...because it's no longer enough to be blind. Justice needs to be woke instead:
Judges have been told they must take the ethnicity of gun criminals into account when they hand down punishments.
I'm all in favour of that, if it means harsher penalties for those who shouldn't be here in the first place! But of course, it doesn't.
After research revealed that white criminals convicted of holding or carrying guns have been given lesser penalties than those from ethnic minorities, the Sentencing Council said judges must consider whether their decisions are influenced by their unconscious bias.
Or maybe they are influenced by other factors, such as criminal history, level of violence used, etc? Who knows?
The new Sentencing Council guidance says that while there may be many reasons why sentences for white and black gun criminals have shown disparity, they should consider several paragraphs in the Bench Book when they hand down punishments.
The paragraphs contain material from a review of the treatment of black and ethnic minority people in the criminal justice system carried out by Labour frontbencher David Lammy in 2016.
*hollow laughter*
6 comments:
More backup for my assertion that to cry racist you have to be racist.
The review commissioned by Cameron and accepted by May. Because true Conservatives know Whitey is bad, m'kay?
The wokeness of the Sentencing Council might (or might not) be connected to the fact that of the 14 members, 9 are women (https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/sentencing-and-the-council/about-the-sentencing-council/sentencing-council/). Since, I suspect, the majority of judges and the legal profession are men this hardly reflects the profession or those who are selected to administer what is laughingly called "justice" in this country.
Moreover, why should the Council have members (eg Alpa Palmar and Beverly Thompson) who were closely involved in the production of the Lammy Report? Their opinions on BAME sentencing would be (or, at least, seen to be) consequently biased and, at the very least, they should have been recused from any work on BAME sentencing by the Council. It's like having a case where the accused is found guilty and then having counsel for the prosecution sitting on the bench in the subsequent appeal.
When a Judge considers the sentence to be imposed upon someone convicted of a serious crime one of the principal factors taken into consideration is the record of previous convictions of the convicted person and the severity of the crimes which attracted those convictions. It is highly likely that those attracting more severe sentences have longer and more serious records of serious crime. That such persons, in London and other 'diversely' populated urban areas are statistically more likely to be from a melanin-enriched sector of society is not an indicator of 'unconscious bias' in the judiciary.
If only journalists and members of the public were allowed into our briefing room where there are pictures on the walls to constantly remind PC's who to look out for on patrol.....it would open a few eyes to the reality of the situation in London.
Jaded
"More backup for my assertion that to cry racist you have to be racist."
Spot on!
"The review commissioned by Cameron and accepted by May. "
And not immediately halted by Boris.
"...of the 14 members, 9 are women (https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/sentencing-and-the-council/about-the-sentencing-council/sentencing-council/)."
But, but, that's supposed to improve things! Isn't it?
"...one of the principal factors taken into consideration is the record of previous convictions of the convicted person and the severity of the crimes which attracted those convictions. "
Indeed! I suspect that's actually the key factor here.
"...it would open a few eyes to the reality of the situation in London."
I think a few days spent living and working in London will do that!
Post a Comment