: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:45 pm  

I remain of the opinion that Bailey and Walker were high profile Leeds sportsman, in court far too soon after the Woodgate and Bowyer trial.

I believe that because of that proximity, their punishment was much harsher.

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:06 pm  

DoubleAone wrote: Cas sack a young player for a conviction of assault. http://msnsport.skysports.com/story/0,1 ... 96,00.html Leeds stood by Bailey and Walker Who is right ????? Don't know the full facts so hard to say, but from a point of principle, I reckon letting a kid keep his job playing rugby is going to be better than putting him on the street without a job. More likely not to get in trouble again if a rugby career depends on it, arguably more likely to get in trouble again if career prospects ruined. Re the Cockayne case - people need to stop saying sentences are too soft e.t.c. just from looking at some facts of a case. Unless you're in court to see and hear everything that is taken into account, commenting on an individual decision on the facts is not likely to amount to accurate criticism. Criticising the guidelines posted above is the only way to genuinely debate the issue IMO.

DoubleAone wrote: Cas sack a young player for a conviction of assault. http://msnsport.skysports.com/story/0,1 ... 96,00.html Leeds stood by Bailey and Walker Who is right ????? Don't know the full facts so hard to say, but from a point of principle, I reckon letting a kid keep his job playing rugby is going to be better than putting him on the street without a job. More likely not to get in trouble again if a rugby career depends on it, arguably more likely to get in trouble again if career prospects ruined. Re the Cockayne case - people need to stop saying sentences are too soft e.t.c. just from looking at some facts of a case. Unless you're in court to see and hear everything that is taken into account, commenting on an individual decision on the facts is not likely to amount to accurate criticism. Criticising the guidelines posted above is the only way to genuinely debate the issue IMO.

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:46 pm  

Maverick Rhino wrote:

I remain of the opinion that Bailey and Walker were high profile Leeds sportsman, in court far too soon after the Woodgate and Bowyer trial.

I believe that because of that proximity, their punishment was much harsher.

The problem is where is the consistency - surely if kicking some in the head for a first offence on camera is worth two years surely logically the same offence should get a similar tarif - the fact that one court can give a different sentence for the same offence is morally wrong

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:49 pm  

mleeds wrote:

Don't know the full facts so hard to say, but from a point of principle, I reckon letting a kid keep his job playing rugby is going to be better than putting him on the street without a job. More likely not to get in trouble again if a rugby career depends on it, arguably more likely to get in trouble again if career prospects ruined.

Difficult to cause trouble if you are in prison - also perhaps some amongst inmates might address some issues that Cockayne appears to have quicker than being free?

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:55 pm  

Eccleshill Rhino wrote:

Difficult to cause trouble if you are in prison - also perhaps some amongst inmates might address some issues that Cockayne appears to have quicker than being free?

Sorry - I meant that in relation to the question of whether it was better to sack a player convicted or not, regardless of whether they go to prison or not.

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:26 pm  

Eccleshill Rhino wrote:

The problem is where is the consistency - surely if kicking some in the head for a first offence on camera is worth two years surely logically the same offence should get a similar tarif - the fact that one court can give a different sentence for the same offence is morally wrong

For you to expect such consistency, you would be making the huge assumption that sentencing guidelines were the only factor in consideration.

I would suggest that the political system can be a more important wild card when it plays.

Re: OT - the judicial system : Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:23 am  

Dave Heron's Moustache wrote:

As I remember many people at the time, including the Leeds club, were shocked by the custodial sentence given in the Walker/Bailey judgement. I seem to remember the club making a statement that they thought that the sentence was overly harsh. If you think like that then maybe they got the Cockayne judgement right. I don't think prison is much use sometimes. The kid has a job (or maybe not? I don't think the league should de-register him but it's possible) and a sporting club can be the best place for someone to learn from a mistake like this. And, he hasn't gotten away with it. Any more trouble and he's inside for a considerable stretch and his career is effectively over.
He's been punished but the best chance of protecting the public from him may be to have him a useful member of society?

Well said.

What do people want a prison sentence for?

A deterrent? Studies show it doesn;t work.

Rehabilitation? I think the sentence given has more chance of that than a stretch inside and loss of career.

Punishment? That's one I find hard to argue against.

You see, I believe that the latter should be the primary objective of sentencing but that ideal requires financing and whilst I'd happily see my tax money spent I expect the ranters who pontificate on threads such as these wouldn't.

It used to be the case that kicking a prone victim in the head was a no no. Seems to have relaxed on that score.

However, like the bandit said, nobody on here knows the full facts and the judge did.

Oh, and bats, I don't do criminal work. Hourly rates are too low and the clients are scum bags who need locking up.

: Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:02 am  

He never mentioned criminal work, and I know it would be too close to the bone for you, they might find out your a criminally lazy solicitor.

Re: OT - the judicial system : Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:03 am  

G1 wrote:

Oh, and bats, I do civil work. Hourly rates are too high and the lawyers are scum bags who need locking up

Edited for accuracy

Re: OT - the judicial system : Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:11 am  

G1 wrote:

Well said.

What do people want a prison sentence for?

A deterrent? Studies show it doesn't work - as does the US!

Rehabilitation? I think the sentence given has more chance of that than a stretch inside and loss of career - if prisons are the 'universities of crime' so many claim, why are they so keen to put more people in them?

Punishment? That's one I find hard to argue against - never underestimate the impact the proceedings themselves can have on an individual. Custody punishes, it punishes in ways the 'rant' brigade often ignore, being apart from family, determination of your own daily routine, privacy etc. The individuals in this case had a 'taste of it'. An old trick used less frequently than once was the case
You see, I believe that the latter should be the primary objective of sentencing but that ideal requires financing and whilst I'd happily see my tax money spent I expect the ranters who pontificate on threads such as these wouldn't.

It used to be the case that kicking a prone victim in the head was a no no. Seems to have relaxed on that score - still is, however the removal of the requirement for exceptional circumstances before considering a suspended sentence has allowed Judges in certain cases to draw back from immediate custodials. Still standard advice is 'kicking equals custody'.

However, like the bandit said, nobody on here knows the full facts and the judge did.

Oh, and bats, I don't do criminal work. Hourly rates are too low and the clients are scum bags who need locking up.