Come one, come all...

[Lord Jim]

I Just checked out the BNP website...

Surprise surprise, this is the top story flashing on the top of their home page....

[Scooter]

Lovely....

So another judge tosses his wig in the ring for the title of "British National Party Membership Recruiter Of the Year"....

It appears the competition is going to be particularly fierce....

I wonder why so many are vying for the distinction... Do they throw a particularly nice award dinner?

Of course the Daily Mail chose to concentrate on the fact that they are Muslim. Do we have any evidence that their religion had any bearing on the case other than as support for their claim that they had never drunk alcohol before? IOW, would someone else coming before this judge, who had been able to satisfy him that he had never touched alcohol before, been given the same treatment?

Not saying that makes the sentence appropriate, only that it there is no evidence that the girls received preferential treatment because of their religion.

[Gob]

But Judge Robert Brown gave them suspended jail terms after hearing mitigation that as Muslims, the women were not used to being drunk. The Qur’an prohibits Muslims from consuming alcohol, although Islamic teachings permit its use for medicinal purposes.

After the sentencing, Ambaro Maxamed wrote on her Twitter account: “Happy happy happy!”, “I’m so going out”, and “Today has been such a great day”.

On Tuesday Page, a care worker, called the sentence “disgusting” and said the gang deserved “immediate custody”.

“It’s no punishment at all,” she said. “And for them to say they did it because they were not used to alcohol is no excuse. If they were not supposed to be drinking then they shouldn’t have been out in bars at that time of night.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/i-was-a ... -1.1194098

[Scooter]

Yes, I read the article, and my point stands.

[Gob]

Not saying that makes the sentence appropriate, only that it there is no evidence that the girls received preferential treatment because of their religion.

But all the articles clearly state they were given suspended sentences due to the mitigation that; "as Muslims, the women were not used to being drunk".

Surely that is preferrential treatment due to religion?

[loCAtek]

ThX Dog 4 The Daily Mail to tell us what's appropriate via religion; and not skew the facts regarding law.

[Scooter]

Not saying that makes the sentence appropriate, only that it there is no evidence that the girls received preferential treatment because of their religion.

But all the articles clearly state they were given suspended sentences due to the mitigation that; "as Muslims, the women were not used to being drunk".

Surely that is preferrential treatment due to religion?

And it might just as easily have said "as Mormons, the women were not used to being drunk" or "as Seventh Day Adventists, the women were not used to being drunk" or "as children of atheist temperance advocates, the women were not used to being drunk". There is nothing to indicate that their Muslim faith was anything but one reason among many which the judge would have accepted as support for their claim that they were not accustomed to drinking alcohol.

[loCAtek]

He knows nothing about religious spirituality, brah.

[Gob]

And it might just as easily have said "as Mormons, the women were not used to being drunk" or "as Seventh Day Adventists, the women were not used to being drunk" or "as children of atheist temperance advocates, the women were not used to being drunk".

Agreed, and I would have found that an equally stupid mitigation.

There is nothing to indicate that their Muslim faith was anything but one reason among many which the judge would have accepted as support for their claim that they were not accustomed to drinking alcohol.

There is also nothing to indicate there were any other factors other than their faith.

[Scooter]

He knows nothing about religious spirituality, brah.

There is a delicious irony in you, of all people, seeing abstinence from alcohol as a sign of spirituality.

Agreed, and I would have found that an equally stupid mitigation.

Whether stupid or not, it's not evidence that he was motivated by religious bias.

There is also nothing to indicate there were any other factors other than their faith.

In this case, it was their faith that convinced him that they were not accustomed to alcohol. In another case, it could have been something else that convinced him.

[BoSoxGal]

Religion aside, I call bullshit on the sentence.

Whatever reason they're not used to alcohol, if the first use results in a vicious, racist attack - the punishment should be commensurate with the crime.

Given that the one defendant posted she was going out to celebrate, I'm going to take a giant leap and assume the mitigation was fabricated.

Not like I've never seen that before. As defense counsel as well as prosecutor.

Today I recommended 30 days' jail for a former defense client pleading guilty to assault. He beat up a guy outside the bar while intoxicated. He's on felony probation for another intoxicated beat down that resulted in the victim being hospitalized. I got him a sweet deal allowing him to have the felony dismissed if he successfully completed probation, due to my argument re: mitigation. Obviously he's going to lose that deal, and maybe go to prison.

$20 says these sweet Muslim girls hurt somebody else in the near future.

Yes, I'm jaded.

[Gob]

I wonder what sentence the white girl who used offensive racist langauge on the tram will get?

[loCAtek]

Me too.

[Lord Jim]

Whatever reason they're not used to alcohol, if the first use results in a vicious, racist attack - the punishment should be commensurate with the crime.

BSG has got this one exactly right....

What kind of a "judge" accepts, "it was the first time I was drunk" as a rationale for committing a vicious crime, regardless of what excuse the defendant uses for why it was the first time they were drunk?

And any jurist mush brained enough to use that as a justification for a shamefully lenient sentence in a crime of this nature has no business on the bench. It's malfeasance and abuse of discretion to such an extent, that it endangers the safety of the community.

I have no idea what the procedures are for removing a trial judge from the bench in the UK, but if I were a British Subject, I would be strongly advocating to have them initiated.

Another question; in the US the prosecution cannot appeal to have a sentence increased, but there are some European judicial systems that allow for this (In Italy this happened in the Amanda Knox case) Can the prosecution do this in Britain?

[Sue U]

I agree that the sentence here was inappropriately lenient. I don't think "I was drunk, and I'm not used to being drunk" is much of a mitigating factor. If this were to have occurred in my state, it would probably be classed as a disorderly persons offense under the assault statute. If I were the judge, I would have given them each 30 days in the pokey, 100 hours community service, fined them each $1,000, and ordered restitution to the victim and restitution to NHS for medical expenses incurred.

[Andrew D]

Another question; in the US the prosecution cannot appeal to have a sentence increased ....

Does he -- I would say "Do you," but he pretends not to read what I write -- just make stuff up whenever he feels like it?

In fact, in the US, the prosecution can appeal a sentence. But don't take my word for it. Take the word of the US Supreme Court:

... it is a “well-established part of our constitutional jurisprudence” that the guarantee against double jeopardy neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant's successful appeal.

(Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 730, 118 S.Ct. 2246,2251 (1998).)

If someone quotes this, then maybe he'll learn something.

[Gob]

An asylum seeker who raped a woman and dumped her on a rubbish tip when he was 'finished' has been freed despite Home Office attempts to deport him.

Alphonse Semo, 54, was jailed for eight years for the rape and at the end of his term was due to be sent back to the Congo.

However two hours before his flight he was given permission to marry his girlfriend and stay in the country.

Now a judge has allowed the father-of-five to be released from an immigration detention centre.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1gdZe7tTK

[Lord Jim]

However two hours before his flight he was given permission to marry his girlfriend and stay in the country.

What a touching love story....

[Gob]

[Gob]

Hate preacher Abu Qatada who poses a serious risk to Britain's national security was released on bail tonight to return to his family.

Abu Qatada was banned from taking his youngest child to school, must stay inside his home for 22 hours a day, and cannot talk to anyone who has not been vetted by the security services first.

Once described by a judge as Osama Bn Laden's right-hand man in Europe, he was also banned from meeting 27 named individuals, including new Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. At a cost to taxpayers of £10,000 a week, a team of up to 60 police officers and MI5 agents will provide round-the-clock protection for a man described as Osama Bin Laden’s ambassador in Europe when he returns to his London home.
He was released from Long Lartin prison in Worcestershire tonight, after six-and-a-half years behind bars.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -week.html