August 18, 2009
"Criminals 'could be spared jail if they are a parent'"
The title of this post is the provocative headline of this provocative article coming from across the pond. Here are the details:
Criminals could be spared jail if they are a parent, Scotland's new children's tsar said today.
Children's Commissioner Tam Baillie said judges should consider the impact of prison on an offender's children before deciding whether to lock them up. Sheriffs and judges should have a statutory obligation to take the human rights of an accused's children into account, said Mr Baillie. And the existence of children could "tip the balance" in cases where there is a close decision between a custodial and community sentence.
He said he hopes the forthcoming Criminal Justice Bill will include an amendment, with children's rights added as a factor which must be taken into consideration along with previous convictions. He has reportedly met with justice secretary Kenny MacAskill to discuss the matter.
Mr Baillie told The Herald newspaper today: "The bill has a list of factors which have to be taken into account before sentencing, such as previous convictions, and I think there is the potential to add this to that list. "It is not that it determines the sentence, but in cases where there is a close decision between custody and community, it might be the thing which tips the balance."
He added: "There still has to be the administration of justice but it would help in future if there was more information fed to the courts at the time of sentencing about the impact it will have on children – in particular where the decision is on a knife edge."
The role of the Children's Commissioner is to ensure Scotland fulfils its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Federal sentencing gurus know that the federal sentencing guidelines include a specific policy statement asserting that "family ties and responsibilities are not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a departure may be warranted." And, before Booker, whether and when extraordinary parental responsibilities could and should provide a basis for a departure was hotly debated in caselaw. After Booker, I surmise parental responsibilities sometimes plays a role in sentencing outcomes, though rarely is this role now formally discussed or debated much.
August 18, 2009 at 06:09 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Criminals 'could be spared jail if they are a parent'":
Exposure of children to perpetually intoxicated, vicious criminals is bad for the children. The latter are likely as stressed as adults by the close proximity to such people. Plus, children would not even know where to begin to assert themselves and to protect their safety and interest, nor even where to go to get away.
Imagine being a cute little girl, stuck in the house with a violent pedophile, with repeated daily victimizations, and there is nothing you can do about it. The family of such a victim should help Tam Tam experience her own proposition. Beat her bare ass with a wire hangar and extension cords, and dip her in scalding tub water. That is her proposal for children.
The criminal lover left wing ideologue will use any pretext to loose its client, the vicious criminal, to generate more government make work.
This blog is wearing me out. Its relentless, idiot left wing items need a full time rebuttal team from the world of reality. Its article feeds come from the upside down world of the Twilight Zone.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Aug 18, 2009 10:05:51 PM
This is off topic, but I found this post to be just so full of mindless dribble. To quote:
"If, as many now do, they [the police] view themselves as "door men" to the carceral system, charged with moving people efficiently into the justice system, more police can mean more prisons. If instead, police apply distinctive strategies to try and use force deployments to deter and prevent crimes, they can diminish crime without adding to prison populations."
How simplistic a view.
Posted by: justme | Aug 18, 2009 11:56:00 PM
Part of the Hate America left wing academic fringe law prof network. If you go to the crazy David Duke hate speech web site, you will find more facts and logic. For that matter, the Unabomber Manifesto, written by an untreated paranoid schizophrenic, makes far more sense and is more coherent than most law textbooks. These professors are allergic to facts and have zero tolerance for them. Their teaching material is filled to the brim with Medieval doctrines and methods. There is literally nothing from that time in any way acceptable for practice today.
These professors are dumbasses, which is a lawyer technical term of art, and not an epithet.
That term is reviewed here, and is quite specific.
As their intellect was totally destroyed in law school, these professors repeat the cycle. They indoctrinate future lawyers into the criminal cult enterprise that is the lawyer profession. That term, dumbass, also provides a theory of why the lawyer profession is in utter failure in every self-stated goal of every law subject.
I suggest that law students stop passively accepting all supernatural doctrines, that cannot be shown to exist in the real world. Buy a copy of Mao's Little Red Book, and bang it on the desk after every supernatural utterance. If the dumbass in front of the class persists, get a huge dunce cap and force him to wear it. Parade him in the Quad to the Dean's office and demand his removal. Form Dumbass Free Zones in law school.
The rule of law is an essential utility product and deserves competence.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Aug 19, 2009 12:23:13 AM
SC: Don't flatter yourself, buddy, you are neither sufficient nor necessary. Anybody with a brain cell or an intellect not blunted by the hacks at the fifth-best online law school can see that a "statutory obligation to take the human rights of an accused's children into account" would not include releasing a pedophile. You are abysmally ignorant and shallow in your arrogance.
Posted by: Gray Proctor | Aug 19, 2009 9:26:50 AM
Gray: Pedophilia is an alternate sexual preference, according to the left. Its very prosecution is unlawful and discriminatory, the left will eventually argue, after it legalizes polygamy. And any discrimination against pedophilia would be one against sexual orientation. The latter term includes pedophilia. It would be out of the question to prevent the release of a prisoner because he would be going home to an adult homosexual mate. Where is "going home to a child" excluded in the proposal, if the prisoner is a pedophile?
Did you spot that little issue as a law student? That the common law comes from the Catholic Catechism and is unlawful in our secular nation? Were you told the technical Scholasticist meaning of the word, reasonable? While tiny crosses must be removed from city flags for their endorsement of religion, the dumbass hierarchy fails to notice something. Its core doctrines, including the term, element, come from a church. Which school did you attend that overlooked that little problem? Not only did your school cover it up, they intimidated you into forgetting Western Civ 101.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Aug 19, 2009 1:40:48 PM
Outline of your argument, SC:
(Unquestionably true statement,) (attribution to enemy). (Straw man). (Slippery slope based on straw man, reversed in sentence to make harder to detect). (Semantic slide from "preferance" to "orientation.") (Irrelevant statement.) (False equation to irrlevant statement based on willfull denial of material differences.)
Your second paragraph is exponentially irrelevant, but I think that Concord would be ashamed to know that you imply that any of your garbage is taught there.
Everyone here ignores you, because you're just stridently attempting to have the conversations that you think you'd have on the comments section of your own blog if anyone read it, and you don't say anything anyway so there's nothing to engage. What we forget in a forum like this is that statments like yours are sometimes mistaken for "thinking" and that we have a duty to expose your lack of content. It's good practice.
Posted by: Gray Proctor | Aug 20, 2009 12:10:25 PM
Gray: You are a victim of cult indoctrination. You want to silence anyone trying to help you escape from its clutches. I care too much about you to listen to your desperate tantrums and protestations. Kick your feet all you want. You will be dragged into modernity and empiricism. There is no choice if your profession is to be saved.
My remarks will be verified or rebutted by future lawyer attacks on the family. Here is a review of pedophile activism. Judge for yourself whether the lawyer will adopt this client as he has the homosexual activist. It will become part of political correctness to not criticize pedophilia in your lifetime.
Your personal remarks show frustration in the traverse. Try these in a court, and the judge will shut you up. That rejoinder will signal to the jury the preference of the judge, and your case is over. It is a kind of legal malpractice.
Do you mean to say, the core doctrines used by the lawyer are not supernatural? They are not copied word for word from the Catechism? By their atavism they do not explain the failure of every goal of every law subject? Is that what you mean to say. Just say it if you believe the cult indoctrination that made you fail to spot these similarities to the High Middle Ages history you learned in 10th grade.
I am persuaded by facts. Try lobbing one for a change of pace. It will be good for you to try.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Aug 20, 2009 6:52:50 PM