• 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'll serve three years more than likely. Seems fair enough. Don't understand how people can use sentences that they themselves say are too lenient as any sort of barometer when saying Johnson has been unfairly treated. Particularly given his denial of every single offence right up until the day of the trial.
 
mr chuckles said:
i have to say what he did was totally wrong but 6 years is shocking imo you get less for for running someone over in your car and killing them
Click to expand...

Probably SEB, but Lee Hughes got the same as Johnson for exactly that, and did a runner from the scene.

The law really is an ass.
 
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...
Jail is the only and correct ending for Johnson.834 messages, the f***ing nonce.
 
judd jenkin said:
I very much doubt the poster you're defending has children of his own.

Kids do stupid things. That's why we have laws to protect them from people who would take advantage.
Click to expand...
Yeah he probably doesn't have teenage kids, I don't, but we can all remember what it was like as a teenager. When I was in year 10/11, we were already going over town. In my year group their were girls who were bucking bouncers to get free entry in to clubs and girls that couldn't even talk to lads. Which is why the laws are there like you say.

It's 100% Johnson's fault, but I have younger cousins around that age and all they're stressing about is GCSEs and getting in to college.
 
TZMouk said:
Yeah he probably doesn't have teenage kids, I don't, but we can all remember what it was like as a teenager. When I was in year 10/11, we were already going over town. In my year group their were girls who were bucking bouncers to get free entry in to clubs and girls that couldn't even talk to lads. Which is why the laws are there like you say.

It's 100% Johnson's fault, but I have younger cousins around that age and all they're stressing about is GCSEs and getting in to college.
Click to expand...
Rights or wrongs he knew the law and broke it!
 
haway said:
Yes agreed. If someone said on here they drunk drove people would tut a bit and say they shouldn't, but if someone drunk drove and killed someone people would want them banged up for life. But the intention and the actions are the same. If someone sets fire to a house with people in, should it matters if they die as far as sentence is concerned? The intent and risk in both is the same. Whether the person survives and jumps out a window or is burned to death doesn't affect the intent of the person. Just my thoughts but I'd like a legal system that sees intent as vastly more important than consequences.
Click to expand...
Agree again but if we sentenced everyone for intent including myself at one point in life and most likely everyone on here for something we be like North Korea....the law is a slippery slope just don't position yourself to cross the line...
 
judd jenkin said:
They didn't get their fill at the time.

The supporter chants before the trial - the "continued lack of regard for the victim" from fans and club, as a very well respected Times journalist described it, are lodged long in the memory.

There remains an element of unpleasant social media content which believes he should never have been jailed - apparantly there's a vocal section of our fanbase who still believe he has been badly treated by the judicial system based on this thread alone.

In fact some seem to see him as a "hero" even still.

Worrying.
Click to expand...

There's an element that seems unable to put their partisan allegiance to Sunderland AFC aside. Most Sunderland fans seem to want nothing more to do with Johnson, think he's a wrong'un and don't think the sentence is harsh at all. However there appears to be a minority who speak up for/defend/whatabout for a convicted sex offender because of his old connection to the club. Were he a kids tv presenter, or a popstar with similar access, appeal to and influence of kids, but no allegiance to SAFC, I'm sure they'd be in line to throw him under a bus.

This element exists in all fanbases mind you. There'll definitely be an element of Leicester fans who'll defend Vardy's racist incident and not because they think he's innocent, but because they won't countenance any criticism of their club or those associated with it. There's an element of Newcastle fans who leapt to the defence of Barton or Shelvey when they've done something wrong, even after the guilt was confirmed.
 
haway said:
Why unbelievable?

I've never drunk driven. I've never needed to and would be far to anxious to do it (both that I'd be arrested or hurt someone). That said, I've done stupid things when drunk which have put mine and friends at risk in other ways.

Anyone who drink drives is taking a risk that they will kill someone. That's why it's immoral, and illegal. But it's not to be equated with murder. When someone kills someone driving drunk they are taking a gamble with other people's lives that doesn't pay off. That's a terrible thing to do but one that millions of people across the country have decided to take at some point. Same with people using phones, speeding recklessly etc.

He was rightly punished but IMO in cases where people die as a result of negligence it's just in no way comparable to murder - where there is an intent to harm or kill.

I'm really not justifying drink driving. I think there should be stricter penalties for ANYONE caught drink driving. What I don't like though is that as a society we tend to give people 3 points (6 now is it?) for using a phone while driving but if they're the unlucky one who kills someone they get 10 years. The sentence should be for taking the risk in the first place (e.g. the negligence to drink drive, or to use a phone). That's the issue, IMO, the recklessness to get behind the wheel pissed.
Click to expand...
There is absolutely no justification for drink driving, or using a phone while driving. I agree that the laws haven't been tough enough on phone use, but they've just been changed. I don't think we should ever fall into the trap of calling somebody committing either offence, as unlucky, if they kill somebody. The only unlucky people are the victims, and their families.

SPUFF said:
Double edged sword.

Used being a star to get into he kegs so cant go crying the reflecting sentence is unfair.
Click to expand...
That's actually a fair point.
 
TZMouk said:
Yeah he probably doesn't have teenage kids, I don't, but we can all remember what it was like as a teenager. When I was in year 10/11, we were already going over town. In my year group their were girls who were bucking bouncers to get free entry in to clubs and girls that couldn't even talk to lads. Which is why the laws are there like you say.

It's 100% Johnson's fault, but I have younger cousins around that age and all they're stressing about is GCSEs and getting in to college.
Click to expand...
What the hell is year 10?

5th year comp?
 
Purrfect South said:
There is absolutely no justification for drink driving, or using a phone while driving. I agree that the laws haven't been tough enough on phone use, but they've just been changed. I don't think we should ever fall into the trap of calling somebody committing either offence, as unlucky, if they kill somebody. The only unlucky people are the victims, and their families.


That's actually a fair point.
Click to expand...

I think you are unlucky if you drink drive and kill someone. Unlucky doesn't mean it's somehow ok, just that you have a death on your hands and face a long custodial sentence when most times you wouldn't have.

Personally I see crime as being a terrible event for everyone concerned. There was a lorry driver recently who got 10 years for killing a few people while looking at his phone. Of course, my main sympathy lies with those who died and their families, but I also feel sorry for the offenders wife etc who has lost a husband. And I do think it's a further tragedy that someone has blood on their hands and is in prison for 10 years for doing something stupid.

I don't use my phone or drink drive, but if I misjudged overtaking or something and killed someone I would be completely devastated. I don't think there are any winners.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top