The story surrounding the sentences being handed down to those convicted after the demonstrations outside the Israeli embassy last spring is quite outrageous. But perhaps the worst bit so far comes at the end of this piece. One of the protestors, who admitted throwing one bottle (he says at the Israeli embassy, the police say at them), was given a one year prison sentence. Apparently for that act and that act alone. According to the report, his father says:
"that the judge gave Mosab a flawless character reference. "He said, 'I know you came here peacefully, I know you have an excellent character, I know you were not armed, you said sorry to the police.'" He was sure his son would go free. "I was so pleased. Then the judge says, 'I'm going to give you this sentence to deter other people.'"
The judge in the case has been quite open about using sentences to deter people from behaving in the same way in the future. This seems to reveal an alarming naivety about the deterrent impact of sentence length (i.e. there isn't any). It also goes against one of the key strands in any properly thought through idea of justice: that the sentence should fit the crime. A one year sentence for throwing one bottle in the heat of the moment is grossly disproportionate, both in absolute terms and in relation to other sentences handed down for other crimes.
I can't blame people in the Muslim community for thinking they are being singled out for special treatment here. There really doesn't seem to be any other explanation, especially when you compare the above with what has happened to other protesters in the past (as noted by Bruce Kent in the linked article).
I don't get it, did that happen in the UK?
ReplyDeleteYep - there's some sort of ongoing series of trials at (I think) Isleworth Crown Court.....
ReplyDeleteThat is scary. Why is it possible in the UK that a judge can sentence people completely out of proportion to the offence, with the justification that the sentence is not actually for what they have done but for what other people might do? Is that because there's been a precedential case?...I really don't understand how common law works, to me this is much less a question of what the public finds acceptable but a matter of codifying laws in a way that gives less power to judges and sets clear rules on the propertionality of offence and punishment.
ReplyDeleteWell they can only sentence in line with the tariff for the crime involved. These are usually 'up to a maximum of' x number of months/years. But within that the judge has a large amount of latitude - although this freedom has been declining in recent years as HO sentencing guidelines become tighter.
ReplyDeleteSo if the person has plead guilty, as in this case, the judge can sentence what they like up to the maximum (and say what they like about why), although I think the length of sentence can be appealed.
Sorry to be controversial, but am I alone in thinking that throwing a bottle at someone is a hugely dangerous thing to do, and a year in prison does fit the crime?
ReplyDeleteI think the important point is that in another situation a person who threw a bottle at someone else, without hitting them, and who didn't have any previous convictions would be very unlikely to get a custodial sentence at all (as far as I'm aware). Certainly not such a long one. So the sentence is out of kilter with others. Even worse of course is that according to the judge's own words the guy wasn't really sentenced for what he'd done, but to make an example of him to others - i.e. the judge had things on his mind other than giving a fair sentence to the case before him.
ReplyDelete