Polish escort attack man jailed

[fiatpunter]

How the hell can you take into account "previous good character" in a case like this? Previous good character should be only taken into account if the facts are in dispute. Would he also take previous good character into account for an axe murderer? "He murdered his family but shur he had a previous good character". Previous good character is for a different type of case, some of these judges are so stupid.

So you know how the system works and Judge Carney doesn't??

Once a defendant is found guilty (and previous character never comes into consideration until after the verdict has been given as the case must be decided on its own facts not what the defendant might have done before) then the judge must decide on the sentence and previous behaviour is relevant as is the likelihood that the accused will re-offend etc

[aml]

Rapists tend to reoffend thats the problem,good behaviour should be thrown out the window in cases like these.

[jayf1]

I think you are right on this one sophie,i remember someone that was underage was linked to the case.

its also possible that the second person has not had his day in court yet and cant be named untill later.

[aml]

its also possible that the second person has not had his day in court yet and cant be named untill later.

You could be right maybe they are waiting until he can be tried as an adult.

[nicegirlsarenice]

So you know how the system works and Judge Carney doesn't??

I'm sure he knows more than me about how the system goes (I'd wouldn't use the word "works"), I never claimed he didn't. Maybe Judge Carney is pushed into following the "system" rather than using his own judgement, I don't know. But again I think it's stupid to count "previous good character" in this situation, that would be for another case of less severity.

Once a defendant is found guilty (and previous character never comes into consideration until after the verdict has been given as the case must be decided on its own facts not what the defendant might have done before) then the judge must decide on the sentence and previous behaviour is relevant as is the likelihood that the accused will re-offend etc

Previous behaviour should only be used to give a slight "benefit of the doubt" to someone who had no previous bad behaviour, had a good character, and was perhaps goaded into it, and where the magnitude of the crime is unclear. If a person makes a mistake then maybe they should get another chance rather than someone who is always invovled in bad behaviour, and was probably the person who instigated the crime this time.

I do think if a person has a reputation as a peacemaker, a kind person, a good person, then the law has less business punishing them than a person who is known to continually promote crime and is glad to serve punishments. BUT.... I am mostly against it because of how potentially unfair it could be.