Is the judge that didn't send a prisoner to jail to prove a political point above the law?

Answer 1

If you are talking about the case in England yesterday when a Judge did not send a pedophile to Jail because he had had a letter from the Home Office saying that jails were full - I have to reluctantly say that he was within the law. The sentence for the crime was not mandatory - few sentences are here. Therefore the Judge was legally entitled to use his discretion, and he did. I do think that he was trying to make a political point about the alleged failures of the government to provide more prisons although it has increased the number of laws that can be broken dramatically, with the result that our jails are full to bursting point. But I do feel that place could have been found for this dangerous man. It is coming to something when a person convicted of a serious crime walks free, and outside the court expresses sympathy for the situation the Judge was in!

Answer 2

Judges are often given wide latitude when sentencing offenders. Some jurisdictions, such as the US federal court system, have rather strict sentencing guideline which limit a judge's flexibility/ Others can seemingly allow a judge to run wild.

There are pros and cons to such guidelines. For every case where a judge had abused his discretion and released someone who needed to be behind bars, there is a case where someone who made an innocent mistake and did not deserve prison was incarcerated because guidelines prevented the judge from showing mercy.

My jurisdiction, as many do, requires the judge to state the factors used in sentencing on the record. In my state, the middle of the sentencing range is the starting point. Each aggravating factor increases the sentence, and each mitigating factor reduces the sentence.

The important thing in my state is that the law specifically states which factors may be used in aggravation or mitigation. The judge is not allowed to consider any factor not allowed by statute, such as "proving a political point."

The important thing in the case you mention was whether or not the judge was working within the applicable law when imposing the sentence. If he stepped outside of the law, he can be sanctioned or disciplined.

If the judge was within the letter of the law, even if not the spirit, he is not subject to discipline. Here in the U.S., most judges are elected by the people. If this judge wanted to make a political point, wouldn't it be poetic justice if he found himself out of a job after the next election?

Answer 3

The Judge has done NOTHING against the Law.
He has, however, brought this matter firmly to the attention of the general public.
He commented when reading Sentence that the accused (and convicted) SHOULD go to prison but would be spared due to Political reasons.

Now there is outcry against what is going on so hopefully something will be done about it.


To MAXX, the Judge CANNOT be punished in any way by the political bosses because Law continues but politics changes.
In order for them to punish him, the Law would have to be changed. If the Law was so changed, the Judge would not be punished because the Law comes into force and may be enforced FROM THAT DATE!

Answer 4

I don't think he is above the law-and I doubt very much whether he thinks he is either.

I suspect that he picked his case for maximum publicity and damage, knowing that instinctive public outrage would overshadow the fact that the paedophile in question would probably have had a minimal sentence anyway.

Gary Glitter had over 4000 child porn images downloaded but only got a 4month sentence. This guy had 180 images and on a pro-rata basis would have been sentenced to less than a month(1000 equalling 1 month as a very basic formula).

In my humble opinion the issue is not that he didn't go to jail(although I agree paedophiles should be locked away) it's that the appropriate jail time(if any) would have been pathetic.

Now THAT'S criminal.

Answer 5

If you are talking about the English judge who did not send someone to prison because he was busy reading a letter from Reid, then yes, I agree. English judges are supposed to be part of an independent judiciary, so why was an English judge reading a letter from a politician and then acting upon it? The judges of England should pay no attention what-so-ever to politicians or anyone else for that matter. They should act independently of every one else in the Kingdom and hand down long hard stiff sentences to child molesters, murders and hard villains.

Answer 6

The problem is that there should be nothing or no one above the law !!
If "politically" you agree with his decision how would you feel if the guy was your neighbour and that you had kids ??

Answer 7

Strictly speaking he was acting within the law, but I agree that he was trying to prove a political point and make political waves. I bet he's a Tory.....

Answer 8

NOT in my opinion. As a matter of fact I believe the JUDGE should do the time for the prisoners sentence.

Answer 9

From criminal prosecution yes he is above the law on this issue. However he can be removed from the bench and disbarred. If his political superiors do not take care of this is is they who must be removed.

Answer 10

What is worse than this decision is the wife still sitting beside him - there were kids toys in the room - what the hell is the matter with her for allowing this sick man back into her house and around the kids!!