I'm staggered by this. Stephen Waterson tried to cover the whole thing up and intimidated and assaulted witnesses and he'll *still* only serve 5 years. (Concurrent sentences.) I'm pretty sure you automatically get released at the half way point so this is essentially a 2.5 year sentence.
He had previous convictions for violence FFS. Typically I can see the logic when courts impose seemingly odd sentences but in this case I'm at a loss.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50419697
has been jailed for more than seven years.
Not sure where you end up with 2.5yrs?
Edit-ah yes concurrent, what the eff is the point of concurrent sentence!
Is he the car seat guy? Heard it on the way home, to may shame I wondered/hoped if he might just get sorted out whilst inside. Seems very short to me.
This may not completely put you at ease, but the reporting is poor and he's actually been sentenced to 7.5 yrs:
a. 5.5 yrs for the manslaughter
b. 2 yrs for witness intimidation
c. 18 months for Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice
(b)&(c) run concurrently with each other but consecutive to (a).
Its wrong to say he only gets 1/2 of that. He will only serve 1/2 in jail, but then is released on license; he is still serving a sentence at that point, albeit most people would see him as a free man. Any breach of licence conditions is likely to see him recalled to prison. The parole board will set his licence conditions - they are likely to include where he can stay, who he is allowed to associate with etc. Failing to turn up to appointments with his probation officer, getting lifted by the police (even for things they would normally not charge you for) etc. can all see you returned to prison for some or all of the sentence. That policy is not popular, but is a political not a judicial one, the alternative is paying an extra £4 Bn to keep people in prison for their full sentence. There is little evidence that this would reduce reoffending (indeed those closest to this world would suggest simply chucking people out onto the streets at the end of a long sentence is the worst thing you could possibly do).
Edit-ah yes concurrent, what the eff is the point of concurrent sentence!
In part, so he has both convictions/sentences on his record, for consideration should there be a need to sentence him for something in the future. I don’t know the guidelines for deciding when to decide between concurrent or consecutive though.
Thanks to poly & thegreatape for the explanations 👍
if you've never been in one, prisons are truly horrible places even just to visit.
It's always going to be a good thread when the public knows better than judges!
Lynch them I say! 😆 It's only fair!
"Any breach of licence conditions is likely to see him recalled to prison."
Of course it will. If the probation officer can be bothered and if the governor has got space. And then released again on Governor's Temporary Licence before having it confirmed by the parole board.
ts wrong to say he only gets 1/2 of that. He will only serve 1/2 in jail, but then is released on license; he is still serving a sentence at that point, albeit most people would see him as a free man. Any breach of licence conditions is likely to see him recalled to prison. The parole board will set his licence conditions – they are likely to include where he can stay, who he is allowed to associate with etc. Failing to turn up to appointments with his probation officer, getting lifted by the police (even for things they would normally not charge you for) etc. can all see you returned to prison for some or all of the sentence.
Works well doesn't it?
Jurors in the first trial heard Waterson was a controlling womaniser who had a violent temper and three previous convictions for attacking an ex-girlfriend and his sister's husband.
Benv - probably personality disordered. Unfortunately mental health provision in prisons is shite. It takes a significant amount of time and money to fix people like that, that is unless he is a sociopath - in which case it's impossible to hard (although this doesn't mean we shouldn't be running all sorts of clinical trials to help them).
I would much prefer they were removed from society then to save other innocents becoming victims.
He, err... Has been?
Judicial systems that use capital punishment or who's prime purpose is to punish actually increase the risk to public health and recidivism. The general theory being that if it's okay for the state to kill people, the morality of the population is debased and people justify killing more easily.
You want an evidence based judicial system - then you get the best outcome for your population in terms of public health (violence is a public health issue). Politicization and ideology actually make things worse and worsen the outcomes for the non-criminals in society.
We should be running clinical trials on judicial interventions, just like we do when we develop new drugs.
Judicial systems that use capital punishment or who’s prime purpose is to punish actually increase the risk to public health and recidivism.
How does capital punishment increase recidivism ?
This may not completely put you at ease, but the reporting is poor and he’s actually been sentenced to 7.5 yrs: (b)&(c) run concurrently with each other but consecutive to (a).
Thanks for taking the trouble to clear that up, if that had been clearer in the report I probably wouldn't have felt the urge to start a thread. (Even a shade under four years feels light given the seriousness of the offence and the endless list of aggravating factors.) (Ta to GreatApe too.)
to may shame I wondered/hoped if he might just get sorted out whilst inside.
I try not to let my thoughts go there normally but I have a 3yo lad myself so on this occasion...
How does capital punishment increase recidivism ?
Yeah, I'm no supporter of capital punishment but one thing you *can* be sure is that it reduces recidivism to exactly zero in the cases where they get the right guy.
We should be running clinical trials on judicial interventions, just like we do when we develop new drugs.
Experimenting on prisoners is a very difficult area ethically - cos, you know...... Nazis.
How does capital punishment increase recidivism ?
Did I say that capital punishment increased recidivism? I included recidivism alongside public health and in a sentence about judicial systems that emphasise punishment.
When you control for all other factors, you find that states in the USA that use capital punishment have higher rates of murder and serious violence. The explanation offered is that the public view killing as a being a more legitimate course of action than those in non capital punishment states - and in capital punishment states when criminals do kill, they are more likely to try to kill witnesses or violently flee law enforcement.
to may shame I wondered/hoped if he might just get sorted out whilst inside.
I try not to let my thoughts go there normally but I have a 3yo lad myself so on this occasion…
This^.
I don't like to think along those lines but I think he deserved longer and I hope he gets a good kicking.
I watched the CCTV showing the lad being dragged about like a dog on a lead and wondered what sort of existence he had before this scumbag came into his life. Grim
you find that states in the USA that use capital punishment have higher rates of murder and serious violence. The explanation offered is that the public view killing as a being a more legitimate course of action than those in non capital punishment states –
It's all a bit chicken and egg though. Would removing the death penalty reduce murder, or is it the States that already have high murder rates feal the death penalty stops it getting worse ?
Sentencing notes here:
Making sentences concurrent is usually as a result of taking into account the "totality" of a sentence for an offence (or a collection of similar offences) and so not pass a disproportionate sentence.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/overarching-guides/magistrates-court/item/totality/
Whenever I see a sentencing reported in the press I dont understand, I usually go straight to the Sentencing Council Guidelines first. Some judges do release sentencing notes - I think it should be mandatory for all Crown Court case sentencing myself. You will see in the one that retro kindly linked to for this particularly case, judge talks of setting the POJ/intimidation sentences concurrently for just that reason.
One of the issues that never gets sorted is the public desire for locking everyone up vs raising taxes to pay for bigger prisons, more coppers, better trained prison staff, mental health support for inmates and faster courts etc.
To stop reoffending we would all have to pay more in tax. So what happens is the courts/police/prisons have to make do with less. Thats why we get daft sentances and very poor outcomes.
People often do the crime because they have no choice or dont think/cant think. So assuming longer sentances / capital punishment would act as a deterrant is daft in reality.
Sentencing notes here:
/blockquote>
Thanks Retro83.
He's got away so lightly because he wasn't deemed to have done it in anger. The people saying he didn't do it in anger were his mates and his GF *and* he assaulted and intimidated witnesses.
It's seems quite obvious he *did* do it in anger. Why else conceal it? If you accidentally crushed a child you call the ambulance, if you do it deliberately you might try to cover it up. He's been saved by "reasonable doubt" which is correct I suppose, but still frustrating.
Says it all:
seven convictions for 13 offences, including
three convictions for assault.