There are just so many oddly lenient sentences given out each day that you could almost devote an entire web page just to log them. I rountinely read news stories and over and over dangerous and deviant people are often given the lightest sentence within the spectrum of judicial power.
Not even the toughest sentence of an inherently weak set of powers, but the weakest of the weak. If it were happening on occasion then you could attribute it to a few judges that were perhaps just exceptionally lenient. However it is far more than that and it is far too commonplace to write off as being the work of a few ultra-liberal judges. In fact, when something can be demonstrated repeatedly among a good sampling then it qualifies as science. Therefore if you can demonstrate examples of inexplicably lenient sentences handed to the most vile of people and if you can do this repeatedly then you can fairly argue that you have proven, via the scientific method, that this is a default position for most judges. It’s a culture across the judiciary. Yes the lawful sentencing powers should and must be raised for many types of crime, but even with the inadequate maximum that judges can use right now they do not.
I will now offer out my observation on why they do not. First myth busted – it is not about the cost of sending them to prison. I’ve disproven that theory many times and many ways. Second myth busted – it is not a prison overcrowding issue, since I have shown in the past the sorts of laughable things that DO see many people go to prison every year.
With those two myths out of the way I will now turn my attention to what I think the pathogen is. At some stage over the past 20-30 years the Justice System ceased to deal in the justice game. A brand new mindset began to take root in the judiciary, not one that was justice led but led by social science. That is what judges often practice these days – social science and not justice.
It probably didnt happen by chance; it’s more likely that at some stage the tone and nature of what was being taught by professors changed and with it the attitude of the next generation of judges. This is a very important and damaging shift. When a justice system focuses less on justice and more on experimenting with social science then you do not have a true justice system anymore.
This would be an example of justice: The brothers are caught and convicted of a terrible thing. They cannot bring the dog back to life or undo what they did so justice dictates that they be locked up. That is what a TRUE justice system would do, always and without exception. Now this is an example of a system led by social science and not justice: The brothers are caught and convicted of a terrible thing. They do not go to jail but are instead told to be home by 8pm and wear a little ankle bracelet.
Furthermore, rather than just trying the hard evidence, a system that is led by social science invariably leads to “muh mitigating circumstances”. It invites it. It encourages it. It weaponises the defence lawyers.
Here you can very easily see the stark difference between a judiciary that is all about the justice and one that is all about the social science. I stress that ‘social science’ is NOT hard science. It is malleable, it has no moral obligation as such, and in many cases it can be reduced to a lot of very bad ideas that then become the new way of thinking at places of academia. The result is that you end up with courts that are a giant safe space for perverts, paedophiles, sadists, predators and other freaks. In a system that is deeply influenced by contemporary social science these degenerates (and their lawyers) know that the more sick they’ve been in the past the more that the courts will count that as a mitigating circumstance.
Instead of sound judgements you get what we have now – a sort of mishmash of ‘alternative sentences’ which are grounded in social sciences and not justice. A sentence that involved the two brothers having to be in by 8pm is social science- It’s like a state vesion of being grounded by parents. Nothing to do with £ and lack of space in prisons. Far more to do with the culture of social science in the judiciary. Its catastophic results are by no means limited to animal abusers.
Here is a totally non-dog-related example of a system that is led by social science and NOT by justice. If it were led by justice then the perpetrators here would all be behind bars and there would be no margin for the offensive excuses the judge offered out. He can ONLY do that because the culture in the judiciary IS heavily led by social science over justice.
A gang of Somalian women who repeatedly kicked a young woman in the head walked free from court after a judge heard they were “not used to being drunk” because they were Muslim.
The four women – three sisters and their cousin – were told the charge of actual bodily harm, which carries a maximum sentence of five years, against 22-year-old care worker Rhea Page would normally land them in custody.
However, the judge handed the women suspended sentences after hearing that they were not used to alcohol because their religion does not allow it.
Miss Page said Ambaro Maxamed, 24, Ayan Maxamed, 28, and Hibo Maxamed, 24, and their 28-year-old cousin Ifrah Nur screamed “Kill the white slag” while kicking her in the head as she lay motionless on the ground.
The support worker from Leicester was left “black and blue” with bruises and needed hospital treatment following the attack which came as she walked to a taxi rank with her boyfriend.
Miss Page was left so traumatised by the attack that she lost her job due to repeated absences with stress and flashbacks.
And as you will see here, this disease of social science over justice even determines how serious a sentence a paedophile will get. Not dictated to be severity but by…you guessed it…. ‘cultural considerations’.
A child molester who abused two Asian girls was rightly given a longer sentence than if his victims had been white because Asian sex crime victims suffer more, a leading judge has ruled.
Mr Justice Walker said it was proper for paedophile Jamal Muhammed Raheem Ul Nasir to have been given a tougher than normal sentence because his victims were Asian.
The judge who jailed him, Sally Cahill QC, specifically said that the fact the victims were Asian had been factored in as an “aggravating feature” when passing sentence.
But their complaints were rejected by Mr Justice Walker, who said: “The victims’ fathers were concerned about the future marriage prospects for their daughters.
“Judge Cahill was having particular regard to the harm cause to the victims by this offending. That harm was aggravated by the impact on the victims and their families within this particular community”.
And police should really be on our side because if we had our way this wouldn’t be happening:
A thug launches a ferocious attack on two police officers – one a woman – in a busy street in broad daylight.
A crowd quickly gathers around the horrifying scene. But instead of stepping in to help the two constables, some begin filming the attack on mobile phones.
In a sickening portrait of modern Scotland, onlookers jeer as the two helpless officers are beaten to the ground after an onslaught of blows.
Now, in a final insult, their brutal attacker Stuart McCourt has escaped a jail sentence and been given only a community service sentence.
Last night, Scottish Police Federation (SPF) chairman Brian Docherty condemned the attack – and the bystanders who filmed it – saying: ‘An attack on a police officer is an attack on broader society.
‘It is also an appalling indictment of our society that some people chose to stand with smartphones taking pictures, or making videos, laughing as they did so, when officers were being subjected to this appalling violence.’
From that broad sampling you can very easily see in practice that justice has been replaced by social science in the judiciary and that a nasty outgrowth of that are all these schemes and ‘alterantives’, all of which are anti-justice. I think it’s time for the judiciary to stop behaving like auxiliary social workers and start behaving like the vanguards of justice they are well paid and privileged to be.