ewx: (Default)
Richard Kettlewell ([personal profile] ewx) wrote2006-06-12 11:27 pm
Entry tags:

Craig Sweeney

Sentencing him to life in jail at Cardiff Crown Court, Judge John Griffith Williams QC said he would not be considered for parole for five years - and only then if he did not pose a significant risk of re-offending

So the minimum possible time inside is five years. Given that he's a repeat offender anyway, one might reasonable imagine that whoever is in charge of determining whether he poses a "significant risk" will take a rather skeptical view. The judge seems to be of similar view. Nevertheless, I have some sympathy with the view that five years is kind of short for kidnap and rape, even in the face of positively angelic behaviour for the duration. So how was that number reached?

"The judge has to determine first of all the notional sentence, which in this case was 18 years," he said.
"Then that is cut by half to reach the actual sentence. Then the judge is obliged to cut a third off in view of the guilty plea."

The arithmetic seems a bit off there. However assuming that the reporting is basically right, and the journalist involved merely too innumerate to notice the discrepancy, isn't the government ultimately attacking its own sentencing policy here?

[identity profile] arnhem.livejournal.com 2006-06-13 07:34 am (UTC)(link)
The journalist has failed to factor in time spent on remand, I think. And by the looks of it, that must be taken away at the last rather than the first stage (which seems broken to me, but ...). And then they've rounded down to the nearest integer?

I think that if you trust the parole system to work, then it would not be unreasonable to allow prisoners to apply for parole at any time; in which case setting a time before which they can't is merely reducing inefficiency in the system ...

So, anyone want to bet on the chances that the offender was themselves a victim of sexual assault as a child?

[identity profile] arnhem.livejournal.com 2006-06-13 08:24 am (UTC)(link)
Actually, thinking again about it, it now seems quite correct that the time on remand should be deducted at the end of the calculation. I need more sleep.
ext_8103: (Default)

[identity profile] ewx.livejournal.com 2006-06-13 08:45 am (UTC)(link)
Makes sense to me.