Post: #1

I'm normally all for judicial discretionary leniency on a case by case basis actually.

So I put out to you gents...

Does this seem like a reasonable case of the aforementioned, or pandering to another 'special' snowflake? (someone post a pic of said woman, as I'm again, not savy. She's not unattractive...)

Would you want this person operating on you while having access to hospitals drugs....while allegedly having a drug problem?

Main Question and one I've been pondering lately with regard to our judicial appointees. At what point do we the people allow judges to be held liable/responsible (immigration measures being thwarted by Hawaiian judge...?) to rulings that let off said people, possibly have unintended consequences? Is that too abstract of a premise to assign guilt and if the ROL no longer applies to some, why should we adhere to it?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/oxford-studen...30031.html

A budding heart surgeon studying at Oxford University who knifed her boyfriend during a violent row could avoid jail because of her "extraordinary" talent, a judge has said.

Oxford Crown Court Judge Ian Pringle said that a custodial sentence, which would normally be meted out for such a crime, would prevent Lavinia Woodward from embarking on her chosen career - a sentence, which he said was, "too severe".
It was stated at the court, where the 24-year-old admitted to a charge of unlawful wounding, that she met her victim on Tinder before she launched into her attack on 30 September.

The judge heard how she punched the man and swiped at him with a bread knife after drinking and taking drugs.

It was stated at the court, where the 24-year-old admitted to a charge of unlawful wounding, that she met her victim on Tinder before she launched into her attack on 30 September.

The judge heard how she punched the man and swiped at him with a bread knife after drinking and taking drugs.

The judge then made the unusual decision to suspend his sentencing for four months, with Woodward having to return to the court on 25 September.

It was even stated by her defence barrister James Sturman QC that Christ Church would even allow her to return in October because she "is that bright" and has had articles published in medical journals.

Prosecuting Cathy Olliver said at the time of the attack her behaviour had "deteriorated" until she snapped whilst her boyfriend was speaking to his mother on Skype. It was during this call that Woodward launched into her attack.

Sturman said Woodward was a drug addict whose dreams of becoming a surgeon were "almost impossible" if she was jailed as her conviction would have to be disclosed.

The court also heard how Woodward had a "very troubled life" before the incident, and had been abused by a former partner.

Woodward was handed a restraining order and told to stay drug-free and not to re-offend before her next court date.

Post: #2

Dupe

Post: #3

(05-17-2017 05:38 PM)zigZag Wrote:  Dupe

Crap, Mod Delete, sorry gents.

Post: #4

One proposal that might work is to require her to put up a bond that will be forfeited if she re-offends.

So, for example, suppose the judge says that she has to put up a million dollars, which will be forfeited if she stabs anyone within the next five years. Then she would need to get a bunch of friends to put their homes on the line as collateral, and all those friends will be telling her, "Now you better not stab anyone, or I will personally break your neck."

In this way, we minimize violence in our communities.

Post: #5

Yeah, crazy drug addict, what great potential for a surgeon! Nice job courts.

Who wouldn't want her operating on your body?

Post: #6

(05-17-2017 08:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Yeah, crazy drug addict, what great potential for a surgeon! Nice job courts.

Who wouldn't want her operating on your body?

By postponing her court date, the judge may just be giving her enough rope to hang herself. If she violates the terms of her release, it could give him an excuse to give her more time.

It also gives her more time to worry about what the outcome will be.

Sometimes judges will act like they're keeping an open mind and wanting to give the defendant every opportunity to prove that they're not a risk, and then in the end they hand down a harsh sentence anyway.

Post: #7

(05-17-2017 06:50 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  One proposal that might work is to require her to put up a bond that will be forfeited if she re-offends.

So, for example, suppose the judge says that she has to put up a million dollars, which will be forfeited if she stabs anyone within the next five years. Then she would need to get a bunch of friends to put their homes on the line as collateral, and all those friends will be telling her, "Now you better not stab anyone, or I will personally break your neck."

In this way, we minimize violence in our communities.

Since when has some batshit crazy broad ever stopped in the middle of a violent, hysterical fit and thought, "wait a minute, CONSEQUENCES!"

Post: #8

Dupe: /thread-62790.html