• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Adam Johnson appeal

Status
Not open for further replies.

He got 4 years less than what users of kodi are going to get.

Saying that, if you want to watch the lads on kodi on a Saturday you are not right in the head.
 
James said:
And rightly so, abusing his position of power to prey on children. For all we know he could've gone on to others after his first victim.

He deserves every second he's spending inside, the little creep.
Click to expand...
Don't think he was charged with that mind ... Prey on children.
 
He's an idiot frankly and he deserves time. I do think that there is an issue with consistency of sentencing as a lot have pointed out, but I have little sympathy

I know I keep bleating about this. But Alonso killed someone by drunk driving. Paid 60k fine.

Different legal systems of course, but that disgusts me
 
look out piano said:
Still think 6 years was harsh, but hey ho :neutral:.
Click to expand...
I do too. They said it's because of the extenuating circumstances like planning and going somewhere private to do the deed. Which seems weird to me, surely it would have been worse to do it in Tescos.
 
haway said:
I think you're getting two things mixed up. One is the reduction in sentence for an early plea. If you plead guilty at the early stages (e.g. in the police station or at the first court hearing then you get 1/3 off your sentence (e.g. if AJ had pleaded guilty straight away he would have got 4 years as opposed to 6). This is to incentivise people not to waste the court's time. Then the closer you get to trial the less and less it is reduced, until the day of the trial, where if you plead then you get 1/10th off (this is all IIRC). But on the most serious charge AJ never pled guilty, and on the other two charges he only changed his plea at the last minute. Thus = no real discount.

That is a separate issue, though, from early release of prison when you behave well. The former relates to the length of sentence you get (e.g. it would have been 4 years), the latter is that you still have a 6 year sentence, but get released early.
Click to expand...

Thanks mate, I understand.

That documents quite interesting like, like a points system his crimes were rated, and each gives a guide to the judge for what he gives. I don't get that fecking 2 sentences running alongside eachother like, what a load of shit imo.
 
He's a f***ing idiot and a disgrace to football but fuck sake we'd be at least 3/4 points better off if we had him instead of Borini on the wing and thats a fact.
 
SPUFF said:
Thanks mate, I understand.

That documents quite interesting like, like a points system his crimes were rated, and each gives a guide to the judge for what he gives. I don't get that fecking 2 sentences running alongside eachother like, what a load of shit imo.
Click to expand...

They do it a lot. I guess it makes sense because the crimes are often linked. I'm trying to think of a good example, but I guess it would be something like if I rape person X and during the rape commit GBH then I will be charged with both rape and GBH. But the rape will be raised to a higher threshold because I've committed a serious act of violence which is an aggravating feature. So I get 15 years for the rape (because it's right at the high end of a rape) and 4 years for the GBH. But if I was to have them run sequentially then the logic would be I would be getting punished twice for the GBH, as the GBH has been taken into account in the rape sentence already. Which is why they often run alongside one another. I think.

Whereas I think that were I to commit a murder on monday, then another unrelated murder on tuesday, then even if the offences were tried together in the same trial, the sentences would run after one another. E.g. would get something like life with a minimum of 40 years, 20 for the first and 20 for the second.

So in AJ's case I suppose because all the offences he was charged with are so interlinked and are aggravating each other in different ways, that's why the sentences run alongside one another.

Never actually seen that said but that has always been my presumption about why sentences often run alongside one another.
 
sadsack01 said:
He's been made an example of. At the end of the day, the judge has the power to do pretty much whatever they want, in accordance with precedents.

I also thought he would end up with a suspended sentence on top of having to pay a huge compensation to the girl.
Click to expand...

To be fair there`d have been hell on if he was allowed to buy himself out of bother and never do any time (presuming the silly twat didn't re-offend). I suppose Jail is a good leveller regardless of wealth, I`d fecking hate to go there, god knows how it feels to be a multi millionaire in one!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top