You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7014701.ece
"“I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before. You caused a mild fracture to the jaw of a member of the public standing in a queue at Lloyds Bank. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.[/i]”
"She said that he would have got a six-month sentence but was suspending it because he was a religious man and would know he was doing wrong, which we feel implies that a non-religious person wouldn't know it was wrong.[i]"
Err, If he understood it was wrong, why did he do it? I am so sick and tired of religious people who assume anyone without a god or gods has no decency or morals or standards - just because they need a god to put limits on thier own bad behaviour does not mean we are all that weak and shallow.
I am so sick and tired of [b]some[/b] religious people who assume anyone without a god or gods has no decency or morals or standards
Fixed it for you.
Besides, saying that someone does [i]X[/i] because they're religious is not the same as saying non-religous people do not do [i]X[/i].
Had he been on his way back from the Jedi Temple he could have received the same leniency and have beaten the guy up without laying a finger on him.
burn the witch
It definately implies that she wouldn't have let him off if he wasn't religious, is that acceptable in a secular society?
Besides, saying that someone does X because they're religious is not the same as saying non-religous people do not do X.
It is when the judge says they're giving a different sentence because of the religion stuff.
Fair dues about it only being 'some' - its just I have come across rather a lot of them in the last year.
Passing thought... I wonder if thats how she justifies Mr Blairs behavour?
🙂
It definately implies that she wouldn't have let him off if he wasn't religious, is that acceptable in a secular society?
England is not a secular society, we have a state constituted religion, the Church of England and the head of state, the Queen, is also head of the Church of England. In addition, 26 Lords Spiritual (Bishops) sit in the House of Lords. That being said, I don't agree with her conclusions.
so we are not all equal in the eyes of the law
Surely someone who knows this is wrong and does it is worse than someone amoral doing it. The former breaks the law and their own personal moral code and belief system the later just breaks the law.
Personally think it is worse but no you should not get special treatement because you believe in a religion that you cannot follow in the bank or on the streets and fail to tturn the other cheek - yes I know what religion he was.
He should've got the 6 months. Don't see how his beliefs make any difference in this case.
[i]Passing thought... I wonder if thats how she justifies Mr Blairs behavour?[/i]
A crusade and fulfilling some biblical predictions. See Chirac's comments on Bush's justification for the war that wouldn't have been lost on Cherie.
I reckon her real justificaton was that as the victim also had a foreign name he deserved it and sending the aggressor to jail would be a waste of money that would be better spent used to kill muslims in Irag and Afghanistan.
England is not a secular society,
to be pedantic, I didn't explicity state it is, although I probably did imply that I think it should be 🙂
[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/bin-laden-deserves-a-hefty-fine%2c-says-cherie-blair-201002042438/ ]Another view[/url]
to be pedantic, I didn't explicity state it is, although I probably did imply that I think it should be
To out pendant you, you implicitly state it by the way you phrase the question without conditionality. If you had said "would that be acceptable in a secular society?" then you wouldn't have implied anything. Sorry I normally refrain from doing this.
An absolute disgrace,he should have been jailed.Why would "being devout" be a good reason to avoid jail for assaulting somebody twice?Being a Christian/moslem/Jedi does NOT make somebody morally superior.([b]NOT[/b] even Jedi)
I'm off down to LLoyds with a stocking mask and a bagette in tinfoil,I will let you know how I get on.I will be playing the "Godbotherer defence" if it all goes wrong.
LOL at duckman
[i]The Southern Yeti - Member
[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/bin-laden-deserves-a-hefty-fine%2c-says-cherie-blair-201002042438/ ]Another view [/url]
[/i]
😆
Cheers DezB - Slippery When Wet was £7 wasted btw.
Sorry I normally refrain from doing this.
Hey no worries, my fault entirely.
I am so sick and tired of religious people who assume
Hey, lets all be pedants today... 🙂
This is entirely appropriate and does not need the 'some' adding. I am of course making my own assumption here that is I would be sick of ALL religious types who make that assumption. To put 'some religious types' is to state that not all religious types who make that assumption make you sick. I'd say they ALL would. 🙂
I'm with Dawkins on this one. The fanatical religious nuts are actually at least being a bit more faithful to what their beliefs are supposed to be...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7007065.ece
"“I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person [b]and have not been in trouble before[/b]
Aren't lots of sentences suspended on this basis?
Not that you or the paper is seeing to undermine CB of course, no, not at all... 🙄
If it was suspended just because of the bit you've bolded, then why even mention the religion bit? The fact she did has to imply it made some difference to her consideration.
I am not saying it didn't, I am merely pointing out that it's not exactly unlikely, and sentences get mitigated in this way for first offenders, people of good character etc.
So I bet it's not the first time, and it's therefore a pretty poor bit of Cherie bashing.
ok al can you find one where a judge says the following then to prove your point?
I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are an [b]atheist[/b] and have not been in trouble before
mumbo jumbo is taking over the world.
You've missed my point junkyard.
So I bet it's not the first time, and it's therefore a pretty poor bit of Cherie bashing.
OK, so find us another judge saying something similar if that's your point. I'll happily complain about him or her in just the same way - don't particularly have anything against Cherie, in fact she is often wrongly maligned IMHO.
Are you telling me it never happens?
Don't get me started.
Give Tony's track record with picking on muslims perhaps Cherie thought she'ed let this one go. After all it may bring her down the hit list.
Are you telling me it never happens?
Until I've got evidence otherwise, yes.
Of course if other judges did say something similar the story might be a bit less newsworthy, but all the comment in this thread (well apart from the ad-homs obviously) would stand.
So you'll believe the thrust of the story over my point without looking into it? Interesting position to take.
I guess if I was as concerned as you seem to be I'd want to look into it a bit.
She's dead right. He should get off because he's religious. It has always been so.
That's why all the paedos in the church weren't punished.
Aaaaargh!
So you'll believe the thrust of the story over my point without looking into it?
Your point being that other judges do it too? Maybe you should try something similar as a defence if you ever find yourself up in front of her. Can't see anything in that story suggesting otherwise - the thrust of the story being that a (newsworthy, though that doesn't really make any difference) judge did something wrong. If anything the implication from the comment at the end is that it's not an isolated incident "We are hopeful that some kind of guidance will be put out to judges saying that they cannot use this kind of language in court and treat religious people differently from non-religious people,".
Conventionally it's up to you to prove your point - especially when it's impossible to disprove without looking at every single judgement passed down. Not that I care one way or the other how many judges have said something similar, so back to you.
i have not really missed your point - yes Cheerie is getting bashed - I have no opinion on her though her judgement is clearly questionable - I mean she married Tony 😯
I think you missed my point I know they get mitigated for a variety of reasons but clearly his religous views were part of the reason I know this because she said so in summing up
I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years [b]based on the fact you are a religious person [/b]and have not been in trouble before
Not exactly open to interpretation.
We could argue whether it was more or less important than his previous good charachter if you want but one cannot argue it was not a factor.
I would say that the religious reasons were the main ones.When I am giving a pupil a ration the most important reason is the one I mention first.Oh and I broke my jaw playing rugby,it hurts; what on earth is a mild fracture of the jaw?
jnyard - my point was not that atheists get the same treatement, but that religious folk, those of former good standing etc do.
Not that I care one way or the other how many judges have said something similar
Well if you don't care, even if I prove my point, then there's no way I am looking into it.
cynic-al is quite correct. If you are asserting that he is wrong, the onus is on you to prove it. This concept is enshrined in criminal law (the onus is on the prosecution to prove a defendant guilty of wrongdoing).
It is a daily occurrence that judges suspend sentences, due to first offence, of good character etc. The religious context that was put across was perhaps ill advised, but then judges have never really had a good reputation where tact is concerned! 😆
It is a daily occurrence that judges suspend sentences, due to first offence, of good character etc
Of course it is. Not because of believing in some fairy story though.
I suggest cynic-al should provide evidence of other judges' wrongdoing if he wants to suggest they're also guilty. We have enough evidence in this case, given "they're all doing it" isn't a valid defence. I don't think saying he's wrong on an internet forum has anything to do with criminal law!
"I don't think saying he's wrong on an internet forum has anything to do with criminal law!"
No, you're right it hasn't. Just pointing out that it is fundamental protocol that if I accuse someone of being wrong it is up to me to prove that they are wrong. Not for them prove they are not wrong, if you see what I mean!
I can think of a number of cases where judges have made ill thought out statements. One suggested that a woman victim of rape had 'asked for it' due to her penchant for short skirts!
Ah OK then. In that case I assert that judges have previously let people off entirely and in fact locked up the victim because the accused supported the same football team as them.
Don't even think of suggesting I'm wrong without checking through the records of every single criminal case to prove it.
Have you proof of that? Or is it a supposition? I suspect the latter.
On the other hand I have proof that Judges have made sentencing decisions on the basis of good character, unblemished record, first offense etc.
If you think I am wrong to state that, it is up to you to prove me wrong.
On the other hand I have proof that Judges have made sentencing decisions on the basis of good character, unblemished record, first offense etc.
Irrelevant. We're after proof that other judges have made sentencing decisions based on religion, in order to prove the theory that it's a witch hunt against Cherie.
Hmm - seems cynic-al is trying to prove the newspapers guilty - isn't it him who needs to provide the evidence?
Have you proof of that? Or is it a supposition? I suspect the latter.
Well if you're going to claim you have proof without presnting it, then I'll happily do the same. Off you go to prove me wrong.
As stated Cherie Blair IMO made an ill advised statement about the religious beliefs of the defendant. I suspect (I cannot state this as fact as I wasn't there) that the decision to suspend the sentence was based upon good character, no previous etc. of which there is copious amounts of evidence of other judges doing the same.
It is all there in case law. Lack of time and inclination prevents me from looking it up, but it is there.
There is however no evidence to support your spurious claim.
I suspect (I cannot state this as fact as I wasn't there) that the decision to suspend the sentence was based upon good character, no previous etc.
In which case why mention the religion bit when explaining the reasons for her decision? What she said is recorded and you can read it in the news reports (I'm assuming those are accurate until you prove otherwise), so I don't see why you needed to be there. "I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before". Either she meant that religion made a difference to her decision, or she has big trouble communicating properly in English.
There is however no evidence to support your spurious claim.
How do you know if you haven't checked? Remember I'm innocent until proven guilty.
I would rather base my opinion on official Law Reports than media reports who will add supposition and conjecture in order to sell copy.
If you make a claim the onus is on you to prove it. So you provide me evidence that judges in the past have let people off on the basis of supporting the same football team.
I would rather base my opinion on official Law Reports than media reports who will add supposition and conjecture in order to sell copy.
That's not editorial waffle, that's a direct quote. Are you suggesting they're misquoting her? Quite a serious accusation I'd suggest - could be deemed libellous if it's not true. The sort of thing you really should provide some proof of if you're going to make the accusation - innocent until proven guilty and all that.
If you make a claim the onus is on you to prove it. So you provide me evidence that judges in the past have let people off on the basis of supporting the same football team.
So are you accusing me of being wrong? It is fundamental protocol that if you accuse someone of being wrong it is up to you to prove that they are wrong.
Or are you suggesting that if you make a claim like say "lots of other judges do it to" the onus is on you to prove it?
You can't have it both ways.
I have never asserted or claimed that you are wrong. Only that there is no evidence to substantiate your claim. The onus is still on you to provide the evidence, which you have failed, and will continue to fail to do.
The times report posted quotes her as saying she will suspend the sentence because of previous good character mentioning that he was devoutly religious. The religious bit is irrelevant and IMO ill advised.
This is what I am saying. How exactly is this libelous?
Media reports will make more of the religious element, not by misquoting her but by taking quotes out of context. Again how is that libelous? I can state that with impunity, unless you believe that, that is the sum total of what she said throughout the proceedings.
Official Law Reports will have the whole court proceedings verbatim. I suspect (as I wasn't there and I don't have access to the reports (my subs ran out years ago)) that religion played a minuscule part in the proceedings. Media interest possibly being who the trail judge was.
I have never asserted or claimed that you are wrong.
What does "spurious" mean?
The standards of evidence required on STW are at least becoming clearer. There is no evidence to substantiate the claim that other judges have also based their sentencing on the religious beliefs of the guilty party. The onus is still on cynic-al (or you if you're asserting the same thing)to provide the evidence, which he has failed, and will continue to fail to do. Noting that I never asserted or claimed he was wrong - didn't even call his claim "spurious". Simply refused to believe it until evidence was provided. This would appear to be exactly the same position you're taking over my claim about the judge supporting the same football team, so the same rules presumably apply.
The times report posted quotes her as saying she will suspend the sentence because of previous good character mentioning that he was devoutly religious.
So saying "I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and ...", using the words "based on" is just mentioning it? Strange way to mention it. Particularly when you "mention" it before "mentioning" the previous good character. If she really meant something different then I'm concerned that people can become judges with such a poor grasp of the English language.
Media reports will make more of the religious element, not by misquoting her but by taking quotes out of context. Again how is that libelous? I can state that with impunity, unless you believe that, that is the sum total of what she said throughout the proceedings.
So given you accept she actually said that, exactly what context do you think you could possibly add to make it mean something different? Do you think she also made another statement explaining the reasons for suspending the sentence without the religion bit? Of course she also said other things, but you'll have to help me out here as I'm struggling to think of a single other thing she could have said which puts that quote into context in order to make it mean something totally different.
Official Law Reports will have the whole court proceedings verbatim. I suspect (as I wasn't there and I don't have access to the reports (my subs ran out years ago)) that religion played a minuscule part in the proceedings.
I'm sure it did play a miniscule part - the trouble is it would seem that miniscule part weighed quite heavily on her mind when determining sentence - or at least that's what she's claiming. If you're not going to actually introduce the Official Law Report as evidence for this thread, then the only evidence we do have to go on is what is in the newspaper articles. Anything else is just supposition and conjecture - not admissible. You can assert all you like that there must be more context and she didn't really mean it like that, but there is no evidence to substantiate your claim. The onus is still on you to provide the evidence, which you have failed, and will continue to fail to do.
I just think it shows a massive issue, she's supposed to be there uphold and where appropriate interpret the law. By effectively suggesting one part of society is superior to another because they belong to an organised club says to me she is biased and not capable of making fair decisions.
I am also a bit sick of people who assume religous people have more moral authority than people who don't believe in fairies, Jedis, gods, dragons and other mythical constructs. In fact I think people who don't blindly subscribe to someone else's club rules (all incidently designed to benefit the leaders of the club) and think through their own moral code are actually occupying the moral high ground.
Final point and I think it's already been made, but if he was really this religious paragon then surely she should have handed down a sterner sentance because following her logic he should really have known not to behave like that.
Yet another hypocritcal religous fail.
I have the weight of Law behind me. You have the weight of jornalists behind you.
The way I see it she suspended the sentance based on previous good character using (ill advisedly) the point that he was religous to back this up. As have many judges on many occasions (not using specifically religion). Case Law shows this.
Just because I do not have access to evidence to support what I am saying does not mean it doesn't exist. Google is not a panacea you know?
You WILL NOT and NEVER WILL find evidence to substanciate your claim.
the trouble is it would seem that miniscule part weighed quite heavily on her mind when determining sentence - or at least that's what she's claiming.
Or weighed heavilly on the mind of the reporter who knew how explosive (and saleable) a story about Tony Blair's wife (who incedently was facing questions form the Chilcott enquiry) "letting someone off because they are religous"?
Whatever you belive her motives where for the desision, you are wrong about the legal aspects.
I have the weight of Law behind me.
So you claim, but it's just hearsay - prove it.
Just because I do not have access to evidence to support what I am saying does not mean it doesn't exist. Google is not a panacea you know?You WILL NOT and NEVER WILL find evidence to substanciate your claim.
Hmm, so you can't find any more evidence to support your claim than I've given supporting mine. At the moment I reckon they're still on pretty equal footing. You can go on all you like about how the evidence to support your assertions is out there, but until you produce something that's just your unsubstantiated opinion. If even google can't help then it seems you're on pretty dodgy ground.
I do wonder though, given your vehemence that there is no evidence for my claim, whether you're now accusing me of being wrong. In which case it is fundamental protocol that if you accuse someone of being wrong it is up to you to prove that they are wrong.
Or weighed heavilly on the mind of the reporter who knew how explosive (and saleable) a story about Tony Blair's wife (who incedently was facing questions form the Chilcott enquiry) "letting someone off because they are religous"?
Did you read the first sentence of the article? The bit about her being investigated (and that being what has prompted the article, not the initial judgement)? But it's really just a made up story by a journalist to have a go at her. Of course it does matter who she is - as mentioned in the article she's a very high profile Catholic, which is the reason it's even more of an issue, nothing to do with who she's married to.
Some religious people having a moral sense, earlier...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8500077.stm
The fallacy of demanding negative proofOutside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, and especially a positive claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven (see argument from ignorance).
Taken from [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof ]Burden of Proof[/url] Gives a basic outline.
Do some research and study.
Do you seriously think that there would be all this commotion if Lord Nobody of Nowhere had said similar? Judges say stupid things, they (in the Law courts anyway) operate within the law. What do you suppose the outcome of this investigation will be?
To think this non-story is not linked to other 'coincidental' stories in the press regarding the judges family, IMO shows great naivety of the media. Together with an ignorance of the Justice System, your argument holds little weight.
The fallacy of demanding negative proof
I think that's just about where we came in and I was asking cynic-al to prove his point, making pretty much that argument (though not in so fancy terms). Seemingly you thought differently back then. Still not seen any evidence to support his point, and it would appear neither of you are interested in providing any, preferring to resort to silly legalistic arguments. In the absence of any evidence for either, my assertion up there has just as much weight as yours. You can assert all you like that there is evidence for your point and none for mine, but I refer you back to burden of proof.
Do you seriously think that there would be all this commotion if Lord Nobody of Nowhere had said similar?
Obviously not as much. But then he's not a very high profile Catholic. I still think there would have been some - it's an unacceptable thing for any judge to base a sentence on.
To think this non-story is not linked to other 'coincidental' stories in the press regarding the judges family, IMO shows great naivety of the media.
The Times doesn't seem to do links from stories, so I went to my usual source which does.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8497365.stm
Can't see a single link there to a story about anybody other than Ms Booth. Evidence for your assertion?
Together with an ignorance of the Justice System, your argument holds little weight.
Go on then, enlighten my ignorance. Why is "based on the fact you are a religious person" a perfect reasonable reason for suspending a sentence in our Justice System?
"based on the fact you are a religious person"
As previously stated, a quote likely to have been taken out of context. The decision to suspend the sentence was (likely and legally) based upon the defendant being of good character. The quote in the paper was possibly part of her summing up after having heard from the defendants lawyers how the defendant is an upstanding member of the community, an active member of his local mosque, an avid fund raiser, dedicated to his family and religious beliefs (or words to that effect).
The papers (as they so often do) have grossly oversimplified to the point of ridiculousness effectively saying Cherie Blair has let someone off because they were religious.
I am not going to trawl through legal tomes to prove to someone who is ignorant to how things work, previous rulings of judges. I'm not that insecure.
If you are so interested in the subject and find the decision so abhorrent, I suggest that you study and research the Criminal Justice and Legal systems, so that you are in a position to make informed arguments as to why this decision is so objectionable.(or are you the typical STWer arguing about something that you read in the paper, without a full appreciation of all the 'facts')?
I do hope you 2 were having a laugh with this
It makes perfect sense to me .
I propose a system of enforced religiosity . That way we could all be better behaved and only fall out with people from other systems of forced religiosity.
I was in a chippy in Prudhoe last year . A bloke walked in and asked for 'Garlic fish '. Just like that , then followed it up by saying ' lurds meynd ! '
I'm sorry , he'd have to go .
A friend of my mum is deeply religious , and seems really nice .Her husband goes to the newsagents and picks up my mums paper . It's a habit he got into when she was having her hips replaced , both of them . She was struggling to get about at the time , and my dad wasnt so good so it was a big help .
Get this though . He was in the marines and killed people and stuff , and he's a devout atheist .
So maybe I'm wrong , but I feel this thread has run it's course .
Garlic fish - WTF is that ??
bet he was a Christian, they like loads of fish don't they - it's in the bible
or are you the typical STWer arguing about something that you read in the paper, without a full appreciation of all the 'facts'
You seem to have misunderstood. I'm a typical STWer arguing with somebody pompous who relies on perceived authority to back up their arguments, and thinks different rules apply to their arguments than those of other people because they're so obviously right. Bored now though.
Well aracer, I'm googling and yet to find any stats etc to back me up, I may speak to some criminal lawyer pals to point me in the right direction. However I've found an article that kind of explains one of my points:
i.e. that as a religious person the criminal has a sense of morality, thereby justifying the suspending of his sentence (in the eyes of the law, not mine!)
Anyway, your argument seems to be based upon Judges [i]not[/i] using religion etc. to mitigate sentences, where as mine is the opposite. I don't see why the onus is on me to provide evidence to back up my argument - all yours is based on one right wing paper's article bashing the former PM's Mrs, because the National Secular Society has complained about her. Hardly shifting the onus onto me IMO.
cynicl-al, that article you cite states (idiotically, IMO)
"(CB)..wasn’t saying that religious people are morally superior to others. She was saying that, as a religious man, he should know better."
author then ignores the apparently bizarre decision, then, to lighten his sentence accordingly 😯
oh, and the times article in post1 gives the impression of directly quoting her “I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.”
If I was her I'd pursue a retraction or maybe sue if this is NOT the case, given the trouble it seems to be causing her and the DOUBLE connection within the quote (stated, not just implied) between him being religious and her sentencing for this wrongdoing
Well old Osama got off from copulating with sheep due to them being islams. I'll get me coat
scaredypants - you think those proven to have "moral standing" "for want of a better term) ought to be more heavily sentenced?
My point is that a first offender of previously good character (inc moral/religious beliefs) can have their sentence mitigated.
scaredypants - you think those proven to have "moral standing" "for want of a better term) ought to be more heavily sentenced?
Well, the reverse is well-established as a principle - children, for example
"moral standing" is pretty hard to quantify IMO and would be better ignored (or rather, assumed - if they've never offended before). Second and subsequent offences might be more harshly dealt with though, I'd be fine with that
My point is that a first offender of previously good character (inc moral/religious beliefs) can have their sentence mitigated.
The humanists' point is that one's alignment with religion is no indicator of good standing (catholic priests, all the way to al-qaeda if you like)
I certainly can't rationalise why "being religious" should lighten any sentence (which is the implication in the quote). I'd have thought that an acute understanding of why assault/battery and subsequent lying are wrong might suggest an abandonment of one's principles anyway. Not sure that this should be important to sentencing really, but your priest/imam/guru/god might be a bit hacked off with you.
You seem to have misunderstood. I'm a typical STWer arguing with somebody pompous who relies on perceived authority to back up their arguments,
Apologies if I have come across as pompous, as that was certainly not my intention.
I do not however rely on 'perceived authority'. I rely on legal process, protocol and precedent to back up my arguments.
sp you make no sense!
Al, you asked whether I think someone's proven moral standing ("for want of a better term") should INCREASE their sentence. In the context of a thread discussing religious affiliation maybe allowing someone to better know the difference between right & wrong I took it that you meant someone's appreciation of wrongdoing having a bearing on their sentence.
The converse surely applies in the case of kids, who're believed not to be capable of this, hence either not responsible or else generally handed lesser sentences. Similarly, genuine psychopaths don't go to prison, they go to secure hospitals - implying that, yes, sentencing differs according to understanding of the rules of society/morality.
I would also suggest that someone with (According to Cherie) a particularly good understanding of right and wrong might even be argued to have lost control of themselves to a greater extent, which might suggest (if the provocation was the same) that they are the more dangerous individual - no ? (I'd also say that lying about the event afterwards would make that man not very devout anyway - another inconsistency in the commentary)
As far as being "of good character" - this seems bollocks to me. If neither you nor I has ever chased a man down the street & assaulted him but then we both do so tomorrow, how is it relevant that you're kind to kittens etc (or more relevantly have friends in high places to vouch for you)? We've both done the same thing without any previous wrongdoing. (I could accept mitigating circs such as him insulting your dear old mum, or telling you that he's shagged your missus, but not that you've just come from the temple or that you're nice to the neighbours).
Further, to suggest that this dubious "good character" argument can be bolstered [u]just because you're religious[/u] is utter crap IMO (in support I offered 2 admittedly inflammatory examples of religious people who have the capacity for doing bad things)
Erm thanks.
you disagree ?
I am disgusted with the fact that guy got a suspended sentence. I do not care about the fine points of the law in this case. Violence should be punished immediately.
What I find even more disturbing is that so many people accused of violent crimes get granted bail...no wonder so many witnesses are intimidated and dare not testify. Even in jail criminals seem manage to intimidate their victims(see recent cases of facebook threats).
The legal system in this country seems to favour criminals
I take it the guy wasn't black then? otherwise he'd get 5 yrs...
Similarly, genuine psychopaths don't go to prison, they go to secure hospitals - implying that, yes, sentencing differs according to understanding of the rules of society/morality.
Yes, Peter Sutcliffe- The Yorkshire Ripper, was deemed mentally ill by the courts and therefore 'not guilty of murder by diminished responsibility'
He gave evidence at his trial and told the court "God told me to do it [murder prostitutes]".
An example of where religion has played a part in sentencing.(In media spin - The Yorkshire Ripper got off Murder because of his religious beliefs)!
edit: not true the judge wouldn't accept the not guilty on the grounds of diminished responsibility plea. It was Hindley and Braidy I was thinking about. She was deemed sane and him insane.
No, you've just gone off on some tangents. Got folk round now but will explain what I mean later
It's not exactly karma, but... 🙂
[url] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/05/archbishop-canterbury-blair-iraq-dostoyevsky [/url]
Come to think of it (sorry I've had a drink watching the Rugby. Yes being intoxicated is no defence in Law- Guilty as charged you honour)! 😳 religion has always been central to the English legal system.
When you swear on oath to tell 'the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth' it is sworn on the Bible.
The crest that appears above the Judge in all courts has the inscription [i]Dieu et mon droit [/i] - "God on my right".
Do atheists have immunity from the Law because they reject any religious notion?
You can take an oath with no mention of any deity
cynic-al - Member
You can take an oath with no mention of any deity
Yes agreed, the point I was making was that the oath was based upon religion- the notion of 'God as my Judge'. To further make the point that religion traditionally has long been intertwined with the Criminal Justice and Legal systems.
Therefore if the National Secular Society want to complain about Cherie Blair "letting off" someone for their apparent religiousness it should also be legitimate to question whether atheists can be trusted to be telling the truth in Court as they have no compunction to do so (they effectively pay lip service to the meaning of taking the oath).
These are not my personal views, just find that it throws up some interesting questions.