You be the judge (sentencing)

catsmate1 said:
A: Two years per offence, served consecutively. The usual supervision regime if released.
Lapse in time since the commission of the crimes and the age of the defendant are not mitigating factors; getting away with a crime, especially using power and influence to do so are no mitigation.

B: Attack on the justice system, seven years per offence served consecutively. Disbarment.
Click to expand...


That would instead be an aggravating factor, but that context was not given.

Whether or not lapse of time and age should be factors depends on your theory of punishment. Do we punish with jail time in order to rehabilitate criminals, to protect society from criminals, to deter criminals, or to satisfy a thirst for revenge against criminals, or is it some combination of all of these?

I think time and age are mitigating factors in using jail time for any of these goals, but certainly the first two.

As for the second two, deterrence and desire for revenge both decay with time. I think we see this with the relatively common occurrence of commutation of life sentences and humanitarian early releases.
 
Time since offences has already allowed him to get away with more because the law has been changed since. See the 12 year old in Spain, and the fact that some of his crimes would be charged as rape if they had happened more recently. I don't see why the passage of time per se should allow him any more leniency.
 
From what I have read so far of the sentencing remarks in the Clifford case I would not be at all surprised if there were an appeal against sentence. The judge has absolutely no right to express an opinion about the 12 year old girl. The implication is he has taken her complaint into account even though it was not charged. The defence was also concerned that Clifford would be made an example of to validate Operation Yewtree. The judge also seems to have taken account the fact that sentences for these offences are higher now than they were when committed. That is impermissible (and unjust) too.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Time since offences has already allowed him to get away with more because the law has been changed since. See the 12 year old in Spain, and the fact that some of his crimes would be charged as rape if they had happened more recently. I don't see why the passage of time per se should allow him any more leniency.
Click to expand...


That the law has changed since the crime was committed is irrelevant. In fact, it should actually put the judge on notice not to let current social attitudes influence his judgment. There is no question that sexual offenses are viewed in a much harsher light today than they were 30-40 years ago. But the fact is, they were committed 30-40 years ago, and fairness would require (I think) that the criminal be judged by the standards at the time.

That said, having read in more detail what Clifford did, I would give a harsher sentence. I think the judge got it about right.
 
anglolawyer said:
From what I have read so far of the sentencing remarks in the Clifford case I would not be at all surprised if there were an appeal against sentence. The judge has absolutely no right to express an opinion about the 12 year old girl. The implication is he has taken her complaint into account even though it was not charged. The defence was also concerned that Clifford would be made an example of to validate Operation Yewtree. The judge also seems to have taken account the fact that sentences for these offences are higher now than they were when committed. That is impermissible (and unjust) too.
Click to expand...

The judge says he can take other cases into account (eg the ones Clifford was found not guilty of) as evidence of bad character.

The jury heard some compelling evidence of other sexual incidents in which you were involved. I disagree with Mr Horwell QC’s submission that on the basis of the two verdicts of not guilty and the failure of the jury to decide on one count I should ignore this behaviour entirely. Those three alleged offences had specific features and complexities in respect of the circumstances in which it was said they had taken place which make the jury’s findings wholly explicable. I do not find in relation to the bad character evidence which they heard any similar difficulties and, so long as I am sure that the events took place, as I am, I can take them into account insofar as the evidence informs me as to the offences for which you are to be sentenced.
Click to expand...
 
anglolawyer said:
.......The judge also seems to have taken account the fact that sentences for these offences are higher now than they were when committed. That is impermissible (and unjust) too.
Click to expand...

That really isn't the way I read the judgement. I saw that as a simple aside, and maybe as a factor in why he chose consecutive rather than concurrent sentences. However, given the poor quality of writing in the judgement, I am not surprised that we interpret it differently.
 
sunmaster14 said:
That the law has changed since the crime was committed is irrelevant. In fact, it should actually put the judge on notice not to let current social attitudes influence his judgment. There is no question that sexual offenses are viewed in a much harsher light today than they were 30-40 years ago. But the fact is, they were committed 30-40 years ago, and fairness would require (I think) that the criminal be judged by the standards at the time.
Click to expand...

Alternately, if he'd wanted the lenient social attitudes towards sexual abuse that existed 30-40 years ago in play during his sentencing, then perhaps he should have turned himself in 30-40 years ago.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
That really isn't the way I read the judgement. I saw that as a simple aside, and maybe as a factor in why he chose consecutive rather than concurrent sentences. However, given the poor quality of writing in the judgement, I am not surprised that we interpret it differently.
Click to expand...

Well, it's exactly the kind of thing that gets picked up on appeal.

As an aside, isn't it odd that there is nothing more recent than 37 years? Why did his behaviour stop? He was getting away with it. He still had a libido (I assume).
 
Last edited:
I'm an expat, so although I know vaguely what both cases are about I haven't followed them particularly closely.
There is a lot of relevant information missing from both cases.
From the information available in case A there are a number of clear aggravating factors: assaults clearly planned, pattern of behavior over a period of years, abuse of a position of power. Not being caught for 40 years is not necessarily an aggravating factor - establishing that the defendant used his power to avoid investigation would require separate charges such as bribery or perverting the course of justice. Since there was no conviction on such charges I don't think the lapse of time alone can be a factor. There are 8 distinct assaults presumably on different occasions against different individuals. Without any idea of the seriousness of the assaults it's hard to say what the sentence ought to be. I would guess 4-8 years, plus the usual mandatory provisions - signing the register, DBS. If the victims can find a way around the limitations problems, the defendant would probably also face civil action.

In Case B, its unclear whether the offence actually resulted in a failure of justice or whether it was merely "tending and intended" which is also a possible grounds for conviction of the offence. Actual perversion of the course of justice would, in my view, be more serious. In addition I generally believe that those who hold public office or public trust should suffer imprisonment if they violate the law in relation to their position. This lawyer clearly did. I would therefore sentence to 1 year imprisonment (likely to result in a few months actually served inside, the rest on probation). Disbarment is not a matter for the criminal court - that is dealt with separately. But realistically any conviction or violation of the relevant code of conduct which involves dishonesty will result in disbarment, together with significant fines and costs.
 
TragicMonkey said:
On the contrary, my sentencing is always precisely judged to protect society. The basis of crime is when individuals hold themselves more important than society and thus violate the rules. This sort of thing can only really be corrected by permanent removal from the species. However, there are a few minor crimes, like murder, that occur not because the perpetrator is unsuitable for society but because the victim is. So if they can prove in court that the victim deserved it, I sentence murderers to receive a generous cash reward.
Click to expand...

I like that Monkey Law!!!
 
colander said:
Alternately, if he'd wanted the lenient social attitudes towards sexual abuse that existed 30-40 years ago in play during his sentencing, then perhaps he should have turned himself in 30-40 years ago.
Click to expand...

Does no-one understand the concept of an ex post facto law?
 
Last edited:
Aulus Agerius said:
I'm an expat, so although I know vaguely what both cases are about I haven't followed them particularly closely.
There is a lot of relevant information missing from both cases.
From the information available in case A there are a number of clear aggravating factors: assaults clearly planned, pattern of behavior over a period of years, abuse of a position of power. Not being caught for 40 years is not necessarily an aggravating factor - establishing that the defendant used his power to avoid investigation would require separate charges such as bribery or perverting the course of justice. Since there was no conviction on such charges I don't think the lapse of time alone can be a factor. There are 8 distinct assaults presumably on different occasions against different individuals. Without any idea of the seriousness of the assaults it's hard to say what the sentence ought to be. I would guess 4-8 years, plus the usual mandatory provisions - signing the register, DBS. If the victims can find a way around the limitations problems, the defendant would probably also face civil action.
Click to expand...
I did post the details of two of the cases.

In Case B, its unclear whether the offence actually resulted in a failure of justice or whether it was merely "tending and intended" which is also a possible grounds for conviction of the offence. Actual perversion of the course of justice would, in my view, be more serious. In addition I generally believe that those who hold public office or public trust should suffer imprisonment if they violate the law in relation to their position. This lawyer clearly did. I would therefore sentence to 1 year imprisonment (likely to result in a few months actually served inside, the rest on probation). Disbarment is not a matter for the criminal court - that is dealt with separately. But realistically any conviction or violation of the relevant code of conduct which involves dishonesty will result in disbarment, together with significant fines and costs.
Click to expand...
There was no resulting failure of justice as the husband and wife were both convicted of screwing around with his speeding ticket and went to prison. That should have been in the OP but I posted it later.

That said, your sentencing suggestions suggest you know what you are about.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Whether or not lapse of time and age should be factors depends on your theory of punishment. Do we punish with jail time in order to rehabilitate criminals, to protect society from criminals, to deter criminals, or to satisfy a thirst for revenge against criminals, or is it some combination of all of these?
Click to expand...
Well in general social theory all of the above, mixed with the duty of the state do emphatically declare certain behaviour unacceptable (education in the classical model of Deterrence/Protection/Retribution/Rehabilitation/Education).

In this case.
1. Rehabilitation: jail sentences have no significant rehabilitative effect on many sex offenders. Tailored therapy might help but seems relatively pointless in this case.
2. Protection: in this case a marginal justification
3. Deterrence: this is the main objective. Specifically, in this case, to protect society by deterring similar actions on the part of others. Therefore the sentence should reflect this, and emphesise that merely having avoided prosecution for some time does not in any way mitigate the offenses committed.
3. Revenge: a relatively pointless endeavour in general.
4. Education: this is the second important objective in this case; to resoundingly state that this behaviour is unacceptable within our society and that the rule of law is capable of punishing it.

sunmaster14 said:
I think time and age are mitigating factors in using jail time for any of these goals, but certainly the first two.

As for the second two, deterrence and desire for revenge both decay with time. I think we see this with the relatively common occurrence of commutation of life sentences and humanitarian early releases.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your second point; I believe that a wrong left long unaddressed in no way lessens in stature.
 
catsmate1 said:
Well in general social theory all of the above, mixed with the duty of the state do emphatically declare certain behaviour unacceptable (education in the classical model of Deterrence/Protection/Retribution/Rehabilitation/Education).

In this case.
1. Rehabilitation: jail sentences have no significant rehabilitative effect on many sex offenders. Tailored therapy might help but seems relatively pointless in this case.
2. Protection: in this case a marginal justification
3. Deterrence: this is the main objective. Specifically, in this case, to protect society by deterring similar actions on the part of others. Therefore the sentence should reflect this, and emphesise that merely having avoided prosecution for some time does not in any way mitigate the offenses committed.
3. Revenge: a relatively pointless endeavour in general.
4. Education: this is the second important objective in this case; to resoundingly state that this behaviour is unacceptable within our society and that the rule of law is capable of punishing it.
Click to expand...


Yes, education is important. I would have previously lumped that under deterrence, but on 2nd thought I agree it stands separately.

Revenge could also be lumped with deterrence, and I see you've done so with your numbering (probably unwittingly). But the desire for revenge is rooted in human biology, and it is the basis for much of our criminal law. I would not say it's pointless, but I think most people feel ambivalent about the concept, which is probably why we like to use the euphemism "justice" instead.

I disagree with your second point; I believe that a wrong left long unaddressed in no way lessens in stature.
Click to expand...


Well, I have this half-cocked philosophy of self in which a consciousness transforms over time into a different one. Under this philosophy a person 30 years removed from his former self is basically a different person, or at least more different than, say, an identical twin would be. So I see moral culpability decaying with time. I suppose that's fodder for a different thread though.
 
...He later forced her to perform sex acts while he assaulted her.
Click to expand...

Seven years for the forced sexual assault, register as sex offender.

For the barrister and judge, remove from the bench and suspend her license to practice law. Sentence to community service.
 
After reading all the details in the judge's report, I would sentence him to one year in prison - three weeks of which to be served in a U.S. prison.

I am not serious. Rape is not an appropriate punishment for a rapist. Nor is cutting off his John Thomas.

......

I will agree this is a hard case in which to make the scales of justice balance. He has done a lot of charity work since then. But he has absolutely no remorse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom