Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

Yes, it's compare and contrast time...

"A grandmother has been jailed for five years for possessing a "family heirloom" World War II pistol.

Gail Cochrane, 53, had kept the gun for 29 years following the death of her father, who had been in the Royal Navy."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/10335003.stm

A father-of-two who left a three-month-old baby fighting for life after forcing a baby wipe into his bottom to prevent a dirty nappy has been admonished.

Graeme McArthur, 39, admitted acting to the danger of the life of the baby boy between February 14 and 17 last year by inserting the wipe into the baby's bottom when he was changing a nappy. The next day in a bid to remove the wipe using his fingers he caused the child horrific internal injuries, including a perforated bowel.

The admonishment ruling means McArthur's conviction is recorded but he is neither imprisoned nor fined.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/182168-boy-left-fighting-for-life-after-baby-wipe-horror/

Clearly I was not in court to hear the proceedings of either case, but it does seem to me that prima facie there is precious little consistency - indeed, common sense in today's [Scottish  ] courts.

 

[Dishevelled Den]

The incident with the child certainly exercises the mind and Justice Turnball's take on it seems to have rested on his belief that this 'distraught and flawed' man acted out of stupidity rather than malice. 

I would have a gut feeling that this wasn't the case but then the judge had access to all the evidence.

The gun-toting Mrs Cochrane however seems to have set herself up for this punishment by keeping the weapon under the mattress of the bed in her room.  That to me suggests a mens rea in terms secreting the weapon in this way.

The fact that the police were executing an arrest warrant on her son - although his offence was not revealed other than his non-appearance at court to answer it - suggests to me that there was more to this incident than immediately obvious.

Judge Smith had little option in this case but to find as she did - although the jailing for 5 years of an apparently first time offender seems  a bit robust to me.

On the face of things these two incidents seem to carry a disparity in legal sanction that's hard to reconcile, as Nick rightly points out.

Only by looking further into the facts of each matter can we see that there may have been sound and justifiable reasons for the findings by each court - even though they seem to occupy disparate points of what we consider to be justifiable sanction.

[Peachy]

The incident with the child certainly exercises the mind and Justice Turnball's take on it seems to have rested on his belief that this 'distraught and flawed' man acted out of stupidity rather than malice. 

I would have a gut feeling that this wasn't the case but then the judge had access to all the evidence.

The gun-toting Mrs Cochrane however seems to have set herself up for this punishment by keeping the weapon under the mattress of the bed in her room.  That to me suggests a mens rea in terms secreting the weapon in this way.

The fact that the police were executing an arrest warrant on her son - although his offence was not revealed other than his non-appearance at court to answer it - suggests to me that there was more to this incident than immediately obvious.

Judge Smith had little option in this case but to find as she did - although the jailing for 5 years of an apparently first time offender seems to be a bit robust to me.

On the face of things these two incidents seem to carry a disparity in legal sanction that's hard to reconcile, as Nick rightly points out.

Only by looking further into the facts of each matter can we see that there may have been sound and justifiable reasons for the findings by each court - even though they seem to occupy disparate points of what we consider to be justifiable sanction.

Did he harm the baby intentionally? We will never know.
Did she intend to harm anyone with the gun, again we will never know. I doubt it though. But she still had the gun and even if she did not know it was an offence, ingnorance is no defence in law.
As for the male  harming the baby he should have gotten 5 years just for stupidity, that is if he did not intend to harm the child.
As we all know, the law is an ass.