There must be more to life than football?
I find it hard to understand that if there's a minimum sentence for committing a crime, a judge can cut that by more than half out of sympathy for the offender's personal circumstances. A lot of the things she said in explaining the sentence would apply to anyone guilty of murder. Surely the point of having longer sentences for serious crimes is to deter people from doing something so blatantly wrong as picking up a gun loaded with lethal ammo, moving towards a hidden person and firing four shots at them without finding out who they are or checking that your loved ones are safe and out the way. The way I'd see it, the minimum should be there for the cases where you can sympathise with the offender, with stricter sentences for those who don't show remorse, etc. In this case, it feels like the judge has treated the minimum as the maximum and cut down from there. There's a feeling that she's still working to her original judgement rather than reassessing after being overruled.
- Valued squad member
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 3:27 am
- Location: Manchester
I hope they do go ahead with the appeal. Far too lenient a sentence and with other things coming to light regarding his use of firearms and shooting someone else in a public place; I think he needs to serve a longer sentence.
Yes. You wouldn't go to the same doctor for a second opinion on their diagnosis. I can't see the logic and it seems a wasted step if she can be bypassed now anyway. From a layman's perspective, it's a concern that the judge significantly deviating from sentencing guidelines wasn't grounds in itself for an appeal.
It's you, you don't come out of this farce particularly well...mrblackbat wrote:Is it me, or does the South African judicial system not come out of this farce particularly well?
I'm still waiting for the statistics on the number of violent intruders using their would-be victim's toilet before carrying out their attack...