman]

It may or may not be a weak sentence, but it is certainly a lucky one. He has glassed someone in the face, unprovoked, and has not gone to jail for it. 

[Manx Bean]

28 minutes ago, manxfisherman said:

It may or may not be a weak sentence, but it is certainly a lucky one. He has glassed someone in the face, unprovoked, and has not gone to jail for it. 

Agreed. It sends out a completely inappropriate message though, doesn't it? I mean, I don't have a criminal record and have been involved in voluntary work for several charities over many years, and still have a job to hold down. So, does that mean I'd get a suspended sentence if I glassed my mate down the pub on a Friday after an argument? I think not.

Is there something else going on here, like a lack of availability at the Jurby Hilton, or lack of Prison officers?

[0bserver]

1 hour ago, manxfisherman said:

It may or may not be a weak sentence, but it is certainly a lucky one. He has glassed someone in the face, unprovoked, and has not gone to jail for it. 

Seems ok to glass people these days.

That fella that was in 1886 got away with it. Now this fella too. 

Calling him an accomplished footballer is funny though. He's Sunday League at best. Legend in his own lunchtime 

[Zarley]

I call bullshit on the claim he "forgot" he had a glass in his hand. WTF? Don't believe that for a nanosecond. 

[AOR]

The sentence had been suspended because of Burns' charity work, Deemster Cook said.

The old "charity work" is always a good one to have as a get out of jail free card.

The guy who drove on the wrong side of the road and killed the woman biker at Hillberry worked for the Red Cross. (I think he took that up after the accident but in plenty of time of course for the court case). 

[AOR]

Oh, and what the fuck is a "Prosecco glass".

Oh yeah, I get it.

Prosecco is what dainty middle class housewives sip wine out of and is thus rather benign. Something like that.

I wonder if the deemster was wanting to give his advocate pal a bit of a wink when he came up with that little one.

 

[AOR]

@Gladys

Too many posts to quote.

You're a mother. Try reading the Facebook posts of the victim's mother.

Edited August 1, 2022 by AOR

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, Zarley said:

I call bullshit on the claim he "forgot" he had a glass in his hand. WTF? Don't believe that for a nanosecond. 

There are so many bullshit elements in this whole episode (at least as reported in the papers) that you hardly know where to begin.  But many of them are very revealing of the way that the justice system works in the Isle of Man.

• It took this case 19 months to get to Court.   Judges seem less inclined to send people to prison if there has been a long wait to get to Court, so if you can afford to drag things out, you're more likely to escape it.
• Burns initially came up with an even more implausible story before changing it to the current one,  which doesn't suggest a great devotion to the truth or indeed much of the remorse which he claims to feel.
• The line about "However, after examination by an expert prosecution witness, Burns entered a basis of plea" looks suspiciously like some sort of plea-bargain - do others get such advantages?
• The whole story is still very odd.  Who goes to a party and then decides to go to bed in somebody else's flat?  Who forgets they have a glass (presumably full of water) in their hand when pushing someone?
• The Courts and police here seem amazingly laid-back about witness intimidation and attempted subversion (we've seen this recently elsewhere). Given that undermines the whole concept of justice, this is fairly shocking.