Processing them for the same crime twice is double jeopardy, and is explicitly banned by the constitution.
This is just letting them off basically unscathed.
These were not date rape situations where a judge with a bias could hide behind the classic misogyny of “she was asking for it”.
Here’s a section describing it from an earlier article,
In the first attack a 15-year-old girl was raped by two of the defendants, both aged 14 at the time.
In the second assault, the three boys threatened a 14-year-old girl with a knife and two of them took it in turns to rape her while the others encouraged the offending and filmed the assaults.
On Thursday, at Southampton crown court, two boys, both 15, were each sentenced to a three-year youth rehabilitation order and made subject to intensive supervision and surveillance (ISS). The third boy, 14, was given an 18-month youth rehabilitation order.
Seems to me, that sort of organized violence needs some sort of custodial sentence, if only to protect the public.
actually, it’s just an ancient precedent; the vast majority of the constitution is uncodified and as an 11th-century principle the peremptory plea is an incredibly uncodified part of the uncodified conclusion. there were some supreme court rulings that refined it a little so they would have to write it in the opinions but i wouldn’t call that “explicit” either, as a ton of court rulings happen.
and that’s just before the Criminal Justice Act 2003. since then, double jeopardy has been legal for serious crimes like murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, and serious drug crimes[50] if “fresh and viable” new evidence later came to light[39], except for scotland
that said i don’t think “fresh and viable” would apply here, nor is there anything to suggest the judges wanted to try him when he was older. that would be quite the bigger perversion of justice that defeats the purpose (and IIRC letter) of giving the young weaker punishments entirely: it’s how capable of understanding responsibility you were at the time of the crime!
Processing them for the same crime twice is double jeopardy, and is explicitly banned by the constitution.
This is just letting them off basically unscathed.
These were not date rape situations where a judge with a bias could hide behind the classic misogyny of “she was asking for it”.
Here’s a section describing it from an earlier article,
Seems to me, that sort of organized violence needs some sort of custodial sentence, if only to protect the public.
actually, it’s just an ancient precedent; the vast majority of the constitution is uncodified and as an 11th-century principle the peremptory plea is an incredibly uncodified part of the uncodified conclusion. there were some supreme court rulings that refined it a little so they would have to write it in the opinions but i wouldn’t call that “explicit” either, as a ton of court rulings happen.
and that’s just before the Criminal Justice Act 2003. since then, double jeopardy has been legal for serious crimes like murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, and serious drug crimes[50] if “fresh and viable” new evidence later came to light[39], except for scotland
that said i don’t think “fresh and viable” would apply here, nor is there anything to suggest the judges wanted to try him when he was older. that would be quite the bigger perversion of justice that defeats the purpose (and IIRC letter) of giving the young weaker punishments entirely: it’s how capable of understanding responsibility you were at the time of the crime!