The law is an @ss
I'm not really sure what I can say about the lead story in The Independent today that I and many others haven't said a hundred times before. Iraq war revelation: There was no full legal advice. Luckily for Tony, the shenanigans between the Commons and the Lords over the Terrorism Bill will prevent this being reported fully by most media organisations, but it really should be the bigger story.
If anyone in the news media or parliament could be bothered to be objective, calm and impartial rather than frenzied, manic and blinkered they would see that the battle twixt Lords and Commons really isn't much of a story. There is a Statutory Instrument within the Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 which will, at the request if the Home Secretary, renew the legislation should the replacement Act currently being debated not be in place by Sunday night (when the 2001 Act expires). Although the High Court has declared the Act illegal, Parliament retains sovereignty over legislation and only it can repeal Acts. So all the threats from the government benches and the deeply cynical move in making the former Belmarsh detainees pawns in a political pi55ing contest are just fluff. Either the guys in Belmarsh are a massive threat to our security (as stated when they were detained in 2002) in which case they can and indeed should remain in prison (though obviously charged and tried), or they are of no threat at all and Tony Blair should be asked to explain why they have been detained without charge or trial for so long. Enough of this for now, let the children in parliament play and the rest of us go about our business. I'm sure I'll return to the subject soon enough.
The main point I wanted to make concerns the sentences handed down in 3 tragic cases this week that appear to show a huge discrepancy in the sentencing policies of the judiciary. In the first case yesterday, three teenagers were jailed for life for the horrific scythe murder of a friend. This morning a 14 year old boy was also sentenced to life for stabbing a pizza shop worker in a dispute over a discount. Also today, two 17 year olds have been sentenced for dropping a 16 year old boy who could not swim and who was afraid of water from a bridge into the River Stour, where he drowned. In this case, the youth who pleaded guilty has been sentenced to 8 months, and the lad who protested his innocence has received 18 months. I know enough about law to realise that intent has a lot to do with this. The 2 boys in the latter case didn't intend to kill their victim, but surely the degree of recklessness shown was such that the consequences can hardly be said to have been totally unforeseen?
The law must not only be done, but also be seen to be done an old saying goes. This is necessary in order for public confidence to be maintained, and to prevent mobs or vigilantes dispensing their own justice. I cannot conceive how Mr Berry, the young boy's father, must be feeling this evening, but he has every right to feel badly let down by a system he put his faith into. He deserves more.
If anyone in the news media or parliament could be bothered to be objective, calm and impartial rather than frenzied, manic and blinkered they would see that the battle twixt Lords and Commons really isn't much of a story. There is a Statutory Instrument within the Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 which will, at the request if the Home Secretary, renew the legislation should the replacement Act currently being debated not be in place by Sunday night (when the 2001 Act expires). Although the High Court has declared the Act illegal, Parliament retains sovereignty over legislation and only it can repeal Acts. So all the threats from the government benches and the deeply cynical move in making the former Belmarsh detainees pawns in a political pi55ing contest are just fluff. Either the guys in Belmarsh are a massive threat to our security (as stated when they were detained in 2002) in which case they can and indeed should remain in prison (though obviously charged and tried), or they are of no threat at all and Tony Blair should be asked to explain why they have been detained without charge or trial for so long. Enough of this for now, let the children in parliament play and the rest of us go about our business. I'm sure I'll return to the subject soon enough.
The main point I wanted to make concerns the sentences handed down in 3 tragic cases this week that appear to show a huge discrepancy in the sentencing policies of the judiciary. In the first case yesterday, three teenagers were jailed for life for the horrific scythe murder of a friend. This morning a 14 year old boy was also sentenced to life for stabbing a pizza shop worker in a dispute over a discount. Also today, two 17 year olds have been sentenced for dropping a 16 year old boy who could not swim and who was afraid of water from a bridge into the River Stour, where he drowned. In this case, the youth who pleaded guilty has been sentenced to 8 months, and the lad who protested his innocence has received 18 months. I know enough about law to realise that intent has a lot to do with this. The 2 boys in the latter case didn't intend to kill their victim, but surely the degree of recklessness shown was such that the consequences can hardly be said to have been totally unforeseen?
The law must not only be done, but also be seen to be done an old saying goes. This is necessary in order for public confidence to be maintained, and to prevent mobs or vigilantes dispensing their own justice. I cannot conceive how Mr Berry, the young boy's father, must be feeling this evening, but he has every right to feel badly let down by a system he put his faith into. He deserves more.
posted by phylos @ 16:21
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home