court appeals

[scorpious321]

When someone appeals in court on there sentence eg murder etc to reduce there sentence.Wouldnt it be nice if when they take it to Appeal that that judge could have the power aswell to over ride the original sentence and say I think you should go away even longer.
I wonder how many people who have done crime and was told by there solicitors that the appeal hearing might give you an even longers entence than befor would take that chance and waste tax payers money.

Why should it only go one way in there favour to get it reduced

[Gromit]

They do have the power to increase sentences, and occasionally they do.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7187923.stm

[MrBen5]

Hmmm, as gromit says above. It does happen.
I know a couple of people who have had there sentences increased (not by much) after an appeal...

[sp1214]

If a murder conviction leads to life I suppose that cannot be extended. Although sometimes the murderer only gets 10 years without remission so maybe theres a case for serving 2 life sentences.

[beso]

Some Aussie drug smugglers in Indonesia appealed their life sentences and got death instead.

Normally if the sentence seems lenient the prosecution will appeal anyway. I expect they also have the right to appeal against the reduction of a sentence.

[jake-the-peg]

Last time I looked at this the CPS had a policy of appealing any GBH sentence that resulted in a non custodial sentence and they had a 100% record of success.

As I am forever explaining a life sentence is for life but it does *not* necessarilly mean life in custody.

A fine is a sentence as is a community service order but they don't involve prison.

A life sentence has a Tariff associated with it which is the minimum time someone stays in prison.

In the UK there are such things as Whole Life Tariffs who are people who will never be released from prison.

There are 50 or so of them there's a list here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_life_tariff

[New Judge]

The most scandalous thing about so-called �Life� sentences is that , in the 1960s during the lead up to the abolition of Capitl Punishment, the public were completely mislead. In order to gain support for the abolition (which did not enjoy much popular support at the time) it was said that those who would have previously been sentenced to death would instead serve the remainder of their lives in prison.

At the time Life sentences were available for some murderers and for those who had been sentenced to death but had been reprieved. These sentences were not �whole life� but usually of around 10-15 years. To push abolition through longer �Life� sentences were proposed and it was said that most murderers who would have been hanged would see a whole life sentence imposed instead.

Nothing was further from the truth and soon after abolition (in 1965) murderers were being granted parole after as little as eight years.

Here we are forty years on, with about 700 murders per year occurring in the UK and only around 50 murderers are incarcerated for life. Not quite what the Great British public were led to believe in 1965.

[jno]

the Great British public at the time were well aware that innocent people were being executed, most notably Timothy Evans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans

[New Judge]

Yes, jno the Evans case was very disturbing and I believe Evans would have spent "only" about three or four years in prison had he been spared the rope.

But there was nonetheless still widespread support for Capital Punishment. However the Evans case played a big role in the abolition campaign and during the debate it was accepted that in cases of miscarriage such as Evans at least some restitution could be made in the event of mistakes becoming evident which they could not, of course, if the accused had been executed.

My point is not whether Capital Punishment should have been abolished but that, to persuade the country to support abolition, people were led to believe that the death penalty would be replaced by whole life sentences and that was not the case almost from the outset.

Back then MPs were far more responsive to the wishes of their constituents than the Party representatives we have masquerading as MPs today. It therefore surprises me that they were so easily fobbed off so soon after abolition.

[jake-the-peg]

Got any reference links for that misinformation for those of us not old enough to have been around at the time?

Or are you relying on your memory?