Recently in the comments to another bloggers post about ridiculously short sentences, I opined as to whether there was a reason why we do not sentence consecutively anymore but always concurrently.
Was there perhaps a legal reason, after all even with sentencing guidelines, 18 months for this, 6 months for that etc. if served consecutively would add up to a decent bit of jail time.
It appears that there is no reason why not as this malevolent turd found out.
Finally, a judge who gets it: He jails stunned burglar for 15 years to protect 'dignity of elderly'
The jail term – a year longer than the maximum sentence for house burglary – was handed to Leonard Johnston for three serious break-ins and assaults on two of his victims.
He looked shocked, having expected to get a ‘discount’ after pleading guilty to the offences.
I bet he did, hoping I suppose to get a few 3’s & 5’s to be served concurrently for a total of 5 years inside, out in 2.5 , in the words of Nelson Munce “Ha Ha”
Whist we wait for the inevitable appeal, I would still like to doff my cap to Judge Sean Morris
Top Judge
Great stuff - a new beginning perhaps? Or a judge soon out of a job?
ReplyDeleteGood man! I hope he doesn't get it reduced on appeal.
ReplyDeleteWell if this oxygen thief can prove that all his crimes were commited concurrently I see no reason why he should not do the time the same way. If he cannot do the full 15 years, he should do as much as he can...
ReplyDeleteFrankly I think there should be shorter sentences but ALL should be consecutive! You did 100 burglaries? 6 months each will see you off the streets for the next 50 years. Even the elite produced at our "Bog Standard" Comprehensives should be able to work out crime = time in the Big House!
I am all for suspended sentences.
ReplyDeleteTrouble is, lamp posts do not have those convienient "arms" at the top any more.