By AB2014 - 19 Oct 20 12:56 PM
+x+x+x+x+x+xThis bought a glimmer of hope for about 5 seconds as I have always had one bit in my life, which if I had one thing it would be able to get a spent conviction. I have prayed for the system to change and allow all the time spent on courses and hours in probation offices to actually mean something and be able to live life again. From my understanding and my Oyasys report and PPu that my Risk is low, I was a D cat a year before I left prison, working in the local community cutting grass and looking after hedges etc and once a month I had 5 days back home with my wife.. My offence matched another persons on the same rolling Sotp course almost exact he pleaded guilty at the 1st court hearing and got 4 years with a 5 year sopo so he will get his spent. I plead guilty to one count and not guilty to rest but found guilty and got 6 years with no sopo so mine is stuck for life. So same offence but one is classed as serious and one is not ....... It seems very unfair that the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off considering it’s my only and last offence I’m classed as low risk but I’m not allowed to work. The story in the paper a few years ago I remember a drunk driver hitting a car and killing 3 people he was sentenced to 6 years for death by drunk driving. but as no sexual, violent or terrorism he will get a chance to get spent and live again I know he will never be able to get out of his head what happened but he will be able to get a job and pay his way in life. Trouble with SO is we don’t like to put our heads above the parapet for fear of being knocked down. If the government had picked drug dealers not to get spent but all other offences ok the drug dealers would soon be outside parliament shouting discrimination. The hardest part of this mistake in my life is the trying to move on my offence was 14 years ago, my sentence finished. 7 years ago but my mental health is getting worse all the time just from having to worry about so many things. Sorry if I ran on but I just feel that this country is so unfair they want rehabilitation and spend millions on helping with courses and probation services only to throw it away with never letting us get on toProve we are not to dangerous to work. Hi Do not apologize for venting your concerns and injustices. I do it more than most lol. Your history proved your character has been rejuvenated since your conviction, you got D cat, something not everyone managed. It is hard but try to see your past not as a burden, but as the "fuel" to drive your "engine of determination" to live a life that is offence free, concentrating on your quality of life and future. Remember no one is totally free from conditions as there are many more individuals in this world with physical restrictions that we can still do more than for instance. Try to just think of the "imposed" restrictions/conditions in the same manner as not being able to do a world cruise because of the financial cost. You do not ignore that dream you just go somewhere that you can afford. Focus on the benefits your life brings to you even if they are only small. Accept your limitations but push there barriers to the limits. The success this brings will ease your mental stress and self belief. In the Executive Summary, it says "We now propose to legislate to extend this approach to other specified serious violent and sexual offenders who receive sentences of between 4 and 7 years", but the use of the word "serious" is just their way of pandering to the tabloids, as it is used 119 times in the document. They even talk about "more serious murders", which makes it clear that they think some murders are less serious. Aren't these the same people who keep emphasising their commitment to victim support? On the issue of more serious murders, they have been clear that murder of a police officer, or a child, and possibly murder of any 'emergency worker' will be treated as more serious than murder of anybody else, which by definition treats those other people's murders as less serious. We also have hate crime legislation that treats murders of certain protected groups as worse than non protected groups. Murder of a white person is therefore regarded as less serious than murder of a black person, if the black person was primarily murdered because of their race. When it comes to rehabilitation, I do think that a Tory govt is always conscious of having too many 'economically inactive' people using the welfare state. If they stop ex-offenders from working, then those people will be on the dole and as much as the Conservatives hate offenders, they hate welfare 'scroungers' just as much, and possibly even more, so they have to balance those two conflicting objectives. I must admit I hadn't thought of being more serious in those terms. I was thinking more along the lines of some murders are especially brutal and traumatise the people who knew the victim, while others are clinical assassinations and seen in some quarters as an occupational hazard of being involved in organised criminal activities. As for police officers/emergency workers, would they have to be on duty? If they're off duty, how would the killer know they're a police officer or emergency worker? What about a murder by a police officer or emergency worker? A child is anyone under 18, but there is a difference between murdering a baby or toddler and murdering someone a few weeks before their 18th birthday. Then there are teenagers who look, and claim to be, older. Perhaps the Sentencing Council can come up with a table and divide the various things into bands, such as age, race and so on. A bit like Unlock's table of rehabilitation periods.... The more governments try to define things, the more grey areas they create. A chinese philosopher once said "The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be". That probably applies to many crimes. The point about protected characteristics is a fair one, but it is already an aggravating factor in sentencing. It also applies to people of other races, including white people, who are murdered because of their race. Or their religion, sexuality or other protected characteristics. Hi https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54587863No females executed since 1953, then they deem this female to have committed a serious offence to be executed, unless someone steps in but due to the case details would a politician step in to stop it? I pointed out before that a loss of life is deemed less serious than a "sex offence" not matter the details of the SO. The details of the above say I am wrong because of the "baby".
Well, if they refuse to execute women because they are women but still execute men, that is discrimination. From what I can see, the US Supreme Court has ruled that you can't just apply the death sentence because a murder is "particularly vile", but murder is a capital offence, and this one was aggravated by kidnapping. I'm not agreeing with the death sentence, far from it, but what worries me is the death penalty is an extreme example of what can happen when you dehumanise convicted offenders. It has been shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent, so it is just a punishment. That reduces it in the US to "Do you prefer the Old Testament or the New Testament?" "An eye for an eye" or "turn the other cheek"?
|
By JASB - 19 Oct 20 4:59 PM
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis bought a glimmer of hope for about 5 seconds as I have always had one bit in my life, which if I had one thing it would be able to get a spent conviction. I have prayed for the system to change and allow all the time spent on courses and hours in probation offices to actually mean something and be able to live life again. From my understanding and my Oyasys report and PPu that my Risk is low, I was a D cat a year before I left prison, working in the local community cutting grass and looking after hedges etc and once a month I had 5 days back home with my wife.. My offence matched another persons on the same rolling Sotp course almost exact he pleaded guilty at the 1st court hearing and got 4 years with a 5 year sopo so he will get his spent. I plead guilty to one count and not guilty to rest but found guilty and got 6 years with no sopo so mine is stuck for life. So same offence but one is classed as serious and one is not ....... It seems very unfair that the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off considering it’s my only and last offence I’m classed as low risk but I’m not allowed to work. The story in the paper a few years ago I remember a drunk driver hitting a car and killing 3 people he was sentenced to 6 years for death by drunk driving. but as no sexual, violent or terrorism he will get a chance to get spent and live again I know he will never be able to get out of his head what happened but he will be able to get a job and pay his way in life. Trouble with SO is we don’t like to put our heads above the parapet for fear of being knocked down. If the government had picked drug dealers not to get spent but all other offences ok the drug dealers would soon be outside parliament shouting discrimination. The hardest part of this mistake in my life is the trying to move on my offence was 14 years ago, my sentence finished. 7 years ago but my mental health is getting worse all the time just from having to worry about so many things. Sorry if I ran on but I just feel that this country is so unfair they want rehabilitation and spend millions on helping with courses and probation services only to throw it away with never letting us get on toProve we are not to dangerous to work. Hi Do not apologize for venting your concerns and injustices. I do it more than most lol. Your history proved your character has been rejuvenated since your conviction, you got D cat, something not everyone managed. It is hard but try to see your past not as a burden, but as the "fuel" to drive your "engine of determination" to live a life that is offence free, concentrating on your quality of life and future. Remember no one is totally free from conditions as there are many more individuals in this world with physical restrictions that we can still do more than for instance. Try to just think of the "imposed" restrictions/conditions in the same manner as not being able to do a world cruise because of the financial cost. You do not ignore that dream you just go somewhere that you can afford. Focus on the benefits your life brings to you even if they are only small. Accept your limitations but push there barriers to the limits. The success this brings will ease your mental stress and self belief. In the Executive Summary, it says "We now propose to legislate to extend this approach to other specified serious violent and sexual offenders who receive sentences of between 4 and 7 years", but the use of the word "serious" is just their way of pandering to the tabloids, as it is used 119 times in the document. They even talk about "more serious murders", which makes it clear that they think some murders are less serious. Aren't these the same people who keep emphasising their commitment to victim support? On the issue of more serious murders, they have been clear that murder of a police officer, or a child, and possibly murder of any 'emergency worker' will be treated as more serious than murder of anybody else, which by definition treats those other people's murders as less serious. We also have hate crime legislation that treats murders of certain protected groups as worse than non protected groups. Murder of a white person is therefore regarded as less serious than murder of a black person, if the black person was primarily murdered because of their race. When it comes to rehabilitation, I do think that a Tory govt is always conscious of having too many 'economically inactive' people using the welfare state. If they stop ex-offenders from working, then those people will be on the dole and as much as the Conservatives hate offenders, they hate welfare 'scroungers' just as much, and possibly even more, so they have to balance those two conflicting objectives. I must admit I hadn't thought of being more serious in those terms. I was thinking more along the lines of some murders are especially brutal and traumatise the people who knew the victim, while others are clinical assassinations and seen in some quarters as an occupational hazard of being involved in organised criminal activities. As for police officers/emergency workers, would they have to be on duty? If they're off duty, how would the killer know they're a police officer or emergency worker? What about a murder by a police officer or emergency worker? A child is anyone under 18, but there is a difference between murdering a baby or toddler and murdering someone a few weeks before their 18th birthday. Then there are teenagers who look, and claim to be, older. Perhaps the Sentencing Council can come up with a table and divide the various things into bands, such as age, race and so on. A bit like Unlock's table of rehabilitation periods.... The more governments try to define things, the more grey areas they create. A chinese philosopher once said "The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be". That probably applies to many crimes. The point about protected characteristics is a fair one, but it is already an aggravating factor in sentencing. It also applies to people of other races, including white people, who are murdered because of their race. Or their religion, sexuality or other protected characteristics. Hi https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54587863No females executed since 1953, then they deem this female to have committed a serious offence to be executed, unless someone steps in but due to the case details would a politician step in to stop it? I pointed out before that a loss of life is deemed less serious than a "sex offence" not matter the details of the SO. The details of the above say I am wrong because of the "baby". Well, if they refuse to execute women because they are women but still execute men, that is discrimination. From what I can see, the US Supreme Court has ruled that you can't just apply the death sentence because a murder is "particularly vile", but murder is a capital offence, and this one was aggravated by kidnapping. I'm not agreeing with the death sentence, far from it, but what worries me is the death penalty is an extreme example of what can happen when you dehumanise convicted offenders. It has been shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent, so it is just a punishment. That reduces it in the US to "Do you prefer the Old Testament or the New Testament?" "An eye for an eye" or "turn the other cheek"?
Hi I can agree with your words, however my highlighting this was to show that though a political system does favour gender; gets votes, sometimes they may get votes from a different focus but still using the same emotions, i.e. "Ok we know its a female, and females are persecuted more by males than in reverse, but in this case our focus show be on the baby and its quality of life expectations and so it is OK to punish this woman."
"Do you prefer the Old Testament or the New Testament?" "An eye for an eye" or "turn the other cheek"?
Unfortunately I am still waiting to be shown how our Justice System cannot still believe in this, especially with SO
|
By AB2014 - 22 Oct 20 12:49 PM
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis bought a glimmer of hope for about 5 seconds as I have always had one bit in my life, which if I had one thing it would be able to get a spent conviction. I have prayed for the system to change and allow all the time spent on courses and hours in probation offices to actually mean something and be able to live life again. From my understanding and my Oyasys report and PPu that my Risk is low, I was a D cat a year before I left prison, working in the local community cutting grass and looking after hedges etc and once a month I had 5 days back home with my wife.. My offence matched another persons on the same rolling Sotp course almost exact he pleaded guilty at the 1st court hearing and got 4 years with a 5 year sopo so he will get his spent. I plead guilty to one count and not guilty to rest but found guilty and got 6 years with no sopo so mine is stuck for life. So same offence but one is classed as serious and one is not ....... It seems very unfair that the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off considering it’s my only and last offence I’m classed as low risk but I’m not allowed to work. The story in the paper a few years ago I remember a drunk driver hitting a car and killing 3 people he was sentenced to 6 years for death by drunk driving. but as no sexual, violent or terrorism he will get a chance to get spent and live again I know he will never be able to get out of his head what happened but he will be able to get a job and pay his way in life. Trouble with SO is we don’t like to put our heads above the parapet for fear of being knocked down. If the government had picked drug dealers not to get spent but all other offences ok the drug dealers would soon be outside parliament shouting discrimination. The hardest part of this mistake in my life is the trying to move on my offence was 14 years ago, my sentence finished. 7 years ago but my mental health is getting worse all the time just from having to worry about so many things. Sorry if I ran on but I just feel that this country is so unfair they want rehabilitation and spend millions on helping with courses and probation services only to throw it away with never letting us get on toProve we are not to dangerous to work. Hi Do not apologize for venting your concerns and injustices. I do it more than most lol. Your history proved your character has been rejuvenated since your conviction, you got D cat, something not everyone managed. It is hard but try to see your past not as a burden, but as the "fuel" to drive your "engine of determination" to live a life that is offence free, concentrating on your quality of life and future. Remember no one is totally free from conditions as there are many more individuals in this world with physical restrictions that we can still do more than for instance. Try to just think of the "imposed" restrictions/conditions in the same manner as not being able to do a world cruise because of the financial cost. You do not ignore that dream you just go somewhere that you can afford. Focus on the benefits your life brings to you even if they are only small. Accept your limitations but push there barriers to the limits. The success this brings will ease your mental stress and self belief. In the Executive Summary, it says "We now propose to legislate to extend this approach to other specified serious violent and sexual offenders who receive sentences of between 4 and 7 years", but the use of the word "serious" is just their way of pandering to the tabloids, as it is used 119 times in the document. They even talk about "more serious murders", which makes it clear that they think some murders are less serious. Aren't these the same people who keep emphasising their commitment to victim support? On the issue of more serious murders, they have been clear that murder of a police officer, or a child, and possibly murder of any 'emergency worker' will be treated as more serious than murder of anybody else, which by definition treats those other people's murders as less serious. We also have hate crime legislation that treats murders of certain protected groups as worse than non protected groups. Murder of a white person is therefore regarded as less serious than murder of a black person, if the black person was primarily murdered because of their race. When it comes to rehabilitation, I do think that a Tory govt is always conscious of having too many 'economically inactive' people using the welfare state. If they stop ex-offenders from working, then those people will be on the dole and as much as the Conservatives hate offenders, they hate welfare 'scroungers' just as much, and possibly even more, so they have to balance those two conflicting objectives. I must admit I hadn't thought of being more serious in those terms. I was thinking more along the lines of some murders are especially brutal and traumatise the people who knew the victim, while others are clinical assassinations and seen in some quarters as an occupational hazard of being involved in organised criminal activities. As for police officers/emergency workers, would they have to be on duty? If they're off duty, how would the killer know they're a police officer or emergency worker? What about a murder by a police officer or emergency worker? A child is anyone under 18, but there is a difference between murdering a baby or toddler and murdering someone a few weeks before their 18th birthday. Then there are teenagers who look, and claim to be, older. Perhaps the Sentencing Council can come up with a table and divide the various things into bands, such as age, race and so on. A bit like Unlock's table of rehabilitation periods.... The more governments try to define things, the more grey areas they create. A chinese philosopher once said "The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be". That probably applies to many crimes. The point about protected characteristics is a fair one, but it is already an aggravating factor in sentencing. It also applies to people of other races, including white people, who are murdered because of their race. Or their religion, sexuality or other protected characteristics. Hi https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54587863No females executed since 1953, then they deem this female to have committed a serious offence to be executed, unless someone steps in but due to the case details would a politician step in to stop it? I pointed out before that a loss of life is deemed less serious than a "sex offence" not matter the details of the SO. The details of the above say I am wrong because of the "baby". Well, if they refuse to execute women because they are women but still execute men, that is discrimination. From what I can see, the US Supreme Court has ruled that you can't just apply the death sentence because a murder is "particularly vile", but murder is a capital offence, and this one was aggravated by kidnapping. I'm not agreeing with the death sentence, far from it, but what worries me is the death penalty is an extreme example of what can happen when you dehumanise convicted offenders. It has been shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent, so it is just a punishment. That reduces it in the US to "Do you prefer the Old Testament or the New Testament?" "An eye for an eye" or "turn the other cheek"? Hi I can agree with your words, however my highlighting this was to show that though a political system does favour gender; gets votes, sometimes they may get votes from a different focus but still using the same emotions, i.e. "Ok we know its a female, and females are persecuted more by males than in reverse, but in this case our focus show be on the baby and its quality of life expectations and so it is OK to punish this woman." "Do you prefer the Old Testament or the New Testament?" "An eye for an eye" or "turn the other cheek"?
Unfortunately I am still waiting to be shown how our Justice System cannot still believe in this, especially with SO
I've since read that the woman in question has a mental illness and learning difficulties. The US Supreme Court ruled many years ago that executing such a person is unconstitutional, so I'd expect the legal process to rumble on for some time to come. On that subject, I can recommend this book.
|
By AB2014 - 12 Oct 20 12:29 PM
Khafka originally posted:
Noticed this is gaining traction now. Wondering everyone's thoughts? Looks like sex offences are being ignored, as per usual but good for everyone else!
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/criminal-record-reform-to-support-ex-offenders-into-work
The reply button is missing, somehow, so I thought I'd start a new thread in the hope that this thread will allow replies. It still didn't work in that sub-forum, so I'm trying here instead.
|
By JASB - 24 Oct 20 3:46 PM
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis bought a glimmer of hope for about 5 seconds as I have always had one bit in my life, which if I had one thing it would be able to get a spent conviction. I have prayed for the system to change and allow all the time spent on courses and hours in probation offices to actually mean something and be able to live life again. From my understanding and my Oyasys report and PPu that my Risk is low, I was a D cat a year before I left prison, working in the local community cutting grass and looking after hedges etc and once a month I had 5 days back home with my wife.. My offence matched another persons on the same rolling Sotp course almost exact he pleaded guilty at the 1st court hearing and got 4 years with a 5 year sopo so he will get his spent. I plead guilty to one count and not guilty to rest but found guilty and got 6 years with no sopo so mine is stuck for life. So same offence but one is classed as serious and one is not ....... It seems very unfair that the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off considering it’s my only and last offence I’m classed as low risk but I’m not allowed to work. The story in the paper a few years ago I remember a drunk driver hitting a car and killing 3 people he was sentenced to 6 years for death by drunk driving. but as no sexual, violent or terrorism he will get a chance to get spent and live again I know he will never be able to get out of his head what happened but he will be able to get a job and pay his way in life. Trouble with SO is we don’t like to put our heads above the parapet for fear of being knocked down. If the government had picked drug dealers not to get spent but all other offences ok the drug dealers would soon be outside parliament shouting discrimination. The hardest part of this mistake in my life is the trying to move on my offence was 14 years ago, my sentence finished. 7 years ago but my mental health is getting worse all the time just from having to worry about so many things. Sorry if I ran on but I just feel that this country is so unfair they want rehabilitation and spend millions on helping with courses and probation services only to throw it away with never letting us get on toProve we are not to dangerous to work. Hi Do not apologize for venting your concerns and injustices. I do it more than most lol. Your history proved your character has been rejuvenated since your conviction, you got D cat, something not everyone managed. It is hard but try to see your past not as a burden, but as the "fuel" to drive your "engine of determination" to live a life that is offence free, concentrating on your quality of life and future. Remember no one is totally free from conditions as there are many more individuals in this world with physical restrictions that we can still do more than for instance. Try to just think of the "imposed" restrictions/conditions in the same manner as not being able to do a world cruise because of the financial cost. You do not ignore that dream you just go somewhere that you can afford. Focus on the benefits your life brings to you even if they are only small. Accept your limitations but push there barriers to the limits. The success this brings will ease your mental stress and self belief. In the Executive Summary, it says "We now propose to legislate to extend this approach to other specified serious violent and sexual offenders who receive sentences of between 4 and 7 years", but the use of the word "serious" is just their way of pandering to the tabloids, as it is used 119 times in the document. They even talk about "more serious murders", which makes it clear that they think some murders are less serious. Aren't these the same people who keep emphasising their commitment to victim support? On the issue of more serious murders, they have been clear that murder of a police officer, or a child, and possibly murder of any 'emergency worker' will be treated as more serious than murder of anybody else, which by definition treats those other people's murders as less serious. We also have hate crime legislation that treats murders of certain protected groups as worse than non protected groups. Murder of a white person is therefore regarded as less serious than murder of a black person, if the black person was primarily murdered because of their race. When it comes to rehabilitation, I do think that a Tory govt is always conscious of having too many 'economically inactive' people using the welfare state. If they stop ex-offenders from working, then those people will be on the dole and as much as the Conservatives hate offenders, they hate welfare 'scroungers' just as much, and possibly even more, so they have to balance those two conflicting objectives. I must admit I hadn't thought of being more serious in those terms. I was thinking more along the lines of some murders are especially brutal and traumatise the people who knew the victim, while others are clinical assassinations and seen in some quarters as an occupational hazard of being involved in organised criminal activities. As for police officers/emergency workers, would they have to be on duty? If they're off duty, how would the killer know they're a police officer or emergency worker? What about a murder by a police officer or emergency worker? A child is anyone under 18, but there is a difference between murdering a baby or toddler and murdering someone a few weeks before their 18th birthday. Then there are teenagers who look, and claim to be, older. Perhaps the Sentencing Council can come up with a table and divide the various things into bands, such as age, race and so on. A bit like Unlock's table of rehabilitation periods.... The more governments try to define things, the more grey areas they create. A chinese philosopher once said "The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be". That probably applies to many crimes. The point about protected characteristics is a fair one, but it is already an aggravating factor in sentencing. It also applies to people of other races, including white people, who are murdered because of their race. Or their religion, sexuality or other protected characteristics. Hi https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54587863No females executed since 1953, then they deem this female to have committed a serious offence to be executed, unless someone steps in but due to the case details would a politician step in to stop it? I pointed out before that a loss of life is deemed less serious than a "sex offence" not matter the details of the SO. The details of the above say I am wrong because of the "baby". Well, if they refuse to execute women because they are women but still execute men, that is discrimination. From what I can see, the US Supreme Court has ruled that you can't just apply the death sentence because a murder is "particularly vile", but murder is a capital offence, and this one was aggravated by kidnapping. I'm not agreeing with the death sentence, far from it, but what worries me is the death penalty is an extreme example of what can happen when you dehumanise convicted offenders. It has been shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent, so it is just a punishment. That reduces it in the US to "Do you prefer the Old Testament or the New Testament?" "An eye for an eye" or "turn the other cheek"? Hi I can agree with your words, however my highlighting this was to show that though a political system does favour gender; gets votes, sometimes they may get votes from a different focus but still using the same emotions, i.e. "Ok we know its a female, and females are persecuted more by males than in reverse, but in this case our focus show be on the baby and its quality of life expectations and so it is OK to punish this woman." "Do you prefer the Old Testament or the New Testament?" "An eye for an eye" or "turn the other cheek"?
Unfortunately I am still waiting to be shown how our Justice System cannot still believe in this, especially with SO I've since read that the woman in question has a mental illness and learning difficulties. The US Supreme Court ruled many years ago that executing such a person is unconstitutional, so I'd expect the legal process to rumble on for some time to come. On that subject, I can recommend this book.
Hi
Thanks and I will see about reading it.
In regard to her medical history, as I believe we all stress there is more to an offence than the offence
It is a shame that with certain offences and when the authorities are force marching to a conviction that phrase is forgotten.
|
|