Philip Pickett sentenced to 11 years imprisonment

[MrGongGong]

It's puzzling why he seems to have had relatively short sentence compared to some.

Not really IMV
He is rich, went to the "right" University and does the "right" music

[Stanfordian]

Not really IMV
He is rich, went to the "right" University and does the "right" music

Scandalous if those are the reasons but you might well be right.

I don't know if he did but many think that engaging a top lawyer can often give an improved outcome.

[Bryn]

Scandalous if those are the reasons but you might well be right.

I don't know if he did but many think that engaging a top lawyer can often give an improved outcome.

Hmm. I suppose it is worth considering that Pickett was state schooled and Guildhall trained.

[Pabmusic]

It's who you know and it's clear that the law doesn't apply equally to everyone
if King had been Johnathan as opposed to Robert then what?

Hiding behind politeness and appearing "cultured" is a well-known strategy for many with obnoxious views or behaviours...

There's always a deal of cynicism about sentencing. I'm sure I'd do it better.

The trouble is, none of us (I assume) were involved in the case, or were even in court to see and hear the evidence and pleadings. We've all read newspaper reports, seen TV coverage, or (worst of all) online commentaries. But punishments are supposed to fit the crimes - which means they must be individual to the specific circumstances. Whilst there is evidence that 'breeding' can affect the result (usually in the sense that the more 'deprived' your background, the harder time you'll have) courts are much more aware of that than they once were. And the prosecution now has a right to appeal sentences as well.

So - to try and second-guess the reasons for particular sentences is not helpful.

We might abandon the 'punishment fit the crime' rule and go for set tariffs - algorithms that produce a sentence that can't be altered. But I doubt that would be any sort of improvement, since there'll always be a case that's worse (or not so bad) as others.

There's been much study done of sentencing. One I remember was in Bristol - members of the public were asked to give sentences for offences, both seeing film of the perpetrator and of the victim (all actors) talking about the experience. The sentences given - almost always - followed the pattern that (1) hearing the victim, but not the perpetrator, resulted in a higher sentence than the 'control' (that is, sentence based on a newspaper-style report); (2) hearing the perpetrator, but not the victim, resulted in a lower sentence than the control; and (3) hearing both victim and perpetrator resulted in a lower sentence than the control. Interesting (it's been repeated with similar results). This probably means that to consider a crime from a distance is one thing, but to gain understanding of the personalities and dynamics involved in a particular case has a 'softening' affect.

A version of the same experiment used real victims and perpetrators (all burglaries) and the results were consistent - people gave lighter sentences to the people they'd heard from in depth.

[Slinks off, pulling anorak around him, from a subject he hasn't had to think about for more than 10 years.]

[oddoneout]

Pabs you are right about the 'had to be there' aspect of sentencing, and the fact that hearing all the evidence and those involved leads to different conclusions than knee-jerks resulting from what is released to the public domain. That is as it should be; the downside is that public perception of the end result may be negative to the point of hostility and distrust of the legal process for want of having all the information which led to the court conclusion. Cases that on the surface seem similar and so should, in the public eye, have similar outcomes, don't. The fact that mistakes do occur doesn't help that perception.

[Pabmusic]

Pabs you are right about the 'had to be there' aspect of sentencing, and the fact that hearing all the evidence and those involved leads to different conclusions than knee-jerks resulting from what is released to the public domain. That is as it should be; the downside is that public perception of the end result may be negative to the point of hostility and distrust of the legal process for want of having all the information which led to the court conclusion. Cases that on the surface seem similar and so should, in the public eye, have similar outcomes, don't. The fact that mistakes do occur doesn't help that perception.

Well, I certainly don't disagree with that.

Perhaps we should have better education about the legal system... (and so much else) ...

[teamsaint]

Sentencing is complex. On my jury service, the judge had to ask the barristers how he should sentence to get the “ correct” outcome. Not very confidence inspiring.

However , my problem with the legal side of the King case is not about the length of sentence, but about the lack of a ban on working with children.

[Pabmusic]

Sentencing is complex. On my jury service, the judge had to ask the barristers how he should sentence to get the “ correct” outcome. Not very confidence inspiring...

Fortunately my (only) two fields of employment precluded me from jury service.

[MrGongGong]

Sentencing is complex. On my jury service, the judge had to ask the barristers how he should sentence to get the “ correct” outcome. Not very confidence inspiring.

However , my problem with the legal side of the King case is not about the length of sentence, but about the lack of a ban on working with children.

I think it's more to do with the message that gets sent out rather than the specifics.

[doversoul1]

I think it's more to do with the message that gets sent out rather than the specifics.

and the worst (or at least one of the worst) message that gets sent out /has been sent out in this case is that the suffering of his victims don’t count.

[Pabmusic]

I think it's more to do with the message that gets sent out rather than the specifics.

and the worst (or at least one of the worst) message that gets sent out /has been sent out in this case is that the suffering of his victims don’t count.

And how does the message get out? Via the media.

And who does it get out to? To people who generally haven't a clue about the law.

Strong case for better education I'd say.

The fact is that nowadays (and I think when King was sentenced) 'victim statements' and Social Services' victim assessments are an important part of the sentencing process.

[Bryn]

and the worst (or at least one of the worst) message that gets sent out /has been sent out in this case is that the suffering of his victims don’t count.

Newly elected MEP Ann Widdecombe on King having served his sentence, https://www.express.co.uk/comment/co...rison-sentence .

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Newly elected MEP Ann Widdecombe on King having served his sentence, https://www.express.co.uk/comment/co...rison-sentence .

Interesting opinion, given that Ms Widdecombe has previously voiced opinions that suggest that she thinks that restoring the death penalty would deter the "rampant paedophilia" she sees in society.

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidstone/news/ann-widdecombe-had-no-idea-she-w-a91553/

[Pabmusic]

Interesting opinion, given that Ms Widdecombe has previously voiced opinions that suggest that she thinks that restoring the death penalty would deter the "rampant paedophilia" she sees in society.

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidsto...-she-w-a91553/

Yes, I'd avoid her opinions, though she was Prisons Minister under the odious Howard. And (I hate to admit) I've met her.

[Richard Barrett]

Interesting opinion, given that Ms Widdecombe has previously voiced opinions that suggest that she thinks that restoring the death penalty would deter the "rampant paedophilia" she sees in society.

Yes indeed, it's enough to make you think that ruling-class solidarity is behind much of what's been remarked on in this thread.