Hi

We have discussed my own circumstanses previously on this subject and I do feel the emotions of the media, society and polititians do have an affect.

My original appeal stated that another offended convicted in the same "operation" but sentenced seperately was given a non custodial sentence were I was given 4 years.
This was even their offences were of a greater amount, "classed" as more damaging and severe than mine.
The Appeal response was simply "because a different Judge gave a different decision is not justification for an appeal"


Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------

This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.

The trouble with using humans to make that sort of decision is that it introduces the problem of prejudices. I remember when I went back to court for sentencing, two guys were going to be sentenced for drugs offences. The staff in the transport seemed to think three and a half years was the norm, but when we all went back to prison, they had been given five years each. It turned out that there had been a bereavement in the judge's close family resulting from a drugs overdose, so that particular judge was always hard on possession with intent to supply, especially Class A. The maximum allowed for in the sentencing guidelines is still within the guidelines, so it can't really be seen as manifestly excessive.

I'd suggest giving AI a chance when it comes to sentencing, but you don't know who would be writing the code....

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

Disparity in sentencing is nothing new in the UK justice system. You will never, ever be able to make sense of the sentencing regime in general, because we give judges way too much discretion in deciding sentences. I gave up long ago trying to make "sentencing make sense".

There have been some pretty extreme cases reported in the press recently, but two of them particularly caught my eye.

In the first, a man was sentenced to 18 years with a 6 year extended licence, for producing AI images of children and encouraging the rape of a child.
In the other, a man was sentenced to 6 years with a 3 year extended licence, for encouraging a child to commit suicide and possessing illegal images of a child.

What is particularly striking about the two cases is that the difference in sentencing. In the first one, the person was communicating with an undercover police officer. At one point they discussed raping a child, which led to the encouragement charge, although the judge conceded that no child had actually been raped. In the second case, a real child was encouraged to commit suicide, although there is no evidence to suggest that they did go through with it.

To treat encouraging a crime exactly the same as committing the crime yourself is rather odd. It's a kind of joint enterprise thing, but it turns the written word into a deadly weapon, and we all know that people talk about things online which they would never actually do in real life. Also, how is encouraging rape a worse crime than encouraging suicide?

In assessing risk, you would obviously look at likelihood of someone acting on their words, but how does that work for encouragement? These two individuals might well be at risk of saying something very unpleasant in the future, but are they really going to do anything themselves? It seems to me that these are essentially thought crimes. They might lead to an actual crime being committed, but equally they might not.