• Jubilant thugs jump for joy after crocodile tears convince judge of remorse
    24 replies, posted
[QUOTE][B]Corey Savory and Thomas Vernon, who sobbed in the dock, punch the air after escaping a jail term for a violent and unprovoked attack[/B] Two thugs grinned and punched the air for joy after walking free from court moments after convincing a judge of their “genuine remorse” over a brutal assault. Corey Savory and Thomas Vernon, both aged 23, sat with heads bowed in the dock and at one point even appeared to shed tears for their victim. Their show of apparent remorse was enough to convince Recorder Sarah Mallett, that the pair should not receive a custodial sentence, despite admitting launching an unprovoked attack on an innocent man in the street. But after being given a chance by the judge the pair walked free from Teesside Crown Court and began wild celebrations, grinning, holding their arms aloft and thumbs up. Savory even took to Facebook, posting a press cutting of the court case and describing his joy at escaping a harsher sentence. [t]http://i4.gazettelive.co.uk/incoming/article8625432.ece/alternates/s1227b/JS56530943.jpg[/t][t]http://i3.gazettelive.co.uk/incoming/article8625429.ece/alternates/s1227b/JS56530881.jpg[/t] [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11408547/Jubilant-thugs-jump-for-joy-after-crocodile-tears-convince-judge-of-remorse.html]Source[/url][/QUOTE] Can't help but wonder what the judge thinks seeing these pictures
It's a shame that judge can't change their mind now.
[QUOTE=TestECull;47127058]It's a shame that judge can't change their mind now.[/QUOTE] He can if (when) they get into trouble again.
literally a clockwork orange
astoundingly predictable behaviour
So I told the judge I was sorry in the courtroom.. he actually believed me the absolute madman hahahahahahaha!
They got no punishment at all? I'd expect they'd still get one even if they felt remorse, even if it's smaller than what they would've gotten otherwise.
After reading the article I'm not that outraged. The victim didn't know who hit him, then followed these guys to confront them believing one of them to be the attacker. Don't get in people's faces unless you can handle yourself. What they did was wrong but I'd hardly call them thugs. Idiots yeah, thugs? No.
Couldn't it be considered untruthful testimony to suggest you are regretful about your act when you are very clearly not, which would be a crime on it's own?
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;47127424]After reading the article I'm not that outraged. The victim didn't know who hit him, then followed these guys to confront them believing one of them to be the attacker. Don't get in people's faces unless you can handle yourself. What they did was wrong but I'd hardly call them thugs. Idiots yeah, thugs? No.[/QUOTE] What's the difference of thugs and violent idiots?
Wowzers, they caught the incident on CCTV and the assaulted and battered guy lost his job, has a reminder of the incident via scar, and has gained an emotional phobia from the incident. The judge lets them walk free because of perceived 'remorse'. Good going judge, cheers.
I wish we could plug people to a machine to see if they're actually remorseful or not One can be entirely regretting of what they did and not drop a single tear, and then you can also have this. It's not a very objective way of measuring remorse.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47127467]Couldn't it be considered untruthful testimony to suggest you are regretful about your act when you are very clearly not, which would be a crime on it's own?[/QUOTE] It's possible to regret what you've done AND be happy you aren't going to jail. Those are not contradictory in any way. [QUOTE=Talishmar;47127622]What's the difference of thugs and violent idiots?[/QUOTE] Thugs implies they went after him. He went after them. Idiots because they jumped in on an attack started by a third party.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;47127622]What's the difference of thugs and violent idiots?[/QUOTE] Thugs are minorities
The Judge was an idiot for letting them go without any sentence at all, even if they cry like babies during the entire trial, it doesn't undo their cunt action.
Yeah idk I can see being happy about not going to prison and still being remorseful.
I don't understand why the law has to be so open to interpretation. Why isn't it just like if you commit x, you get y years?
[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;47130788]I don't understand why the law has to be so open to interpretation. Why isn't it just like if you commit x, you get y years?[/QUOTE] Mandatory sentencing, we have that here in the US. It's a double edged sword. Yes you can make judges send the bad guys away but by removing discretion you will also sentence people in ways you didn't mean. Three strikes for instances. Three felony convictions=life, sounds good doesn't it? Obviously this person is a career criminal. But consider how many nonviolent and even ridiculous crimes count as felonies. Frankly I don't want judges whose only job is to impose maximum sentence, what's the point of that?
[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;47130788]I don't understand why the law has to be so open to interpretation. Why isn't it just like if you commit x, you get y years?[/QUOTE] There's always going to be instances of the crime that deserve less or more punishment. Not to recognize this is dangerous. In fact there'll often be cases where people literally committed the crime but the nature of the occurrence means that they really don't deserve any punishment. This is why we have jury nullification, which is unfortunately rarer and often ignored entirely. If I'm ever on a jury, I will ask myself two questions: did they commit the crime, and is the law just in punishing them?
[QUOTE=Tone Float;47131061]There's always going to be instances of the crime that deserve less or more punishment. Not to recognize this is dangerous. In fact there'll often be cases where people literally committed the crime but the nature of the occurrence means that they really don't deserve any punishment. This is why we have jury nullification, which is unfortunately rarer and often ignored entirely. If I'm ever on a jury, I will ask myself two questions: did they commit the crime, and is the law just in punishing them?[/QUOTE] From what I've heard, if lawyers catch wind of a juror who knows about jury nullification, they'll get booted out. Not sure if it's true or not.
[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;47130788]I don't understand why the law has to be so open to interpretation. Why isn't it just like if you commit x, you get y years?[/QUOTE] because nothing is that simple?
[QUOTE][IMG]http://i4.gazettelive.co.uk/incoming/article8625432.ece/alternates/s1227b/JS56530943.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] ...Did they blur the back of that child's head?
Someone kick that judge out!
[QUOTE=Kljunas;47132459]...Did they blur the back of that child's head?[/QUOTE] His face is backwards. It warped around the side of his head in disgust over seeing those two men.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47127467]Couldn't it be considered untruthful testimony to suggest you are regretful about your act when you are very clearly not, which would be a crime on it's own?[/QUOTE] Yes, but it's ridiculously difficult to prove that in a legally admissible way.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.