It is a daily occurrence that judges suspend sentences, due to first offence, of good character etc

Of course it is. Not because of believing in some fairy story though.

I suggest cynic-al should provide evidence of other judges' wrongdoing if he wants to suggest they're also guilty. We have enough evidence in this case, given "they're all doing it" isn't a valid defence. I don't think saying he's wrong on an internet forum has anything to do with criminal law!

"I don't think saying he's wrong on an internet forum has anything to do with criminal law!"

No, you're right it hasn't. Just pointing out that it is fundamental protocol that if I accuse someone of being wrong it is up to me to prove that they are wrong. Not for them prove they are not wrong, if you see what I mean!

I can think of a number of cases where judges have made ill thought out statements. One suggested that a woman victim of rape had 'asked for it' due to her penchant for short skirts!

Ah OK then. In that case I assert that judges have previously let people off entirely and in fact locked up the victim because the accused supported the same football team as them.

Don't even think of suggesting I'm wrong without checking through the records of every single criminal case to prove it.

Have you proof of that? Or is it a supposition? I suspect the latter.

On the other hand I have proof that Judges have made sentencing decisions on the basis of good character, unblemished record, first offense etc.

If you think I am wrong to state that, it is up to you to prove me wrong.

On the other hand I have proof that Judges have made sentencing decisions on the basis of good character, unblemished record, first offense etc.

Irrelevant. We're after proof that other judges have made sentencing decisions based on religion, in order to prove the theory that it's a witch hunt against Cherie.

Hmm – seems cynic-al is trying to prove the newspapers guilty – isn't it him who needs to provide the evidence?

Have you proof of that? Or is it a supposition? I suspect the latter.

Well if you're going to claim you have proof without presnting it, then I'll happily do the same. Off you go to prove me wrong.

As stated Cherie Blair IMO made an ill advised statement about the religious beliefs of the defendant. I suspect (I cannot state this as fact as I wasn't there) that the decision to suspend the sentence was based upon good character, no previous etc. of which there is copious amounts of evidence of other judges doing the same.

It is all there in case law. Lack of time and inclination prevents me from looking it up, but it is there.

There is however no evidence to support your spurious claim.

I suspect (I cannot state this as fact as I wasn't there) that the decision to suspend the sentence was based upon good character, no previous etc.

In which case why mention the religion bit when explaining the reasons for her decision? What she said is recorded and you can read it in the news reports (I'm assuming those are accurate until you prove otherwise), so I don't see why you needed to be there. "I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before". Either she meant that religion made a difference to her decision, or she has big trouble communicating properly in English.

There is however no evidence to support your spurious claim.

How do you know if you haven't checked? Remember I'm innocent until proven guilty.

I would rather base my opinion on official Law Reports than media reports who will add supposition and conjecture in order to sell copy.

If you make a claim the onus is on you to prove it. So you provide me evidence that judges in the past have let people off on the basis of supporting the same football team.

I would rather base my opinion on official Law Reports than media reports who will add supposition and conjecture in order to sell copy.

That's not editorial waffle, that's a direct quote. Are you suggesting they're misquoting her? Quite a serious accusation I'd suggest – could be deemed libellous if it's not true. The sort of thing you really should provide some proof of if you're going to make the accusation – innocent until proven guilty and all that.

If you make a claim the onus is on you to prove it. So you provide me evidence that judges in the past have let people off on the basis of supporting the same football team.

So are you accusing me of being wrong? It is fundamental protocol that if you accuse someone of being wrong it is up to you to prove that they are wrong.

Or are you suggesting that if you make a claim like say "lots of other judges do it to" the onus is on you to prove it?

You can't have it both ways.

I have never asserted or claimed that you are wrong. Only that there is no evidence to substantiate your claim. The onus is still on you to provide the evidence, which you have failed, and will continue to fail to do.

The times report posted quotes her as saying she will suspend the sentence because of previous good character mentioning that he was devoutly religious. The religious bit is irrelevant and IMO ill advised.
This is what I am saying. How exactly is this libelous?

Media reports will make more of the religious element, not by misquoting her but by taking quotes out of context. Again how is that libelous? I can state that with impunity, unless you believe that, that is the sum total of what she said throughout the proceedings.

Official Law Reports will have the whole court proceedings verbatim. I suspect (as I wasn't there and I don't have access to the reports (my subs ran out years ago)) that religion played a minuscule part in the proceedings. Media interest possibly being who the trail judge was.

I have never asserted or claimed that you are wrong.

What does "spurious" mean?

The standards of evidence required on STW are at least becoming clearer. There is no evidence to substantiate the claim that other judges have also based their sentencing on the religious beliefs of the guilty party. The onus is still on cynic-al (or you if you're asserting the same thing)to provide the evidence, which he has failed, and will continue to fail to do. Noting that I never asserted or claimed he was wrong – didn't even call his claim "spurious". Simply refused to believe it until evidence was provided. This would appear to be exactly the same position you're taking over my claim about the judge supporting the same football team, so the same rules presumably apply.

The times report posted quotes her as saying she will suspend the sentence because of previous good character mentioning that he was devoutly religious.

So saying "I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and …", using the words "based on" is just mentioning it? Strange way to mention it. Particularly when you "mention" it before "mentioning" the previous good character. If she really meant something different then I'm concerned that people can become judges with such a poor grasp of the English language.

Media reports will make more of the religious element, not by misquoting her but by taking quotes out of context. Again how is that libelous? I can state that with impunity, unless you believe that, that is the sum total of what she said throughout the proceedings.

So given you accept she actually said that, exactly what context do you think you could possibly add to make it mean something different? Do you think she also made another statement explaining the reasons for suspending the sentence without the religion bit? Of course she also said other things, but you'll have to help me out here as I'm struggling to think of a single other thing she could have said which puts that quote into context in order to make it mean something totally different.

Official Law Reports will have the whole court proceedings verbatim. I suspect (as I wasn't there and I don't have access to the reports (my subs ran out years ago)) that religion played a minuscule part in the proceedings.

I'm sure it did play a miniscule part – the trouble is it would seem that miniscule part weighed quite heavily on her mind when determining sentence – or at least that's what she's claiming. If you're not going to actually introduce the Official Law Report as evidence for this thread, then the only evidence we do have to go on is what is in the newspaper articles. Anything else is just supposition and conjecture – not admissible. You can assert all you like that there must be more context and she didn't really mean it like that, but there is no evidence to substantiate your claim. The onus is still on you to provide the evidence, which you have failed, and will continue to fail to do.

I just think it shows a massive issue, she's supposed to be there uphold and where appropriate interpret the law. By effectively suggesting one part of society is superior to another because they belong to an organised club says to me she is biased and not capable of making fair decisions.

I am also a bit sick of people who assume religous people have more moral authority than people who don't believe in fairies, Jedis, gods, dragons and other mythical constructs. In fact I think people who don't blindly subscribe to someone else's club rules (all incidently designed to benefit the leaders of the club) and think through their own moral code are actually occupying the moral high ground.

Final point and I think it's already been made, but if he was really this religious paragon then surely she should have handed down a sterner sentance because following her logic he should really have known not to behave like that.

Yet another hypocritcal religous fail.

I have the weight of Law behind me. You have the weight of jornalists behind you.

The way I see it she suspended the sentance based on previous good character using (ill advisedly) the point that he was religous to back this up. As have many judges on many occasions (not using specifically religion). Case Law shows this.

Just because I do not have access to evidence to support what I am saying does not mean it doesn't exist. Google is not a panacea you know?

You WILL NOT and NEVER WILL find evidence to substanciate your claim.

the trouble is it would seem that miniscule part weighed quite heavily on her mind when determining sentence – or at least that's what she's claiming.

Or weighed heavilly on the mind of the reporter who knew how explosive (and saleable) a story about Tony Blair's wife (who incedently was facing questions form the Chilcott enquiry) "letting someone off because they are religous"?

Whatever you belive her motives where for the desision, you are wrong about the legal aspects.

I have the weight of Law behind me.

So you claim, but it's just hearsay – prove it.

Just because I do not have access to evidence to support what I am saying does not mean it doesn't exist. Google is not a panacea you know?

You WILL NOT and NEVER WILL find evidence to substanciate your claim.
Hmm, so you can't find any more evidence to support your claim than I've given supporting mine. At the moment I reckon they're still on pretty equal footing. You can go on all you like about how the evidence to support your assertions is out there, but until you produce something that's just your unsubstantiated opinion. If even google can't help then it seems you're on pretty dodgy ground.

I do wonder though, given your vehemence that there is no evidence for my claim, whether you're now accusing me of being wrong. In which case it is fundamental protocol that if you accuse someone of being wrong it is up to you to prove that they are wrong.

Or weighed heavilly on the mind of the reporter who knew how explosive (and saleable) a story about Tony Blair's wife (who incedently was facing questions form the Chilcott enquiry) "letting someone off because they are religous"?

Did you read the first sentence of the article? The bit about her being investigated (and that being what has prompted the article, not the initial judgement)? But it's really just a made up story by a journalist to have a go at her. Of course it does matter who she is – as mentioned in the article she's a very high profile Catholic, which is the reason it's even more of an issue, nothing to do with who she's married to.

Some religious people having a moral sense, earlier…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8500077.stm

The fallacy of demanding negative proof

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, and especially a positive claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven (see argument from ignorance).

Taken from Burden of Proof Gives a basic outline.

Do some research and study.

Do you seriously think that there would be all this commotion if Lord Nobody of Nowhere had said similar? Judges say stupid things, they (in the Law courts anyway) operate within the law. What do you suppose the outcome of this investigation will be?

To think this non-story is not linked to other 'coincidental' stories in the press regarding the judges family, IMO shows great naivety of the media. Together with an ignorance of the Justice System, your argument holds little weight.

The fallacy of demanding negative proof

I think that's just about where we came in and I was asking cynic-al to prove his point, making pretty much that argument (though not in so fancy terms). Seemingly you thought differently back then. Still not seen any evidence to support his point, and it would appear neither of you are interested in providing any, preferring to resort to silly legalistic arguments. In the absence of any evidence for either, my assertion up there has just as much weight as yours. You can assert all you like that there is evidence for your point and none for mine, but I refer you back to burden of proof.

Do you seriously think that there would be all this commotion if Lord Nobody of Nowhere had said similar?

Obviously not as much. But then he's not a very high profile Catholic. I still think there would have been some – it's an unacceptable thing for any judge to base a sentence on.

To think this non-story is not linked to other 'coincidental' stories in the press regarding the judges family, IMO shows great naivety of the media.

The Times doesn't seem to do links from stories, so I went to my usual source which does.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8497365.stm
Can't see a single link there to a story about anybody other than Ms Booth. Evidence for your assertion?

Together with an ignorance of the Justice System, your argument holds little weight.

Go on then, enlighten my ignorance. Why is "based on the fact you are a religious person" a perfect reasonable reason for suspending a sentence in our Justice System?

"based on the fact you are a religious person"

As previously stated, a quote likely to have been taken out of context. The decision to suspend the sentence was (likely and legally) based upon the defendant being of good character. The quote in the paper was possibly part of her summing up after having heard from the defendants lawyers how the defendant is an upstanding member of the community, an active member of his local mosque, an avid fund raiser, dedicated to his family and religious beliefs (or words to that effect).

The papers (as they so often do) have grossly oversimplified to the point of ridiculousness effectively saying Cherie Blair has let someone off because they were religious.

I am not going to trawl through legal tomes to prove to someone who is ignorant to how things work, previous rulings of judges. I'm not that insecure.

If you are so interested in the subject and find the decision so abhorrent, I suggest that you study and research the Criminal Justice and Legal systems, so that you are in a position to make informed arguments as to why this decision is so objectionable.(or are you the typical STWer arguing about something that you read in the paper, without a full appreciation of all the 'facts')?

I do hope you 2 were having a laugh with this

It makes perfect sense to me .
I propose a system of enforced religiosity . That way we could all be better behaved and only fall out with people from other systems of forced religiosity.
I was in a chippy in Prudhoe last year . A bloke walked in and asked for 'Garlic fish '. Just like that , then followed it up by saying ' lurds meynd ! '
I'm sorry , he'd have to go .

A friend of my mum is deeply religious , and seems really nice .Her husband goes to the newsagents and picks up my mums paper . It's a habit he got into when she was having her hips replaced , both of them . She was struggling to get about at the time , and my dad wasnt so good so it was a big help .
Get this though . He was in the marines and killed people and stuff , and he's a devout atheist .

So maybe I'm wrong , but I feel this thread has run it's course .

Garlic fish – WTF is that ??

bet he was a Christian, they like loads of fish don't they – it's in the bible

or are you the typical STWer arguing about something that you read in the paper, without a full appreciation of all the 'facts'

You seem to have misunderstood. I'm a typical STWer arguing with somebody pompous who relies on perceived authority to back up their arguments, and thinks different rules apply to their arguments than those of other people because they're so obviously right. Bored now though.

Well aracer, I'm googling and yet to find any stats etc to back me up, I may speak to some criminal lawyer pals to point me in the right direction. However I've found an article that kind of explains one of my points:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/georgepitcher/100025043/religious-people-do-have-a-clearer-moral-code-than-secularists/

i.e. that as a religious person the criminal has a sense of morality, thereby justifying the suspending of his sentence (in the eyes of the law, not mine!)

Anyway, your argument seems to be based upon Judges not using religion etc. to mitigate sentences, where as mine is the opposite. I don't see why the onus is on me to provide evidence to back up my argument – all yours is based on one right wing paper's article bashing the former PM's Mrs, because the National Secular Society has complained about her. Hardly shifting the onus onto me IMO.

cynicl-al, that article you cite states (idiotically, IMO)

"(CB)..wasn’t saying that religious people are morally superior to others. She was saying that, as a religious man, he should know better."
author then ignores the apparently bizarre decision, then, to lighten his sentence accordingly 😯

oh, and the times article in post1 gives the impression of directly quoting her “I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.”

If I was her I'd pursue a retraction or maybe sue if this is NOT the case, given the trouble it seems to be causing her and the DOUBLE connection within the quote (stated, not just implied) between him being religious and her sentencing for this wrongdoing

Well old Osama got off from copulating with sheep due to them being islams. I'll get me coat

scaredypants – you think those proven to have "moral standing" "for want of a better term) ought to be more heavily sentenced?

My point is that a first offender of previously good character (inc moral/religious beliefs) can have their sentence mitigated.

scaredypants – you think those proven to have "moral standing" "for want of a better term) ought to be more heavily sentenced?

Well, the reverse is well-established as a principle – children, for example

"moral standing" is pretty hard to quantify IMO and would be better ignored (or rather, assumed – if they've never offended before). Second and subsequent offences might be more harshly dealt with though, I'd be fine with that

My point is that a first offender of previously good character (inc moral/religious beliefs) can have their sentence mitigated.

The humanists' point is that one's alignment with religion is no indicator of good standing (catholic priests, all the way to al-qaeda if you like)

I certainly can't rationalise why "being religious" should lighten any sentence (which is the implication in the quote). I'd have thought that an acute understanding of why assault/battery and subsequent lying are wrong might suggest an abandonment of one's principles anyway. Not sure that this should be important to sentencing really, but your priest/imam/guru/god might be a bit hacked off with you.

You seem to have misunderstood. I'm a typical STWer arguing with somebody pompous who relies on perceived authority to back up their arguments,

Apologies if I have come across as pompous, as that was certainly not my intention.

I do not however rely on 'perceived authority'. I rely on legal process, protocol and precedent to back up my arguments.

sp you make no sense!

Al, you asked whether I think someone's proven moral standing ("for want of a better term") should INCREASE their sentence. In the context of a thread discussing religious affiliation maybe allowing someone to better know the difference between right & wrong I took it that you meant someone's appreciation of wrongdoing having a bearing on their sentence.

The converse surely applies in the case of kids, who're believed not to be capable of this, hence either not responsible or else generally handed lesser sentences. Similarly, genuine psychopaths don't go to prison, they go to secure hospitals – implying that, yes, sentencing differs according to understanding of the rules of society/morality.

I would also suggest that someone with (According to Cherie) a particularly good understanding of right and wrong might even be argued to have lost control of themselves to a greater extent, which might suggest (if the provocation was the same) that they are the more dangerous individual – no ? (I'd also say that lying about the event afterwards would make that man not very devout anyway – another inconsistency in the commentary)

As far as being "of good character" – this seems bollocks to me. If neither you nor I has ever chased a man down the street & assaulted him but then we both do so tomorrow, how is it relevant that you're kind to kittens etc (or more relevantly have friends in high places to vouch for you)? We've both done the same thing without any previous wrongdoing. (I could accept mitigating circs such as him insulting your dear old mum, or telling you that he's shagged your missus, but not that you've just come from the temple or that you're nice to the neighbours).

Further, to suggest that this dubious "good character" argument can be bolstered just because you're religious is utter crap IMO (in support I offered 2 admittedly inflammatory examples of religious people who have the capacity for doing bad things)

Erm thanks.

you disagree ?

I am disgusted with the fact that guy got a suspended sentence. I do not care about the fine points of the law in this case. Violence should be punished immediately.

What I find even more disturbing is that so many people accused of violent crimes get granted bail…no wonder so many witnesses are intimidated and dare not testify. Even in jail criminals seem manage to intimidate their victims(see recent cases of facebook threats).

The legal system in this country seems to favour criminals

I take it the guy wasn't black then? otherwise he'd get 5 yrs…

Similarly, genuine psychopaths don't go to prison, they go to secure hospitals – implying that, yes, sentencing differs according to understanding of the rules of society/morality.

Yes, Peter Sutcliffe- The Yorkshire Ripper, was deemed mentally ill by the courts and therefore 'not guilty of murder by diminished responsibility'

He gave evidence at his trial and told the court "God told me to do it [murder prostitutes]".

An example of where religion has played a part in sentencing.(In media spin – The Yorkshire Ripper got off Murder because of his religious beliefs)!

edit: not true the judge wouldn't accept the not guilty on the grounds of diminished responsibility plea. It was Hindley and Braidy I was thinking about. She was deemed sane and him insane.

No, you've just gone off on some tangents. Got folk round now but will explain what I mean later

It's not exactly karma, but… 🙂
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/05/archbishop-canterbury-blair-iraq-dostoyevsky

Come to think of it (sorry I've had a drink watching the Rugby. Yes being intoxicated is no defence in Law- Guilty as charged you honour)! 😳 religion has always been central to the English legal system.

When you swear on oath to tell 'the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth' it is sworn on the Bible.

The crest that appears above the Judge in all courts has the inscription Dieu et mon droit – "God on my right".

Do atheists have immunity from the Law because they reject any religious notion?

You can take an oath with no mention of any deity

cynic-al – Member

You can take an oath with no mention of any deity

Yes agreed, the point I was making was that the oath was based upon religion- the notion of 'God as my Judge'. To further make the point that religion traditionally has long been intertwined with the Criminal Justice and Legal systems.

Therefore if the National Secular Society want to complain about Cherie Blair "letting off" someone for their apparent religiousness it should also be legitimate to question whether atheists can be trusted to be telling the truth in Court as they have no compunction to do so (they effectively pay lip service to the meaning of taking the oath).

These are not my personal views, just find that it throws up some interesting questions.